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

February 24, 2011

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2011-Feb-24 (PDF)

L085 - Thu 24 Feb 2011 / Jeu 24 fév 2011

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 24 February 2011 Jeudi 24 février 2011

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION LABOUR DISPUTES RESOLUTION ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LE RÈGLEMENT

DES CONFLITS DE TRAVAIL

À LA COMMISSION DE TRANSPORT

DE TORONTO

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENERGY POLICIES

ENERGY POLICIES

TAXATION

TAXATION

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

DISCLOSURE OF TOXINS

WORKPLACE SAFETY

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

TAXATION

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE /

VIOLENCE FAMILIALE

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

TAXATION

SPECIAL-NEEDS STUDENTS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

TOURISM

MEMBER’S CONDUCT

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PROPERTY RIGHTS

JOB CREATION

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

AGNES MACPHAIL

PUBLIC SPEAKING CONTEST

KRAFT HOCKEYVILLE 2011

HOSPITAL FUNDING

NATIONAL UNITY

PROPERTY RIGHTS

TAXATION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

REQUEST TO INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO BARBER ASSOCIATION ACT, 2011

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT (RENEWAL AND MAINTENANCE

OF SCHOOL FACILITIES), 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L’ÉDUCATION

(RÉFECTION ET ENTRETIEN

DES INSTALLATIONS SCOLAIRES)

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

MEDICAL RESEARCH

AND INNOVATION /

RECHERCHE MÉDICALE

ET INNOVATION

HEART MONTH

MEDICAL RESEARCH

AND INNOVATION

HEART MONTH

HEART MONTH

MEDICAL RESEARCH

AND INNOVATION

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

OPTOMETRISTS

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

HOME WARRANTY PROGRAM

PARAMEDICS

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

PARAMEDICS

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

RURAL SCHOOLS

PARAMEDICS

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES

AMENDMENT ACT

(DAMAGE DEPOSITS), 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

LA LOCATION À USAGE D’HABITATION

(DÉPÔTS POUR DOMMAGES)

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

RAIL SERVICE

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES

AMENDMENT ACT

(DAMAGE DEPOSITS), 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

LA LOCATION À USAGE D’HABITATION

(DÉPÔTS POUR DOMMAGES)

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

RAIL SERVICE

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES

AMENDMENT ACT

(DAMAGE DEPOSITS), 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

LA LOCATION À USAGE D’HABITATION

(DÉPÔTS POUR DOMMAGES)

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION LABOUR DISPUTES RESOLUTION ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LE RÈGLEMENT

DES CONFLITS DE TRAVAIL

À LA COMMISSION DE TRANSPORT

DE TORONTO

Mr. Sousa moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 150,

An Act to provide for the resolution of labour disputes involving the Toronto Transit Commission / Projet de loi 150, Loi prévoyant le règlement des conflits de travail à la Commission de transport de Toronto.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate?

Hon. Charles Sousa: It’s a privilege to rise to speak to Bill 150, the Toronto Transit Commission Labour Disputes Resolution Act.

The legislation we are considering today follows a request by Toronto city council that the TTC be made an essential service. We said we would take this request seriously, and we did; we said we would consult with those affected, and we did; and we said we would act quickly, given the time constraints, and we have.

We have listened to representatives of the city, to the bargaining agents involved and to the Toronto Transit Commission. Most importantly, we have listened to the 1.5 million people who rely on the TTC every business day. That’s 1.5 million reasons why we need to act. This proposed legislation is all about helping the people of Toronto, ensuring their needs are met and protecting their safety, their health and their well-being.

We have received written confirmation from the city of Toronto—from the elected representatives of the people of Toronto—that the city continues to stand behind its motion of December 16, 2010, requesting the province to ban TTC work stoppages. I would like to read part of that motion asking the government of Ontario to acknowledge the truly unique impact that TTC work stoppages have on the city.

The motion adopted by the TTC board on December 15, 2010, stated in part: “Over one million Torontonians rely on the TTC to get to work, school and conduct their lives each day. The city of Toronto is simply not designed to function without an operating ... transit system.…

“TTC strikes are an economic, social and environmental disaster that grinds the entire GTA to a standstill. The cost of transit strikes in Toronto has been estimated to be $50 million per day in lost economic activity. The environmental harm caused by the complete absence of transit and thousands of additional vehicles on the road is incalculable.”

We have said that we would act quickly, given the fact that the agreements between the TTC and its bargaining agents expire on March 31, 2011. The TTC and its workers have a right to know what the rules of this bargaining round will be. And the people of Toronto, speaking through their elected representatives, have a right to ask the province that they be protected from the impact of TTC work stoppages now and in the future. We have the largest city in Canada saying, through their city council, that they need the largest transit system in Canada functioning reliably.

Across this country and over the course of decades, provinces have deemed certain workers essential. In these instances, the appropriate step to take is to have a fair and neutral system of binding arbitration. In Ontario and across Canada, police, firefighters and hospital workers have been considered to be essential to their communities. The city of Toronto has said to us that without their transit system, the city simply cannot function as it should.

Since 1974, members of this chamber have been called upon five times to enact back-to-work legislation for the TTC—five times. Clearly, this speaks to a unique situation in Toronto when it comes to public transit. Clearly, this unique situation has been acknowledged by this House, acknowledged by the people of Toronto and by the people of Ontario. The province’s largest city requires its vital transit system.

There are those who have expressed concern that this bill could result in unionized transit workers receiving higher wages through binding arbitration. I’m sure that members of council are also aware of those concerns. Nevertheless, the city of Toronto made this request. It is important to remember that ultimately the city is responsible for the operation of the TTC and for negotiating with the TTC’s bargaining units. Furthermore, members of this House should know that city council defeated a motion calling on the province to finance any additional cost that the city may incur as a result of their request.

It is not our place to settle specific terms of those collective agreements. Rather, we are here protecting the people of Toronto at their request. Our government believes in the value of collective bargaining. Under this legislation, that important process will continue. The best settlements are those made at the bargaining table. We also know that in cases where society deems the services of certain workers essential to the safety, health and well-being of its people, issues not resolved at the bargaining table are best put before an independent and impartial arbitrator.

This bill, if passed, like all other statutes governing compulsory interest arbitration in the public sector, specifies criteria that arbitrators must consider. In particular, arbitrators would have to consider the employer’s ability to pay and the economic situation in Ontario and Toronto. In general, under this bill, Ontario’s Labour Relations Act would continue to apply to labour relations between the TTC and its union. The parties would still go behind closed doors and negotiate a new collective agreement.

However, in cases where the parties reach an impasse in collective bargaining, outstanding issues would be resolved through the fair and neutral third party process of binding interest arbitration.

As I stated, compulsory interest arbitration is already in place for our police, firefighters and within the hospital sector. Those workers have a right to bargain, and they do bargain. From January 2000 to January 2011, there were more than 6,000 settlements involving parties who are subject to binding arbitration. Almost 80% of those settlements were successfully bargained without progressing to arbitration. I reiterate: The best collective agreements are those reached at the bargaining table. This bill does not take away the right to bargain.

The TTC and its unions are still encouraged to negotiate collective agreements. As always, our provincial mediators are available to assist. Our goal and interest is public safety and health and the well-being of all concerned.

As the provincial government, we have a responsibility to acknowledge the request made by us, by a mature partner government, to consider the impact acting on this request will have on the parties involved, and above all else to ensure that the public interest is met. The bill we are proposing today is the result of these considerations. It is a fair bill, a bill that is neutral, a bill that has the best interests of the people of Toronto in mind.

Binding interest arbitration is a fair and impartial way to resolve collective bargaining issues when they cannot be resolved at the bargaining table. As mentioned, the introduction of this legislation comes after consultations with the city, the TTC and all of the bargaining agents involved. The request from the city and the input provided during consultations was seriously and thoughtfully considered. A request of this nature deserves no less. This is a serious matter. The ability of the 1.5 million people who rely on the TTC every business day to get to work, school, medical appointments and home safely is of paramount importance.

Let’s be clear: This proposed legislation has been introduced to address Toronto’s specific needs and concerns as they relate to its transit system, public health and safety and the economy. We are addressing a truly unique situation. The TTC is North America’s third-largest public transit system. Only those in New York City and Mexico City are larger.

When we speak of the 1.5 million people who ride and rely on the TTC every business day, we should remind ourselves who we are actually speaking about. It is not simply those who choose to take public transit to get to work or travel from one part of the city to another. For many, there is no alternative. There are many without cars. There are those more vulnerable and poor who cannot afford taxis or parking, let alone a car. There are seniors. There are children. There are students. There are many for whom the TTC is not only their primary means of transportation; it is their only means of transportation.

Their destinations are also something we considered. There are health care workers who ride the system to get to their job at hospitals, nursing homes and clinics. With 40 hospitals, 84 long-term-care homes and 21 community care centres across the greater Toronto area, the city of Toronto itself has the largest concentration of hospitals, nursing homes and health care facilities in the entire province and, in fact, in Canada. Many of those who staff these facilities get to work every day by public transit. Without the TTC, many of the people who staff Toronto’s hospitals would have no way to get to work.

We considered the operating rooms and the emergency rooms and the long-term-care facilities and the retirement homes. And what about the many home care health workers who need to get to their patients and clients and rely on the TTC?

The primary job of any government should be the safety, health and well-being of its people, and I believe Toronto’s and Ontario’s record of legislating the TTC back to work shows that the health of Ontarians has been and is a priority for this province. A vital element of our health system is a vital transportation link that health care workers depend on to get to their jobs. To deny that the people of Toronto need the TTC is to deny the reality that the city faces today and the needs of some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

A serious and responsible review of the situation leads fair-minded people to the same conclusion: For the city of Toronto, the disruption and loss of its transit system is far, far more than an inconvenience.

There are other health and safety concerns to take into consideration as well. There are the children and teachers who take the TTC to school. There are the parents struggling to manage their time, who rely on the TTC to get to work to provide for their families. There are the single parents rushing to take their children to daycare. There are those, including many of our most vulnerable, who don’t have cars and need to take the TTC to medical appointments. An important role played by public transit is to make sure that all members of society have access to transportation, not just those with a driver’s licence or those with a car.

This government has been consistent and steadfast in its commitment to our province’s most vulnerable citizens, and in ensuring that we keep Toronto’s transit system running we are standing by them. We have all seen and experienced the packed, congested roads and the major disruptions that accompany them in Toronto when the city has been brought to a near standstill by TTC work stoppages.

These disruptions are not only bad for the economy, they are bad for the environment as well. We know that the fewer cars there are on our roads, the better it is for our environment and our air quality. If we really want to encourage people to go green, to go carless, we can’t at the same time tell them not to count on the largest transit system in our province’s largest city. That just doesn’t work. The TTC helps keep cars off the road and reduces the air pollution that our children, our seniors and those with frail health breathe.

