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

April 28, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Apr-28 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 28 April 2009 Mardi 28 avril 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TOXICS REDUCTION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DES TOXIQUES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONTROL

TAXATION

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

MEDICAL EVACUATION

GREEN POWER GENERATION

ATTAWAPISKAT FIRST NATION

INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONTROL

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

TAXATION

DRIVER LICENCES

TRAVEL INDUSTRY

GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY

ABORIGINAL HOUSING

SCHOOL CLOSURES

MANUFACTURING JOBS

AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

RAINWATER COLLECTION

LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS

BAPS WOMEN'S CONFERENCE

SCHOOL SAFETY

ORLÉANS-CUMBERLAND

COMMUNITY RESOURCE CENTRE

VIOLENT CRIME

CARNATION REVOLUTION

NOBLE VILLENEUVE

TRANSIT VEHICLE CONTRACT

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON SOCIAL POLICY /

COMITÉ PERMANENT

DE LA POLITIQUE SOCIALE

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON ESTIMATES

NATIONAL DAY OF MOURNING

PETITIONS

CEMETERIES

TAXATION

TAXATION

CHILD CUSTODY

HOSPITAL FUNDING

COMMUNITY SAFETY

MOTORCYCLE SAFETY

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

TAXATION

CEMETERIES

CHILD PROTECTION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

SALES TAX

CEMETERIES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT

(TEMPORARY HELP AGENCIES), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI

(AGENCES DE PLACEMENT TEMPORAIRE)

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

TRAVEL INDUSTRY

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TOXICS REDUCTION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DES TOXIQUES

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 27, 2009, on the motion for second reading of Bill 167,

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

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this bill this morning. As you are well aware, this issue of toxic contamination, of the imposition of a toxic burden on people of this society, is one that's fundamental to the health and well-being of Ontarians. The issue of toxic chemicals and the need for a tough toxic chemical strategy cannot be emphasized strongly enough.

I have to say, before I go on to the substance of the bill, that one needs to look back at the history of other toxic substances and action that has been taken to deal with them and inaction in dealing with them. In the early and mid-1950s, a drug was produced in Germany called thalidomide. For those who are of my son's generation, this is not a drug that they're familiar with, but when I was much smaller, much younger, we heard about thalidomide and the fact that this drug that was produced to deal with morning sickness had a huge impact on women and their children.

It led to birth defects that ruined people's lives. I remember as a paper boy in Hamilton in the early 1960s going to the door of a household–I was collecting their weekly payment for the Globe and Mail—and a boy came to the door who was a few years younger than me who had flippers for arms. He didn't have arms. That particular birth defect was a common one in the use of thalidomide. I don't know if that was what had happened to that child, but I'd seen enough and read enough, even in my pre-teen years, to know that this was one of the common occurrences.

So when we play with chemicals, when we work with chemicals that go into our bodies, there are a wide variety of impacts that those chemicals can have. We will talk about things today, in the course of this debate, that can be quite general and statistical. We can talk about broad principles, but in the end it comes down to direct human impact. It comes down to birth defects and cancer. It comes down to deaths that can be attributed to a variety of sources but are ultimately derived from exposure to toxic substances or toxic chemicals.

You are well aware of the impact that asbestos has had in this society over decades. In Sarnia—I was there last year talking to people about the toxic chemical impacts that they were dealing with and one that continued to have a legacy impact. Sarnia has been hit very hard by asbestos. A friend of mine there lost her father to asbestos exposure. That particular substance was not dealt with seriously. We drove down a road which on one side had had a fairly infamous industrial installation, and on the other side of the road was a high school.

In its heyday, that factory, which did a lot of work with asbestos, released enough asbestos that you could see a cloud of it moving across the road. You could see the asbestos fibres settling down on the football field of that high school.

The reality of the impact of asbestos on human health took a long time to recognize and took a long time to generate action. In the meantime, many people lost their lives. When the argument was made that perhaps asbestos was a problem, those concerns were initially dismissed. But the companies that worked heavily with asbestos ultimately were saddled with huge liability costs for the impact that they imposed on human health and well-being.

My hope is that we will be dealing with legislation that will avoid the kinds of mistakes we've made in the past, where we've ignored clear signals of problems with human health and clear signals of problems with impact on the environment; and that we take action that is substantive, that allows for an orderly transition from one regime to another and that, frankly, gives us the opportunity to build the kind of economy that we're going to need in Ontario in the 21st century: one that is based on green energy and green chemistry.

Across Canada, over 23,000 chemicals and substances are used in manufacturing products that we use every single day of our lives. These are products such as building materials, toys, cars, food, medicine and entertainment products. We encounter the chemical compounds used in this kind of production and industry every day of our lives. Although these chemicals proliferate, we know relatively little about them. Little data exists regarding their impact on human health or environmental health. However, increasingly, emerging research is starting to paint a concerning picture of the relationship between these toxins and the health outcomes of populations and the environment.

In 2006, a study examined human tissue samples in a number of Ontario families. The results of this study found 46 industrial chemicals in the bodies of these family members, substances like heavy metals, pesticides, PCBs and Teflon-related chemicals. We know that cancer, asthma, infertility, learning problems and birth defects are all being increasingly linked to our exposure to toxic chemicals. Especially when it comes to the health of our children, there is increased evidence of the need for action.

In the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario's 2006 submission to the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly regarding the Community Right to Know Act, the RNAO stated:

"Large margins of safety must be built in to accommodate for the much greater vulnerability of children to toxins, as they are exposed to more toxins per body weight; absorb ingested substances differently; have developed fewer protections against toxins; face additional risks while undergoing development; face higher exposures due to activity and behaviour; and have much longer to develop disease from toxins. In the case of toxins, a precautionary approach is appropriate."

The Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario was speaking about the Community Right to Know Act, my private member's bill that came forward in 2007. Their words were applicable to that act or to any other legislation that needs to take on the whole issue of toxic chemical exposure in this society.

There is no question that if you are concerned about the well-being, the life experience of young people, children in this society, that you have to, in your planning, take account of how they react differently to toxic chemicals and how the reality that they are still growing leaves greater scope for danger to their systems. We are talking about changing not only the potential for good health but also their behaviour and the potential to achieve in the world. We should be taking action that will be substantively shifting the exposure of this whole society to toxic chemicals.

When we look at this bill, when we evaluate this bill, we have to ask whether it will fulfill its set purpose of improving the health of Ontarians, improving the environment, and is this bill setting the high standard that the health of our children and the well-being of our children demands of us? We know that every day, the research making the connection between toxic chemicals and health outcomes grows. As we learn more about the complex interaction of lifetime exposures to chemical compounds in our biology and the interplay of genes in the environment, it's the precautionary principle that must take precedence.

Prior to the last election, Premier McGuinty was quoted on the Toxic Nation Environmental Defence website commenting on the need for this kind of legislation. Mr. McGuinty commented on the need for "a tough new toxic reduction law and a carcinogen reduction strategy." He called for a plan that puts Ontario at the forefront in North America on tackling this issue. Well, his comments there were the right comments to make. Those commitments were the right commitments to make. That approach was the right approach to take.

But the reality is that the bill before us doesn't live up to his commitments, his comments or the reality of the situation. It doesn't live up to the recommendations of the minister's toxics reduction scientific expert panel and the expert opinion of groups like the Canadian Environmental Law Association. It fails to live up to the expectations of the 90% of Ontarians who are concerned about this issue. That's a deep concern, because, as everyone knows, it isn't very often that legislation makes it to the floor of this Legislature.

We deal with a lot of bills every day, but in the population of Ontario, of 13 million people, with tens of thousands of concerns, with a population that needs a broad range of issues addressed, the ability to actually address them here on the floor of this Legislature is quite compressed. There aren't that many opportunities to address any given issue. So when the opportunity presents itself to bring forward a bill and it falls short of the Premier's commitments, falls short of what people expect and falls short of what Ontario needs it is extraordinarily distressing—disturbing.

Let's look at the current toxic situation in Ontario. In North America, Ontario is second only to Texas in tonnes of toxic chemicals being released into the air, water and going to our landfill sites. That's an extraordinary thought. North America is a very big jurisdiction. There is a lot of industry on the eastern seaboard of the United States and there's a lot of industry in California. Texas is home to the petrochemical industry in the United States. We're second only to Texas.

We have a huge responsibility. The toxic chemicals that we dump into the water flow through the Great Lakes, down the St. Lawrence into Quebec. The toxic chemicals that we dump into the air are carried thousands of kilometres—some to the Arctic, some out to the east, some to the Atlantic. We have a responsibility not only to our own citizens, but to the environment generally, to actually get this right.

Second only to Texas in the tonnes of toxic chemicals being released into air, water and going into our landfill sites: That is a huge responsibility and one that, as this bill is written at the moment, is not properly discharged. I'll go on to talk about the bill in greater detail. Just again, to note that being the second jurisdiction in North America for releasing toxic chemicals into the environment says that we have a huge responsibility.

In Ontario it's not only that our level of emissions are high; it's also that the kinds of toxins that are being released are of great concern. Ontario's use of cancer-causing and reproductive toxins is higher than jurisdictions with similar emission levels. In 2004, Ontario released three million kilograms of known or suspected carcinogens into the province's air, including trichloroethylene, ethylbenzene, styrene and formaldehyde. Think about that: in 2004, three million kilograms of known or suspected cancer-causing chemicals. You're talking about an awful lot of toxic material. Three million kilograms over a decade is a few kilograms for everybody in the province. It's a lot.

