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

April 6, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Apr-06 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 6 April 2009 Lundi 6 avril 2009

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENERGY RATES

ENERGY RATES

ONTARIO BUDGET

ONTARIO BUDGET

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

ORGAN DONATION

ST. LAWRENCE PARKS COMMISSION

TAXATION

EDUCATION

ABORIGINAL ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT

BUTTONVILLE AIRPORT

TUITION

HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

INFRASTRUCTURE

PROGRAM FUNDING

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CAMP 30

EARTHQUAKE IN ITALY

LITERACY AND BASIC SKILLS

KOREAN-CANADIAN

SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA

LAMBTON GENERATING STATION

AJAX ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS WEEK

NORTHERN HOME REPAIR PROGRAM

TOWN OF KINMOUNT

PETITIONS

PROPERTY TAXATION

HIGHWAY 17/174 /

ROUTE 17/174

PROPERTY TAXATION

PROPERTY TAXATION

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

ONTARIO BUDGET

PROPERTY TAXATION

RAILROAD BRIDGE

HOSPITAL FUNDING

ONTARIO BUDGET

SALES TAX

PUBLIC TRANSIT

PROPERTY TAXATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GREATER TORONTO

AND HAMILTON AREA

TRANSIT IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT

DU RÉSEAU DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN

DE LA RÉGION DU GRAND TORONTO

ET DE HAMILTON

REGULATED HEALTH PROFESSIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES PROFESSIONS DE LA SANTÉ RÉGLEMENTÉES

2009 ONTARIO BUDGET /

BUDGET DE L'ONTARIO DE 2009

The House met at 1030.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good morning. Please remain standing for the Lord's Prayer, followed by a moment of silence for inner thought and personal reflection.

Prayers.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. John Yakabuski: The guests have not arrived yet, but I want to introduce the family of page Daphnée Dubouchet-Olsheski. She's a page from the riding of Ottawa–Vanier, but most of her family hails from the beautiful, great town of Barry's Bay in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. I know that her uncle Donald is going to be here, her aunt Gail, her aunt Constance, uncle Tom Nevendorff, cousin Elliot McMurchy, and of course her mum, Michelle Olsheski. So when they arrive, good to see you.

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: I take the opportunity to introduce a member in our gallery. We all know John McKay, the federal member from Scarborough—Guildwood, and a member of the federal Liberal caucus.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): There being no further introductions, it is now time for oral questions.

Mr. Monte Kwinter: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: We have some very important guests who were supposed to be in the Speaker's gallery, and obviously they got delayed coming from a meeting to the gallery, but I would like to introduce them because they will be here shortly. We have a delegation from the RUSNANO corporation, which is a Russian organization exploiting, in the finest sense, nanotechnology.

They are led by Alexander Losyukov, who is the deputy director general and who is leading this mission; Sergey Kalyuzhny, director of scientific technical expertise; Vladislav Chernov, principal councillor for international co-operation; and Alexey Pogorelov, project officer. They're accompanied by Nickolay Smirnov, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia; Andrey Veklenko, Russian Consul General in Toronto; Dr. Roman Mayev, director general, Institute for Diagnostic Imaging Research; and Michael Burton, the general manager, Institute for Diagnostic Imaging Research. They will be here shortly.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): They are in the east gallery. Welcome.

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Today I would like to welcome Chioma, the publisher of AMÖI magazine, to the Legislature.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENERGY RATES

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Minister, one of the major concerns of many concerns is, at the end of the day, who bears the cost of your government's costly energy act, Bill 150. There's a huge amount of uncertainty, and the Premier and this minister have further muddied the waters on a number of occasions. They aren't helping seniors and families who are trying to pay their bills in terms of looking at the future.

Minister, is your harmonized tax grab going to apply to the increased costs of energy that hard-working Ontario families and seniors on fixed incomes are consuming? Is the HST going to be added to the energy audits you're already forcing on home sellers?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Our comprehensive tax reduction plan will provide consumers with one of the largest personal tax cuts in Ontario history. The Green Energy Act I believe will stimulate growth in the electricity sector, it will stimulate additional production of electricity and, of course, as we pursue growth in the supply of electricity, that will keep downward pressure on costs, recognizing the challenges ahead.

In terms of the single sales tax, there are a variety of goods, including electricity, which will be covered, as they are under the goods and services tax. But the offsetting corporate and personal tax cuts, as well as the transition payments, will help consumers with that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I asked a specific question and all I got was more obfuscation. I think it's only fair that this minister and other ministers in the government shed some light on this green disguise, and it's clear they're unwilling to do that.

A study by London Economics International shows that this legislation, Bill 150, is going to increase the average ratepayer's bill from a minimum of 15% to God knows how much. That's up to $780 per year, Minister, and adding that onto the latest tax grab of a further 8% takes it up to over $842. That's a far cry from the 1% and $12 the minister indicated he hopes Ontarians are going to believe, in terms of what he said publicly. I know there's no reason to be cynical.

Minister, why don't you tell Ontarians the facts on this legislation? This amounts to nothing more than another new tax at a time when families can least afford it.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure.

Hon. George Smitherman: The group the honourable member is relying upon for his analysis today I believe said before a press conference that they hadn't yet completed their analysis, but already the honourable member is relying upon it.

I would repeat to the honourable member, as I said to the critic from their party, that we'd be very happy to continue to offer briefings from the ministry that give insights into our expectations with respect to the Green Energy Act. It is about more renewable energy on the one hand, and about creating the opportunity, through conservation initiatives, for people to use less energy, whether in their homes or in institutions like this one.

I'd be very happy, by way of supplementary, to give more information to the honourable member about how we believe Ontarians, through initiatives like time-of-use pricing, are actually going to be powerfully enhancing their ability to manage their electricity use very effectively.

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: We released the early findings because committee hearings start today and because the conclusions are so alarming with respect to the contradictions in terms of what you've said publicly about this legislation.

Our caucus is anxious to create more green energy while building our environmental economy, but most importantly, we're anxious about being straight and honest with Ontario families, seniors and others on fixed incomes about the implications of this legislation. It appears to be, based on the early results of this study, another manipulative move on the part of your government, another tax grab that's going to hit families and seniors especially hard during tough, tough economic times.

Minister, I'm asking you, would you consider taking another look at this bill, perhaps pulling it off the table for now, looking at the real implications, then coming back to this House with legislation that will meet Ontario's future energy and environmental needs—a realistic approach to this issue?

Hon. George Smitherman: I note that in crafty doublespeak it took the honourable member less than 10 seconds. He said that they're anxious to see more green energy come to life and they're very anxious to do all they can to make sure that it doesn't happen. The point of the matter is that the Green Energy Act seeks to create the capacity for more renewable energy on the one hand and to reduce use on the other by supporting the emergence of a culture of conservation in the province of Ontario.

I think most Ontarians do understand that energy and electricity prices are under pressure to rise; we've seen volatility in natural gas as an example. That's why the smart meter and the evolution to time-of-use pricing, something that will become more and more known to Ontarians in the next number of months, is a powerful tool that will allow Ontarians to use electricity in those times of the day when it's particularly inexpensive. If we all manage our use well, then those times when there's a lot of demand, especially on hot days, we won't experience this extraordinary range of volatility in the pricing.

ENERGY RATES

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure as well. I think there's room for building green energy in the province of Ontario and still being honest with the people. I'd like to ask the minister: Who has been consulted, and how has he come to the conclusion that his Green Energy Act will add, as per his promise, only 1% a year to the cost of energy to consumers and will create 50,000 jobs? We have to ask, where did you obtain these numbers? Whom did you get them from? Whom did you consult? Who gave you those numbers? Tell us, please.

Hon. George Smitherman: I want to say to the honourable member that this is ground that we've had the chance to go over before, and I've taken the opportunity even beyond what happens here in question period to try and give the honourable member some further insight, because I saw that he was stuck at a certain point.

There are presumptions established in the Green Energy Act. We presume that, over a period from 2010 to 2012, an incremental $5 billion will be invested in the emergence of green energy: in more renewables coming to life; in the transmission and distribution investments which are required; and in the efforts that we will make to enhance the capacity for you and me in the institutions like this one, and in our very homes, to use less electricity. All of those things combined, we anticipate an incremental 1% additional cost per year associated with the implementation of the Green Energy Act.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: It seems that the minister is the one stuck—stuck in a hole; and good advice to anyone there is to stop digging. I didn't hear a name referred to. My question was whom the Premier and the minister have consulted. One has to wonder if maybe it was the very same ghosts that the Premier took advice from when he said he would close all Ontario coal plants by 2007.

London Economics International's latest study said that this Premier's ever-increasing energy costs would actually make Ontario less competitive than it already is, driving jobs out of the province. We've already seen over 300,000 manufacturing jobs leave this province under your watch. Minister, you're driving a stake further into the economic heart of this province and bringing Ontario further into the abyss of have-not status by scaring investment and new business away. Why don't you consider the real and true implications of your green disguise and focus on doing everything you can to encourage and retain investment here in the province of Ontario?

Hon. George Smitherman: On the matter of investment, it would be nice if the honourable member would stand in his place and acknowledge that through our efforts with respect to renewable energy just in the last few years, we've seen nearly $4 billion of incremental investment in creating sources of green energy, along the lines of those near Kincardine that I participated with the local member in opening on Friday, a substantial investment on the part of Enbridge which has created strong employment, enhances the property tax base and gives landowners and farmers another source of much-needed revenue.

The honourable member's solutions are what? They campaigned on a promise as well to close coal, and now, through many of those members, in legislative debate they said no, they want to keep the coal plants open. But perhaps they believe in carbon capture, where they're going to take the smokestacks and turn them upside down. We believe in transforming to one of the cleanest, greenest platforms of energy in the jurisdictions that compete with us, and we believe we can help people to use less—

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Not only does he want to keep digging that hole, he wants to muddy the waters that are flowing into it.

This government is using its majority—and we haven't heard any names yet, Minister—to force this bill through, limiting public hearings and keeping Ontarians in the dark on its real implications. The OPA website itself says the entire energy sector in this province employs 35,000 people. You're saying you're going to create 50,000 new jobs. Are you saying this bill is going to more than double the size of Ontario's energy sector? It's time to come clean. You said the act concerns only a portion of the electricity supply, but it's going to create 50,000 jobs. Where are you getting these numbers?

For the last time, stand up and tell this House and tell the people of Ontario, do you have somebody who is giving you these numbers, or are you just inventing them like everything else?

Hon. George Smitherman: It's ample evidence of the benefit of giving opposition members three days off in a row. They get more opportunity for rehearsal.

I think one of the things that's important—the honourable member talks about process. I'm very, very pleased that the legislative committee is going to act. They added two night sittings for those legislative hearings at the request of the opposition. Those were granted. We look forward to many, many people coming forward.