The Toronto Transit Commission estimates that a subway train replaces over 900 cars at peak times on most system routes. The TTC also estimates that, on average, one bus replaces 50 cars, and a four-car Scarborough rapid transit system train at rush hour takes 200 cars off the road. It is obvious that public transit is a key element in our efforts to move to a more green, a more healthy society.

Automobile emissions have a significant impact on the environment, and TTC work stoppages have a major impact on automobile use. A 2008 report prepared for the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113, estimated that without TTC services there would be over 178,000 additional cars on the road in Toronto and about 350,000 new car trips on any given business day. That is truly a lot of added pollution in our air. That is compelling, and truly an impact that the people of Toronto can understandably ask to be protected from. The matter before us includes the environmental as well as the financial impact on our citizens, and the city has expressed concerns to us about these very issues.

Mr. Speaker, 1.5 million people is a big number. Think of it this way: On the average business day, the TTC moves almost twice the number of people who live in the city of Ottawa. The Toronto Transit Commission is indeed unique among Ontario’s urban transit systems. The TTC operates three subway lines and one rapid transit line, with a total of 69 stations, as well as about 150 bus and streetcar surface routes. Together, they move over 470 million passengers a year.

We know from past experience that work disruptions at the TTC severely affect the city’s economy, and we are acutely aware of the importance Toronto has to the province’s economy. Work stoppages at the TTC, according to a city of Toronto staff report issued in 2008, have an estimated economic impact of $50 million every working day. The impact of TTC service disruptions can send economic and environmental shockwaves across this province—that’s at the macro level. On the street level, there are the pharmacy workers who need to get to work to serve customers who depend on their services.

There are the low-income earners who need to get to the job and don’t have cars. There are factories, offices, retail outlets and food stores across our largest city that rely on workers who depend on public transit.

I’ve told the members of this House that Toronto city council made a request, through a resolution, asking that the province designate public transit in Toronto as an essential service. That request, and this proposed legislation, originated with a public need expressed by the city to our government. Our government respects the right of the people of Toronto to address their needs through their elected representatives. Our response to the city of Toronto’s request has taken into consideration the city’s concern regarding the genuinely unique circumstances of Toronto and its transit system.

As I’ve explained, these circumstances include the critical role the TTC plays in the lives of Torontonians and, indeed, in ensuring their health and safety.

Members of this House know that this proposed legislation addresses a unique and serious public need that has been addressed in this chamber before. I’ve spoken about the need to pass back-to-work legislation five times since 1974. We have to consider that while we were preparing and passing that legislation, the people of Toronto were left stranded. It’s obvious for anyone to see that this is the reason Torontonians have come to us, through their city council, and asked for help.

Our government firmly believes in the right of collective bargaining. We believe that the best collective agreements are those reached at the bargaining table. This proposed legislation would not take away or limit the right to bargain collectively. As I’ve already stated, when bargaining reaches difficult stages, our professional provincial mediators at the Ministry of Labour are available to assist the parties in reaching an agreement. This legislation would only prohibit strikes and lockouts. Nothing in this bill would prevent the parties from engaging in bargaining to resolve their collective agreements.

Our bill would provide a fair and neutral means to resolve bargaining impasses: binding arbitration—the very same basic means of resolving impasses used by our police, our firefighters and our hospital workers.

The people of the city of Toronto are in the best position to determine how vital the TTC is to their lives. We have carefully considered the request of Toronto city council and consulted with the city, the TTC and its bargaining agents. After carefully and seriously reviewing the request, the reasons for it and the reality of the circumstances, we have responded in a way that is fair and measured.

I’ve already said that this is not about taking sides; it is about acting in response and in a responsible way to the people of Toronto and their council’s request. It is about looking out for the people of Toronto. That includes first and foremost looking out for their safety, their health and their well-being. It’s about listening to the people of Toronto and their concern about the ability of their city to function effectively without the loss of their vital public transit system.

We have also had to consider that the contract between the TTC and its unionized workers will expire on March 31 of this year. With our proposed legislation, the parties would have a stable means of settling unresolved collective bargaining issues. More importantly, the public would have the benefit of uninterrupted access to vital TTC services.

Our government is proud of our record on labour issues. That’s because our government has restored fairness and balance to labour relations. This Legislature would no longer have to resort to last-minute, ad hoc back-to-work legislation in order to resolve TTC labour disputes while the people of Ontario’s largest city are left stranded.

Most recently, on a Sunday in 2008, all parties of this Legislature joined together to get the TTC up and running again. The PCs and the NDP have joined with our government to end strikes in the past, to ensure that the people of Toronto would have the transit system they rely on restored without further delay. Clearly, at the time the best decision was to legislate binding-interest arbitration, and it has been the best decision on four other occasions. All parties in this House have previously agreed that TTC work stoppages are unacceptable.

Now that the Toronto city council has made the request to permanently avoid disruptions, it is time for action. This bill would foster stable labour relations and uninterrupted provisions of service by the TTC.

The city of Toronto motion requesting this legislation has also asked that a mandatory review of the legislation take place after five years. We listened, and so our bill calls for such a review to take place within one year of the fifth anniversary of its coming into force.

We have carefully and seriously considered the request from the city of Toronto to prohibit work stoppages on the TTC. We have consulted with the city, the TTC and its unions. We have considered the prior actions by all parties of this Legislature. We have listened to the people of Toronto, the province’s largest city, say they need the largest transit system in Ontario to function without interruption so that the people can get through their day safely in a healthy environment and get to work. We have listened; we have acted responsibly in introducing this bill.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I respect the Minister of Labour in his new role. Mr. Sousa is a very excellent speaker and, clearly, reading the speech as accurately as possible in terms of this government’s position on the right to strike and the rights of unions at the stroke of a pen.

I think it’s the right thing to do. As we all know, in the last few years there have been circumstances where governments have been called back to in fact return the transit workers back to work. I think the other argument you could make in this whole scheme of things is that the arbitrated settlements are often higher. This is a cost, of course, that in a general sense is on the levy of the municipal level of the city of Toronto, certainly.

But I guess I have to look back at the contradictions. The member from Don Valley East earlier this year had a far-reaching intrusion into workplace harmony, if you will, saying that all transit systems should be dealt with this way. I wonder if, in his response, the minister might approach that because transit is kind of a number one capital investment that is going on. The amount of money being spent with Metrolinx—it’s my understanding that Metrolinx and those capital investments are basically monopoly positions.

They’re quite tenuous, too, because when you look at, for instance, the GO train—I take the GO as much as possible, not every day but most days. I get a pass and stuff like that. There’s CN, and that’s a different worker situation. Then they’ve got the GO people on the trains themselves. They don’t actually operate the trains. They just take tickets and check tickets, basically. It’s quite complicated, who you’re ordering back to work or how you’re going to settle all these disputes because some of them are federally regulated organizations.

I think this is an approach to respond to Mr. Ford, and I’m anxious to hear our critic respond to Bill 150 this morning.

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

Mr. Paul Miller: I’d like to first of all say that I don’t envy the position of the new minister. He has to deal with this. I frankly think that this is simply a political move by the Liberal Party to salvage their 20 seats in Toronto. Speaking from a labour background, I can say that if it wasn’t for unions and for their bargaining over the last 60 years, people would probably be working for about $9 an hour and working 14 hours a day. I also believe that this legislation will set unions back 60 years.

If you saw what happened yesterday in Minnesota—they caught a governor talking to someone who was pretending to be a big executive for Coke, I believe, and he didn’t say very nice things about working people in his state and he didn’t say very nice things about unions.

Is this the mentality of the hierarchy of governments? I’m not sure. I think what you’re getting here—I also have papers here, which I will read further down the road as we discuss this, that the former leader of the Conservatives doesn’t think it’s a good idea. I will quote him on pages of why he thinks it’s not such a good idea.

I can safely say that this is simply a political move to salvage seats. I think you’re not—

Interjections.

Mr. Paul Miller: Please. I don’t want to see one Liberal stand up and say they respect collective bargaining. I don’t want to see one Liberal say they respect unions because they don’t. That’s a farce. It’s not true. They’re going to set unions back 50 to 60 years with this manoeuvre. I really think that they’re using intimidation; Ford is using intimidation and the Liberals are using intimidation to squash the unions’ rights and squash unions throughout North America—

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

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: I’m pleased to rise in support.

I appreciate the member opposite’s perspective. I think it’s important to recognize that this request comes from the council for the city of Toronto, who have made a decision that they would like to declare the TTC an essential service and they have asked us to put in place the necessary requirements for them to be able to do this. So what we said we would do is we would take this under serious consideration. We did have the conversations that took place with union members and also with members of council, and we decided to support the decision of the elected people of the city of Toronto.

I think this is a really important part to recognize. There was an election in the fall. A municipal election took place, and there were proposals put forward. This was one of the proposals that had been spoken about all across the city of Toronto. The people of Toronto also spoke and they voted in a particular council. This resolution went to the council. It was debated at council.

I’m sure my honoured friend across the way had an opportunity to speak and articulate his positions to that council, as many other folks have been able to do, but the council ultimately made a decision, and they are the elected individuals who govern the city of Toronto. What we were able to do was support that decision through the request, after we did our due diligence. So I think it’s really important that as we move forward it is recognized that the city of Toronto and the councillors have asked for this.

They are the ones who will then proceed as they move towards the essential service, and the conversations need to be held between the city of Toronto and the TTC membership.

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Let me begin by congratulating the new Minister of Labour on introducing his first bill into the Legislature. I can remember having had that privilege when we were elected in 1995.

It’s interesting to see this legislation come forward. I think, as has been said, this legislation is here before us to declare the TTC an essential service based on the fact that it has been requested by Mayor Ford and the Toronto city council. Obviously, it needs to move forward before the end of next month, and if you take a look at the response from the public—if you look at the Toronto Sun today, it says, “Are you happy with the province’s legislation to declare the TTC an essential service?” There are 86% of the people that have indicated that they do support this.

So obviously this is something—this move which we are now going to be debating, to declare the TTC is an essential service, is strongly supported by the people in the city of Toronto. So it’s moving forward, and I’m anxious to hear from our critic—the critic for labour—who will be sharing with the public and with this House our position on this legislation. But you know, regardless, this is an issue that is currently obviously well supported by the public.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The Minister of Labour has two minutes for his response.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you for the contributions by the members from Durham, Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, Etobicoke Centre and Kitchener–Waterloo. In regard to the request before us by the city of Toronto, it is unique in its nature to the province. It doesn’t affect other municipalities or other agreements with other locations. It’s strictly with regard to the TTC and the request by the city of Toronto, given the unique nature of the scope and size of the Toronto Transit Commission and the vital impact it has not just on the livelihoods and well-being of the people in the city of Toronto, but also on the health and safety issues.