What people thinking about this bill should consider is that we are putting substances into the air that we know cause cancer or we suspect cause cancer. That's one of the things that has always taken me aback about the regulatory regime here in Canada and Ontario. People think that if something causes cancer they're going to be protected from it by government, that it isn't going to be introduced into their food, their air, their water. But the reality is, we generally don't protect people against slow-acting poisons. If it kills you on the spot, generally speaking, we'll put in place a rule to deal with it.

But if it's slow-acting, then we put millions of kilos of that into the environment on an annual basis and don't particularly act in an aggressive way to deal with it. I don't think that's a responsible approach; I don't think that's a defensible approach.

That record of three million kilograms of known or suspected cancer-causing chemicals that we dump into the province's air leaves Ontario as the fourth-highest emitter of cancer-causing chemicals in North America. Now, there are a lot of states in the US that are bigger, but still, we're the fourth-highest emitter of cancer-causing chemicals in North America. That is a record that we cannot be proud of.

When it comes to reproductive toxins, Ontario ranks even worse. We're the second-highest emitter of reproductive toxins, second only to Tennessee, releasing more than four million kilograms into the air in 2004. Ontario's industries account for 36% of the total Canadian discharges of what are called reportable chemicals into the air and 50% of the discharges into water. If you ever have an opportunity to go to the mouth of the St. Lawrence River, around Tadoussac, the Saguenay Fjord, you'll be able to see a population of beluga whales that swim in those waters.

They're gorgeous animals, and they have very high levels of toxic chemicals in their bodies. If their bodies wash up on shore, they have to be disposed of with care because there are so many toxic chemicals in those bodies. It affects their reproduction and causes tumours in the whales. That's not all Ontario, but Ontario contributes substantially to the toxic chemicals in the water that flow down the St. Lawrence, accumulate in the food chain and have that impact. It's having an impact on them.

It's going to have an impact on all of the creatures that are higher up on the food chain, and we're pretty high up on the food chain.

Years ago, studies were done about the flow of toxic chemicals into the Arctic. When you have toxic chemicals released into the air, they're carried aloft by wind currents. When they get to the north, if they're carried in water, that water precipitates out and falls. So historically, there has been an ongoing problem in the north with contamination of lakes with mercury and with pesticides, chemicals that aren't generated in the northern economy. We are part of what causes that deposition of toxic chemicals in the Arctic.

We have a responsibility to take them on, so it's good to have an opportunity to take a step forward. It's not clear at this point whether this act will actually give us that step forward. We have an opportunity to protect the health of future generations—not just an opportunity but a responsibility. We have a responsibility to lower a constantly rising cancer rate. The question again remains: Will the opportunity before us be fully realized? The reality is that, as this bill is written, it's filled with holes; it's filled with inadequacies.

That is of great consequence to the people of this province and the people downwind from this province, the people downstream from this province. Bill 167 lacks the teeth necessary and fails to even define some of the most central objectives it purports to accomplish.

New Democrats strongly support effective government action when it comes to protecting the health of our environment and the health of Ontarians. We need a toxics reduction bill that has the strength needed to protect the people of this province. We are very concerned that this bill represents a wholly inadequate response to one of the most pressing and serious issues facing our generation and future generations.

I want to talk a bit about another area where you can see the direct impact of toxic chemicals. In Sarnia, the Aamjiwnaang First Nation has their reserve, their residence, located in the middle of a group of chemical production plants. A number of years ago it was noticed that in that population, the number of boys born every year had declined and the number of girls born increased. The reason for that was that many of the chemicals that are released into the environment masquerade as natural chemicals, hormones that we produce in our bodies that can direct the development of a fetus.

I want to be accurate on this, and I'm not sure my memory of the precise mechanism is entirely there. I can say, simply, that exposure to those chemicals seems to have caused an imbalance in the birth ratios of male and female. That is of concern to those parents, and it's an indication of the impact of the chemicals on that population. When we talk about these issues, we need to understand that it's not just a question of numbers and broad concepts; it has an impact on families, on individuals and on communities that has a residue, that is a shaping force over generations.

I want to take some time to outline the failings of Bill 167 and contrast the gaps that are in it with the suggestions offered by groups such as the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario and even the minister's Toxics Reduction Scientific Expert Panel. I want to provide some context about the successes of other jurisdictions with similar bills and how Ontario's version is currently falling short. Frankly, there's no reason for Ontario's bill to fall short now or at the end of this legislative process.

First of all, I have to say that we in the New Democratic Party are tremendously concerned about the bare-bones nature of the bill. The bill provides a skeletal framework that fails to define the central aspects of the bill, including which facilities and toxic substances are to be regulated and the time period of implementation. These aspects are left to regulation to be defined at a later date. These are not minor details; these are central details to the effectiveness of this bill. These are not side issues; these define whether the bill will be effective or not effective.

They are issues that don't require more research. What they need is a decision, politically, about where we're going to go, what direction we have to take as a society, and then setting in place the legislative framework, the enforcement framework, that will actually deliver the change that we need.

The ministry has been researching this issue for a year and has received exact and expert advice from leaders in the field, so why has the government chosen to leave so much off the table? Given the fact that there's so much absent in the bill, it makes it awfully hard to offer a solid critique to comment on the specific oversights and suggested changes. The fact that the government has chosen to leave so much undefined is of great concern. The fact that they're playing politics rather than dedicating their energy to creating the toughest legislation possible, the most practical legislation possible, is a great disappointment to Ontarians.

We're working from the assumption that many of the regulations will follow the contents and procedures worked out in the Ministry of the Environment's 2008 discussion paper. We'd, of course, like to be basing our analysis on the contents of the bill, but the government has made that impossible, because when you read the bill, it is overwhelmingly enabling legislation rather than prescriptive and directive legislation. We will have a lot to say about what's in the bill itself, but the omissions, at this point, are as important as what is actually put in place.

I want to start with the very beginning of the bill, the stated purpose of the bill, and that, in and of itself, is of concern to those who are concerned about reducing the exposure of people in this province and in neighbouring jurisdictions to toxic chemicals. Bill 167 reads:

"The purposes of" the bill "are,

"(

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

"(

b) to inform Ontarians about toxic substances."

The Canadian Environmental Law Association, CELA, a public interest group whose purpose is to use and improve laws to protect public health and the environment, provided the Ministry of the Environment with a model bill during the Ministry of the Environment's consultation process on this issue. The model bill that CELA drafted provides a stark contrast to Bill 167. In this model bill, a multi-pronged and significantly expanded purpose

section could be found. It reads:

"(1) protect human health and the environment by reducing the use of toxic substances;

"(2) promote the use of safer alternatives to such substances;

"(3) recognize the public right to know the identity and amounts of toxic substances in their community from various facilities; and

"(4) apply the precautionary principle and principles of sustainable development to these issues."

Of these four principles, only the first is included in Bill 167. So we can say that even right from the very start, when the direction of the bill itself is being set out, the scope of action, the scope of steps that are to be taken, is far too limited—far less than what has been recommended; far less, frankly, than what we need; and far less than what is politically possible.

I want to just note here this fourth point: "apply the precautionary principle and principles of sustainable development to these issues." For those who were around for the tainted blood scandal, when Canadians were infected with AIDS, with hepatitis, who saw the report of the Krever commission afterwards, who understood in concrete terms that when you're dealing with human health, when you're dealing with substances and risks to the population that are of consequence, one should approach these things with caution.

Krever was clear in his report about the need to be looking out for what's going on there, to be willing to act to protect human health when the direction that evidence took you was to see that there was a substantial potential for a problem here.

That's not in this bill. That's an error on the part of the minister in what he has put forward for this bill. When we're dealing with chemicals that we know cause cancer and we continue to release them into the environment in their millions of kilograms, when we know that we're dealing with chemicals that in their millions of kilograms cause reproductive problems, then, frankly, one does need to take a precautionary approach. One does need to say, "You know, human health could be getting compromised here. We should be acting."

The purpose of the bill that was put forward by CELA and not incorporated into the act was promoting the use of safer alternatives to such substances.

There's an opportunity here to take on the 21st-century shift in our economy. Green chemistry is going to be part of what happens in this century. We've missed the boat in the past.

I had an interesting discussion with my colleague from Kenora—Rainy River, Howard Hampton, about the plants, the industry, the machinery used to bleach paper. Ontario did not go far enough when it brought in regulations on bleaching paper to move chlorine out of the process. Nordic countries in fact did go further: They went to oxygen bleaching. The world's production of that machinery is now dominated by those jurisdictions that set the higher bar.

If we are not, in fact, thinking in this act about protecting human health and at the same time transforming our economy, we miss out on a huge opportunity. That is a mistake on the part of the minister who brought forward this bill. He should be thinking about, and should in practical terms be moving forward, an agenda that causes a transition in our economy, from the unsustainable habits of the 20th century to what is going to have to be a far more sustainable economy in the 21st.

Again, of these four principles, only the first is included in Bill 167. The failures of the bill start at the very beginning and unfortunately characterize what we find throughout the bill.

Targets: Bill 167 sets no targets for toxics reduction and benchmarks regarding the success of this initiative. If you don't have targets and you don't have benchmarks, how is a government held accountable for whether or not the bill is successful? If, five or 10 years from now, the reductions are in the range of 5% or 10%, which would be wholly inadequate, what does the minister of the day say to the question, "Was this bill successful?": "Well, there was some reduction"?