What we didn't hear from the honourable member is what several of their members have said during debate. They believe in keeping coal plants open. Where are you? Be on the record around this. We know that we can eliminate them and we're making very good progress.

At the heart of the issue of the jobs that are created, the member must look as well to the retrofit initiatives. This isn't just a bill about creating more green energy; it's about making the investments in our homes and in buildings like our schools and our public housing to allow them to use electricity. That's part of the solution—

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

ONTARIO BUDGET

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Deputy Premier. The budget tabled last month finally reveals the government's true colours. It's a budget that forks over more than $2 billion to banks and insurance companies while picking the pockets of hard-working Ontarians. It's a budget that adds 8% to home heating and gas bills but allows CEOs to take millions of dollars in unearned bonuses. Will this government now admit that its budget takes from hard-working Ontarians and gives to those who need it the least?

Hon. George Smitherman: The Minister of Finance will by supplementary have an opportunity to respond, but as one who represents rather a lot of people in our province who live in more marginal circumstances, they saw in the budget several initiatives which spoke directly to their needs. Our government's commitment, which outstrips any promise they've ever made, to make investments in the retrofit of social housing, stands as one very, very good example of the investments that we're making in people who live in marginal circumstances.

The substantial near doubling of the Ontario child benefit is a mechanism that provides families that make less than $30,000, no matter what the sources, with important support for their children.

There are other matters in the budget that the honourable member, the Minister of Finance, will by way of supplementary have an opportunity to address. But I've been speaking to my constituents, many of whom live in more challenging circumstances. They see many, many elements of the budget which are very beneficial to their circumstances.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This budget hurts real people with real lives, people like Alvaro, who is married, with a daughter. For 24 years he worked at a Toronto furnishing company. He was laid off last year. He found another job, but was laid off again after only four and a half months. Alvaro doesn't understand why this government is shovelling billions to large corporations while he is desperate to find a job to support his family.

How does this government justify the billions going to large corporations while Alvaro and thousands like him scramble to keep a roof over their heads and feed their families?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: From the leader of the party that wants to raise the PST by 1%, that's a pretty bizarre question.

I would suggest to the member that she look at the $10.6 billion in personal tax cuts. I would ask the member for Parkdale—High Park how many of her constituents work in the financial services sector. I would ask the member for Trinity—Spadina what they have against those bank tellers, what they have against the 400,000 people in financial services in the greater Toronto area—it's one of the fastest-growing workplaces. I think the Toronto members should stand up for their constituents, tens of thousands of people who have gotten new jobs.

This budget is the right balance that will help us through these very challenging times and create the jobs of the new economy. That member and her party are way behind the times. Unfortunately, they won't stand up for the 400,000 people right here in Toronto who work in financial—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The reality is that families are going to be forced to pay 8% more at the gas pump and 8% more for home heating—that's the reality—families like Persaud's family. He has exhausted his EI, he doesn't have a high school education and he's trying to transition into his new job. But in the meanwhile there's no money coming in, and he has a family to support. How does this government explain to people like Persaud that it's good economics to hand over $2 billion to large corporations while he struggles to make ends meet in this province?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I'd like to just rely on somebody named Hugh Mackenzie for advice on this. Here is what Hugh Mackenzie said: "Ontario's 2009-10 budget establishes the right direction for the next few years. It provides substantial economic stimulus. It is consistent with the new orthodoxy that relies heavily on governments to help rebuild damaged economies. It imposes some coherence on an incoherent federal plan."

We agree with you on employment insurance; unfortunately, the federal government has not responded on that. We will continue to urge them to do that. But again I would say to the leader of the third party, please stop attacking the men and women who work in financial services here in Toronto. It is one of the fastest-growing sectors of the economy. Whether it's the teller on the front line, whether it's the clerk in the back office, those people have good-paying jobs. This budget will—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question? Leader of the third party.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Back to the Acting Premier. This budget sides with large corporations and against Ontario families. It gives away billions to companies that need it the least, while nickel-and-diming hard-working Ontarians. The $2-billion corporate tax give away to profitable corporations is bad economics, and it reveals a government that cares only about big business and not about everyday Ontarians. Will this government admit that when big business says, "Jump", it says, "How high?"

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Let me read to the leader of the third party what Pat Capponi of the 25 in 5 Network for Poverty Reduction said: "This budget has moved the bar forward on housing, tax credits and child benefits in ways that will make a tangible difference in the lives of many Ontarians."

Let me read to her what Gail Nyberg of the Daily Bread Food Bank said: "If you're a low-income Ontarian this is a positive budget, and I congratulate the government on recognizing that you can fight poverty and stimulate the economic scene at the same time."

This budget strikes the right balance. We need companies that employ people. We need companies that grow. We will continue to encourage the growth in employment here in Toronto in the financial services sector. We will continue to make the investments—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I want to talk about someone else I met in my travels around Ontario: Jaime, a father of one girl and two boys. He worked for 25 years at Fenco before the company picked up and moved to Mexico. The union and Fenco had a three-year contract but the company did not fulfill its obligations when it downsized and shut down without any warning at all. How do you explain to Jaime that in a budget that added 8% to his heating bill and shovelled $2 billion to large corporations there were no measures—not a single measure in that budget—to ensure that laid-off Ontarians get the money that is legally owed to them?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Let me be clear that our government is always concerned with the rights of employees. We will ensure that all businesses, all employers, abide by those rights.

I think what the member is talking about is the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. The member knows full well that is

an act that sits with the federal government. We have asked that the federal government help employees by moving them to super creditor status. My predecessors and I have written and advocated for the wage earner protection program to be enhanced, and we will continue to do that. We will continue to work with the federal government, press them to change the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, as well as enrich the wage earner protection program.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This budget makes it very clear that there are two opposed philosophies operating in this House. On the one side we have a Conservative—Liberal government that believes whatever powerful interests want, they should get. On the other side, we have the New Democratic Party that opposes corporate tax giveaways, opposes an 8% increase on the essentials, and fights for real investments that create real jobs for the people of this province. New Democrats chose to side with hard-working Ontarians. Why is this government choosing to side against them?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I think last week the Premier spoke very clearly: This is not about left, it's not about right; it's about moving forward.

Let's be clear with that member. That member, her party and a number of other members have spoken to bringing forward what would be a tax on all Ontario businesses that would cost us many, many jobs across this province. That would be irresponsible.

So what we have done is we have moved forward with a very balanced approach, with a budget to address the needs of our most vulnerable workers, but also to position us as a strong jurisdiction and to add new jobs, more jobs, in all sectors.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is for the Minister of Health. Last week, it was revealed that the Smart Systems for Health Agency was quietly abolished last September, after spending $647 million of hard-earned taxpayers' money. Since 2003, the agency spent more than $45,000 on food for consultants, $753,000 on travel expenses for consultants and $231,000 on hotels for consultants. I wonder who the consultants are.

Last week, the Minister of Health asserted that I can find all of the specific breakdowns of these lavish expenses, including the renovations of the new CEO's office, in public accounts. Well, I've checked. Here is public accounts. There is no breakdown. I ask the minister to point out where these specific lavish—

Hon. David Caplan: As is the custom, all expenditures of government, whether it's through third party agencies or directly, are contained in public accounts. In fact, the member has the opportunity to come to public accounts and to question the ministry about any of those particular expenditures. I think the fact that in five years this member has not chosen to ask about those expenditures speaks a lot about the inability of this member to do her job.

I can tell you that my predecessor decided, quite appropriately, to bring an operational review of the Smart Systems for Health Agency. The Deloitte study was reviewed by the Auditor General, and he found that study quite sufficient. I took the initiative, in fact, to collapse this agency and to create eHealth Ontario. eHealth is led by CEO Sarah Kramer and it's chaired by Dr. Alan Hudson, who also does our wait times. I have tremendous confidence that they are driving out an eHealth agenda for the province of Ontario so—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Well, the minister doesn't even want to talk about the agency. He knows there's no breakdown in public accounts. I would call upon him to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth, from here on in.

Minister, on April 2 you told a group of reporters that you had spoken to the senior management of eHealth and you told them to show restraint. Well, I'll tell you how much restraint there has been.

In the first three months of the new agency's existence, nearly $40,000 on food for employees and consultants, more than $108,000 on travel expenses for employees and consultants, and you must have had quite a Christmas party, because there was more than $48,000 for catering. That's three months. Minister, would you tell taxpayers and the more than 300,000 people who have lost their jobs why you find this spending acceptable?

Hon. David Caplan: I think it's perfectly acceptable to bring Ontario into a future that has electronic health records. I think tackling diabetes to prevent complications and keeping out of hospital is an appropriate expenditure. I think improving the safety and the accuracy of prescription medication is an appropriate expenditure for government. I think that ensuring that patients are treated with the most appropriate care settings, making the system more effective and improving the quality of care is an appropriate expenditure. I'm sorry that the member opposite does not share these goals and does not share the desire to implement the system that will give the ability to do it.

Now, Smart Systems for Health did in fact accomplish a number of goals. It helped to build and connect approximately 7,000 secure network sites in all hospital sites, in public health units and satellite sites, in family health teams and other physicians, in continuing care agencies, in pharmacies, in Cancer Care Ontario, the cardiac care—

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

ORGAN DONATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Minister of Health. Kaylee Wallace-Vitelli was born in February diagnosed with terminal Joubert syndrome. Her parents and family have seen their little girl struggle for life over the past two months. They have now made the courageous decision to donate Kaylee's heart to another infant, Lillian O'Conner, but red tape is getting in the way. Will this minister step in so that both of these families can get what they so desperately want and need?

Hon. David Caplan: You know, our heart goes out to all families of children, and these ones in particular, who are experiencing these very harrowing circumstances. These are matters, I think, in which we would all rely upon clinical experts to provide their best advice about how to be able to help both of these infants, and all infants in the province of Ontario.

I don't think that any member of this Legislature would expect a Minister of Health, who is a layperson, essentially, to be able to go in and say which medical procedures and how those procedures should be performed and to what extent that interference would be appropriate. I know that no member of this Legislature would want to suggest an inappropriate intervention in a medical matter by, essentially, a layperson.

I know that we all, on all sides of the House, have tremendous compassion and hope and understanding for the people of Ontario and the parents who are faced with these tremendously difficult circumstances.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Wallace-Vitelli family wants to turn Kaylee's tragedy into Lillian's miracle, but to do so they are being forced to resort to the courts. It's unconscionable. Both the Wallace-Vitelli and the O'Conner families are coping through incredibly difficult and heartbreaking circumstances. Why won't this minister act today and allow them to do what they think is right, preserving one life while paying tribute to another one?

Hon. David Caplan: Listen, I certainly have tremensdous sympathy and admiration for the family which is going through a tremendously difficult situation with a child that they have, and admire the courage they have to make the decision for organ donation. I rely upon the advice of medical experts in what are the most appropriate steps that should be taken in order to be able to help all of these children. That is the appropriate thing to do.