I do want to comment on the rights of workers and the impacts it has and the fact that the collective agreements are continuing to be the course in regards to what we put forward. If an impasse occurs, then it goes to an arbitrator, but we are still going to respect the collective agreement process. We still encourage the collective agreement by which to proceed. We believe it’s the best way when we achieve settlements. In the majority of cases where essential services legislation exists, over 80% of the time those collective agreements are agreed to and they do occur. We always support that process, and we’ll have our professional mediators available should ever that be required.

Again, further to the comments made by some of the other members in this Legislature, this does come to us as an official request by the elected officials of the city of Toronto, based on the calls and the demands from their constituents. Given the severe impact it has on all people concerned, we have opted to proceed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

Mr. Randy Hillier: It’s wonderful to welcome the new Minister of Labour with his first new bill, Bill 150,

An Act to provide for the resolution of labour disputes involving the Toronto Transit Commission.

I have to commend the minister, first off. Obviously, he has pretty significant skills, as he spoke with such clarity while having a crow in his mouth, because we all know that just a few months ago there was an essential services bill before the House by a member of the minister’s own party, the member for Don Valley East. He brought in a bill to make the TTC an essential service and of course, he got absolutely no support from this Liberal government. But the minister was very clear in his articulation of the importance of this now priority for this little government.

I think it’s really interesting to hear that it is now a priority. This is a priority after seven years of being in government—seven and a half years.

Mr. John O’Toole: It seems longer.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Yes, much longer, on the backs of many people of Ontario.

In seven years, we have seen such a host of Liberal priorities: banning plastic bags, banning pit bulls, banning how many kids can be in the car. But now this is the priority.

I realize that—the minister makes some good arguments for this. We have had five labour disruptions with the TTC over the last number of years. There have been 11 lost days on the TTC. Who knows how many days would have been lost if the Legislature had not come back and voted on back-to-work legislation? But all of a sudden, this is now a priority. Why was it not a priority in 2008 when there was the last labour disruption? Where was the Liberal mindset then? Where was it a couple of months ago, with the member for Don Valley East?

But I will have to also commend—because it’s not too often we see this from the Liberal government—that this government is now responding to the requests and the desires of a municipal government. I have to give you credit for that. Here we have a resolution passed by the Toronto council, clearly in line with the mandate that Mayor Rob Ford ran on and was elected on in the municipal election, to make the TTC an essential service, and this government is moving on that. On that, I commend you.

Again, I’m not sure, because we have seen so many requests by municipal governments for many, many action items from this Liberal government that fall on deaf ears. But this one seems to have caught the government’s attention. Now, I guess somebody who might be cynical might suggest that it has something to do with the election this year. I don’t know if that was really the motivator behind this bill: the Liberal government’s own political fortunes or misfortunes that will happen this year.

When we talk about the request by municipal governments, many of them have made many representations to this Liberal government about the essential services and the labour laws that we presently have in place and the difficulties that they have in finding the funds to pay for the essential services. Anyway, we’ll get into that in a little bit.

The PC party did support, on second reading, the private member’s bill of the member from Don Valley East when he proposed an essential services bill for the TTC, and we do support Mayor Rob Ford’s efforts to respect the taxpayers of Toronto and to uphold his election mandate and commitments.

I want to get into a few of the details that aren’t in the bill or haven’t been addressed by this Liberal government, and I’d like to hear the minister’s response to why these things aren’t included in this legislation.

The first one I want to talk about is, here we have the TTC being designated as an essential service. It’s clearly a hub for public transit, serving many, many people. He talks about the 1.5 million riders of the TTC. He talks about the numbers of people in Toronto. But of course, what we also have to look at is all the feeders to the TTC. They’re not being declared essential services under this legislation.

If you’re on one side of Steeles, public transit is essential. On the other side of Steeles, public transit isn’t quite so essential in this legislation. Public transit in Ottawa and London is not essential under this legislation, but it is in Toronto. The TTC is defined as essential. I’d like to know what it is in this government’s mindset that makes the TTC stand in a different light than all the other public transit systems.

The other thing is, we have our own government of Ontario transit that feeds into the TTC, our GO system. Why is it not essential? Of course, the GO system is a major feeder into the TTC, a major mover of commuters. But there’s no discussion, no mention, no talk of the importance of GO Transit.

I’m glad to see the minister taking notes on what we’re speaking about here today, because I do believe these are important elements that need to be addressed, need to be spoken about and need to be rectified if there are failings within this legislation.

Of course, we will have time after second reading to have this bill in committee, explore those questions in some greater detail and see why people, the families in York region, are viewed in a different light than the people in Toronto, why the people in Mississauga are viewed in a different light than the people in Toronto and also why those other transit systems around the province, like I mentioned—London, Ottawa; they have all endured public transit strikes as well. The last one in Ottawa was a very significant, lengthy public transit strike.

It caused a significant disruption in the middle of winter, but they didn’t get back-to-work legislation then, and they’re not included in this bill today.

I also want to speak about the binding arbitration aspect of this bill. The government has extracted a standard clause in the bill from other labour legislation, and that is on the criteria that require the arbitrator to consider the ability to pay of the city of Toronto and also the province of Ontario. This is a standard clause. We see it in every other essential services bill—those for police and firefighters.

I want to ask the minister this question specifically, because when I was being briefed by your officials yesterday—we know that the Ministry of Labour has received many, many undertakings and requests to have your arbitrators respect that intent of the ability to pay.

I’ve heard it directly from all the municipal governments in my area, and I’m sure every member has heard it from every municipality in their own riding, that the arbitrator’s view is that the ability to pay is not a restriction; the ability to pay is viewed as the ability to tax, and as long as you have the ability to tax, you have an endless ability to pay. We’ve seen this—and this is a fear and a concern that has been addressed by others, including yourself, and by Mayor Rob Ford, that an essential service increases the cost of that service.

That is one of the key reasons why, when we designate an essential service as such—the arbitrators don’t recognize the difference between ability to pay and ability to tax.

So we know, we have a long history, demonstrated time and time again by all our municipal governments, that this clause is not strong enough; this clause is not respected; the intent is not brought forward. But what has this government done? It has disregarded those years of concerns, the endless number of resolutions and discussions, and has taken that exact, same clause that causes problems elsewhere and inserted it into a new piece of legislation.

I believe that if this government was and is truly interested in bringing forward a good piece of legislation that respects the taxpayers of Toronto, respects the commuters, respects the mandate of the elected council, instead of rushing this bill into the House on the first day back, they would have taken a little time to see how they could strengthen that clause so that the ability to pay is not confused with the ability to tax.

I trust—because you’ve heard this from others—that there must be some working group within the ministry looking at some legal language to improve that clause. I would like the minister to explain to us why that clause has not been strengthened, why this bill has been brought in prematurely, if you are indeed working on strengthening that clause. Or is it the case that you’re just not working on that language at all, that you’re just not interested, that you just don’t care. I trust and hope that that isn’t the case. But if you are working on that language, then it is premature to bring this bill in. You should have waited a period of time to make sure you got things right.

I also want to mention—we know that the justification for this bill should be the request from the elected Toronto city council. That’s what the motivation should be. That’s where the request came from. When I was listening to your speech, I heard these words about priorities and different things, but I also heard that you are doing this because it’s green. Did everybody hear that? They’re bringing this bill in because it’s green. Now, I don’t know when we started confusing green with labour and green with collective bargaining. I know there’s some confusion with green and windmills and different things, but now labour legislation is going to be green. That’s a new one in the House.

I guess I should say, as we’ve seen demonstrated, especially in the last number of months with the backtracks on the offshore wind and the backtracks on the microFIT programs, be careful of any bloody green contract you get into with this Liberal government, because it’s not worth the paper that it’s written on.

I’m not sure what’s going on with the green transit plan and the green energy plan, but we do know that whenever the word “green” comes out of this Liberal government, chaos is sure to follow shortly afterwards.

There are a number of things that do need to be addressed in this legislation: once again, other public transit systems that feed into the TTC, the ability to pay and criteria so that it is not confused with the ability to tax. I really think we should get off the high green horse here. I know the GO trains are green but, really, this is not a green bill.

We should not confuse people with the intent, the expectations and the motivations of this bill. This bill will hopefully end the disruption of commuters and stem the economic loss when those disruptions happen, but it’s going to come with a cost; we’re not sure what that is. We’ve seen that the government has not really put anything in there to protect the taxpayers of Toronto.

I guess the other thing we should say—I have to agree with the member from Hamilton, from the third party. As we hear the Liberals stand up and boast about how much they embrace collective bargaining on the same day that they’re bringing in a binding-interest arbitration bill, we have to take that with a little bit of crow; there are a few feathers that are coming out of the windpipes on that one as well.

Let’s keep it to the facts, let’s keep it truthful and let’s keep it honest. Let’s deliver up a good piece of legislation that serves and benefits those who it’s intended to without harming those who are left out of the bill.

With that, I’d like to hear back from the minister on those comments, those thoughts, on how we’re going to deal with those subjects. I look forward to hearing a response.

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

Mr. Peter Kormos: I’m going to be beginning my one-hour lead in response to the minister in relatively short order, in approximately 10 minutes’ time. Obviously, I’ll only be able to start; I won’t be able to finish it.

New Democrats don’t support this legislation. Quite frankly, we’re not surprised at the position taken by the Conservatives. Their position is consistent with a perspective and a philosophy that they’ve been articulate about and unashamed of for a good chunk of time. I disagree absolutely. New Democrats disagree absolutely with the position the Conservatives take, but on this issue, we’ve always disagreed. And I say that the Conservatives come to this debate—with however erroneous a position and philosophically flawed a position—with a history of integrity around the issue, because they’ve never pretended to be anything but in the position that they stand.

The Liberals, however, come to this debate with far less than candour and, quite frankly, with a level of cowardice, gutlessness, because when I hear the Liberal minister or one of his minions in the backbenches stand up and say, “Why, don’t shoot the messenger. We’re only doing this because the city of Toronto wants us to do it. Perhaps—we’re leaving this for you to guess—we don’t really believe in it.” It’s a hell of a way to make public policy.

Mayor Ford wants a prohibition on strikes by TTC workers. Well, look: My city council down in Wainfleet wants this government to add $100 a month to the food allowance of people on social assistance. The township of Wainfleet passed a resolution to that effect just a couple of weeks ago; I read it onto the record yesterday. Where is the government with respect to that proposition?

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

Mr. Joe Dickson: I do wish to respond to the previous speaker.