You have to have targets, you have to have timelines if you're actually going to get anywhere, and we learned that from the whole process of fighting climate change. The initial global treaty written on climate change didn't set targets and timelines, and nothing happened coming out of that process. We went to the Kyoto Protocol, which, for all its weaknesses, at least set targets and timelines so governments could be held to account by their populations if they so desired. It matters to give that sort of framework so that governments and legislators can be held accountable for what they do and don't do.

In any event, Bill 167 sets no targets for toxics reduction and benchmarks regarding the success of this initiative. In the ministry-created Toxic Reduction Scientific Expert Panel, the recommendation for targets is made twice.

On July 23, 2008, in a memorandum to the environment minister, the expert panel states: "Ontario's pollution prevention legislation should:

"Include clear, viable, and progressive goals (i.e. a percentage reduction in toxics use and release in the province within a specified period of time); the statute should include renewable toxics reduction targets, and a mechanism for monitoring and public reporting on achievement of those targets. The panel notes that goals are not set in the current discussion paper ... and program."

Ontario's failure to create a set of targets for toxics reduction contravenes the most successful of toxics reduction legislation, like that in Massachusetts. By failing to create targets, Bill 167 is also ignoring the advice of CELA, which recommended a 50% reduction in releases and a 20% reduction in use within five years of the first mandated reporting period.

I have to ask myself: How serious is the government about this initiative if there are no targets? Is this simply a public relations exercise? Will we ever be able to hold the government to account on this bill if there is no target set? Will any bureaucrat say, "I've got to move things forward this year because we're nowhere near the targets that we have to meet"? It is a mistake in terms of legislation, and it is a mistake in terms of public accountability to put forward legislation like this that doesn't have targets.

Anyone who runs a business knows there are targets every year to be met in order to achieve the goals of that business. If you want to have a bottom line that shows something positive at the end of the year, you have to set targets throughout your process of planning. You have to work to those targets. You have to provide people with incentives for those targets. You have to provide people with punishments for not reaching the targets. That is a very simple thing, and it is missing in this legislation.

Sectors affected by the bill: No particular sectors are defined in Bill 167. We're going to have to go back and assume that the Ministry of the Environment's 2008 discussion paper will form the basis for content. For the moment, that's all we can do. If indeed that is the case, then there are concerns here—substantial concerns.

The Ministry of the Environment's discussion paper identified two sectors to be affected by toxics reduction: manufacturing and mineral processing. I have no doubt that those two sectors need action on reduction of toxic chemicals. But that's it. What's absent here are waste treatment plants and energy generating plants, which are some of the highest emitters of toxic substances. There doesn't seem to me to be sound reasoning in restricting it to two sectors rather than aiming a toxics reduction strategy at any facility that is endangering the health of Ontarians through the release of a reportable substance.

Other jurisdictions have done better, and so should Ontario. The fact of the matter is that with only two sectors likely to be included in the bill, Ontarians would continue to face many risks from hazardous substances. Bill 167 should be amended to include, at a minimum, all sectors that report to the federal National Pollutant Release Inventory, NPRI: manufacturing, mining, forestry, electric utilities, hazardous waste treatment and solvent recovery facilities, chemical wholesalers, petroleum bulk terminals, the oil and gas sector, sewage treatment plants and incinerators.

Legislating mandatory reporting when it comes to these sectors would stand a chance in making a significant impact on toxics reduction in Ontario.

We have a bill so far that is narrow in the scope of action that's going to be taken, that doesn't have targets for the amount of reduction that's actually going to happen, and that, within the whole broad sweep of industrial activity in Ontario, may deal with two sectors, given the discussion paper, which is all we have to go on in the moment about what sectors may be included.

Those problems alone are quite substantial in terms of the viability, the effectiveness of this bill, but then we have to look at the substances that will actually be regulated, for to assume that the substances to be regulated will follow the Minister of the Environment's discussion paper—New Democrats have their concerns.

In this discussion paper there are four categories of toxics divided into four schedules. Currently, the federal National Pollutant Release Inventory requires reporting on the pollutant releases, disposals and transfers of 320 substances of concern. The first

schedule contains 45 National Pollutant Release Inventory chemicals that have been identified as priority toxic chemicals—ones that we should be paying far more attention to and acting on. This first

schedule is set to become the first phase-in of Bill 167, with requirements for materials accounting, toxics reduction planning and reporting by 2010 to 2012. The first phase-in would also include

schedule 3. However,

schedule 3 would only be subject to reporting and not include a mandate for a toxics reduction planning strategy. Included in

schedule 3 are 20 priority non-NPRI toxics. However, the action on these so-called priority toxics is weak at best.

The second

schedule contains an additional 275 substances, and this would maybe be phased in by 2014 or 2016. These 275 substances make up the rest of the chemicals that must be reported by the National Pollutant Release Inventory. The discussion paper states that the phase-in of

schedule 2 would be dependent on further consultation.

Schedule 4, finally, contains 135 non-National Pollutant Release Inventory substances. According to the Ministry of the Environment's discussion paper, the

schedule 4 chemicals "are classified as reproductive toxics, neurotoxins and mutagens"—what's a mutagen? A chemical agent that changes genetic material, our DNA—"as well as carcinogens," cancer-causing chemicals. When is

schedule 4 set to be phased-in? Well, the short answer is, perhaps never.

The discussion paper states: "This list is not proposed to be subject to legislative requirements at this time. However, the ministry proposes to examine the substances in the

schedule and would consider whether any actions should be taken to address them over time." This approach has got to be of concern to Ontarians. Ontarians want to see action taken on toxic chemicals, and they want to see it now. To act in the manner that I've just described is a clear-cut refusal to act on the precautionary principle that the health of humans and the environment should be coming first.

Why is it that this government has not set the bar higher than the federal reporting standards, given that the implementation of reduction plans are not mandatory? If the reduction plans aren't mandatory, why don't you have a broader net to deal with the broader range of toxic chemicals? It looks like it's entirely possible that

schedule 4 chemicals will never be phased in.

It's worth quoting the CELA assessment of this at length, as discussion in their submissions to the Ministry of the Environment's discussion paper:

"Quite simply, too few substances (45 NPRI substances under the proposed

schedule 1) are designated for immediate action (i.e., in phase 1 as defined by the Ministry of the Environment). The 45 substances represent just 14% of the total number of substances (320) that currently are subject to the National Pollutant Release Inventory. Moreover, the 45 substances represent just 1.5% of the total annual tonnage of emissions of NPRI-reportable chemicals for the two industrial sectors (manufacturing and mineral processing) that MOE does propose to address under the new legislation (11,000 tonnes out of 717,000 tonnes).

That percentage drops to about 1% of the total annual tonnage of emissions of the National Pollutant Release Inventory-reportable chemicals when one includes the other sectors covered by NPRI that the Ministry of the Environment does not propose to address under the new legislation."

We have a limited scope in the bill itself. We don't have targets. We talk about only a small part of the total sector that deals with toxic chemicals and then we deal with a small percentage of the toxic chemicals themselves. This may well be the incredible shrinking bill that we witness as we go through this process.

Ontarians deserve better legislation than a mere 1% reduction in toxic substance emission by 2012. When you're putting three million kilograms of known and suspected cancer-causing chemicals and four million kilograms of reproductive toxic chemicals into the environment, you would think that we would be shooting for a much higher target than 1%. The federal regulation should be a base that Ontario adopts and a base which becomes the starting point of increased reporting and, hopefully, a reduction schedule.

Fees and funds: How are we going to make all this happen? How are you going to pay for the enforcement? How are you going to pay for the research? How are you going to fund the transition from one process of manufacturing that uses toxic chemicals to one that uses green chemicals? Bill 167 fails to create a fund and doesn't impose fees on the regulated businesses, and that's a mistake.

The minister's Toxics Reduction Scientific Expert Panel had the following to say about this issue, and this is from their December 31 memorandum to the Minister of the Environment: that the "TUR [toxic use reduction] strategy be funded by fees levied on the regulated community, recognizing the cost-saving potential of efficiencies discovered through the toxics use reduction planning required by the TUR legislation."

The absence of a fee structure and the creation of a fund has grave implications for the success of this strategy. Without this ongoing funding, the ministry is putting itself in a position where toxics reduction strategy is designed to fail. A process like this, one that requires expertise, oversight, research, planning etc., requires ongoing financial resources.

Currently, there's $40 million earmarked for this strategy over a four-year period. That, $10 million a year, is not going to be enough to provide adequate resources to the industries that need it. It will not be enough to keep the public informed. It will not be enough to see the success of this strategy realized.

If we look to Massachusetts, a state that has experienced great success—"success" defined as a reduction in toxic chemical use of 41%, reduction in toxic waste by 65%, on-site release reduced by 91% and reduction in toxic chemicals and products shipped by 58%, between 1990-2004—with its now 20-year-old Toxics Use Reduction Act, we can see the importance of instituting fees. Massachusetts levies an annual fee on companies that are required to report. This fee is on a sliding scale determined by the number of employees and the number of reportable chemicals.

These fees fund a permanent institute that provides technical support, expertise in pollution prevention, research training and public awareness. The institute also trains toxics use reduction planners. The Toxics Use Reduction Act legislation established this institute, set up at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell.

In addition to this university-based institute, the Toxics Use Reduction Act also created the Office of Technical Assistance and Technology for toxics use reduction, the OTA. The OTA is a non-regulatory office located within the Massachusetts state government that offers free technical support and guidance to industries to help them meet their legislative obligations.

Extensive studies have been carried out on the Massachusetts experience. A study of the costs and benefits of the program found that between 1990 and 1997, the costs of implementing the program were $77 million and the benefits were $91 million over the eight-year period. Participating companies saved more than $88 million in operating costs. Overall, state industries saved $14 million. That's a lot of money.