I don't think it is a political exercise, but rather it is one where we receive the best medical advice and take the appropriate steps and support these families in the very best way that we possibly can. I know that the member opposite would not want to suggest that politicians should be deciding these things, but rather these should be in the hands of medical professionals, people who have spent their lives providing the—

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

ST. LAWRENCE PARKS COMMISSION

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: My question is for the Minister of Tourism. As a member from eastern Ontario, I know that the St. Lawrence corridor is vital to the tourism industry in the area and the province. The corridor is rich in history and culture, and is important to the province and the country as a whole. It boasts the beautiful Thousand Islands, farmland, orchards, vibrant towns and cities, cultural centres, museums and world-renowned historic sites.

The 2009 Ontario budget announced on March 26 outlined funding for the revitalization of this area. Can the minister tell the House what this means to the St. Lawrence corridor and for the tourism industry in the province?

L'hon. Monique M. Smith: Merci à mon ami de Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, et félicitations pour ton bon travail la semaine dernière avec le Parlement jeunesse.

I am pleased to speak to the House today about my wonderful trip to the St. Lawrence Parks Commission on Friday and the announcements that we made there, which are going to help the St. Lawrence Parks Commission become an even greater world-class attraction.

On Friday, I was at the St. Lawrence Parks Commission in Morrisburg at Upper Canada Village. I met with Pat Macdonald, the general manager, and Peter Watson, the chair of the commission. I was also in Kingston and had a chance to meet with the staff at Fort Henry. We announced on Friday that, should the budget pass, the McGuinty government proposes to invest $23 million in the revitalization of some of the attractions at the St. Lawrence Parks Commission, which is an agency of my ministry. The investments will contribute to the economic prosperity of communities along the St. Lawrence corridor as well as throughout eastern Ontario. We are very excited about these investments.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: I understand that the St. Lawrence Parks Commission has many tourist attractions and offerings throughout eastern Ontario; after all, it's part of the eastern gateway to Ontario. The commission extends from west of Kingston to near the Quebec border, and I understand it holds thousands of hectares of parkland and several attractions on the St. Lawrence heritage corridor that provide a major source of recreational opportunity for residents and visitors to eastern Ontario. Can the minister provide more information on what the $23 million is allocated to, given that the commission has numerous attractions?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: Yes. The St. Lawrence Parks Commission covers a great deal of territory and has some incredible vistas and beautiful parkland, as well as some really important historical sites.

On Friday, we announced that we would be investing $13 million at Upper Canada Village and Crysler Park. This will be to update the visitors' centre, the retail outlet and the exhibits at Upper Canada Village. As well, we're investing $7 million to invigorate the tourism experience at the Battle of Crysler's Farm, in preparation for our bicentennial commemoration of the War of 1812.

We then went on, on this very rainy day, to Kingston, where I was joined by the member from Kingston and the Islands for a $10-million announcement at Fort Henry. This will see the construction of the state-of-the-art visitors' centre and upgrading of the retail outlet, as well as enhancing the sunset ceremonies. I want to thank Jim Brownell and John Gerretsen for a wonderful day at the St. Lawrence Parks—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. The member from Nepean—Carleton.

TAXATION

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: To the Minister of Small Business and Consumer Services: Death and taxes might be inevitable, but thanks to the Liberals' HST plan, your government is putting a 13% death tax on all funeral service costs, from caskets to tombstones. Will you exempt the bereaved and dying from this 13% death tax, or will you favour the much lower 5% GST: yes or no?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: Let me say this: I am very proud of the budget that was presented by the Minister of Finance. It strikes a very exact balance that we need to keep our economy moving at this point in time. This budget has actually $10.6 billion worth of tax savings for Ontarians, and out of that, $4 billion in cash payments to 6.5 million Ontario families and individuals. Families making less than $160,000 will get about $1,000 in the HST rebate in the transitional year and about $260 worth of tax credits going forward as well. These are some of the measures that are being taken in order to offset the impact of the HST harmonization, or the single tax, as we call it—

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: What I got out of that is that your government is going to tax us to the grave and now you want to tax us to death. On July 10, 2010, Ontarians will be paying a 13% tax on funeral services, a 13% tax on caskets, a 13% tax on flowers and, yes, a 13% tax on final resting places. Under the Liberal HST plan, the bereaved and the dying will have to dish out 8% more on their funeral services. That could be at least $1,200 per bereaved family.

Since you won't exempt the dying and the bereaved from paying a 13% increase in death taxes, will you commit to Ontarians today in this chamber that you will grandfather at the 5% GST funeral home contracts that have been sold or will be sold by July 1, 2010?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: What we really need right now is to make sure that our province becomes very competitive and we can get out of this global challenge that we are facing at this point in time. The single tax system that is being supported in this budget is actually a step in the right direction to make our province competitive as we move forward. It's not only that we are advocating it; the federal government is supporting us in this. They are giving us some of the transition money so that we can help consumers to do that. The other provinces have done it, and all have actually reaped benefits of that.

So I really want to encourage the member on the other side to really see the benefits of the single sales tax as we move forward and make our province more competitive.

EDUCATION

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My question is to the Minister of Education. The Ministry of Education website school finder is set up to allow parents to compare schools in the province. Why would the government provide information that would facilitate the ranking of schools based on the number of lower-income households or the university education of their parents?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What the school information finder is set up to do is to allow parents to find information about schools. It's about profiles of schools. It's all public information; it's information that's available in various sources. What we've done is brought it together. We know that, up until now, some boards have had profiles of schools; other boards have not. What we've done is provided an opportunity for schools across the province to have a profile on this website. We've known for many years that parents don't just want narrow information about test scores, they want a broader, contextualized set of information, and that's what this website allows for.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to be clear that this information finder is not about ranking schools. I want to read a quote from the online survey from a newcomer. This person says, "I am so grateful for all this information—as a newcomer to Canada who came here to give my children a better future—this info was critical—I had to collect most of it myself three years ago. Please, please keep this information ... I represent at least 30% ... of parents in Ontario who came from a different country and home language—we need this information to make suitable choices for our children's education...."

She goes on to say, "I'd like to know about extracurricular activities offered at each school."

Further: "Everyone gains when statistical information is shared."

I want to make the point that I have had a conversation with folks from People for Education and from the federations. It may be that we add more information to this school information finder, and I'll be talking with folks at the partnership table this afternoon about just that.

ABORIGINAL ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Dave Levac: My question is for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. The minister spoke recently in the Legislature about the importance of including First Nations in the recovery of Ontario's economy. However, aboriginal people often face challenges when it comes to their engagement in economic activities. First Nations and Metis communities must often contend with challenges of distance, climate, relatively small and dispersed populations, as well as significant community infrastructure needs, including water, all-season roads, limited services and, especially, adequate housing.

I've also heard from the First Nations members in my riding of how communities might struggle to balance the need for commercial and economic development with the traditional values of environmental stewardship.

Minister, can you tell us how our government accommodates this need to balance the traditional values and the need for commercial growth and economic development?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The challenges the member notes are real and significant, as is the reference he makes to the connection many aboriginal people feel to the land and surrounding natural resources. That connection, frankly, is a reflection of the uniqueness of First Nation and Metis culture, and it's something this government makes every effort to respect. Striking that balance between environmental sustainability and economic growth is something we need to work on with our aboriginal partners through consultation and dialogue. We do have an obligation, constitutionally, to consult, but we have to go beyond that.

It's not only the right thing to do, it's the best thing to do in terms of moving economic development opportunities forward. That consultation also involves encouraging partnerships, and that's why I'm so pleased, and aboriginal communities are so pleased, with our government's commitment to the $250-million loan guarantee program—

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

Mr. Dave Levac: The minister and I recently had the pleasure of attending a ribbon-cutting ceremony at RJ Ecosafe Homes, at the Six Nations of the Grand River Territory. We learned about how this company, established in 2008, has developed an environmentally sound, energy-efficient, durable, non-wood-burning system suitable for First Nations communities, especially in remote areas, and beyond First Nations for general public use. The company builds houses and also provides training for those First Nations people in communities across Canada so that those who are certified can return to their own communities and build these very modern, exciting houses.

During the ceremony, you spoke about how this company could have a positive impact on all First Nations communities across the country at large and how it had set a positive example on many different levels. I'm excited about this possibility, and I know that within my riding it's generated an awful lot of interest. Minister, can you elaborate for us what you meant by assisting us in that aspect?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I share the member's excitement for this project within his own riding. It is indeed a very exciting project and extremely innovative.

To me, this company demonstrates that economic growth and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive. As our government is addressing environmental concerns through our Green Energy Act, RJ Ecosafe Homes continues to explore innovative, environmentally friendly, safe approaches to home building. What's remarkable about this company is that it very much reflects a lot of the nature of our recent budget. It's a great example of innovation. In fact, it stands as evidence that the entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well in First Nation communities.

It's a great example of the next generation of jobs, a great example of job creation and economic development, along with the importance of incorporating the green economy. It also speaks powerfully to our government's energy conservation efforts.

I thank the member for his leadership in this area. I thank—

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

BUTTONVILLE AIRPORT

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. On February 26, my colleague from Thornhill put the question to the minister about the impending closing of the Buttonville airport as the result of the loss of some $1.5 million of support from the GTAA. At that time, the minister stated very clearly that he believes that that airport is critical to the local economy as well as the economy of the GTA. He undertook to contact the federal Minister of Transport to see if he could at that time get support for the airport.

I would like to know from the minister, has he heard back from the Minister of Transport for the federal government? Is there going to be support for the Buttonville airport?

Hon. James J. Bradley: The member raises a very good question—and all the members who, particularly, represent the area north of Toronto, including Michael Chan, my colleague; Mr. Shurman, who asked the question in the House; and the member directing the question to me.

Buttonville airport, in my opinion, does play a significant role as an airport for a lot of different reasons, one of them being a backup as well to the main airport, Pearson International Airport. I was disappointed, although they make their decisions for various reasons, to see that this had happened.

I did communicate with the federal minister about it, by letter to John Baird, who, I would think, is equally concerned about that potential closing. I have not, to this point in time, received—or I have not seen—a letter of reply from him yet, but I know that he does have that concern, and I look forward with anticipation to his—

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

Mr. Frank Klees: I would like to direct my supplementary to the Minister of Economic Development.

Interjection.

Mr. Frank Klees: The reason I wanted to speak to the Minister of Economic Development is that the implication of this airport closing is the loss of some 300 direct jobs and a loss of some $80 million directly in that local economy, at a time when the government is investing billions of dollars in infrastructure to stimulate the economy, at a time when the economic development ministry is investing millions of dollars to save jobs and create jobs.

Regardless of whether the federal government is decisive on this, will at least the Ontario government, through the Ministry of Economic Development, be prepared to invest the $1.5 million to save 300 jobs and to save some $80 million of economic enterprise in the—

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: I cannot speak for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, but no doubt the question is heard and will be in Hansard, and he will deliberate upon it.