It’s very interesting that when we were introducing legislation in response to a request from Toronto city council to declare the Toronto Transit Commission an essential service and refer all outstanding collective bargaining matters to binding arbitration—I think a lot of people here in this place this morning forget that there is a new city of Toronto council. If you respect democracy, then so be it. It is in place. Let Mayor Rob Ford and let the members of Toronto city council proceed as they see is the correct direction. They have done that, obviously after a lot of discussion and thought.

They are proceeding in that direction and have asked us to proceed, in this Legislature, with that legislation. It’s very important.

I think you heard very clearly this morning from the Minister of Labour how intricate the work has been and the references between all parties; that all parties are being included for due diligence. That message is coming forward to this forum.

I can tell you that I was surprised when I actually noted, from one of the opposition members, a reference to a Toronto media report which showed that 86% of the people of the city of Toronto—and there are 1.5 million riders—said, at 86%, “We want to have this legislated. We don’t want the embarrassment, the trials, the tribulations and everything that has transpired in the past.” It’s something we—

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

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to add a few comments to the member for Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington’s. The honourable member spoke in reply to the minister’s proposed Bill 150. I think he gave a good synopsis of some of our concerns with this bill.

I know one of the issues I have is the arbitrators taking into account the municipality’s ability to pay. It seems kind of odd. I did some interviews just in the last couple of days with some of the press back home in my riding. I know that’s a big issue there and in the London ridings as well. I’m sure we’re going to hear about it next week at OGRA, the Ontario Good Roads Association, and ROMA, where municipalities are going to come.

I’m sure that that issue, the ability to pay—arbitrators taking into account a municipality’s ability to pay and not continually just telling the taxpayers to ante up and to put the tax rate up, to put the mill rate up to pay these bills. That’s something I’m going to be looking at and I’m sure that we’re going to have a lot to say as we go forward on that.

On the big issue, ability to pay, the criteria, we feel, in this bill are lacking in enough detail that they should be interpreted. The arbitrators apparently feel that they couldn’t take any guidance on that because then they would be being dictated to by the province. They won’t seem to listen to the municipalities who, at the end of the day, bear the brunt of their decisions.

I would urge the rest of the members, as we look at this bill, that we consider amendments to it, that we try to strengthen it and take into account—let’s take a look at giving these arbitrators, if they won’t take our advice, a stronger urge that way, that they take into account the ability of the employer to pay.

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

Mr. Paul Miller: I want to send a strong message to the people across the floor that this is not just about the ATU. You’ve got to understand that there are different unions within the ATU; you’ve got machinists, mechanics, CUPE workers. Do you think that by this forced legislation, this lack of transparency to talk about it with all these other groups, it’s going to do you justice? I think not.

Do you think that’s going to end a strike? Have you ever heard of work-to-rule? Have you ever heard of other disruptions that unions can do if they’re not happy with what’s going on? If you think this is just going to clean off unions with one stroke of the brush, it’s not going to happen.

I’m sending out a warning to every card-carrying union member in Ontario and, more importantly, every union leadership: You should pay very close attention to what’s going on here. Mr. McGuinty will strip you of whatever he wishes to for his own political gain. Stop supporting anti-union governments. Send Dalton McGuinty and his Liberal union-busters a strong message next October.

If you see what’s going on in the States, in Minnesota, watch in the next few days what develops there, the mentality of the government leader there and the little phone discussion that they taped that he had.

There’s a North American movement to break the backs of union members, and there’s a North American movement by industry and big business to make everybody work for $11 an hour. And do you know what’s going to happen? Who’s going to buy those houses, fridges, stoves and cars when you’re working for $11 an hour? Nobody. This is going to have a negative effect, it’s going to be non-productive and it’s going to come back and bite you all in your taxes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The honourable member for Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington has two minutes for his response.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I’d like to thank the member for Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, the member for Sarnia–Lambton, the member for Welland and—who else did we have?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Ajax.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Ajax–Pickering. Thank you.

I think there are good comments coming from the third party as well. I’ll just reflect a little bit on my time when I was a member of a union, when I was a member of the IBEW. At that time, we had a little adage that a union got the employer it deserved, and the employer got the union it deserved.

The member for Hamilton East–Stoney Creek made a good point. Passing legislation does not create labour harmony. It doesn’t do that at all. It does create some certainty. It creates some stability. But it doesn’t create labour harmony.

I do believe that what we’ve seen in the last number of years, in the last decade or so, is that our public sector unions have not kept up to pace with our private sector unions. Very seldom do we see private sector unions going on strike nowadays in relation to our public sector unions, and that speaks to a bigger, broader principle and failing that this government has not looked at in this bill. It has not looked at, in the total context, how we bring our public sector unions—move them along in the same vein as the private sector unions, recognizing that strikes are not the be-all and end-all; that there needs to be some labour harmony.

But I am looking forward to the minister’s response on those other questions that I offered earlier.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

Mr. Peter Kormos: Thank you kindly, Speaker. Unfortunately, as you know, I’ve only got 10 minutes this morning until you have to adjourn for question period, but I’ll be back, I suspect, on Monday afternoon.

I want to make it clear once again at the outset that New Democrats are not supporting this legislation. We’ll have no part of what is an assault, and part of a history of assaults, on the rights and interests of working people in this province, across this country and, indeed, throughout North America over the course of the last, yes, almost two decades.

I was prompted to recall the old RCA Victor ad, the painting of the Victrola with the big horn speaker and the dog, the little fox terrier, sitting at the Victrola with its nose into the horn of the Victrola. The title of that painting—it was an ad before the time of many of you, but when I was a kid, RCA Victor used this as its logo, as its promotional piece, and had since the 1920s. It was an ad with this little dog, a terrier, sitting in front of the Victrola, and it was entitled His Master’s Voice.

Now we learn that Rob Ford is the master and the minister is but his voice. I learned that the name of the dog is Nipper, if that’s any comfort to the minister. So I say to the minister, or Nipper, as he more appropriately ought to be known, that we clearly hear him and his colleagues saying, “Don’t blame us.” They’re like the little boy who soiled the bed. They insist they have nothing to do with it in the morning. “Don’t blame us. It wasn’t me. I wasn’t there. It’s all that Rob Ford.” Hell’s bells, as if any of these people were out there campaigning for Rob Ford during that mayoralty election.

This chamber, of course, wasn’t sitting, but Parliament was absent any Liberal members. They were all out there campaigning for one George Smitherman, the losing candidate. I’m not sure Smitherman’s position would have been any different than Rob Ford’s at the end of the day because Smitherman, of course, got himself into a campaign where he had to out-right-wing Rob Ford. He couldn’t outweigh him in the ring, but he had to out-right-wing him, although he probably tried in both respects.

So here we have Rob Ford calling the shots for Queen’s Park. I find that a remarkable thing to happen, a very disturbing thing to happen, and one hell of a way to set public policy that has impact far beyond the city of Toronto and far beyond the ATU and its sister and brother unions representing working women and men at the Toronto Transit Commission.

Let’s not make this mistake either: It’s not about the ATU and its membership. It’s not about the membership in those sister and brother unions of workers who work for the TTC. It’s not about any given union leader or how he or she combs their hair or how their communications people tell them to speak to the matter in the press and in public.

This is about rolling the clock back in the province of Ontario. It’s about this government, McGuinty’s Liberal government, and his gang in cabinet jumping on that right-wing bandwagon that’s spread across North America where—who becomes the target? Not the Conrad Blacks. And, by God, it did take the Americans to put him in jail; Canada could never get the guts to do it. The target is not the Conrad Blacks, not the Bernie Madoffs, not the stock manipulators and the money traders. It’s not the big banks. Good Lord thundering—the big banks have their best friends sitting right here in the executive council.

The big banks, every one of them profitable—I know it every time I get nickelled and dimed by one of those thug banks at the teller’s cage and every time I see their ever-growing profits, notwithstanding difficult economic times throughout the rest of the economy. These are the big banks. These are the friends of this government, the big banks that got themselves a multi-billion dollar corporate tax cut while working women and men got the HST, skyrocketing electricity prices and now an all-out frontal attack on fundamental rights.

I said this the other day, and I want to say it again. It’s necessary that we lead off this discussion, this conversation, by making this point very, very clearly: In any free and democratic society, the most fundamental right is the right of any working woman or man to withhold their labour, and when that right is denied, a fundamental freedom has been put under attack, and nobody here should take any pride at being present during this dark hour and participating in this despicable practice of targeting working women and men.

Good God. Some talentless rock star earns themselves another million or hundred million or billion dollars more a year and they get on the front page of Maclean’s and Time magazine, and they’re celebrated as some kind of folk hero. When a working woman or man wants a nickel- or 10-cent-an-hour wage increase, they’re vilified as being greedy and slothful and lazy. What horse feathers. What a perversion.

And it can’t be said often enough, least of all during this debate, that if it weren’t for the existence of trade unions and the trade union movement or unionized workers here in the province of Ontario, across this country and throughout North America, by God, there wouldn’t have been, ever in our history, a working middle class. There wouldn’t have been a need for the blossoming of universities and colleges during that great period of democratization of post-secondary education in the late 1960s, a period I remember well.

Because the modest affluence acquired by unionized working women and men was what enabled their kids to go to college and university. The modest affluence won and earned by unionized working women and men is what made it possible for that working middle class to pay far more than their fair share of taxes, but that meant building those schools and colleges and universities—yes, and hospitals and health care, amongst those other public things that make all our lives safer and healthier.

I’m sure we’ll have occasion to revisit it in the course of the next hour, and as I wind up for the purpose of this morning, let me present to you another very obvious theme in this whole debate.

One regrets the refusal of this government to acknowledge that not only is it rolling back the clock when it comes to the rights of workers in this province, working women and men, rolling back the hard-won victories of working people over the course of decades and generations here in the province of Ontario and across this country, across North America, but it’s also encouraging, nurturing, a labour relations era that is bound to have more conflict, more discord, more strife and far less productivity.

Back to the submissions made before Mr. Justice Rand back in 1967-68 when he was conducting the Rand commission: Mr. Justice Rand had been to Australia, and he had witnessed the Australians’ fascination with compulsory arbitration as a dispute resolution means. Let me tell you, that was long before dispute resolution as a science had even been titled that, had even had its label, had even earned its slot in academia and in practice, in the real world as well as in the world of research and academia.

But Australians were telling Rand, Australian scholars were telling Rand, one of them being Kingsley Laffer, senior lecturer in economics at the University of Sydney: “In important sections of the industry arbitration seems to be retarding rather than assisting the development of good industrial relations—”arbitration retarding rather than assisting the development of good industrial relations.

The observation made by the Ontario Federation of Labour in their submission to Rand during his conduct of that commission pointed out that arbitration—listen to this, please—“Arbitration is no substitute for free collective bargaining. Where both sides know that arbitration is the terminal destination of bargaining, then the vitality and calibre of collective bargaining is greatly weakened.”