That makes a difference in terms of the viability of companies; it makes a difference in terms of the cash available to them to invest in productive areas; it makes a difference in the terms of the cash available to them to pay their employees and make sure they have adequate benefits and paid vacations. So $14 million is of consequence.

That is the kind of legislative impact that we need to see here in Ontario. We need to see those cost reductions; we need to see those chemical use reductions. The benefits just listed in terms of dollars don't include the human health, environmental and worker benefits of reduced toxic exposure and increased health outcomes. There is clear benefit to having in place a more effective act. Massachusetts has shown that there is a clear benefit. Their business community has had an improvement of their financial situation out of this. Their workers have had an improvement in their situation out of this. Why do we not at least come up to their standard?

Next issue: mandatory substitution of safer alternatives. Although toxics reduction legislation in Massachusetts has been updated to ensure that when safer substances exist, their substitution for the more hazardous chemicals is mandatory, Ontario has chosen to ignore this best practice. Why would you do that? Why would you not at least put in place that where a substance is available that is non-toxic, that does the same job and can replace the toxic chemical, why would you not mandate that you replace the toxic chemical with the non-toxic one? It makes sense.

It makes sense in terms of creating the market in Ontario for green chemicals; it makes sense in Ontario in terms of reducing the impact on people's individual health, the health of the population as a whole. We have, as I said earlier, three million kilos of known and suspected cancer-causing substances that we dump into the air every year and four million kilos of reproductive toxins that we dump into the air every year. Why wouldn't you mandate that, when a viable substitute is available, you replace the toxic chemical with the non-toxic? That makes a lot of sense, but we don't have it; Massachusetts does.

Bill 167 chooses to ignore the issue of safe alternative substitution. CELA, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, notes, "It appears that the province hopes that safer alternative substitution will occur as a result of the regulated community seeing the benefits thereof, not as a result of legal requirements to do so." CELA goes on to discuss how, in this day and age, after the experience and actions of states like Massachusetts, it is inexcusable that Ontario would not institute a mandatory substitution regime. They are right. It's inexcusable, and it's staggering. Why would you not act?

We're not saying that you should shut down your production; we're just saying that you should clean up your production.

Thresholds: The thresholds defined in Bill 167 are actually defined in this bill, as we are told that Bill 167 will apply to facilities that (1) employ more than the number of employees specified by regulations or (2) use or create more than the quantity of a prescribed toxic substance set out in the regulations. Of course, we don't know what these regulations are, so it's very difficult for us to knowledgeably comment on whether these thresholds will be useful or not useful, extensive enough or far too narrow.

However, we do have the discussion paper the Ministry of the Environment put out, the regulations set out in their discussion paper. These thresholds will follow the federal National Pollutant Release Inventory program, and that is a mistake. The minister's Toxics Reduction Scientific Expert Panel had this to say about copying the National Pollutant Release Inventory thresholds:

"On the issue of regulatory thresholds, the panel notes that the current proposal incorporates the thresholds as set out in the NPRI. Although the NPRI is a well-known reporting mechanism, MEO emissions modelling and assessments indicate that there are numerous NPRI chemicals for which point source (reporting facility) form only a small portion of total estimated provincial emissions.

Area estimates (from small and medium emitters based on densities of certain type of businesses in a regional area) in some cases form a high percentage of the emissions." And I'll emphasize what they had to say: "As a result, the panel recommends implementing pollution prevention obligations to facilities with lower thresholds than NPRI for certain substances."

Once again, the government has chosen to set the bar too low, is ignoring its own expert panel and is not putting in place the sort of tough legislation that was promised by the Premier when he was talking, prior to the election, about the need for action on toxic chemicals.

Next issue: conflict with municipal bylaws. Bill 167 is silent on the issue of conflict with municipal bylaws. We don't know what would happen in the case of a judicial challenge of bylaws that have stronger regulations than those contained in this legislation. That's something that needs to be addressed by the minister and needs to be addressed through this legislation.

As members of this House well know, the city of Toronto recently passed a toxics right-to-know bylaw. Without the explicit addressing of this issue, the government is leaving Ontarians to deal with legal challenges on the basis that the provincial legislation supersedes any municipal act. That needs to be addressed in the bill. Hopefully, it will be addressed in amendments.

Public right to know: Although Bill 167 includes basic provisions for keeping the public informed about parts of the mandatory reporting of affected sectors, this reporting is grossly insufficient when it comes to the public having any abilities to ensure compliance.

CELA notes in their responses to the 2008 Ministry of the Environment discussion paper: "Furthermore, the discussion paper is silent on the right of members of the public to request that the minister review an industrial facility's toxics use reduction plan or (as we recommend in the CELA model bill) substitution implementation plan to determine if they comply with the act's requirements."

CELA also notes the absence of provisions that would allow a member or members of the public to resort to the courts if the government does not act.

The fact of the matter is that this bill not only fails to include mandatory compliance with the toxics reduction plans that affected facilities must create, but they don't even include provisions to protect any of the teeth that this act does have. Once again, we're left wondering why this government has failed to create a toxics reduction strategy that will have the impact that it has to have.

Let's look at the lessons from other jurisdictions. We have an advantage in Ontario in setting our toxics reduction legislation. We have a broad range of research and best practices developed from more than two decades of toxics reduction legislation in other North American and European jurisdictions.

Take Massachusetts, which I referred to earlier. They have their Toxics Use Reduction Act, which set the standard which we should, at a minimum, be meeting or, hopefully, surpassing. Their legislation was introduced in 1989, and since then, the following has been achieved: 41% reduction in toxic chemical use, 65% reduction in toxic waste, 91% reduction in on-site release, and 58% reduction in toxic chemicals in products shipped out of state. All of this occurred between 1990 and 2004.

The reality is that Ontario is set to introduce a toxics reduction strategy that would place us at the bottom of the barrel when compared to other jurisdictions that are taking the action that needs to be taken.

When we look at the REACH legislation in Europe—their reporting, education and research on toxic chemicals—it is far ahead of anything that we're doing here.

What's being done in other jurisdictions means better environmental health, better health for human populations, lower disease rates and lower hazardous exposure for the workers in these facilities. It means cost savings and a contribution to the knowledge economy, a green industry and green chemistry. It means an industrial sector that stands to gain by reducing the release of toxic chemicals.

I've covered a fair amount of ground in the past almost hour. I want to draw some conclusions out.

First of all, rather than demonstrating a leadership role in toxics reduction, the McGuinty plan for a toxics reduction strategy falls short. Prior to the last election, Premier McGuinty was quoted on the Toxic Nation Environmental Defence website, commenting on the need for this kind of legislation, "a tough new toxic reduction law and a carcinogen reduction strategy. Our plan puts Ontario at the forefront in North America on tackling this issue." Well, it's very clear today that Bill 167 doesn't deliver on this promise. Bill 167, according to the experts, is not the toughest in North America; that's clear.

Instead, it's a great disappointment for those of us who are ready for strong and decisive action, action that would truly lead North America.

Bill 167 fails to live up to the standards set by jurisdictions that have already demonstrated success. What we have before us is a bill that's bare-boned and grossly deficient in detail, and what details we can conclude, we can infer, in terms of what will form the content of Bill 167 once the regulations have been set, at this point leave us sorely disappointed. Ontario has failed to raise the bar on one of the most pressing issues facing Ontarians. Ontarians are being told that action on reducing toxic exposures will not be mandatory and that the reporting measures will keep the bar at the same level already imposed by the federal National Pollutant Release Inventory program.

New Democrats believe in a strong toxics reduction strategy. We look forward to this bill going to the committee and to the amendment stage, where the bill has the possibility of being strengthened—and it needs to be strengthened. We have gone through the weaknesses in the bill.

If the government is listening to the population, if it takes the opportunity to go back to the recommendations of the expert panel, if it listens to organizations like the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario and the United Steelworkers and if it listens to the environmental groups that are out there pushing hard for reduction in the use of toxins, then they will go back to this bill and, in the course of hearings and in the course of amendments, substantially strengthen it.

People in Ontario deserve a bill that is substantially stronger, and it is our intention in the NDP to fight for a bill that is substantially stronger.

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

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It's a pleasure to join the debate this morning and to follow the remarks of the member from Toronto—Danforth, who actually had some substance to his remarks. I compliment him for that. Yesterday, from the same party, we had a lot of questions but not many answers from the member from Trinity—Spadina. The member today, I think, showed a good grasp of the issue.

Some things, though, that I would like to correct and that certainly, I think, run on the same road on this bill—some members of the opposition think it goes too far and others think it doesn't go far enough. At the end of the day, it probably does exactly what it's intended to do at this point in time. But I want to clear up any misconceptions that the bill is going to override the Toronto bylaw. They're complementary bills, very different bills, but they do complement each other. We have the agreement of the Toronto Environmental Alliance on that. So the point that perhaps these two are at odds with each other I don't think, upon analysis, proves to be accurate.

They talk about setting targets as well. I suppose you could set targets now. When you're drafting a bill, you've got the ability to do anything you want, put it before the floor of the House and see what they think. It seems to me that this would be an unwise time to set those targets. Do I agree that targets should be set at some point in this process? Personally, I would agree with that approach. Is this the time to set them? I don't think so. I think right now we'd be setting what we would be deeming as arbitrary targets.

I think you can take a look at the data that comes in from the first round of the process that we're suggesting should be set up and then, perhaps, you can look at targets. You'll know that you'll be basing the targets on some realistic assumptions and on some hard data that includes information that comes directly from industry within the province of Ontario.