Airports are primarily the responsibility of the federal government. I think it's the hope of everyone in the Legislature that the federal government will see fit to investigate this matter appropriately, and if there's funding to be required or pressure to be applied, the federal government will do so.

I can assure the member that those of us who are part of the Ontario government—and certainly I speak for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade—are interested in seeing that airport continue. As soon as we get a response from the federal government, we'll be in a better position to make decisions subsequent to that. I am optimistic that the federal government will respond positively and that Buttonville, as a result, will stay open.

TUITION

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. The University of Toronto is introducing a flat fee equivalent to the cost of five courses in the faculty of arts and sciences. This flat fee will apply whether students take three, four or five courses. Students at U of T are saying this is nothing more than a tuition hike. Students take three courses for a reason: They can't afford to pay for five courses, they can't take on more debt, they have family responsibilities, or they have to work. Some students will drop out, and some won't register at all. Minister, do you agree with the flat fee?

Hon. John Milloy: The honourable member raises a proposal that I've read bits and pieces of in the media. At the end of the day, I think he recognizes that any tuition formula that comes forward has to comply with the Ontario government's tuition fee framework. That not only limits the amount of tuition increase that can take place for any program but also mandates universities to offer additional student assistance to any student who is facing financial obstacles moving forward.

I'm very proud of the fact that our government came in and invested $1.5 billion in additional student assistance for students across the province and has worked with institutions to make sure that financial obstacles never prevent any student from going to university or college.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I had asked the minister whether he agreed or disagreed with the flat fee, and he didn't answer that simple question. I don't agree with the flat fee; New Democrats don't agree; University of Toronto students don't agree. Students taking three or four courses and paying for five is simply not fair. I want to know, and students want to know, do you, as a Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, agree with the flat fee?

Hon. John Milloy: What I agree with is a funding framework, which was introduced several years ago, which protects students against massive tuition fee increases and also mandates institutions to bring forward additional student support.

I'm very proud of the fact that we are a government that doubled student assistance. I'm also very proud of the fact that we are a government that reintroduced upfront grants for students. The honourable member, I'm sure, is very familiar with upfront grants, because he was part of a government which cancelled them.

HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

Mr. Joe Dickson: My question today is for the Minister of Transportation. It is that time of year again; it's pothole complaint time. While road maintenance issues with the 401 have been brought to my attention throughout the winter, it seems that with the melting of snow and the increase of temperatures, there has also been an increase in the number of calls to my office about the state of our roads.

I know that this government works hard to keep Ontario's roads safe, but to me and many of the residents living in Durham, it would appear that this has been one of the worst winters for road damage to cars and trucks in Ontario's history. In fact, I myself have had three windshields cracked these past few months while driving on the 401, due to flying debris, and I paid for them myself.

I'm bringing this to the attention of the Minister of Transportation in the hopes that he can please share with the House and all those who drive on Ontario's highways what the province is doing to minimize the factors which lead to vehicle damage.

Hon. James J. Bradley: An excellent question. The member for Ajax—Pickering has raised a concern I've heard from many residents, as I do at this time of year, right across the province. I want to assure the member and all Ontarians that maintaining the condition of our provincial highway system is a priority for our ministry.

During the winter months, as you would know, severe changes in temperature cause freezing and thawing of the pavement. This can result in the rapid deterioration of road surfaces and the creation of numerous potholes. As a result of the harsh winter conditions that were experienced this past winter, there were sections of Highway 401, including those through Durham, which suffered pavement damage. I cannot say for certain if this has been the worst winter. What I can say is that the effectiveness of normal measures is not necessarily there.

As an interim measure, MTO contractors milled the top layer of asphalt in order to create a smoother ride until the weather conditions allow—

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

Mr. Joe Dickson: I'm pleased to hear that the minister recognizes there is an issue here and that his ministry has undertaken measures to mitigate the effects of winter's harsh effects on Ontario's roads.

That being said, I've heard from my constituents that the work being done so far is not enough. The milling of the roads is much appreciated; however, it has left small rocks and pieces of asphalt that, when vehicles drive over at high speed, will then fly up and hit the vehicles. There are people who regularly drive the portion of the 401 located in my riding, between Whites Road and Lake Ridge Road, as well as other portions of Durham region. I'm hearing from those individuals about chipped paint, chipped windshields and other minor damages.

I wonder if the minister could please share with this House what his ministry is doing to fix our roads, and for those in my riding who damage their vehicles, who to speak to about repairing the damages.

Hon. James J. Bradley: The ministry realizes that more work needs to be done, and that's why we have tendered and awarded $4 million in contracts to repave the areas in the greater Toronto area where the milling has taken place. The member from Ajax—Pickering will be pleased to know that this includes a contract of approximately $1 million awarded for the repaving of milled areas in the Durham region. In order for the roads to be fixed as quickly as possible, we will extend the length of our overnight closures for the repaving to take place.

If damage has occurred to an individual's vehicle, they can contact the Ministry of Government Services for information on how to make a claim. If the public wants to advise the MTO of hazardous road conditions, they can do so by e-mail or telephone and that information is available on the MTO website.

So to you and regional councillor Bill McLean, I think we have a thorough answer—

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

INFRASTRUCTURE

PROGRAM FUNDING

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Today, Stats Canada reported a 38% drop in the value of building permits in Ontario. Specifically, the report pointed to a decline in medical infrastructure building. These stats are a good indication of future building activity in Canada, but in Ontario the future seems eerily quiet.

For more than a year, the minister has said that the new Trafalgar hospital in Oakville was delayed due to a lack of construction capacity. To me, the StatsCan numbers indicate there is ample construction capacity in the province of Ontario. Minister, can you promise the people of Oakville to renew construction of their hospital this spring?

Hon. David Caplan: No. In fact, we had laid out a plan that was called ReNew Ontario, which had over 100 hospital capital projects. It's a renaissance of infrastructure like this province has never seen before, I say to the member opposite. We have many of those projects in the ground today and they are proceeding accordingly.

Infrastructure Ontario, the body that is charged with being able to manage the procurement and driving out the delivery of these projects, did a market capacity survey. What they were able to find was, yes, we have put out so much work that we do have a challenge around construction capacity. Hence, we have rescoped the time when Trafalgar Memorial will go ahead.

I say to the member that we very much want to see this project move ahead as expeditiously as possible. If there is ability to move it forward quickly, the Ministry of Health is very supportive of working with my colleague the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure to do so.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Well, the minister says he's building a lot of hospitals. I guess the people in this House have a choice: We can believe what the minister says or we can believe what Stats Canada says. I think I come down on the side of Stats Canada.

The same situation exists up the road in Milton. An expansion plan for the Milton District Hospital was submitted in September of last year, seven months ago. But there is still no answer from the government. They're sitting on that report. In Milton the population is exploding under your 2005 Places to Grow Act, but the hospital can't keep up.

In five years, your government has doubled revenues through taxes like the health premium; you're running a record deficit, borrowing from the next generation; and now we have a slowing in medical construction. According to Stats Canada, there is an increased capacity to build in the province. Minister, given taxing and borrowing, given high unemployment rates and now construction slowdowns, will you turn your words into action and finally fix the health care crisis in Milton?

Hon. David Caplan: This government is well under way doing so. It would have been nice if the member, when he was on this side of the House, had advocated for Milton and for Oakville and their health care needs. Unfortunately, we had deafening silence for eight years. What we have seen recently is his colleague Mr. Hudak, who vies for the leadership of their party, saying, "This $32.5-billion spend that they're going to do on infrastructure—I don't think that's the right approach. It's too much." Tim Hudak clearly has it wrong, as does this member as well.

Interjection.

Hon. David Caplan: He most certainly did, I say to my friend from Renfrew: on TVO, the Agenda, on March 31, 2009.

Here's the reality: Conservatives, either when they're in government or when they're in opposition, don't support investment in infrastructure. It took this Premier and this government and members on this side of the House with the gumption to be able to get these projects—

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

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. St. Joseph's hospital in Hamilton is cutting its outpatient physiotherapy services. Winnie Doyle, the vice-president of clinical programs at St.

Joseph's hospital, said, "The Ministry of Health asked us to look at outpatient programs to see if there are any programs we are providing in the hospital that are provided in the community." She goes on to say, "Physio services are available in a number of private for-profit clinics in the community, so that was a consideration." But the McGuinty government delisted physiotherapy services, so people in Hamilton must pay out of pocket for outpatient physio. My question is: Why did this government encourage St. Joseph's hospital to divest their outpatient physiotherapy services to the for-profit sector?

Hon. David Caplan: I thank the member for the question. Because St. Joe's is confident that physiotherapy services can be provided in the community, patients will get the care that they need. The hospital wanted to focus on doing the things that hospitals do best: acute care, surgeries and emergency care. Hospitals may fund physiotherapy services from the global budget, but whether they do and the extent of the service provided is determined by the hospital. For a period, the hospital continued to provide free outpatient physiotherapy services funded by the hospital global budget.

I can tell you that we've increased base funding for St. Joe's by more than $80 million since 2003-04. That's a 30% increase. I would also point out that this member and her colleagues have opposed these types of supports for St. Joe's and other hospitals in the province of Ontario consistently. I hope that this member will begin to support the investments in—

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

M me France Gélinas: I can't agree with the minister saying that people can get access to physiotherapy in the community. You can only do this if you have the money to pay for those services, and most people don't. For low-earner Ontarians and for people who don't have private physiotherapy clinics, they have to go without. St. Joseph's Healthcare is joining a long list of hospitals, including Hamilton Health Sciences, Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital and Grimsby's West Lincoln hospital, that have already cut most of their outpatient physiotherapy on the urging of this government.

In the long run, it makes no sense. Patients who can't afford to pay for physiotherapy out of pocket end up in pain and often end up back in the hospital. Their quality of life suffers. The question is: Why is the government so determined to completely privatize part of our health care system?

Hon. David Caplan: Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, if you just look to our hospital partners and the response that they had to the recent budget here in the province of Ontario: Tom Closson, the president of the Ontario Hospital Association, called the budget "a positive budget for Ontario's hospitals and patients." Closson also said, "By protecting hospital funding in 2009-10, the government is positioning hospitals to maintain access to high-quality health services in the challenging year ahead."

Other hospital leaders have echoed these kinds of sentiments. In fact, Murray Martin, CEO of Hamilton Health Sciences, called the base funding increase "very, very good news."

It has been because of the support of this Premier, this finance minister and members on this side of the House that hospitals today are experiencing unprecedented levels of financial support from their provincial government. That's in—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. The time for question period has ended. This House stands recessed until 1 p.m.