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist, in the year 2011, to know that a dispute that is negotiated to resolution by the parties collaboratively generates a resolution that is healthier, more robust and has a far greater likelihood of voluntary compliance by both parties, in contrast to imposed third-party resolutions.

I’ll carry on with this when I next have the floor, which I suspect will be Monday afternoon coming.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): It being past 10:15 of the clock, this House is recessed until 10:30 a.m., at which time we will have question period.

The House recessed from 1016 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’d like to introduce two Rwandan youth ambassadors, their chaperone and staff from World Vision. Welcome to Rachel Uwamahoro, Ivan Gatete and Nadine Mujawamariya. They are here on a month-long educational tour of Canada. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Michael Prue: I would like to introduce Michelle Fernandes and her husband, who are here to watch the proceedings today. They’re from Beaches–East York.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park today, seated in the Speaker’s gallery, Scott Reid, the member of Parliament for Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Minister, the McGuinty government’s policies continue to make an expensive mess out of our hydro system, and you don’t respect the fact that Ontario families have to pay the bills at the end of the day. Minister, before the last election, you announced a moratorium on industrial wind farms as an election ploy. After the election, you brought in the Green Energy Act, which effectively stripped away the ability of local communities to have a say over projects in their hometowns. Why won’t the McGuinty Liberals respect Ontario families and give them a say over whether they want projects in their communities or not?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The Leader of the Opposition has lots of opinions about the efforts we’ve made over the last seven years to turn around an ugly energy legacy—his dirty, unreliable, outdated energy system—into a clean, reliable, modern system that Ontario families can count on. He’s once again sitting on the sidelines chirping as he remains afraid to talk about his own energy plans. Why doesn’t he talk about his plan for energy? Maybe it’s because he doesn’t support our clean energy benefit that is taking 10% off of families’ bills beginning in January. How would he explain that to Ontario families?

Maybe it’s because he’d have to explain why he continues to oppose our efforts to get out of coal and build a healthier future for our kids and grandkids.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition: Bring out your plan. Let workers and Ontario families know—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I do hope that the minister’s rather sophomoric answers will come to an end and he’ll address the essence of my question. Minister, as you know, almost a year ago the Ontario PC caucus called for a moratorium on your expensive wind and solar projects in communities where they’re not welcome. We said to restore local decision-making to democratically elected councils, and we said to make sure rates were affordable to Ontario families who have to pay the bills. You voted against it, and today you’re announcing that you’re shoving more projects down the throats of communities who don’t want them.

Will you do the right thing, Minister? Will you restore local decision-making and will you support the Ontario PC Party call for a moratorium on these projects?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I was delighted this morning to announce that we’re moving forward with 40 new large-scale renewable energy projects that are contributing $3 billion in private sector investment into our economy, 7,000 direct and indirect jobs being created. I think what those workers want to know, what Ontario families deserve to know, is: Are you going to kill those 7,000 jobs too? Are you going to try to undo all the work we have been doing with Ontario families to build a clean, modern, reliable energy system?

The Leader of the Opposition refuses to come forward with his plans. It’s because he wants to kill those 7,000 jobs that we announced this morning. He wants to kill the 13,000 jobs we created last year. He wants to kill the billions of dollars of private sector investment that we’ve brought into our clean energy economy. Come clean with Ontario families—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The members will please come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, please come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. Minister of Finance. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Minister, you just don’t get it. Municipal councils can have their say about the location of a Tim Hortons. They can have their say about the location of a 7-Eleven. But when it comes to your expensive industrial wind farms that could be several football fields in length, you believe that Premier McGuinty knows best; you believe that Minister Duguid knows best. We believe that local, democratically elected municipal councils know what’s best for their communities. Minister, not only that, but you have signed very expensive energy schemes that are driving up rates: 80 cents per kilowatt hour when the price of power in the marketplace is a nickel.

Minister, you know your projects have gone badly off the rails. Will you do the right thing and clear out the moratorium until you fix up your expensive energy mess? Do the right thing.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members will please come to order.

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Thousands of Ontario families are participating in our clean energy programs. Thousands are benefiting from our feed-in tariff wind and solar programs. But this is what the member for Simcoe–Grey had to say early on in February. This is what he said: “We’re not going to sign any more of these FIT contracts.... Those days will be gone.” Then this is what he mused: He mused about ripping up these contracts and he said, “Whoever gets a contract now, enjoy it while you have it.”

This is the kind of disrespect the PCs have for farmers, this is the kind of arrogance that party has for Ontario families, and I know Ontario families and farmers are going to reject that arrogance. I know Ontario families and farmers want to build a cleaner, modern, reliable energy system and see right through that Leader of the Opposition.

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Tim Hudak: Minister, I think people see right through you and your expensive energy mess you’ve created in the province. Come on. You have declared a moratorium so you can save your own seat in Scarborough when it comes to offshore projects. People know what this is all about. You made a decision to save your own skin and you said to other communities across the province, “You’re on your own.”

Minister, you did a moratorium on offshore. You seem to care about the health of the fish and the birds and the creatures of deep blue sea. What about people living in communities across the province? Make it the same. Call a halt and fix your expensive energy mess.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I can understand why the Leader of the Opposition is afraid. He’s absolutely afraid to share his energy plans with Ontario families, because how are you going to explain to Ontario families why you don’t support our efforts, with our clean energy benefit, to take 10% off their bills? How are you going to explain to Ontario farmers—and I’m assuming you support the comments of the member from Simcoe–Grey—that you’re going to rip up their contracts and leave them out to dry? How are you going to explain that to Ontario farmers?

While you’re at it, what are you going to say to the thousands of workers who are working in our clean energy economy across this province? What are you going to say to them about the fact that you’re going to kill their jobs at a time when they need them most?

He laughs, he gives his smug smile, but nothing comes out because he’s afraid to talk to those workers. He’s afraid to tell Ontario families what he’s all about. I’ll leave it there.

Interjections.

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

Mr. Robert Bailey: The people of Ontario don’t agree with you guys.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Sarnia–Lambton would be best in his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister of Infrastructure, please come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister of Finance and the Minister of Community Safety.

I’d just remind the honourable member from Oxford as far as using any sort of props. The same holds true for the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Is the knife in Norm’s back a prop?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister of Finance.

Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Well, Minister, this is what I say to the people of Ontario: The McGuinty government has made an expensive mess out of our hydro system, rates are going through the roof and it’s time for change in the province of Ontario.

Do you know what, Minister? Your Premier and you had the gall to say to the people in Smithville, to say to the people in Elgin, to say to the people in Middlesex, to say to the people in eastern Ontario that if they opposed the projects, they were NIMBYs. You had the gall to say they couldn’t stand up for what they believed in and that the Premier knew best. Well, there’s a new phrase for you, Minister; it’s called NIMSIAR: not if my seat is at risk. That’s why you made your decision on offshore energy plans.

Why don’t you have it the same throughout the province? Get this program right. Make sure rates are affordable and that they’re in communities where they’re welcomed and wanted. Won’t you do the right thing?

Hon. Brad Duguid: If the PC Party actually cared about helping Ontario families with their cost of living, they would not have voted against reducing electricity bills by 10% through our clean energy benefit, and they would not, frankly, have voted against our tax cuts for 93% of Ontarians. They’re all show.

If the PC Party actually cared about building a bright future for Ontario families, they would not have plans to kill thousands of clean energy jobs that Ontario families are counting on. If the PC Party actually cared about strengthening and modernizing our electricity system, they would not be opposing every investment we’ve made to clean up the mess that they’ve left behind.

Ontario families deserve to know. Where is your energy plan? Why are you afraid to tell Ontario families what you really think and what you’re going to do? Why are you afraid to tell Ontario families who—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Minister, if I’ve said it once, I’ve said it 100,000 times. This is how you should proceed: Make sure projects that you sign are affordable to the seniors, to the families, to the small businesses who have to pay the bills. And make sure any of these projects are in communities where they’re welcome, because the industrial wind farms you’re forcing on communities across the province are driving up rates and have overridden local municipal decision-making.

We would restore the right of local municipalities to have their say on these projects, and we would make sure that projects signed are affordable to families—a competitive, transparent process so they get the best technology at the best price for the ratepayer.

Minister, instead of being a NIMSIAR, instead of trying to save your own behind, will you do the right thing and put your moratorium province-wide for all citizens of the province of Ontario?

Hon. Brad Duguid: John Lennon said it right: The Leader of the Opposition is the nowhere man of Ontario politics and, day after day, he confirms this status. He sits on the sidelines and chirps at our efforts to reverse his legacy of an energy system left in shambles, but he hides from Ontario families when they ask him what his alternative is.

The nowhere man is nowhere on getting off of coal and building a cleaner, healthier future for our kids and grandkids. He’s nowhere on what he’s going to do with the thousands of clean energy jobs that we’re creating. The nowhere man is nowhere when it comes to whether he supports our clean energy benefit.

There’s no question this Leader of the Opposition is the nowhere man of Ontario politics, and Ontario families can and will see right through him.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. Families might be able to trim and cut a lot from their household budgets, but everyone needs to keep their lights on and their home heated. Why won’t the McGuinty Liberals exempt home heating from the HST?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We’ve created the Ontario clean energy benefit. We’ve created a range of tax credits for individuals and families. We’ve cut the first rate of income tax—now the lowest in Canada—for working Ontario families.

Our plan is the right plan for the future of this province. We have lowered taxes for 93% of Ontarians. Unlike the leader of the third party, who offers no plan, offers no ideas—one day she wants to remove the HST and the next day she wants to keep it.

Hon. Gerry Phillips: Will it stay or will it go?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Will it stay or will it go? We don’t know what they stand for. What we stand for is more jobs, a better economy and a better future for all Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: According to a government document obtained through the freedom-of-information request, the governing Liberals considered an HST rebate for home heating. They actually considered it. Government bureaucrats in fact prepared a detailed memo explaining how it would work and exactly how much it would cost. My question is a simple one: Why did the McGuinty Liberals reject that much-needed relief for families?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Because we gave more. We did. We did the Ontario clean energy benefit. We exceeded what she called upon us to do. She called upon us to remove the provincial portion of the HST. We said that’s not enough. We said we are going to help people directly through the Ontario clean energy benefit; not only take the HST off but give them a rebate on the tax portion of their bill as we transition through this new tax system that will create jobs and that will serve all Ontarians. That’s why the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives said that this policy is neutral on family incomes.

That’s why other experts have pointed to the fact that Ontarians of more modest means will see overall tax cuts.