The expert panels that we've had in Ontario have proven to us, shown us the evidence that the Massachusetts model has worked in the past. A lot of this bill is based on that model. I suspect it's a wonderful first step that's going to work in the future.

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

Mr. Toby Barrett: Yes, there has been a discussion of targets this morning, and I appreciate the hour done by the member for Toronto—Danforth, the environment critic for the third party.

Targets are important. We do have to go beyond merely filling out the forms.

As far as implementing and reaching some of these goals, many companies and businesses can continue to move forward on that front. But there are other enterprises that would have difficulty as far as actually accounting for or assessing what's going through their process and filling out these mandatory forms. It can be very complicated for certain industrial processes. I think of oil refineries, for example. That would be very challenging. It would be work-intensive to do an accounting of every individual toxic substance that comes through the main pipeline and contained within the crude oil.

By the same token, to try to analyze crude oil coming out of an oilfield near Petrolia or down Leamington way, as with Alberta—the product is there. Ideally it's contained within vessels, it's contained within tanks and pipelines, but is it really necessary to analyze day by day the toxic substances in crude oil once it comes into a refinery? It's contained within the lines; it's contained within the various tanks. Is it necessary to report on the toxic substances that are contained?

They're not being released unless there is some kind of emergency spill or a blowout, but why go to this trouble when something is contained, and how can you document that in the day-by-day refining process anyway?

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

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I listened to the honourable member for Toronto—Danforth for almost an hour, speaking about Bill 167, toxic waste reduction in Ontario. I heard him saying that the threshold is low and there's a limited scope and not providing people, including sectors—not setting up targets, and overriding the bylaws and federal jurisdictions, and many different issues.

I don't agree with the honourable member. I know of his opposition to this bill. He thinks this bill does not go far enough to deal with toxic waste in the province of Ontario. I disagree with him because I know that the Minister of the Environment and the leadership of our minister went far and wide in the province. I'll give you an example in my riding of London—Fanshawe. There is a big, huge project under way right to clean up the PCB sites in London. I think the cost is going to be huge, because we believe strongly that our environment should be clean, our communities should be clean and we should take the leadership in this matter.

I know it doesn't matter what you do in this life; you cannot do it all in one shot. You have to go step by step. You have to discuss it with your partners in communities. You have to take into consideration many different elements: the companies, factories and jurisdictions. It's all important to us. That's why the parliamentary assistant for the Minister of the Environment, the member for Oakville, mentioned that targets should be set—it may be that it's too early right now to set them up—before you go far and deep and consult and see what you can include in your target.

He mentioned that we're not doing enough in comparison to different jurisdictions—I think one in the United States—but he never mentioned any provinces in Canada. I think we are the leader in this country. I think the Premier set the bar very high because he believes strongly in a clean environment and in protecting our communities across the province of Ontario by introducing a strong bill to protect our communities.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): We have time for one last question or comment. I'm pleased to recognize the member for Durham.

Mr. John O'Toole: I'm always pleased to respond to the member for Toronto—Danforth. We talked about the bill yesterday. I know the minister spoke yesterday, and the parliamentary assistant, and there was general agreement on it, but the really serious content questions were raised by our opposition critic, Mr. Barrett. As well, on this side we believe that there is not the right consistency in the legislation when working in harmonization with the federal government. Let's be very clear. What we're saying here is this: This was part of our campaign platform, so we take this issue of toxic materials very seriously. The federal government has shown leadership on this issue as well.

We see the implications for the economy at the time and we see in this bill, under sections 45 and 46, a couple of sections that are really riddled with red tape. What they're not doing is getting it right. So we're trying to make the point here—and I'm sure the member, who has an illustrious career with Greenpeace in the past, wants also to support this bill. But getting it right is what the debate is about. Getting it right means that certainly we should have consistency between jurisdictions.

You wouldn't want to have a national plan where Ontario had a separate set of rules or a separate set of forms for reporting or for reviewing materials that could be coming from other jurisdictions. So let's get it right and let's work with the national plan. Let's make sure that there are standards that are achievable and methods of getting there.

This isn't new territory. Working in industry, as I have for 30-plus years, there was already a regime of reporting materials that was in use, either for cleaning or part of the process. This was called the WHMIS discipline. There were MSD sheets which defined the component and constituent parts. That information was shared, and that's a foundation to move forward with.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): That concludes the time for questions and comments. I'll return to the member for Toronto—Danforth, who has two minutes to respond.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My thanks to the members from Oakville, Haldimand—Norfolk, London—Fanshawe and Durham for their comments.

I think I'm going to focus on the comments from the member from Oakville and the whole question of setting targets. I believe that this government could look at jurisdictions across North America and could look at industrial jurisdictions in Europe. They could, before they presented this bill—maybe even now, in the next month or so—benchmark what's possible in advanced industrial societies and look at what's common in terms of the chemicals that are used, look at the commonality in industrial purpose and industrial activity and come forward with a target that would be achievable and that would allow this government and subsequent governments to be held accountable for action or lack of it.

I don't think it's a question for waiting for data from industry after we've brought forward

an act; it's a question of saying: "This is where we want to go as a society. These are the cleanups that have to happen. This is the approach that we're going to take, and it is going to be one of substance." To bring forward and to try and move through a bill that doesn't have those targets undermines the government's credibility when it says that it's going to be tough and innovative. It has to say where it wants to go. That is critical.

I'm pleased that he's been on the record saying that this act will not in any way override the city of Toronto's legislation, but I have to say to him that I've seen court challenges before in areas where the legislation has not been clear enough, and it would be very useful to have within the legislation an explicit statement that it doesn't override municipal bylaws that set a higher standard than is put in the legislation itself.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): It being close to 10:15, this House is in recess until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I'd like to welcome Natalie Bellehumeur and Guy Faucher, who are the parents of Myriam Faucher, one of our pages, who's the page captain today. They're here from North Bay visiting.

Hon. Michael Chan: I would like to welcome the grade 10 students from Father Michael McGivney Catholic Academy. They will be joining us in the public gallery later today.

Mr. Jim Brownell: I'd like to introduce William Webber, a former student of mine and a recent honours graduate in the social science program at Ottawa U. This fall, he'll be studying for a law degree at the University of Ottawa. Welcome, William.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I ask for unanimous consent that we can wear the yellow and black ribbon to recognize the Day of Mourning.

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

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I'd like to introduce in advance—I don't think they're here yet—12 students from Westdale Secondary School, accompanied by their teacher, Ms. Krista Levely. They're part of the Equal Voice Experiences program, which attempts to match young high school students with members of Parliament, current and former.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the member from Newmarket—Aurora and page Cooper Toogood, I'd like to welcome his mother, Patti; his brother Rhys; his sister Katie; his grandmother Sandra; his grandfather Hal; and his principal, Bob Sandiford. All will be here at Queen's Park today. Welcome.

ORAL QUESTIONS

INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONTROL

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is to the Premier. There has been much discussion at all levels with respect to the concerns stemming from the global outbreak of swine flu, with cases that are appearing throughout the world—and we're hearing of cases being monitored here in Ontario. Ontarians have a legitimate right to be somewhat concerned. I think we can all agree that this isn't a partisan matter. Would you tell us who is it that you and/or your Minister of Health are speaking with at the federal level and what discussions are taking place?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the question, and I'm very grateful for the tone as well. I think that the leader of the official opposition is absolutely right that this calls for all of us to be at our very best and to rise above differences which may not be that meaningful to Ontarians.

Let me say at the outset that there is a cause for concern, it is real, but I think it's not a cause for undue alarm, and I think we're always at our best when we approach these things in a calm and thoughtful way.

I want to take the opportunity, first, to assure families and reassure families that we have drawn all the lessons that we might from our experience here in 2003 at the time of SARS. We have more resources, more expertise, more technology and more protocols, and we have in place a very solid plan that helps us deal with these kinds of new strains, which, sadly, are a part of our modern reality. I just want to assure families that we are on top of this.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My colleague and the opposition health critic yesterday questioned the Minister of Health on this same matter in light of the fact that not all public health units in Ontario have local plans in place and not all units have permanent medical officers of health. It's also important to point out that in short order, Ontario will have a new chief medical officer of health. I think it's fair to say that there's going to be a period of transition when that occurs. Ontarians deserve to know that protocols and functions are in place and ready to go if there's a need.

Premier, you were asked this morning in a scrum about agricultural workers, who are vital to many sectors of that industry. Could you advise how you are approaching that matter, and what you are doing to ensure that those steps have been taken and that the proper protocols are in place?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Let me just provide some assurance from one of our experts, someone who, although he may not be a household name, became very prominent at the time of the SARS experience. He said the following lately, and I take some considerable confidence from this as well. This is Dr. Donald Low, who is the medical director of laboratories, Ontario Public Health Agency. He said, "There's been a big shift. We really have come a long way. We had no way to respond to this six years ago. We didn't have the infrastructure; we didn't have the expertise; we didn't have the communications.

Those are all there now. We're doing a much better job. It's good to see that that investment is paying off when we have a crisis like this." So again, I want families to draw some reassurance and confidence in that kind of a statement.

With respect to the specific issue raised by my colleague, I'm going to rely on our health experts to tell us what should and should not be done in those circumstances. Obviously, the priority has to be to protect Ontario families.

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Certainly, we trust that the minister is working with officials and staff at the local, provincial and federal levels in order to monitor and prepare. With that in mind, Premier, we would hope that we could get some assurance that regular updates, be it daily or perhaps weekly, be provided to the public in a formal manner.