The House recessed from 1136 to 1300.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CAMP 30

Mr. John O'Toole: I'm pleased to rise today and place on the record the historic significance of Camp 30 in Bowmanville. Camp 30 is the only known intact camp for German prisoners of war still left in the world. Camp 30 was the prisoner-of-war camp for more than 800 of the highest-ranking officials of the Third Reich captured by the Allies.

There are 18 buildings occupying over 40 hectares. Before and after World War II, the property was a training school for boys. Sadly, the cornerstone of the property, the main administration building, was heavily damaged by fire in the early morning of March 28. A second building about 200 metres away was also damaged.

Lynn Phillip-Hodgson is a local councillor from Port Perry and a recognized historian in my riding and has published several books. He described the fire "as a sad day for Canadian history." The fire comes at a time when our community has been considering, and I have been supporting, a plan to preserve the property. Clarington council had placed Camp 30 on its list of heritage buildings.

The fire is a significant loss and a reminder to all in our community, and indeed the province, of the fragility of local history. I urge everyone to support VAC-ACC and other organizations that work voluntarily to support architecture and conservation in our communities.

EARTHQUAKE IN ITALY

Mr. Mike Colle: Today, our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims, survivors and emergency response teams that are, as we speak, dealing with the tragic aftershocks of the earthquake that devastated the city of L'Aquila in Abruzzo, Italy, yesterday. With over 90 people killed, over 1,500 injured and tens of thousands left homeless, we can only hope that the rescue efforts are successful and the injured receive immediate care.

Ontario, with over one million Italian Canadians, must feel the pain in a very acute way. This is especially the case for those who are from the Abruzzo region of Italy and have relatives in the earthquake area as we speak. They have been directly and tragically affected by this horrendous event.

On behalf of all of us in the Ontario Legislature, Premier McGuinty and all Ontarians, our heartfelt condolences and prayers of hope and support go out to the people of Abruzzo and L'Aquila and the surrounding villages in this most challenging of times. May God speed the rescue teams, and may those left injured and homeless receive the urgent care they require.

LITERACY AND BASIC SKILLS

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: For months now, I have been asking the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities and the minister if they are going to increase the funding for community-based literacy programs—and I repeat, community-based literacy programs. There are 111 of these agencies in Ontario and they have been frozen at poverty levels for the last decade. At the same time, with over 300,000 manufacturing jobs being lost in Ontario over the past three years, the enrolment in these agencies is growing each and every day.

The government members supported my resolution in this House calling for an increase in funding due to enrolment. There was even additional funding for literacy in the recent budget. However, now we find that somehow the government will not announce any funding to community-based agencies until late June, after this House adjourns.

Who is in control of this ministry? It is shameful and a blemish on this province that the government is turning its back on agencies that contribute to economic development in this province. The McGuinty Liberal government is turning its back on the men and women who want a hand up, not a handout.

Please: They need their funding announced now, as soon as possible, because people will soon be laid off if we do not get funding immediately for these community-based agencies in the province of Ontario.

KOREAN-CANADIAN

SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA

Mr. David Zimmer: I'm honoured to rise today in recognition of the Korean-Canadian Symphony Orchestra. The orchestra was founded in 1987 and is, to my knowledge, the only ethnic community orchestra in Toronto that holds regular concerts. Over the years, I've had the pleasure of attending many of the concerts that have been held by the symphony. The symphony is under the direction of musical director Richard Lee, who also serves as the assistant director of the Quebec Symphony Orchestra.

The orchestra holds two concerts every year at George Weston Recital Hall at the Toronto Centre for the Arts in Willowdale. I attended the most recent concert, entitled the Unification Concert, this past Saturday with my colleague the Honourable Aileen Carroll, Minister of Culture. The minister was welcomed by Ms. Myung Sook Kim, the president of the symphony, who has done so much over the years for the symphony.

The Unification Concert has been themed in honour of special guest soloist Mr. Cheol-Woong Kim, who will be joining the symphony. Born and educated in North Korea, he defected in search of freedom of expression in music. He was trained in Moscow at the Tchaikovsky Conservatory of music and now resides in Seoul and teaches at the Jansei Arts College in Seoul, and performs at numerous concerts in order to help his fellow defectors.

I urge all members of this assembly: If they want to experience a tremendous classical musical experience, they ought to attend the next symphony of the Korean-Canadian Symphony Orchestra.

LAMBTON GENERATING STATION

Mr. Robert Bailey: On Friday, my constituents and residents of the neighbouring riding were treated to the rhetorical excesses of the Deputy Premier when he came to the Sarnia—Lambton area to tell them what a great thing the McGuinty government was doing by closing down the Lambton generating station and throwing more than 300 of my constituents out of work.

This government wants to close Lambton down despite the fact that they have no idea how they are going to replace the generation capacity. By closing LGS, they will be in fact driving up the cost of electricity for all of us in Ontario, just when we need some stability for the electricity costs.

If the Deputy Premier wanted to brag about how they keep their promises, they should remember their solemn promise not to raise taxes. You don't hear them bragging about that one.

I will proudly keep up the fight to maintain the Lambton generating station, whether through biomass or any combination of feedstocks. This government's green plan for electricity won't come close to generating the electricity that our province needs, and until we can get more capacity online, they should stop the ill-considered move to close down Lambton generating station. Closing Lambton generating station is one promise this government should not keep.

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: I would like to take the opportunity to talk about an event that I attended a couple of weeks ago in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex. Branch 18 of the Royal Canadian Legion in Wallaceburg held an open house for the community in celebration of the recent installation of a greatly needed elevator at their home branch. The idea for this elevator was advanced by past president Pat Hagen, who recognized the need to make the legion accessible to our seniors and, most especially, our veterans.

Many people worked together to make this idea a reality. Dedicated volunteers raised funds and, with an Ontario Trillium Foundation grant, the legion obtained the $100,000 needed to fund the project. Those who worked tirelessly on this have finally seen it to fruition, and I was glad to be there to celebrate with them and to see their hard work as it was brought forward.

By installing an elevator, something that many of us take for granted, this legion has been able to improve the lives of people in our community in a tangible and practical way. I want to thank them and commend them for their efforts.

AJAX ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS WEEK

Mr. Joe Dickson: I rise in the House today to highlight an important upcoming event taking place in my riding of Ajax—Pickering. From April 17 to 26, we are holding our 22nd annual Ajax Environmental Affairs Week.

During this week, there will be a multitude of activities, including opportunities for Ajax residents to get involved in cleaning up and plantings and expanding our environment. There will be planned eco-waste pickup days at various locations, most notably the giant litter pickup at our Ajax waterfront. There will be tree and wildflower plantings, free compost giveaways and eco-fair seminars for residents, including the new Green Energy Act, to learn more about the role they play in keeping our environment healthy and green, as well as expanding it. We encourage everyone to participate.

This will also be a prime opportunity for our government to communicate our new environmental initiatives like the Green Energy Act.

Since I founded Ajax Environmental Affairs Week back in 1988—when, unfortunately, I was the only person who actually showed up—this has now expanded to become a highly successful vehicle, with over 1,000 volunteers each year, for environmental education and with a focus on greening our community, thinking globally and acting locally.

Some of our past chairs include Martin Olenroot, Ray Trempe, Deanna Fry, Sherry Brown, Elizabeth Lockett, Bob Bailey, Alan Birks and Margaret Cecconet. Of course, we thank the mayor and all members of Ajax council for this activity, continuing the many years of their activity in Ajax.

NORTHERN HOME REPAIR PROGRAM

M me France Gélinas: Today, I would like to talk about the unfairness of the northern home repair program. The program provides interest-free, forgivable loans to northerners with low and modest incomes in order to make important upgrades to their homes and increase energy efficiency. Sounds pretty good so far, but the problem is that some of my constituents in the low- and modest-income brackets own manufactured mobile homes.

In my riding of Nickel Belt, there are about 20 mobile home parks which are home to hundreds of families. Unlike regular homeowners, mobile homeowners do not own the land that their home is situated upon. The repair program requires some form of collateral, like a mortgage registration or a lien, to ensure that the program's conditions are met. Requiring a mortgage as collateral prevents mobile homeowners from applying because land ownership is required to register a mortgage.

There are other forms of collateral that mobile homeowners could use to provide assurance that the program conditions are met. While this round of applications has closed, I would suggest, in the view of fairness, that in future rounds of the northern home repair program or similar programs the government find ways of ensuring that mobile homeowners are eligible. Ricky, Julian and Bubbles need energy-efficient windows and doors, too.

TOWN OF KINMOUNT

Mr. Rick Johnson: I'm honoured to rise in the House to announce that April 1, 2009, was the 150th anniversary of the day that the town of Kinmount, located in my riding of Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, received its official recognition from Canada Post. Kinmount, a town of 500 residents, has a long, proud history, and is located on the Burnt River in the northeast corner of the city of Kawartha Lakes.

The Austin sawmill, originally built in 1874 to service the logging industry, has played a huge role in the town's history, and although it is in need of renovations, like a James Lumbers painting, it still stands on the bank of the river as a historic reminder of our proud heritage.

Kinmount became one of the first Icelandic settlements in Canada in 1875, and that fact has been recognized with a designation as a national historic site.

Today, Kinmount is the centre for cottagers in the area. It is home to the famous Highlands Cinemas. Built by owner Keith Stata, it is a 550-seat, multiscreen movie theatre, and a museum that is a fixture in cottage country from May to Thanksgiving.

The Artisans Marketplace is a showcase of the talents of local artists and is a must-see on any visit to the town. It was established in the late 1990s by Bruce and Patti Fleury and members of the Kinmount and Area Artisans Guild.

Labour Day weekend is the weekend that cottage country residents make their way to the Kinmount Fair to celebrate the end of summer. Its unique setting makes it one of the quaintest fairs in Ontario.

I wish to congratulate Diane Austin and the members of the sesquicentennial committee, as well as the residents of Kinmount for their proud history and their ongoing commitment to their community on this day, a recognition of their 150th birthday.

PETITIONS

PROPERTY TAXATION

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: This petition regards property tax assessments.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Ontarians are angry over the volatility of the MPAC tax assessment system, the near impossibility to predict one's assessment or to understand how it is arrived at, the patent unfairness of assessments and that the current system leaves many homeowners worried they may be forced to sell their homes; and

"Whereas changes are needed that will make Ontario's property tax system stable, understandable, fair and sensitive to homeowners; and

"Whereas property assessments in Parkdale—High Park have risen between 28% and 45% between 2005 and 2008;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: Support the 'freeze till sale' plan to bring fairness to Ontario's property tax system so that new assessments happen only at the time of sale and when a building permit is obtained for renovations totalling more than $40,000."

I couldn't agree more, and I'm going to give this to legislative page Mark to be delivered.