This province has strong leadership in Premier McGuinty, taking the tough decisions to build a better economy and more jobs for Ontario’s future.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It takes a truly out-of-touch government to think that people are fooled with a temporary tax cut on a permanent tax. It’s pretty clear that the government made a choice. They could have given families that desperately needed permanent break—some extra help. Instead, they invested in massive corporate tax giveaways. How can the Premier and the finance minister justify finding billions of dollars for some of Ontario’s largest corporations while rejecting help for families struggling with their bills?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Eleven billion in tax cuts for citizens; $4 billion for corporations. It’s the right policy.

Last night, I had the privilege of joining my colleague—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Durham. Member from Hamilton East.

Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Last night, I had the privilege of joining my colleague from Peterborough with 7,600 Peterborough citizens on a telephone town hall, and we heard from them on a variety of issues. They understood, as we took questions, the importance of creating jobs. They said that their top priority is job creation.

This plan will create jobs. This plan—

Interjections.

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

Question period, as we all know, is an important time for all members, both in the government and in the opposition, to deliver their message, but it’s also an important time for the people of Ontario and our guests who are here to be able to hear both the question and the answer. When the Speaker has difficulty hearing those questions and answers, I’m sure our guests are experiencing some difficulty, and I would just ask all members to be respectful.

Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: That party offers no solution. That party offers no ideas. They want to go back to the old days when we didn’t have a competitive tax system, when we didn’t have the lowest income taxes for people of more modest means. We’re building a better future with more jobs for all Ontarians, from Thunder Bay to Windsor to Ottawa, right across the vast breadth of this great province.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Acting Premier as well. This is how out of touch this government is: They’ve poured billions of dollars into tax giveaways for corporations—who frankly don’t need it—and six-figure pay hikes for hospital CEOs, but families, families struggling with their budgets are told they have to pay more. To add insult to injury, when families win some relief finally in court, they’re left to foot the bill for high-priced lawyers.

The Acting Premier was at the cabinet table for all of these decisions. Can he explain these misguided priorities to the people of Ontario?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Maybe the leader of the third party will explain to the people of Ontario, particularly the north, why she voted against the northern Ontario energy benefit, which provides up to $200 per family in the north and $130 per single person. Then she might want to explain to the people of Hamilton and Windsor and all those people whose names she brings in here why she voted against the Ontario energy and property tax credit, which provides over $1,000 for seniors and $900 for non-seniors.

You’re trying to have it both ways. You have voted against the largest tax cut in history for the poor, the seniors, working Ontarians, yet you say that you want us to do more. You ought to put your money where your mouth is and you ought to vote in favour of those initiatives that help those of modest means, those in the north, those who need our help the most. Stop voting against progressive change for a better future.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: New Democrats actually proudly voted against the budget that brought the HST to the people of Ontario, thank you very much.

I’ll now actually bring another one of those people from Ontario’s stories into this Legislature, even though the government doesn’t like to hear it. Laurie Oliari from Dorchester writes: “We never thought that we would be worrying about our heating bills as we are trying to save up enough money for retirement.”

Can the Acting Premier tell Ms. Oliari why her money can’t go towards her retirement, but instead is being used to pay for everything from high-priced lawyers who fought a losing case over late billing practices to a multi-billion dollar break to corporations who don’t need it?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I’d be happy if she’d send the information over so I could call that individual. I’d be happy to talk to her.

What that individual may want to ask the leader of the third party is why she voted against lowering income taxes for the poorest of Ontarians; for those with under $37,000 of income. Why did she vote against every property tax credit we’ve offered?

She stood up and she proudly said in this House that they voted against the HST. That’s fair enough. So, to the leader of the third party: Is it your intention to repeal it? Are you going to repeal the HST, or will it stay?

I come back to the same question. You’re trying to have it both ways—no leadership, no vision for a better future.

Interjection: Will it stay or will it go?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Will it stay or will it go? We want to build a better future with more jobs for all Ontarians.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Alice Cupa from Tecumseh writes: “My 88-year-old mother still lives in her house alone and wants to keep it that way for as long as she can. However, it is becoming increasingly harder for her with everything going up.”

Will the Acting Premier tell Ms. Cupa why her mother can’t get a break on her home-heating bills, but corporations that don’t need it get a multi-billion dollar tax break?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I would ask her to submit the phone number for that woman. I’ll undertake to call her, because the leader of the third party just—

Interjections.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I need a parliamentary, acceptable phrase. The leader of the third party misspoke. In fact, we did cut her taxes—the property tax credit for seniors, $1,025—and you and your party shamelessly, for cheap, partisan political gain, voted against her. You voted against seniors in northern Ontario. You voted against seniors in Hamilton. You voted against seniors in Toronto. But most of all, the NDP have voted against a brighter economic future, against more jobs, against a better future for our children, and now they won’t even tell Ontarians what they’ll do.

I look forward to the election. I look forward to job creation. I look forward to a better education system, and I look forward to a third party—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d just remind a number of members—

Interjections.

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

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for Minister of Transportation. The Ontario PC caucus understands that when Ontario families spend too much time in traffic gridlock, they lose valuable time with their children and loved ones. It’s why our leader says that an Ontario PC government will make a priority of completing Highway 407 to 35/115 in one phase. The McGuinty government, however, says it will not respect the original commitment to complete the highway on time and in one phase. This latest backtrack makes no sense to the economy, the environment or families looking to get back some time with their loved ones.

Why isn’t Premier McGuinty and his government showing respect for Ontario families by completing the 407 eastward extension on time in one phase?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: If the party opposite had not sold the 407 off in a fire sale, we could have built the 35/115 and back again by now.

Here’s the reality: We are going ahead despite the economic downturn, the depth of which no one could have predicted. We are going ahead; we are building the 407 to the 35/115. We are doing it in stages. We are in conversation with the mayors of Durham to make sure that the traffic flow goes in the way that is best for the community. But we are building that highway because we know the jobs are important, we know that the congestion needs to be dealt with and we know that the people east of Toronto need that highway built. We’re going ahead.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I know that the minister has met with the mayor of Oshawa, His Worship John Henry, who I’m pleased to say is present here with us today. She has also met with members of council and Durham residents, and she knows that everyone is unanimously opposed to Premier McGuinty’s backtrack to stop Highway 407 prematurely at Simcoe Street and Columbus. What she should also respect is that Mayor Henry has the support of municipalities across Ontario, not just Durham region—from Peterborough, from Vaughan and from St. Catharines, among other areas, that are also against this backtrack on the 407.

This afternoon my resolution will be debated calling on the McGuinty government to extend the 407 eastward as originally contemplated in one phase to 35/115. Minister, why not show respect for Ontario families here and now and complete the 407 eastward to 35/115 in one phase as originally contemplated?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think the deep respect that we’re showing for Ontario families is that we’re going ahead with this project, that we’re investing billions of dollars in building this highway that is critical. I welcome Mayor Henry and all of the folks from Durham to the Legislature. As the member opposite mentioned, I have had conversations with them, and we’re in ongoing conversations with them—MTO with the region about the traffic flow.

Our deep respect for Ontarians is this: We understand how important infrastructure is to this province. We understand how important it is that the economic development that flows from an infrastructure project like this be in place. That’s why we’re going ahead. Projects like this need to be built in phases. The first part of the 407 was built in phases. We will build to 35/115. We will do it in phases. We will create thousands of jobs by building that project; invest billions of dollars in the region; we’ll make sure the traffic flows.

I look forward to the ongoing conversation with the members of Durham region.

DISCLOSURE OF TOXINS

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, you learned last week, as we did, in the Toronto Star and subsequently in other media reports, that the use of Agent Orange within the Ministry of Natural Resources has caused great concern in northern Ontario when it comes to the health effect.

I have here an email from former MTO supervisors who are saying that your ministry, up to the 1980s, used Agent Orange along the side of the highways across this province to try to control the growth of grass and other shrubs. Has anybody in your ministry briefed you about that? Are you aware that your ministry is alleged to have used Agent Orange up to 1980?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Acting Premier will want to follow up with the supplementary, because I know that the Minister of Natural Resources has spoken to this issue in the House.

I have just been made aware that there are questions being asked about practices within the Ministry of Transportation. Obviously, the Ministry of Transportation always would have worked within the existing rules. I will certainly be briefed on the details of that.

In the meantime, I know that you can understand that the Minister of Natural Resources is extremely concerned about this issue and is looking into all of the implications and ramifications, and I will do the same.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Minister, if I understand correctly, what you tell me now is that you are aware that it was used. My question to you is, why have you not come forward? Why does it take the opposition to say what has happened within the Ministry of Transportation?

The issue here is, it would appear at this point that not only the Ministry of Natural Resources but the Ministry of Transportation, and who knows who else, had been using Agent Orange up till 1980.

My question to you is, at what point did you find out, and why did you not make that information public?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I was told this morning before I came into question period that there were questions being asked about the practices of the Ministry of Transportation. I have said to the member opposite that, having found out this morning, I will be briefed as quickly as possible on this issue.

This is obviously a very important and potentially scary issue for people in the province, and we’re taking it very seriously. I will take it very seriously in my ministry, and I think it behooves the opposition to be clear that this is something that we all need to look into. We are on it, the Ministry of Natural Resources is looking into it, and we’ll do our utmost to make the information available as soon as we have it.

WORKPLACE SAFETY

Ms. Helena Jaczek: My question is for the Minister of Labour.

Although Ontario is one of the safest places in the world to work, it is still too often that we hear of a worker who gets injured on the job or, even worse, loses their life. When our friends and family leave for work in the morning, we want to feel assured in knowing that they are safe at work and will come home at the end of the day.

This House has been following the progress of the health and safety review panel led by Tony Dean. Last December, when Mr. Dean delivered his recommendations, it was named the largest overhaul of Ontario’s health and safety system.

Minister, a lot of recommendations were put forth by the health and safety review panel, but just recently I heard you announce the implementation of an interim prevention council. Can you please tell the House more about the role the interim prevention council will have in making Ontario a safe place to work?

Hon. Charles Sousa: It is with great pleasure that I respond to the question.

I congratulate Tony Dean and the members of the health and safety review panel for their consensus report and recommendations.

Our recent announcement of the prevention council is the first step of many to follow. The interim prevention council’s role is to get things under way before our chief prevention officer is named, and I’m pleased to tell the House that they had their first meeting just yesterday.

We’re pleased that Paavo Kivisto, former deputy minister of the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Labour, is leading the prevention council. I’ve met with him and know that he and his team share our eagerness and dedication to further improving health and safety in this province.

I look forward to working with the council to ensure that all Ontario workers arrive home safely at the end of each workday.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I certainly look forward to hearing updates from the prevention organization as their work gets under way. However, there are 46 other recommendations that Mr. Dean and his panel delivered, leading me to believe there is still a lot of work to be done on health and safety in Ontario.

Minister, in addition to the appointment of the prevention council, can you tell the House about some of the changes we can expect to see in the near future that will make Ontario a safer place to work?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The panel identified priority recommendations that the prevention organization will focus on.