I would think that these updates, not just based on questions here in the Legislature, Premier, would be in a public format in order to provide concerned Ontarians with information about the status of the outbreak, the availability of a vaccine and ensuring that health staff are ready and available when needed. Will you make that commitment, Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: First of all, I couldn't agree more with my honourable colleague that it's really important that we keep Ontarians informed on this matter. My understanding is that Dr. Williams, our chief medical officer of health, will make himself available daily to provide information to Ontarians through the media. I also want to take the opportunity to invite Ontarians to help us so that we can manage this in the best way possible together. There are some simple things that we can and should do. We need to regularly wash our hands. It sounds old-fashioned, but it's really important today.

Cover your mouth or your nose with your sleeve when you're coughing or sneezing. If you are sick and you think you're suffering from the flu, don't go in to work; stay home and contact your health care provider. We have a new ServiceOntario hotline, an info line, 1-800-476-9708, that's available to Ontarians so that they might become better informed about the swine flu.

TAXATION

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: It's a good thing the Premier had a note sent in. At least we got some positive response to the questions.

My second question is to the Premier as well, and it has to do with yesterday's Toronto Star, where it was indicated that you did not advise your cabinet colleagues of your plans to bring in a blended sales tax. We know from earlier reports that you were less than forthcoming with your own caucus. Premier, why would you eliminate your own caucus from participation in discussions around the appropriateness of proceeding with this record-breaking new tax?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm always pleased to take the opportunity to speak about our budget, and I appreciate the prompt from my colleague. We are determined, together, to build both a more caring and a more competitive Ontario, and our budget speaks to that very intention. Among other things, it does provide for business tax cuts and personal tax cuts, and it does speak to the importance of moving ahead with a single sales tax. We're absolutely convinced that this package of tax reforms that we've introduced in this budget is absolutely necessary to put us on a stronger and a more competitive footing.

We want to give our businesses the same advantages that they enjoy in 130 other countries and four other provinces; we want them to be able to compete on the same level as those other businesses in those jurisdictions. We want them to be strong so they can hire more Ontarians and generate the wealth we need to support our schools and our health care and supports for our vulnerable.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Premier, you've shut out your own cabinet, your backbenchers and, with last week's closure motion on the budget bill, you've shut out opposition parties and, most importantly, the public, the people who will have to pay this gargantuan new tax.

Your finance minister says he has not heard one concern from Liberal backbenchers. You've turned this government into one-man rule. You've gone against everything you stood for as an opposition leader, and, true to form, not one of your backbenchers has enough steel in their spine to stand up and oppose your autocratic rule.

Premier, it's not too late to be faithful to positions you took in the past. Stop the quick passage of your budget bill, consult with the opposition and open the bill up to extensive public hearings. Will you do that?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think my honourable colleague knows—it's something I've said many times before—that Minister Duncan engaged in more extensive pre-budget consultations than any previous Minister of Finance ever has. That was appropriate, in keeping with the nature of the economic challenge that we're all coming to terms with.

I think that Ontarians—in fact, I'm confident that Ontarians want us to take action. They oppose inaction. I believe they understand that there's no easy way out of this, that we're going to be called upon to do something to make sure we can look our kids in the eye and say, "We did what was necessary to protect your schools, your health care and our supports for your vulnerable, to make sure you could have good jobs. We generated the wealth to support a caring society." That's what we try to speak to through this budget.

So while we do cut, for example, business taxes, we're also increasing the Ontario child benefit, increasing the minimum wage and reducing income taxes on our lowest income earners.

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Premier, yesterday's news story also indicated that you've given your neglected and ignored cabinet ministers their marching orders, along with speaking points, and ordered them to get out and sell your new McGuinty sales tax because opposition is growing. There's nothing in the story about listening to taxpayer concerns.

In the PC Party, we've heard from residents in North Bay, Kitchener, Barrie, Lindsay, Cornwall, on and on, upset with this new tax grab, residents of Liberal-held ridings who apparently have no voice in this Legislature, represented by MPPs who won't even convey their concerns to the Minister of Finance.

Premier, this is wrong. It's wrong that you shut out the public. It's wrong that you've shut down your own members. Open the process up. Do the right thing: Honour your commitments of the past.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I just don't share my honourable colleague's perspective with respect to how we're moving forward with this. At heart, the opposition parties are in favour of doing nothing. They think that the fact that this is the biggest economic crisis in 80 years doesn't warrant action; the fact that we've lost hundreds of thousands of jobs doesn't warrant action; the fact that families, businesses and communities have been devastated doesn't warrant action. We think that inaction is not an option.

I think Ontarians understand that we are being called upon, that our generation is being called upon to do something that is not easy. We understand that. We recognize that. We're not saying that Ontarians are going to rush out there and embrace a single sales tax. I understand that. But I believe they know in their heart of hearts that we've been called upon to rise to the occasion, and that's what we're doing through our budget.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Peter Kormos: To the Premier: The news out of General Motors is stunning. The company's restructuring could cost Ontario up to 38,000 jobs. Something clearly has to be done, and it has to be done promptly. Why won't this government borrow a page from the Obama administration and insist on an equity stake in return for the substantial public investment that's being made to prevent GM from disappearing altogether?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the question and the opportunity to speak to this. I know that my honourable colleague would want to recognize that, first of all, we're the only subnational government in the world which is at the table and putting considerable taxpayer dollars forward in order to strengthen our auto sector. We're the only one in the world.

Secondly, with respect to this whole issue of an equity stake, it may or may not be a real possibility, and I will not foreclose that possibility. I think we have to be pragmatic. So I say to my honourable colleague: I'm not saying no to that and we're not saying yes to that. I think we have to be open to all the possibilities. Whatever we are called upon to do to help strengthen the sector and put it on a solid footing, we remain open to that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Kormos: If there ever was a time for public ownership in the auto sector, this is the time. Ontario taxpayers and auto workers themselves must have a direct say in GM's future course. We've invested far too much to let the company make decisions independently. It's those earlier decisions that the company made that created this mess in the first place. When will the McGuinty government realize it needs an ownership stake to ensure Ontario's interests are protected?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We've been there from day one as a government. We have firmly planted our flag in the future of our auto sector. For five years running, we were the number one auto producer in North America, an achievement we'd never enjoyed in the past. Now our sector, like the American sector and like the global sector, has fallen on hard times. We're going to continue to work hand in hand with the workers, with GM and Chrysler, with the federal government and, through the federal government, with Washington as well to see what we can do to protect the integrity of the sector for the future.

There are good reasons to be optimistic. We know that GM, for example, is going to launch six new products, and three of those will be built here in the province of Ontario. This speaks to the future. Honda has also announced they're going to build a brand new product in Ontario, beginning later this year. So here are reasons for to us remain optimistic about the future of the sector here in our province.

Mr. Peter Kormos: This isn't the time for more photo ops; it's time for bold and decisive action. Ontario taxpayers are flowing billions of dollars into GM. In return, there's got to be a public ownership stake. Why won't this Premier agree with that modest proposal?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, we'll just have to wait and see what unfolds at the table together with Ottawa and the workers and others. I think we have to be pragmatic in that regard.

I think my honourable colleague said, somewhat dismissively, that it's not a time for photo ops. I just want to say that we took a moment, just a moment this morning, to celebrate Honda of Canada's five millionth vehicle here in the province of Ontario. As I said just a moment ago, they made a commitment to begin to produce a new vehicle here in Ontario. I know this is a difficult time for workers, families and for the sector generally, but we want to work as hard as we can to put the entire sector on a solid footing so that workers in particular have good reason to be optimistic about their future.

MEDICAL EVACUATION

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. Victoria George-Pazzano is a young woman in my riding. She has a family—a husband and a small son. Ms. George-Pazzano was vacationing with her family in Mexico when she tragically suffered a severe asthma attack. All the George-Pazzano family wants is to bring Victoria home so that she can see her son, perhaps for the last time. Yet the family is encountering roadblocks from this government. What justification does this government have for refusing the wishes of the family?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Let me just say—I'm going to give the supplementaries to my Minister of Health—that our heart goes out to this family who have a daughter in Mexico who has been stricken by a terrible illness. Obviously we want to do everything that we can to ensure that their daughter can be brought back here to Canada at the earliest possible opportunity. But as I understand it, that requires the consent of the attending physician in Mexico to ensure that it is in fact safe to transport their daughter here. But I want to assure the family that we have the capacity to accommodate their daughter, and we are more than prepared to assist in any way we can to receive her.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: As people know, all this family wants is to have Victoria brought home to Toronto. While the Premier says that this family is not going to find roadblocks with the health care system, what they've reported so far is, in fact, they are meeting those roadblocks. Victoria's husband has arranged for an air ambulance transfer, but they're being told that the hospital beds are full. There is no place, they're being told, for Victoria to be cared for in her home province. Victoria's family suspects she is being barred because of fears of the swine flu.

I appreciate the comments of the Premier, and I hope that in the answer that we're given it will be made clear what steps the government is going to take to make sure that this family gets the support that they deserve and need.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. David Caplan: I think, as the Premier has indicated—first of all, I want to let the member know that my heart goes out to the families in a very difficult time. I know that a lot of people are working very hard on this challenging situation. I have a concern for any Ontarians who become ill when they are abroad, and I want to be clear with the member and with all Ontarians that we have ICU bed capacity in Ontario to be able to accommodate this particular case, and all cases, in fact. There aren't any provincial restrictions on guidelines permitting the transfer of patients from Mexico into Canada.