HIGHWAY 17/174 /

ROUTE 17/174

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: Another petition on the widening of Highway 17/174, and it keeps coming in.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Highway 17/174 needs to be expanded to four lanes from Trim Road to Prescott-Russell Regional Road 8 in order to enhance road safety; and

"Whereas Highway 17/174 has been known in the past for its hazardous condition and accident rate; and

"Whereas this highway represents the main artery for the working population of Clarence-Rockland, Alfred and Plantagenet and Hawkesbury to access the national capital; and

"Whereas the united counties of Prescott-Russell have demonstrated their interest in conducting the environmental assessment for the widening of Highway 17/174 by passing a council resolution;

« Attendu que la ville d'Ottawa a passé une résolution au conseil demandant soit à la province ou aux comtés-unis de Prescott-Russell de prendre l'initiative de l'étude environnementale pour la route 17/174;

« Attendu que le gouvernement fédéral et le gouvernement provincial se sont tous deux engagés à fournir 40 $ millions pour l'élargissement de la route 17/174;

« Nous, soussignés, adressons à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario la pétition suivante :

« Nous demandons que les fonds nécessaires soient alloués aux comtés-unis de Prescott-Russell afin de réaliser l'évaluation environnementale obligatoire à l'élargissement de la route 17/174 de deux à quatre voies, du chemin Trim à la route régionale Prescott-Russell 8. »

Avec plaisir, je rajoute ma signature.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: " Petition to the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

"Tay township, Simcoe county, in the riding of Simcoe North, has a population of 10,000 persons and a taxpayer base of 5,500. There are 2,144 sewer users and 3,038 water users. The burgeoning capital and operating costs as a result of provincially legislated rules and requirements are more than the limited number of taxpayers can afford.

"The following taxpayers petition the Legislature for relief with grant funds. Recent grant applications have all been turned down."

I'm pleased to sign and support this on behalf of my constituents.

PROPERTY TAXATION

M me France Gélinas: I have a petition from the people of Sudbury.

"Whereas 2009 is a reassessment year in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the assessments will be phased in over a four-year period from 2009 to 2012; and

"Whereas the assessed values for current value assessments collected as at January 1, 2008, were obtained during years of high real estate activity in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the downturn in the current global economic climate has greatly affected the real estate market, and subsequently, the assessed values in the province of Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the Minister of Finance for the province of Ontario roll back assessed values to the base year of January 1, 2005."

I support this petition and will affix my name to it and send it to the table with page Sarah.

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

Mr. Rick Johnson: A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas a number of foreign worker and caregiver recruitment agencies have exploited vulnerable foreign workers; and

"Whereas foreign workers are subject to illegal fees and abuse at the hands of some of these unscrupulous recruiters; and

"Whereas the federal government in Ottawa has failed to protect foreign workers from these abuses; and

"Whereas, in Ontario, the former Conservative government deregulated and eliminated protection for foreign workers; and

"Whereas a great number of foreign workers and caregivers perform outstanding and difficult tasks on a daily basis in their work, with limited protection;

"We, the undersigned, support MPP Mike Colle's bill, the Caregiver and Foreign Worker Recruitment and Protection Act, 2009, and urge its speedy passage into law."

I affix my signature to this.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr. John O'Toole: I am receiving literally thousands of petitions that read as follows:

"Whereas the proposed harmonization of the Ontario retail sales tax (RST) with the federal goods and services tax (GST) has the potential to increase the costs of many small businesses and their customers; and

"Whereas these added costs would have a devastating impact in difficult economic times; and

"Organizations such as the Ontario Home Builders' Association have estimated that harmonization would add as much as $15,000 in taxes to the price of a new home.

"Therefore we, the undersigned, reject the harmonization of GST and RST unless there are exemptions to offset the adverse impacts of harmonization so that the outcome will be a reduction in red tape, with no higher taxes."

I'm pleased to sign and support this on behalf of the thousands of constituents who are opposed to the harmonization tax.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr. Peter Kormos: I have a petition addressed:

"Whereas Ontarians are angry over the volatility of the property tax assessment system, the near impossibility to predict one's assessment or to understand how it is arrived at, the patent unfairness of assessments, and that the current system leaves many homeowners worried that they may be forced to sell their homes; and

"Whereas Ontarians are not complaining about paying taxes; we are complaining about a system which is volatile, unfair, unpredictable and punishing; and

"Whereas changes are needed that will make Ontario's property tax system stable, understandable, fair and sensitive to homeowners struggling on low incomes;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, support a 'freeze till sale' plan to bring fairness to Ontario's property tax system, uploading the provincially mandated programs that were downloaded under the Harris regime, the implementation of all of the Ontario Ombudsman's recommendations to reform MPAC, new assessments to happen only at the time of sale and when a building permit is obtained for renovations totalling more than $40,000, the creation of a new category of seasonal property owners within the broader category of residential properties, and the realignment of the multiresidential rental apartment building unit sector so that rental units are no longer assessed dramatically above the identical condo units."

I've affixed my signature.

I look forward to orders of the day, when Speaker DiNovo assumes the chair for the very first time, bringing a totally new style to the Speaker's role and inevitably a special charm here at Queen's Park.

RAILROAD BRIDGE

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: After this performance—that was just great.

This is the second time I'm rising on a similar petition to improve the Bloor Street railroad bridge. It reads as follows—it's to the Minister of Transportation:

"Whereas the neighbourhood near 1369 Bloor Street West has been recognized as a priority revitalization area by a city of Toronto study in 2000;

"Whereas items for beautification include:

"

(1) Developing terraced walls with flowers and planters near the railroad bridge;

"

(2) Constructing new abutment walls;

"

(3) Cleaning, painting and reconstructing the rusty, dilapidated railroad bridge; and

"

(4) Creating brightly lit murals underneath the bridge in order to make it more secure and more people-friendly;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, request in the strongest terms that our city government immediately reactivate the 2000 reconstruction plan and CNR immediately proceed with improvements to the bridge" and that the provincial government support this plan.

"We look forward to a dynamic, revitalized community enhanced by a beautiful continuous cityscape. We want to be proud to live here."

Since I agree with this petition, I'm delighted to sign it.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Norm Miller: I have a petition to do with health care in Almaguin. It's "The Burk's Falls Health Centre Petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Burk's Falls … health centre provides vital health services for residents of Burk's Falls and the Almaguin Highlands of all ages, as well as seasonal residents and tourists; and

"Whereas the health centre helps to reduce demand on the Huntsville hospital emergency room; and

"Whereas the operating budget for Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare is insufficient to meet the growing demand for service in the communities of Muskoka—East Parry Sound; and

"Whereas budget pressures could jeopardize continued operation of the Burk's Falls health centre;

"Now therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the McGuinty government and Minister of Health provide adequate increases in the operating budget of Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare to maintain current health services, including those provided by the Burk's Falls health centre."

I support this petition.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: I have a petition here, and it's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the McGuinty government understands the present-day economic realities facing Ontario;

"Whereas the 2009 Ontario budget reflects the need to create and maintain jobs by proposing to spend $32.5 billion in the next two years to build more public transit and improve existing infrastructure, all the while supporting and creating 300,000 jobs;

"Whereas workers are further being helped by additional job opportunities created in the green energy sector via the Green Energy and Green Economy Act that will, if passed, create 50,000 new jobs in the first three years of its existence;

"Whereas Ontarians who work hard each and every day to make ends meet will receive much-needed income tax relief in the form of a 17% tax cut to the tax rate in Ontario's lowest tax bracket from the current 6.05% to 5.05%;

"Whereas Ontario's future, represented by her children, will receive the Ontario child benefit two full years ahead of schedule, amounting to $1,100 per eligible child;

"We, the undersigned, therefore applaud the McGuinty government for introducing a budget that protects all Ontarians during these very difficult economic times by investing in our greatest resource, our people."

I agree with this petition, affix my signature and give it to page Victoria, who's beside me today.

SALES TAX

Mr. John O'Toole: This petition sort of offsets the previous one. It reads as follows:

"Provincial sales tax holiday for purchasers of North American cars and trucks.

"Whereas potential new car and truck buyers in Ontario are having trouble accessing credit and loans; and

"Whereas the North American automotive industry is having difficulty selling vehicles, and the province of Ontario has recently lost more than 270,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector alone; and

"Whereas the auto industry in Canada supports an estimated 440,000 jobs, including many in the auto parts sector, and generates many billions of dollars in tax revenues;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, ask the Dalton McGuinty government to introduce a provincial sales tax holiday in the next provincial budget for the purchase of new, North American-produced vehicles sold in Ontario."

It looks like this petition is out of date because the budget has passed and there was nothing in it, but I will urge the government to act urgently.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I am rising in support of Bill 151 to stop the violence on public transit. It's addressed to the Parliament of Ontario and reads as follows:

"Whereas too many innocent people are being victimized by acts of violence while using public transit; and

"Whereas too many public transit employees are being victimized by acts of violence while working to serve the public; and

"Whereas we need to send a strong message of zero tolerance for violence on public transit; and

"Whereas anyone harming or carrying a weapon on public transit should be dealt with by the full force of the law; and

"Whereas public transit riders and workers have the right to ride and work on public transit free of violence, intimidation and harm;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to put an end to violence on public transit and totally support MPP Mike Colle's private member's bill," Bill 151, "to crack down on violence on public transit."

Since I support this bill 100%, I'm delighted to put my signature to it.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: To the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

"Tay township, Simcoe county, in the riding of Simcoe North, has a population of 10,000 persons and a taxpayer base of 5,500. There are 2,144 sewer users and 3,038 water users. The burgeoning capital and operating costs as a result of provincially legislated rules and requirements are more than the limited number of taxpayers can afford.

"The following taxpayers petition the Legislature for relief with grant funds. Recent grant applications have all been turned down."

I'm pleased to support this on behalf of my constituents.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GREATER TORONTO

AND HAMILTON AREA

TRANSIT IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT

DU RÉSEAU DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN

DE LA RÉGION DU GRAND TORONTO

ET DE HAMILTON

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 2, 2009, on the motion for second reading of Bill 163,

An Act to amend the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority Act, 2006 / Projet de loi 163, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2006 sur la Régie des transports du grand Toronto.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on this bill, the one that changes the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority Act that we debated a few years ago.

Before I proceed, I'll just note the new Speaker in the chair, the member for Parkdale—High Park.

Applause.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Congratulations. May you never have to throw me out, Speaker, although I can nominate some candidates in the chamber whom you would be happy to throw out.

Interjection.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: You know it's true.

Mr. Dave Levac: It's too important to have you here. They don't want you thrown out.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I know; I understand. I appreciate the concern of my colleagues in this chamber.

Madam Speaker, as you are well aware, the McGuinty government is failing the people of the greater Toronto area when it comes to dealing with transit and transportation issues. I want to talk about this bill, but before I talk about the bill, I want to talk about the context within which transportation decisions are made, not only here but in any jurisdiction.

If you are actually going to have a transportation system that works, first of all, you have to have an urban form, a city form that works, that has concentrations of particular activities and designated areas that have density, so that, in fact, transportation can be set up rationally to serve the needs of those who live in an area, and set up rationally to serve the needs of commerce and serve the needs of the environment.