To name a few priorities: (1) creating a health and safety display that explains the key rights and responsibilities of the workplace parties, including how to contact a Ministry of Labour inspector, and it will be mandatory to post this in the workplace; (2) creating mandatory health and safety awareness training for all workers and supervisors with front-line workers; (3) the development of mandatory entry-level training for construction workers is another priority, starting with consultations with stakeholders to determine those sectors that should be subject to a mandatory training for workers.

I look forward to working with the interim prevention council and the chief prevention officer and implementing the recommendations from the panel.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Frank Klees: To the Minister of Transportation: I’d like to follow up on the question that the member for Whitby–Oshawa put to the minister. Specifically, that question was: Why did the McGuinty government break its agreement with the federal government to complete Highway 407 by 2013? That was a very specific agreement.

I’ve heard the minister say that there was an unexpected economic downturn. Here is the point: It was precisely because of that unexpected downturn in the economy that funds were flowing from the federal government and the province for infrastructure programs. That is an infrastructure program if I ever saw one. My question is, why did the ministry not prioritize that highway, for which there was an agreement in writing?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I just want to give a bit of an update on the Flow projects, which are the projects that both the member for Whitby–Oshawa and the member for Newmarket–Aurora are talking about.

The Highway 404 extension into York region, which is a Flow project, is going ahead. I know that was one of the ones that, of course, the member for Newmarket–Aurora would be very interested in. The 407 east extension, as I’ve already said, is going ahead. We are in the process of beginning the two stages. We are extending to 35/115, but we’re doing it in stages.

So the Flow projects are going ahead. To talk about some kind of breach of an arrangement, I think, is absolutely flawed. I think the reality is that we’re going ahead with the projects and the ones that are in York region, I think, the member for Newmarket–Aurora is aware of—

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

Mr. Frank Klees: We are well aware of what that agreement says. That agreement specifically stated that the 407 east would be completed by 2013. That’s the issue we’re raising here.

The minister continues to say, “We’re going ahead with the program.” That’s not the point. The program is and should be to complete that highway by 2013. We’re asking the minister a simple question: Why has the ministry broken its agreement? It’s not a question of a downturn of the economy; it’s a question of the downturn of the credibility of this government. That’s what’s at stake here.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think there was a statement at one point about events happening. The member opposite referred to the economic downturn, which I have noted many times. The reason that we are not able to go ahead as quickly as we would like—and we would like the 407 extension to be built by now. As I mentioned, had it not been sold off, it might have been built by now. Who was it that sold it off? It was the party opposite that gave it away, and we are picking up the pieces of that sale.

We’re moving ahead with the extension of the 407 while we’re working on all of the other Flow projects that were agreed to with the federal government. The fact is that it is a very, very strong indication of our support for the eastern region that we build that 407 despite the economic downturn.

TAXATION

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Minister of Finance. At the same time the McGuinty government imposed an unfair tax on home heating and other daily essentials, it shovelled more than $2 billion to wealthy corporations, taking billions of dollars out of the pockets of those who will spend it on necessities and giving it to profitable corporations sitting on record piles of cash. That’s simply bad economics. What does this government have to say to Ontarians who say corporate tax cuts at the present time are just plain wrong?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The pulp and paper industry and forestry industry in Ontario, which are hardly flush right now, have overwhelmingly supported this plan and have indicated that it will create jobs. The automotive sector, which has gone through one of its most difficult periods, supports the policy. It is about jobs. It’s about a brighter future. It’s about a more efficient and fair tax system. It is about a better future.

Jack Layton has now backed off at the federal level on this. Apparently, he’s going to continue to support—I read that with great interest—the Harper Conservatives on this policy. Mr. Layton understands, I think, how important job creation is right now.

I think most Ontarians agree with us and reject the empty rhetoric that’s designed to close plants, kill jobs and not help northern Ontario and southwestern Ontario particularly, which have suffered so much in the last few years.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Well, he certainly knows his talking points.

Today in the finance committee, the NDP moved a motion calling for the rollback of the McGuinty corporate tax cuts and the implementation of employer incentives that would encourage real investment and create real jobs. This motion was defeated by the government members of the committee. What does this government have to say to people who want jobs, not corporate bonuses?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I reject the tired, empty rhetoric of a party mired in the past. It is about a more efficient tax system for individuals and for corporations. It’s about attracting new investment. We simply could no longer afford to be one of the highest tax jurisdictions in Canada. We were already seeing capital move from Ontario to Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

What the NDP want to do is create jobs in Alberta, they want to create jobs in British Columbia, they want to create jobs in Manitoba and simply ignore the harsh realities which we all find ourselves in today.

Our policy is the right policy. It’s about jobs. It’s about a better future for our kids, and like Jack Layton, we believe that it’s the right thing for everyone in Ontario.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE /

VIOLENCE FAMILIALE

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: My question is for the Minister Responsible for Women’s Issues. Minister, International Women’s Day is marked in Ontario and across the world every March in celebration of the economic and social achievements of women everywhere. I know the front-line workers in my community, like at Maison Interlude in Hawkesbury, are working hard every day to help women gain access to services so that they can get the help they need to rebuild their lives for themselves and their families.

Minister, can you tell this House what the government is doing to support the work of these organizations?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I want to thank the member for Glengarry–Prescott–Russell for his question and for asking it just one day after the Premier and all parties committed to bringing even more women’s voices to the Legislature through our collective Equal Voice commitment, because we need women’s voices to be here on behalf of all women in Ontario.

Our government knows that to have a prosperous Ontario, we need women to feel safe in their homes, at work and in their communities. We need them to be strong. We need them to achieve economic independence and reach their full potential. That’s why we’ve increased our investments to domestic violence by more than 48%, why we’ve changed the Occupational Health and Safety Act, why we’ve helped more than 6,000 women annually to access social services, why we’ve accelerated the OCB, why we’ve invested in child care and why we’ve trained more than 1,500 women to secure high-paying jobs.

This government has supported and will continue to support women because we know that they have to be their best and we have to ensure that this—

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

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde: Merci, madame la Ministre, pour cette info.

L’hon. Laurel C. Broten: À la ministre déléguée aux Affaires francophones, s’il vous plaît.

L’hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Le gouvernement de l’Ontario fournit des refuges sûrs et des programmes de soutien pour les femmes et leurs enfants qui fuient la violence à la maison. Nous avons investi dans la construction de deux premiers refuges francophones à Timmins et à Toronto. En mai 2006, nous avons aussi lancé une ligne téléphonique, Fem’aide, pour les femmes francophones en situation de crise. Il y a deux semaines, nous avons annoncé, en partenariat avec Action ontarienne contre la violence faite aux femmes, du financement supplémentaire pour les fournisseurs de services de première ligne.

Notre gouvernement prévoit 141 millions de dollars annuellement pour des programmes qui aident à combattre la violence domestique. C’est une augmentation de 48 % de financement depuis 2003.

The issues women face will only be fully understood when they have a seat in this Legislature and at the cabinet table.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: My question is for the Minister of Transportation on the impacts of ending the 407 in Oshawa. The financial impacts of ending the 407 at Simcoe Street are going to represent another substantial tax increase to cover the cost of the end-of-line gridlock. The McGuinty decision will once again make Oshawa families pay more in taxes.

Minister, why didn’t you consult with the city of Oshawa on the financial impacts before announcing the 407 would end at Simcoe Street in Oshawa?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I’ve said previously, I think it is a very important boon to the people of the region of Durham that the 407 is being built, that it’s being extended. I think that the message we’ve heard most clearly is that people want this road built. They want it to go ahead as quickly as possible. That’s why we’re building it in stages, and that’s why we remain committed to building right through to 35/115. As the member opposite knows full well, we’re in conversation with the mayors of the region to make sure that the traffic flow issues are dealt with.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. John O’Toole: Not only has your government failed to honestly consult with Durham residents but it has also failed to give them basic respect. From making families pay now for the illegal hydro interest charges to breaking your commitment and promise on the 407 extension, your government has a complete lack of respect for families generally.

I think of a couple in my riding whose home was expropriated by MTO for the 407, only to be left high and dry by this government once that family moved out. It’s important to know that one of the family members is physically disabled and requires additional renovations to the home, and rather than keeping their word, they didn’t help them. Now the government refuses to even speak to the family.

According to your own ministry resources, 255 more property owners are in the same boat. How many more families will be left high and dry through your broken promises and lack of respect for families generally?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I guess I’d like to ask the member opposite how giving away, in a fire sale, the 407 when he was in office showed respect to the families of Ontario, the families of Durham or anywhere else?

The fundamental respect that we’re showing to the people of Ontario and to the people of the Durham region is that we understand how important it is to build this road, that we understand how important it is that we make sure that the traffic flow is what it should be, that we make sure that the infrastructure is in place. That’s why I’ve been out to Durham, that’s why I’ve met with the mayors, that’s why I’ve met with the community folks—to make sure they understand that our technical folks at MTO are going to work with them to make sure that the traffic flow works for them.

The economic downturn hit. We had to make a decision. We made a decision out of respect to the people in the Durham region that we would build this highway, and that’s what we’re doing.

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Minister of Culture. First Nations members of the Algonquin Union are here at the Legislature today, and in fact, Daniel Bernard, Algonquin Firekeeper, is here in the gallery. They’re here because the McGuinty government is allowing the clear-cutting of one of the most biodiverse urban forests in Ontario, all for a new subdivision. The South March Highlands outside Ottawa is considered an ancestral site by elders of the Algonquin Nation and has been shown to be of archaeological significance.

My question to the minister is, why will he not stop the destruction of this unique forest?

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to thank the honourable member for the question. The Minister of Tourism and Culture regulates archaeologists. Under the Ontario Heritage Act, the ministry licenses archaeologists. As well, the ministry reviews the archaeological assessment report.

The assessment in question was completed under the 1993 technical guidelines or standards and guidelines. The assessment report meets the Ministry of Tourism and Culture requirements. The ministry is not an approval authority in respect to any development project. That said, we do recognize the city of Ottawa’s effort to force the dialogue between the development proponents and the aboriginal community on this matter.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’m sure the minister knows that the study that he cites as proof that there’s no archaeological value to the land has been called “fatally flawed” by the past president of the Canadian Archaeological Association. A report released in January suggests again that the land was very likely occupied by early aboriginal populations and is likely of significant archaeological value.

Will the minister listen to the Algonquin Union, Algonquin chiefs and thousands of citizens and issue an order, as is his responsibility, under the Ontario Heritage Act to halt clear-cutting until a comprehensive study of the archaeological value of this land is conducted?

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you very much again for the question.

Our government is committed to building a relationship with the aboriginal people in Ontario. The Ontario government is working with the First Nations and Metis people. We are working to ensure that the artifacts and human remains that may be attributed to aboriginal people are handled with appropriate care and respect.