I can't comment on the specific individual case, but in cases like the one the member has cited, the patient's care provider would work with the patient's insurance provider to secure an available bed in a hospital. As I mentioned before, it is not an ICU capacity issue. It's important to note that any decisions on whether the patient is well enough to travel is a decision made with their care provider—

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: As the person representing this family in this constituency, I have to say to you, Minister, that the family has been told that the problem is that there isn't an ICU capacity; you've said that there is.

Can you tell us why there seems to be this barrier between what you're saying and what the hospitals are saying to the family, and how are you going to pierce that barrier so this family can get what they need?

Hon. David Caplan: I'm not sure what has been communicated to the family. What I can assure this member of, indeed what I can assure all Ontarians of, is that there is ICU bed capacity in the province of Ontario. I do know that a lot of people are working very hard to ensure that work can be done to help this individual and this family to be able to have a place in Ontario and to be able to receive the care that is so desperately needed.

I hope there will be a very quick resolution to this particular situation, but I do want to reiterate, for the purposes not only of this individual case but for all Ontarians, that in fact there is the capacity within Ontario's hospitals—an ICU capacity—that is available and that we will be able to provide on an ongoing basis the kind of care and treatment that any Ontarian would expect.

GREEN POWER GENERATION

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure. Minister, you have claimed that your Green Energy Act will create 50,000 new jobs over the next three years in the province of Ontario, but you have not given a single piece of evidence to substantiate that claim. Now you've been forced to back off on your ill-conceived energy audit plan and your powers of search and seizure by your energy police.

I'd ask the minister: Given those changes and knowing that your plan was fictitious to begin with, what is your new fictitious job number for the green energy disguise?

Hon. George Smitherman: This is a fine opportunity to demonstrate, in the course of the legislative process, that bills can be refined and improved with the input of Ontarians and with the participation of members of the Legislature. We do want to thank the members of the committee who are continuing to do hard work.

It is true that we have offered an amendment on home energy audits, which will continue to be mandatory. We have created the condition whereby a purchaser may waive their right to an audit, perhaps in cases where they are intending to demolish the home or to substantially renovate it. On powers of search and seizure, which the honourable member did give quite a bit of attention to, we're very prepared to eliminate those because we feel very, very confident of full participation in those areas that might be subjected to it. By way of supplementary, I'll be happy to tell the honourable member more about how this is going to spark a green economy—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock for a second. I'd just ask the honourable member to be cautious of his choice of words. There was a word that he used a couple of times in his question that is a bit questionable. Thank you.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you, Speaker. Minister, your "50,000 jobs" figure is nothing but a fairy tale. Mind you, we in the opposition have been pleased to have been able to force you to back down on your ill-conceived plans in your Green Energy Act. We now know that there won't be an energy auditor lurking on every corner, and the toaster police have been unplugged. But I'm asking the minister to tell us again what effect this is going to have on those job numbers. London Economics International says that your job numbers are unsubstantiated.

They have examined your act through something other than rose-coloured glasses. So I ask you again, Mr. Minister: What is the revised job number for your green energy disguise?

Hon. George Smitherman: The honourable member raises his friends whom he contracted at London Economics. He promised us a full study, which still hasn't arrived.

I say to the honourable member that last Friday we had the opportunity at the Green Living Show to hear from world experts, many of whom said that they thought the 50,000-job number was too low. Let me leave it to this quote. It does talk about the opportunity. This is from Don McCabe. Don McCabe is a vice-president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, and he's a straight shooter. Here's what he said. He predicts that 15,000 farmers could eventually sell biomass, such as leftover corncobs, to that industry, bringing $1 billion annually to the farm gate. The former tobacco fields of Norfolk county could be a perfect spot to grow crops for biomass facilities—

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

ATTAWAPISKAT FIRST NATION

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Premier. Last week, your government affirmed your commitments to Jordan's Principle. That means that no child in a First Nation anywhere in this province will go without services that are necessary to be able to survive in those communities, either by way of social services or health services. If this is the principle that you signed on to, can you tell me why, then, you're still allowing some 600 kids to be without school as a result of the diesel spill in Attawapiskat, and your government is doing nothing?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I thank the member for the question because it does give me an opportunity to once again say how proud we are as a government to stand with First Nations in making a statement last week declaring that, indeed, this government will abide by Jordan's Principle. This does put the health of children first in this province, ahead of jurisdictional disputes.

I'll speak further in the supplementary about the situation in Attawapiskat, because I probably won't have the time now. But I would say that the member knows full well there is no jurisdictional dispute with regard to what's going on in Attawapiskat. The First Nation knows that, the federal government knows that and the provincial government knows that. We are working together in this situation. We do take it seriously. I'll respond further in the supplementary directly to that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: You sure have a funny way of showing how you stand in solidarity with First Nations when there are 600 children at Attawapiskat who can't go to school. You've got some 200 people who are ill as a result of the diesel fumes that are emanating from that particular site in Attawapiskat. What that community has told you is that the federal government is unwilling to do anything in order to double-check the situation as far as health and safety. They've asked your government to go in with Ministry of Labour, Ministry of the Environment and Ministry of Health in order to ascertain what the health effects are to the kids in that community and the families.

This is clearly a jurisdictional dispute. Why don't you live up to your commitments in Jordan's Principle and go and do what the First Nation has asked you to?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The member should familiarize himself with what Jordan's Principle means. It comes into play when there is a jurisdictional dispute. There's no jurisdictional dispute here. The federal government is responsible for the air quality in Attawapiskat. They know that; they're involved there; the First Nation knows that as well. We've been in touch with the First Nation. They're very much aware of that.

But despite that fact, we recognize the seriousness of the situation. We know that the First Nation would like reassurances. The federal government has been doing testing in there; they're doing more. We're reviewing that testing, as we committed to, to give reassurances to the community that in fact there are no health problems there. There's a third party that's doing testing as well.

We will continue to fulfill our responsibility. We will continue to work with the First Nation in Attawapiskat and we'll continue to work with the federal government to ensure that those assurances are given.

INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONTROL

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I've got a question today for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. All members will know and the minister will know that yesterday, the World Health Organization increased its global alert level to level 4. What this increase verifies is sustained human-to-human transmission of the swine flu.

My constituents in Oakville, and I'm sure all over Ontario, are hearing news about the swine flu from sources all over the world. Intermingled with these ever-changing details, there's also a lot of speculation and a lot of rumours going on. So my question for the Minister of Health today is: Can the minister set the record straight? Specifically, are there any cases of swine flu in Ontario, and how can Ontarians continue to protect themselves against this illness?

Hon. David Caplan: I'd like to thank the member for the question. I want to start by reiterating that at this point in time, there are currently no confirmed cases of swine flu in Ontario. I know that of course Ontarians are worried, but we are doing everything that we can to keep them informed. Yesterday, for example, we opened a new ServiceOntario infoline to directly answer questions that Ontarians have about the outbreak. People can dial 1-800-476-9708 to learn more about how they can protect themselves from the flu.

My office forwarded this number to all members of this House so that they can share it with concerned constituents. We've offered opposition members briefings with the chief medical officer of health, David Williams, and I'm happy to say that they have accepted.

Individuals should use the same precautions as for flu: Wash your hands frequently; cover coughs and sneezes; and stay home if you are ill. Individuals who think they may be ill should contact Telehealth Ontario or their local health care provider. I'm confident that experts not just in—

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

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I want to thank the minister for that answer. It provides Ontarians, I think, with a reasoned and a reassuring response.

I appreciate that the minister is doing everything he can to monitor the situation and to continue to provide Ontarians and this House with up-to-date information. But still, over the last few days, many questions have been raised about just how well prepared Ontario is for this outbreak. I've heard my constituents and indeed other members of this House ask about our province's preparedness in this regard. So I wanted to take this opportunity to set the record straight. Can the minister tell the House: How is Ontario prepared to deal with the current swine flu outbreak?

Hon. David Caplan: I want to thank the member for the question. I want to reassure the House that Ontario is, indeed, well-equipped to handle swine flu. In fact, Ontario has learned the lessons from SARS. We have a network of people in place to be able to better monitor, to communicate and to coordinate in a far better way than we did in 2003.

The experts agree. I want to quote Dr. Michael Gardam, director of infectious disease prevention and control for the Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion, who says, "In terms of concern, we've been working on this for years. I think we're as ready as we're ever going to be for something like this."

Dr. Robin Williams, chief medical officer of health for the Niagara region public health unit, says, "I think we are as best prepared as we could be for whatever that storm is going to look like here.... We have surveillance now. Five or six years ago, we wouldn't even have realized this was happening."

Vicki Hawksworth, the Lambton county supervisor of environmental health and prevention services, says—

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

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Toby Barrett: To the Minister of Finance: General Motors announced yesterday that 300 car dealerships would be closing across Canada. That means 6,000 direct jobs slashed and another 14,000 slated to disappear, plus 18,000 in the auto parts sector. Minister, this is happening on your watch. What have you done and what are you doing to keep car dealerships open here in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Michael Bryant: The province has been, since December, working with the car companies to keep them viable. The best thing that a government or investor or lender can do for that company to speak to the health of those dealerships is to in fact have a healthy company. These are the kinds of significant changes to the company that were deemed by the company to be necessary. It is obviously a big contraction to the industry itself, which reflects the massive drop-off in terms of sales. It's very, very tough news. It may in fact be necessary for the companies to do that in order for them to turn around and have a profitable future.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Toby Barrett: Back to the Minister of Finance: This is about tax policy. I've written you twice with regard to the benefits of a tax holiday with respect to vehicle sales. You chose to ignore the warnings, and today we see the results of your inaction. Each dealership will be firing between 50 and 150 employees. Each dealership will no longer be contributing up to $100,000 to sports, local hospitals and charities within their communities.