If you don't do that, everything you do after that is a band-aid, because if you have, as you have in the 905 now, an area where there's such a broad diffusion of uses mixed together, then it's very hard to say that there's one destination that is of critical mass, one that transit lines and transportation lines should pour into. This has consistently been a problem for those who are concerned about dealing with the transportation issue, not only in the broader GTA, but in large, sprawling cities around the world.

We went through this debate a few years ago in this chamber with the growth strategy for the greater Golden Horseshoe. The original plan that came forward was one that got a lot of critical support from those in the transportation arena and those in the environmental arena, because they saw it as advancing the cause of building a rational city form here in the GTA.

Unfortunately, what happened is that, in the course of going through iterations and consultations—and I use "consultation" advisably—that plan was watered down dramatically, so that by the end, when it came before us here in this chamber, the Pembina Institute, which is widely recognized for its ability to do analysis of planning issues to deal with environmental issues, and the Neptis Foundation, also widely recognized and praised for its analytical work, said that neither of them could, from the plan that was presented to the chamber, tell that this plan would make a difference over business as usual.

Business as usual in the GTA is projected to result in an increase of about 40% in travel times for residents over the next 20 years. So if it's taking you two hours to get from Hamilton to Toronto in the morning now, it's going to take you closer to three hours 20 years from now. That's the reality of the urban form that we're developing in the GTA and the greater Golden Horseshoe. Frankly, if that's the reality of the urban form, it doesn't matter a lot what kind of transit system you put in or what kind of subsidies you put into that transit system to make it work; you are going to have continuing paralysis and gridlock.

I was going to say that that's the context, but I need to go back just to give an example. The old city of Toronto and John Sewell, who used to be mayor of the city and still is a transit advocate and transit analyst, used to do presentations on the transit system in Toronto. The centre of what is now Toronto ran transit on a profitable basis back in the 1950s. There was enough density, and thus enough passengers on the streetcars and buses, that the system actually paid for itself. That's something that people find very hard to conceive of today.

But in fact, that density was there and that transit system was able to generate that revenue. Thus, investment was made to keep building up that transit system because it could fund itself.

Then, as the old city of Toronto grew out into what was Metro and densities dropped, the densities in the newer part of the city required larger and larger subsidies to keep the system going. The new part of the GTA, the 905—new relatively speaking—has been built at densities comparable to or lower than those of Los Angeles. So no wonder we have difficulties with getting around: Los Angeles is not exactly a city known for easy traffic. In fact, it's an extraordinarily difficult place to get around in.

When the greater Golden Horseshoe growth plan was presented to us, the densities in the new areas that were prescribed by that plan were such that they would support transit going through an area every 30 minutes. I have to say to you and to those who are out there, I grew up on Hamilton Mountain—

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: Yay—

Applause.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: And I remember—yes, yes. I appreciate the applause. I grew up on Hamilton Mountain, and the Upper Wellington bus comes about every 20 or 30 minutes. Well, I can tell you that there's tremendous demand for people to get cars, because people don't want to stand waiting at a bus stop for 20 to 30 minutes.

What has been put forward by the government in terms of urban form in the expanded city over the next few decades is not one that's actually going to change demand for car use; it's going to continue to feed demand for car use. That's the foundation upon which any transportation plan has to be considered, and the foundation that we have is one of sand, not of stone; one that will be washed away, one that will be highly problematic as the world changes.

We already are facing substantial problems. People in this city are dying from air pollution, from smog. They want action, not only because people want to be healthy but because they want to get around, and at the same time, this government in power today is not doing what's needed to put in place an urban form that works and an efficient, cost-effective transit system that will supply or serve the GTA and Hamilton area.

The bill that's before us today, which enacts some provisions that were in the earlier Greater Toronto Transportation Authority bill that we debated a few years ago—which we were told at the time was the greatest thing since sliced bread and would resolve all the transit and transportation problems that have been bequeathed to man and woman—continues on that bill and puts GO Transit under the authority of the transportation authority. This is not going to substantially change the problems that are before us.

In fact, in the Toronto area the transit system, notwithstanding recent announcements, has been in decline. Over the last 20 years, transit's share of all trips taken in Toronto has dropped by 10%. That's very substantial. Transit's share dropped by 10%. That's a very substantial move to greater car dependence. That's a far-reduced utilization of mass transit. Toronto has the most expensive monthly transit passes of any large North American city. So in fact there's a reality here that discourages people from taking transit, that says to them, "Do you know what? You're better off holding on to your car.

You're better off coming down by car because it's very expensive to take the TTC."

I was called just recently by someone who doesn't live in Toronto, who lives in Vaughan, who would drive down into the city, park in a TTC lot and then take transit down to the centre of this city. That's being changed. Now, I can't blame the TTC; they're faced with ongoing financial difficulties.

But this person who contacted me said, "You know, the simple reality for me is that if I come down from Vaughan, park in this parking lot, pay all day for parking and take transit down, it's cheaper for me just to drive all the way in." I don't know all the thinking that went on at the TTC board when they discussed this matter, but I think this person who contacted me had a reasonable point. If, in fact, for a lot of people who drive it's cheaper just to drive all the way in rather than drive, park, pay and take transit, then there will probably be more people who are going to take their car.

That's a negative for us.

The ongoing underfunding of public transit in this province is hugely problematic, and we see it right here in this city. If you look at the underlying financial reality, the government of Ontario once paid more than half of transit operating costs. Now it pays less than a third. You, Madam Speaker, and many others see the impact of that when you're on busy bus and streetcar lines. I've been on Jane Street trying to get a bus downtown and passed by bus after bus absolutely packed.

Now, frankly, if there's that much utilization, you'd think you'd put on more lines, but the system has been so starved for cash that even where lines are packed, it costs the TTC to put on more service, and thus the service isn't there and it discourages people from taking transit.

From 1990 to 2000, TTC fares almost doubled and overall bus and streetcar service dropped by 10% to 20%, resulting in crowded vehicles and locker waits—and I'm sure that you've been in those vehicles and you've had those waits. Between 1998 and 2004, TTC fares increased by 14% while the city's transit operating subsidy decreased by 17%. From 2004 to 2007, cash fares increased by 75 cents and the monthly pass reached over $100. That cements the TTC's reputation as one of the most expensive public transit systems to ride when compared to other major North American cities—not good for our future.

This does not bode well for the city and this urban region when the cost of transit is such that it discourages people from using the system.

Essentially, the reality is that TTC riders are paying more than they did in the past, and they're getting less. And after five years of Liberal governments, the TTC still gets far less provincial support than it needs. Capital spending on roads, by the way, has increased by 57%. You can see where this all leads: It leads to greater and greater use of the car, and less and less use of transit.

That has broad implications for the public health of people in the city, it has broad implications for climate change, and it has broad implications in terms of economic activity because of cars, individual workers, trucks, and goods being stuck in traffic. Fare hikes mean more cars on the road, dirty air and more children with asthma.

This current car-based system is costing us billions of dollars a year in lost productivity. Transport Canada did a study in 2002 and found that current congestion in urban areas costs Canadians between $2.3 billion and $3.7 billion per year. That's a lot of money, a lot of wasted money, earnings that people would have in their pockets if in fact we had an urban form and a transportation system that was rational and served us in the way we needed to be served.

In the 2007 election our party called for a reinvestment in transit and a restoration of the 50% operating funds for public transit. That would have allowed cash-strapped municipalities, which were struggling with the high costs of provincially downloaded services, to actually put the money into transit that was needed—a quick, simple first step that would allow cities to address the climate change crisis and the municipal funding crisis.

We also see not only transit as a way to address the congestion crisis, but as a way to create well-paying jobs in Ontario. The Metrolinx report on congestion underlines this. The implementation of the full Metrolinx regional transportation plan would create 430,000 jobs. Reduced congestion would create another 18,000 jobs. One of the things that's central to actually taking advantage of that job creation is to ensure that the rolling stock and the equipment that we buy to make sure that these mass transit systems are operative are made here in Ontario, made here in Canada.

In the United States and in Mexico—NAFTA partners—they have a 50% floor on the components that have to be made domestically.

I had an opportunity a few months ago to talk to a fellow in Thunder Bay who worked for Bombardier, who's worked in the United States. He said they are very, very precise when it comes to making sure that their domestic content regulations are met and respected. There's no reason that we here in Ontario can't do the same thing, making sure that people in Ontario get the opportunity to work on this technology and make these vehicles.

It's completely in compliance with all our trade agreements and trade regulations, it puts people to work, gives us the technological step up for what I think is going to be far more dominant in terms of transportation in this century. There is every reason to have that in there and, frankly, to have in the act a requirement that Metrolinx respect a much higher domestic content for purchase of rolling stock and equipment needed to make transit systems work.

It's not here in the act. It's ignoring a job creation opportunity in a province that everyone in this room and everyone who's watching knows is facing huge challenges—well, maybe it's more than challenges when you have the foundation of your economy crumbling. That may be a lot bigger than a challenge.

Right now the TTC is deciding what vendor it's going to use for its new streetcars. This is an opportunity not only for the TTC but for the province to say, "Do you know what? We can make those here in Ontario; we can make them in Thunder Bay. We can put people to work, and we, at the provincial level, will assist the city of Toronto in their purchasing, will assist them in making this happen so that we can put people to work in Thunder Bay." We need to do that, and this act needs to speak to that.

There is no question, Madam Speaker—I can see that you're enjoying your new role. I can see that. This is good.

There are a lot of reasons to move ahead with the transit plan in the GTA: economic reasons, environmental reasons, public health reasons. The question that we have to ask ourselves is: Will Bill 163, as it's written, speed the implementation of a regional transit plan or not? Will it put in place a transportation plan that will work or not?

The bill will create a single agency out of Metrolinx and GO Transit—that was already in the prior bill. The agency would have a board of directors from the private sector, not with elected officials, as is currently the case. I find this very troubling, and clearly the government doesn't. I think that when you are going to be setting up these kinds of bodies that set out regional directions, that are going to have to negotiate their way through a thicket of political interests, having local elected representatives on there who can be called to account by the citizenry is of consequence.

We don't need technocrats on these boards of directors; we can hire those. If we need someone to give us technical advice: Hire them, put them on the payroll, ask them the questions; if they don't give good advice, fire them. We don't need them on the board. We need people on the board who are responsive to the public, who know, from detailed, day-in/day-out work, what's going on in this region.

It's not clear to any of us—let's set aside whether or not you want technocrats or not on the board—whether this will actually speed up the adoption or implementation of a regional transportation plan. It's not clear that the existing Metrolinx board was actually dysfunctional. Why else would you get rid of it other than to say it was dysfunctional? But that's not clear. By most accounts, the board was functioning well. It had a good balance between urban and suburban perspectives. It had worked out good links with municipalities. It was asking challenging questions about weaknesses and The Big Move plan.