We recognize the city of Ottawa’s effort to force the dialogue between the developer and the aboriginal people. Our government is committed to protecting and promoting heritage. In fact, we are the first government in 30 years to strengthen the Ontario Heritage Act. We strengthened the act to give municipalities the tools they need to protect heritage properties important to our community.

TAXATION

Mr. Dave Levac: My question is for the Minister of Revenue. Many experts continue to say that our Open Ontario plan will help create jobs and strengthen the economy. As you informed us yesterday, Minister, the highly respected Jack Mintz was presenting to the Economic Club of Canada and did in fact speak very positively about the HST and, just as importantly, our comprehensive tax package.

I wanted to take the minister up on her offer and accept those tickets yesterday but I thought it was more important to make them available to the opposition members to attend, and I understand that that might not have been done.

Since I didn’t get a chance to go, can the minister please update us on exactly what Jack Mintz was talking to us about on the HST?

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: I’d be happy to update the House on Mr. Mintz’s presentation yesterday. Jack Mintz said yesterday exactly what we’ve been saying all along, and that is that the HST is working, that it makes us stronger, that it makes us more competitive, that it’s helping create jobs and that it is creating jobs here in Ontario. In fact, Jack Mintz stated yesterday if we got rid of the HST, two things would happen: One, we would increase taxes on business inputs; two, we would make businesses less competitive.

I know that the opposition parties would have benefited from Mr. Mintz’s presentation. I know that the HST is good for Ontario, Jack Mintz knows that the HST is good for Ontario, John Tory knows that the HST is good for Ontario and Jim Flaherty knows that the HST is good for Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Dave Levac: I want to follow up with the minister. The official opposition is floating the bait about rolling back the HST by 2%. We do know that this means billions of dollars cut from the tax revenue of the government of Ontario, which provides us with critical services.

The people in my riding do remember the story underneath the bait of an easy answer: a 25% cut in welfare, closed hospitals, fired nurses, chaos in our education system. They’re very aware that a rollback to the HST means cuts to services. I’m talking about services like health care and education that we so desperately want and we’ve already started to fix.

Minister, can you provide us with a clear picture of what a 2% cut in the HST means to the people of my riding in Ontario?

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: A 2% cut would be billions of dollars in lost revenue for Ontario.

Let’s put it in perspective: A 1% cut in the HST would mean a cut of $3 billion. The $3 billion is the equivalent of getting rid of almost 48,000 experienced nurses. What it would be is firing over 38,000 elementary school teachers. In addition, another 1% cut would mean that in my community of Hamilton, there would be no brand new Juravinski Hospital. The other thing, is we wouldn’t have the 11 new schools that we have.

Our priority is to make Ontario stronger. We’re moving forward; we’re going to keep on moving forward.

SPECIAL-NEEDS STUDENTS

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Minister, is it okay with you that children with special needs are waiting for assessments at the Halton District School Board and in fact are being bumped by assessments for gifted children? Are you okay with that?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I’m pleased to have a chance to talk about an issue that, as you would know, falls within the Ministry of Education with respect to what the school board is doing. But let me just take a moment to talk about the good cross-government work that we’re doing to tackle issues associated with making sure children with special needs across a variety of sectors get those assessments.

The work that we’re doing right now is with Dr. Charles Pascal to bring his vision to reality with respect to the Best Start child and family centres. In fact, we’ll be hosting 60 people in Toronto today, experts from across the city, exactly to look at issues such as this. How can ministries and cross-ministries ensure that children who come into our entry point, perhaps as a child younger than school age, transition into school age and deal with many of the challenging issues that exist?

I know that the Minister of Education will be looking into this issue, and this is a priority within the Ministry of Education. Cross-government-wide, we continue to find ways to better serve kids and better serve their—

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

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I would have thought that a minister who is responsible for children and youth in our province, a minister who is supposed to be advocating for children and youth in our province, would have been speaking to the Minister of Education and saying, “It’s not right.”

You know that wait-lists for assessments in Halton can be as long as two years already, yet trustees in Halton have acknowledged that this change is going to push children who have special needs in the classroom to the back of the line again.

Minister, I cannot believe that you haven’t taken the time to talk to the Minister of Education to advocate for the children within your ministry. It is shameful, and you should be embarrassed that you’re talking about a report that has nothing to do with what’s happening in Halton today.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: Let me tell you that I am very, very proud of the focus that we have brought on children’s issues in this province. It is our government that created the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, which I’m very privileged to lead.

Our record, in contrast to your record—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I want to focus on the contrasting records for a moment. The Leader of the Opposition called full-day learning a shiny new car. When it comes to investing in our tomorrow, they simply don’t get it.

They voted against recent increases to children’s treatment centres. That means about 3,600 children and youth with special needs would still be waiting for treatment if you were in office. When your federal government took away billions of dollars from Ontario’s families for child care, you sat silent over there. You failed to support 2,200 new child care spaces. You failed to support the first base increases in children’s mental health. Investments in autism: You failed to support that. You failed to support the Ontario child benefit. I’ll contrast our record to theirs any day.

The issue in Halton is a serious issue. The Minister of Education has spoken to it and she is encouraging the community to speak up, deal with their school boards and call their trustees.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is for Minister of Health. My constituent Michelle Fernandes has been in agony for six years, following an unsuccessful bone spur surgery on her foot. She now has nerve damage for which curative surgery exists and is funded by OHIP. The problem lies in the fact that no Ontario doctor can perform the nerve resection surgery she needs. She has applied for out-of-country funding to have the operations done in the United States. She has written to this minister and to the Premier, begging for action. She is here in the gallery today. Will the minister please explain why ministerial staff continue to oppose Ms. Fernandes’s funding application?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you for the question. It is not a case that I am personally familiar with. I would be more than happy to meet with your constituent following question period to learn more about this particular situation.

We count on our health care professionals to make decisions about appropriate care. These are not political decisions. These are decisions made by our health care professionals. We do fund people to go out of country or out of province if we do not have the expertise here.

I will happily look into this particular case to better understand what the problem is here.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: I thank the minister for that commitment. Ms. Fernandes, her husband and I will be outside.

The problem exists here that Ms. Fernandes has been frustrated because ministerial staff continue to deny her access to care by the only doctor in North America who can help. She has been to countless meetings with ministerial staff. She has exhausted all of her personal resources fighting ministry staff’s short-sightedness. She has asked, and I asked too—and perhaps you can ask today—if the staff can refer her to an Ontario or Canadian doctor with the expertise, please do so.

In any event, we thank you for agreeing to meet with us afterwards. We will be outside.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Again, I reiterate the offer to meet after question period.

We’re really working hard to improve health care in this province. We’ve been able to bring wait times down substantially. We’ve got far, far better access to primary care than we had when we took office.

As we continue to improve health care in this province, these particular cases that are unusual are ones that deserve special attention, and I will undertake to meet afterwards.

TOURISM

Mr. Rick Johnson: My question is for the Minister of Tourism and Culture. The President of the United States’ proposed 2012 budget includes a plan to impose taxes on Canadian air and marine travellers by charging $5.50 for every entry into the United States. According to a US Department of Commerce report, in 2009 more than seven million Canadians flew into the US, with the majority of Canadians going for holidays or vacations.

Minister, what is the government doing to encourage Ontarians to plan a “staycation” and attract Canadians from other provinces to visit Ontario?

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you to the honourable member for the question. Our government has been working very hard to promote tourism in Ontario and support growth in this sector. We understand that tourism brings jobs and creates growth. This is why, since 2003, we have invested $450 million in the Ontario Tourism Marketing Partnership Corp. to promote Ontario as a world-class destination and world-class attraction. Our There’s No Place Like This campaign has generated over 2.1 million trips and $376 million in visitor spending between 2007 and 2010.

Our message is clear: Stay in Ontario. Come and explore all that Ontario has to offer. Avoid the US travel fee.

MEMBER’S CONDUCT

Mr. Dave Levac: On a point of order, Speaker: I believe we may have had a breach of the standing orders, and if not, at least the tradition of this place, inside of the chamber. Earlier this morning, envelopes were delivered to each of our desks, including mine, and that’s why I’m standing on this point: The pages may have been used for the envelopes to be delivered, which was inappropriate. I understand that it was stopped and that the continuation of the letter was presented.

However, what I’m talking about, in terms of the tradition of the place, is that the contents of the envelope contain partisan information and partisan attack that I believe is not the tradition of this place. I would like to see if there could be a ruling as to whether or not it was an appropriate thing to do in this place.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Wellington–Halton Hills on the same point of order.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I’m pleased to address this point of order. It was my constituents who asked me to distribute the postcards. I’m sorry it’s upset the member for Brant.

I would now seek unanimous consent to allow members to wear this pin on their lapels.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Agreed? I heard a no.

The member from Welland.

Mr. Peter Kormos: I think I understand the tone or the intent behind the point of order, and it was a political shot. Far be it from me to be critical of political shots, but people should be careful what they wish for. If the member rising on the point of order wants the Speaker to forbid the distribution of material in the Legislature, then the Speaker is entitled to do that. That means that members who want to distribute their Stratford calendar, that means that people who want to distribute their Muskoka festival, that means that people who want to distribute any number of regional promotions or promotions around—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I apologize to the member for Welland. I just ask the members—this is an important point that was raised by the member from Brant in response—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Government House leader, I’d like to hear the points of order and the comments that are being made.

The member from Welland.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Not only regional promotional material, but from time to time outright partisan material or self-interest material, like promotion of one’s private member’s bill. I was here when the member who is being complained of—the member for Wellington–Halton Hills—was himself distributing and then appears to have engaged the assistance of a page to help distribute envelopes that were sealed. I saw the Sergeant-at-Arms respond promptly, and when he appeared to advise the member that pages weren’t to be used for that purpose, the member promptly took the material back and continued to distribute it on his own.

I just make this observation: The member from Wellington–Halton Hills is one of the least partisan members—

Interjections.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Be fair. Be fair. The member for Wellington–Halton Hills, in my experience over a couple of decades now, is one of the least partisan members in this chamber. I find it regrettable that, in the pursuit of political shots and gotchas, he becomes the target of this kind of point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Please remove the button that the member from Wellington–Halton Hills is wearing. He asked for unanimous consent. It was not granted. Please don’t flout the authority of the Chair.

The member from Welland can continue.

Mr. Peter Kormos: I leave it at that. I would ask the Speaker to dismiss this as a frivolous point of order, because we may not enjoy the ruling that you make. I recall the regrettable Marland point of order, which led to us not being able to use props or even displays that were representative of issues in the chamber. I don’t challenge that ruling, but I’m confident that colleagues of Ms. Marland, who made the point of order upon which the ruling was based, regret that point of order ever havin