It had developed expertise, and frankly, it had people on that board who had expertise from the political world and was starting to deal with substantive issues of revenue tools and specific priorities of the plan.

What we have now is a situation where key decisions have to be made, particularly as it becomes clear that not all the priority projects that people want will be funded.

Will a new board with a significant number of new members be able to make those difficult decisions, will they make them in the interests of the region as a whole or will they make them in the interest of a very narrow group who may be focused entirely on, "What are the business opportunities in building transportation systems?" rather than, "How does a transportation system serve the needs of the people in this region?" Is it really beneficial to the board to get rid of the elected officials? The rationale for doing so—one has to ask.

It's interesting that Jeff Gray, who's the columnist on transit issues for the Globe and Mail, wrote on

article this morning entitled, "What if Metrolinx Started to Matter After All?" Jeff, who has a dry sense of humour, talks about some of the more interesting moments in the history of the board, but he makes some very good notes and I want to put these on the record.

He talks about how the government is saying it wants to move very quickly on regional transit. In the 2003 election, the Liberal Party promised to put in place a regional transit system. In 2007, when the legislation was introduced—two years later, that new regional body had produced a regional plan, but as Jeff Gray says, "And Mr. McGuinty keeps changing the rules of the game. In 2007, he overrode Metrolinx and picked out $11.5 billion worth of transit projects he wanted to happen, making it unclear what the agency was needed for." Precisely.

Why do you have these boards, why do you give them authority when in fact you're going to bypass them and put in what you want when you want? You have to ask, what on earth is the function of this authority going to be if whenever it develops a plan, it's going to be bypassed in any event?

He says as well, "Final proof that it may not matter who sits on Metrolinx came last week, when, two days after he dismembered it, Mr. McGuinty promised $9 billion for Mayor David Miller's transformative light-rail vision and York Region's groundbreaking Viva bus lanes." Well, there's that, eh? Why do you need the board at all if the Premier is going to say, "I'm going to have transit here, there"—frankly, I don't have any quarrel with the light-rail investments that are being made in Toronto.

In fact, I give credit to David Miller and Adam Giambrone for the work that they've done setting the political table for this decision to be made, the people in this region who pressed and the people in the city of Toronto who pressed for investment in light rail. Again, I have to ask, what's the importance of this bill or even this board if in fact its presence is not needed to make substantial decisions about transit and transportation in the greater Toronto area? I'll leave his other comment about board meetings to my next point.

Second concern: Will the new board be accountable and transparent? There are certainly fears that future meetings will not be open. Jeff Gray says, "At least we journalists may not have to sit through as many Metrolinx meetings. It looks like the new body will be more likely to convene in secret, except when major policies are being passed." Frankly, when you go through the legislation, the

section on when meetings may occur, it's interesting. Having been a city councillor in the past, all meetings are open except those specifically deemed to be closed; that was my experience as a municipal councillor. Here, meetings are deemed to be closed unless they're specifically legislated to be open. I think we're going to be in a situation, based on what we can see here, where people will have much less information about the transit system and how the decisions are made that ultimately shape their lives. That's of great consequence.

For example, under Bill 163, capital plans will no longer have to be made public. Why would you do that? Metrolinx didn't have the greatest record in consulting on capital projects. Staff have complained. Apparently staff have sometimes claimed to have consulted with municipalities when they haven't; so it has been said. A new requirement will only make such consultation much less likely.

Another concern: It's unclear whether a new regional super agency that's without municipal and regional representation will take into account local needs. Exactly. Many of the transit systems that Metrolinx oversees are of course regional, but Metrolinx will also oversee local transit systems such as subway extensions and new LRT lines. Local priorities can be very different from regional priorities. For example, the local priority might be to have numerous stops on a light-rail transit line with medium-density development along that line—say that fast.

In contrast, the regional priority might be to have only a few stops and high-density development at the nodes of those stops. How will Metrolinx, as a regional body, take into account those local concerns?

It's also unclear, and I mentioned this at the beginning, because it's the whole question of funding, that Metrolinx will resolve the financing issues. The Metrolinx regional transportation plan is slated to cost $55 billion—a fair amount of money. There's no clear indication of where that money will come from. The Metrolinx board was going to wait five years before even discussing financing options. They had that length of time before they had to come forward with a proposal on how to deal with those costs. Even according to this bill, it will be at least another four years before we have a proposed investment model.

A lot of new projects have been announced, but as you're aware, those new projects in many cases depend on matching federal funds, which haven't come forward, and I'm thinking specifically of the subway line to York University. I was there for the announcement—well, it must have been one of a series of announcements over the years. I was there for the announcement a number of years ago, up in Downsview. It's still not moving, still not there.

If there have been problems in getting capital funds for transit projects, there has also been complete silence on how that larger, $55-billion project will be dealt with.

Another issue is the whole question of owning assets. It raises concerns for me and anyone who looks at the bill. The bill appears to create a very large superstructure, in some ways like the greater Vancouver transit authority, a superboard that oversees and runs a variety of sub-entities. So we could see Metrolinx overseeing a body that owns subway lines, light rail and so on, all as part of a parent company.

One of the things that is disturbing and worrisome is the potential for all of this to allow Metrolinx to move to privatization of those bodies or, if not to complete privatization, to public-private partnerships. No one in this Legislature is interested in selling off the Spadina subway line. Is in fact the reality of this new entity that it can be used as a cover for that sort of public-private partnership or privatization of existing transit? We do need to move forward with public transit, and I underline the "public." We don't need a body whose function is going to be to expedite privatization of transit in this area.

If we look at P3s, not just in transportation but in health care, we've had huge problems with the Brampton hospital. Highway 407 is a corporation that many love to hate. The simple reality in dealing with P3s is that it is cheaper for public entities to borrow the money directly, hire companies to build whatever infrastructure they want, and then keep the ownership in public hands with public money. We don't need to turn over the ownership to private bodies. We've seen the legacy of private sector consultants with Metrolinx, which has been locked into an arguably overpriced contract for Presto smart-fare cards with consulting giant Accenture.

Next point: It's not clear that the new agency will be any better than Metrolinx in shifting the emphasis away from highway expansion and toward public transit. We know that highway expansion acts like a magnet for new sprawl, which will only drive further expansion of those roads. We know that highway expansion removes significant vegetation, destroys wetlands and threatens groundwater recharge areas.

We know that we need to build communities that are sustainable and have transit systems, and that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, not encourage them. That means no new highways should be proposed until a viable transit option is available for those communities. Yet the regional transportation plan, even 25 years into the future, would still leave us so heavily reliant on highways that it won't significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In fact, if we continue to build an urban form that is irrational and can't be served well by public transit, then there's no question that we will continue to have more and more demand for car-dependent or car-supporting infrastructure, with the air pollution and climate change that goes with that.

The regional transportation plan proposes new highway extensions north, east and west of the city to communities already fighting the problems of urban sprawl, and that could threaten community health and safety.

Metrolinx has outlined transportation corridors under study, all of which appear to further new highway expansion. The major transportation corridors under consideration would connect the communities of Guelph and Bolton. That would bisect the greenbelt and put pressure to develop on protected agricultural and natural areas adjacent to the highway expansion. Again, the ongoing threats to the greenbelt, the ongoing chopping it up into smaller and smaller pieces, is not something that should be aided by this regional transportation authority—a huge problem.

The budget of two weeks ago shows the McGuinty government is still more committed to highways than transit, since it aims to increase highway spending, even as public transit is kept at the same plateau. The Ministry of Transportation needs to shift its focus from highway and road building to transit, pedestrian and cycling infrastructure. It should put a moratorium on all 400-series highway expansions while the Ministry of Transportation updates its modeling to incorporate present-day realities such as higher fuel prices, reduced demand for housing distant from urban cores and climate change impacts.

It should shift money currently budgeted for 400-series highways to supporting the implementation of the Metrolinx provincial transit strategy, and should develop clear criteria for provincial infrastructure support to municipalities to ensure that funding is based on advancing the Metrolinx transit plan.

Finally, we need to make sure that Metrolinx supports, rather than undermines, strong local plans for transit. TTC has embarked on its Transit City plan, which proposes to build seven new light-rail rapid transit routes which, for those who aren't familiar with them, are streetcar lines with dedicated lanes. In total, 120 kilometres of service will be added. By 2021, if fully built out, the new lines would carry 175 million riders per year. The estimated cost of building the Transit City routes is $6 billion. The province is committed to significant funding through its MoveOntario 2020 plan.

The question that comes up, though, is where the money will come from for the city of Toronto to actually operate that system when it's fully put in place, given that it's already hard pressed to deal with its operating costs today. Metrolinx is looking at prioritizing subway expansion inside and outside Toronto over light-rail options in the city, and that has the potential to threaten the funding for light rail options that are the fastest, most cost-effective method for expanding transportation in this city.

The Yonge and Bloor lines have been a great success, but it's not clear that every subway expansion is really going to help us. The Sheppard subway line was built in an area with low density. Some density has been added, but the reality is that the government subsidy in 2005 for passengers on the Sheppard line was $8 per rider compared with an average subsidy in the rest of Toronto of 47 cents per rider—a huge difference.

If you don't have adequate density, if you don't have the transit lines put where there are people who will be taking the transit on a regular basis, then you stick a huge burden of subsidy on the city or the province. If we're actually going to reshape our transit lines, we have to be reshaping the density that's on those lines or in the region of those lines as we go forward.

If we are going to build an effective regional and local transit system, we have to go back to the drawing board and make sure we reshape the urban form to support it, and we have to make sure we have the bodies—democratically run, transparent, open and accountable—that citizens can actually interact with and call to account when things aren't working properly.

Madam Speaker, I'm sorry to say that I have another committee that I'm going to have to go to.

Interjection: No.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Notwithstanding the cries of distress from my colleagues in this chamber—I know they want so much more. I know you want much more.

Interjection: You're mesmerizing.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I can see that you are mesmerized by the glaze on your eyes.

There are substantial and fundamental problems with this bill. I know it's going to go forward to committee at some point, and maybe in the course of committee hearings some of those things will be sorted out. But at the moment there are very substantial problems that the government needs to address if this bill is actually ever going to be useful in terms of transportation and transit in the greater Toronto area.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey: I'm glad to comment on the member from Toronto—Danforth's comments on Bill 163, and I'm happy to rise in the House today to debate on this legislation which, if passed, would merge GO Transit with Metrolinx and build transit faster and ease congestion, as well as create jobs.

I'm particularly happy because I believe Metrolinx would give the clout necessary to do its job in creating a seamless commuter network to serve the greater Toronto and Hamilton areas. In Brampton, that would mean finally upgrading our GO Georgetown expansion, which would provide all-day, two-way service from downtown Toronto to Brampton and Georgetown. That would be a wonderful thing.

As a former municip