Minister of Finance, will you reconsider your position? Will you implement a tax holiday on vehicle sales and help stem this tide in job loss?

Hon. Michael Bryant: I'll refer this question to the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: No, we won't. I would refer the member to a column in the Globe and Mail yesterday by Eric Reguly that pointed out the failure of the German policy. It's consistent with what I said earlier to the member and his colleagues, that it doesn't in fact increase sales. What it does is move sales forward, and then, when the tax is removed, as it's going to be in Germany, there's no net benefit.

The member and his party have voted against every—every—initiative we have taken to help the automotive industry. They voted against helping General Motors. They have spoken and voted against helping Chrysler. They have not offered anything of substance.

The policies we've outlined in the long term, given the enormous challenge in the economy, are the right response today and will help rebuild this industry as we come out of this global world challenge.

TAXATION

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Premier. Across Ontario, a backlash is brewing over this government's HST tax grab. MPPs' offices, including mine and, I'm sure, those of every single MPP in this room and in this Legislature, are being flooded with angry letters from hard-working Ontarians who just can't afford the extra 8% at the gas pump and on their home utility bills.

At a time of unprecedented economic turmoil, what does this government have to say to the millions of Ontarians who are angry at this tax grab and rightly refuse to accept your explanations given in this House to date?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I remind the member opposite what the Premier said in an earlier question, and that is, Ontarians are looking to their governments to take dramatic action to help build this economy and help get us through the enormous challenges we face.

That's why we put together a comprehensive tax reform package, a tax reform package that will lower personal income taxes by some $10.6 billion, with corporate tax cuts for both small and large businesses and, importantly, investments in vital public services—investments in tax cuts for the Ontario child benefit, for instance—the kinds of policies that, as we get through this challenge, and we will get through this challenge, will ensure that not only are we competitive but we remain a very, very compassionate society.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Michael Prue: This is the same tired explanation that people are not accepting out there in the province of Ontario. Apparently, this government's only response to the HST uproar is to send ministers out on the road armed with updated spin lines that we're hearing here today. No matter how they spin this tax grab, Ontarians are not buying it.

Yesterday, the government, through the Deputy Premier, admitted that they were wrong-headed in the mandatory home audits. Why won't this government now admit that the HST is bad economics and the wrong tax at the wrong time, and pull the plug on yet another wrong-headed policy?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We don't agree with the member. I think what Ontarians want is a government that's prepared to confront the challenges of the day.

The people of Ontario reject a party that criticizes us for a single sales tax and that 18 short months ago wrote a letter to us asking us to increase the provincial sales tax. You were there; he was there, he was there, and he was there—all of them, Mr. Speaker. They were all there.

This tax reform package and our investments in the most vulnerable represent a bold response to the challenges in today's economy. It's about building confidence in our economy and maintaining the compassionate and caring society that Ontario always has been. When we get through this—and we will—we will be bigger, better and stronger, with better health care and better education for all Ontarians.

DRIVER LICENCES

Mr. Bruce Crozier: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. On March 6, 2009, the Photo Card Act, 2008, became law. This authorized the creation of an enhanced driver's licence as a passport alternative for entry into the United States via land or water.

Recently, other jurisdictions have begun implementing their versions of the enhanced driver's licence, most notably the province of Quebec and also the state of Michigan, a jurisdiction frequently travelled to by constituents in my riding.

I often receive questions on this card from my constituents. I ask the minister to share with this House the status of Ontario's enhanced driver's licence and when we might expect to see it available. I've been hearing conflicting reports on the release date of this important form of ID. Can you clarify this matter so I can relay accurate information to my constituents?

Hon. James J. Bradley: It's an excellent question from the member, first of all.

As he knows, Ontario is introducing a driver's licence called an enhanced security driver's licence to help ensure the efficient flow of cross-border travel, that it is not interrupted by the implementation of the new US border-crossing rules which come into effect on June 1 of this year. We have been involved in negotiations with the US Department of Homeland Security and the Canada Border Service Agency, and I can inform the member from Essex that we are on track for that implementation date of spring of this year. This means that the first of those approved for the card will have it available to them by June 1 of this year.

The new card design has been finalized. Ministry staff have also implemented the new system that will be used, and of course people can exercise the other option of getting a Nexus pass or a passport if that happens to be their particular choice.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Bruce Crozier: To the minister: I want to thank him for that answer.

Not only is the enhanced driver's licence an easy-to-carry tool for those living in Ontario, but it's also important for those in the States who like to visit our area, either on a planned trip, on impulse or on one-day trips. We have wonderful wineries and other tourist attractions throughout the Windsor-Essex area which rely on this type of travel. This card is important to those living in Essex, and I'm encouraged by the number of people who plan to obtain an enhanced driver's licence. I was pleased to hear that Windsor is one of the locations where the program is initially scheduled to roll out.

I ask the minister to share with this House a few more details on the enhanced driver's licence program. Particularly, how much will it cost and where will Ontarians be able to apply for this valuable card?

Hon. James J. Bradley: First of all, if they're going to travel by air, of course, or they anticipate that could happen, they can obtain a passport from the Canadian government. But the enhanced version of this licence will cost $40 above the $75 price of a driver's licence. Currently a passport costs $87, which means the EDL represents about a $47 saving to travellers.

MTO worked with ServiceOntario to identify the initial locations. They were selected due to the expected demand for uptake. Enrolment offices will be initially located in eight communities: Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, Windsor, St. Catharines, Kingston, Ottawa, Cornwall and Toronto. The government recognizes that other communities may be interested in or benefit from an office where an enhanced driver's licence could be available. That's why we'll be monitoring enrolment volumes, and as demand increases, we'll consider more locations.

TRAVEL INDUSTRY

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: To the Minister of Consumer Services: You refused to answer my question yesterday about repeated calls for a public inquiry into the 2006 collapse of One Step Travel. Why did you ignore a meeting request by the Association of Retail Travel Agents when they wrote to you just two months before Conquest collapsed, on February 3, about the serious and prevailing consequences of TICO's failure on One Step and the safeguards a public inquiry would have put in place to prevent further collapses of vacation companies that lack sufficient working capital?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: Actually, I answered the member's question yesterday, and I want to say this again to the member: The first priority when a travel company fails, the first priority of TICO and our government, is to protect consumers and bring the people back if they are stranded outside in any region. That is our responsibility.

I want to ask the member—this happened in 2006 and this was an Ottawa-based agency. Do you not want us to bring those people back? Do you want us to leave them where they are stranded? Is that what you want us to do?

Not only that, but this issue was raised in the annual general meeting of TICO last year, and TICO has ordered a third party review and I am waiting for the recommendations of that review. As I said yesterday, if any recommendations come out of it that we need to implement, we will do that.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: "Wow," is all one can say—wow. But the Premier himself has often said that the best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour. Minister, your mandate is to protect Ontario's consumers, yet your lack of oversight, accountability and apparent regard for what TICO has done has been pitiful. On June 25, 2008, an Ontario Court of Justice criticized TICO for not doing its job and said, "Should TICO have sanctioned One Step much earlier, perhaps the offences would not have resulted." On June 24, 2008, at a TICO AGM, members called for a public inquiry into the demise of One Step Travel.

On February 3, 2008, as I just mentioned, ARTA asked you for a meeting to discuss a public inquiry into One Step, and on March 5, 2009, you told them you were too busy.

Minister, isn't it true that had you acted on TICO's failures with One Step, you could have prevented the collapse of Conquest?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: What is really true is that Ontario is very fortunate. There are only two other provinces in Canada that actually have a fund that protects consumers. TICO did everything to protect consumers and bring them back.

I think the member has missed an important point, which is this: My understanding is that the case of One Step involved some fraudulent activities, and charges were laid. The independent view was ordered, and we are waiting for the recommendation of the independent audit. If there are any recommendations that will come from that, we will implement them. But the important thing here is for TICO to act quickly and as fast as they can to bring people back into the country so that they don't suffer and they are taken care of. That's what TICO did, and I'm not sure that any of these activities could have—

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

GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY

Mr. Peter Kormos: A question to the Premier: Grape growers like Don Wiley down in St. Catharines can't find a market for all of their grapes and are on the verge of bankruptcy because the Ontario government continues to allow so-called Ontario wines to be made with up to 70% imported grapes or juice. When is the government going to require Ontario wines to be made of 100% Ontario grapes so that grape growers like Don Wiley aren't forced out of business?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: That is to the Minister of Government Services.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: We have a very good program to support our wineries throughout Ontario. I can say to the House that never has there been a finer couple of years in the grape industry and the wine-making industry than of late.

The House should also know that our government has consistently stood with both the winemakers and the grape growers in terms of assuring that, on balance, the industry is viable and that they're working together in the interest of Ontario consumers. We're proud of our wine industry. It has made great strides over the years, and we continue to stand with the industry.

Mr. Peter Kormos: More horse feathers—please. Grapes are rotting on the vine because grape growers like Don Wiley can't find a market. These are generations of families who have been working this very scarce, rare agricultural land. California has an 85% minimum California content. Why can't Ontario at least come close to the California standard?

The government, in October 2008, called upon the wine council and the grape growers to resolve the impasse. They've been unable to do so. The government said that if they couldn't, it would. When is this government going to act to protect grape growers? It talks a big game about Buy Ontario, but all it does is line the pockets of the ad firms down the road on Bay Street.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: As the honourable member opposite should know, VQA wines, which are really our flagship label for Ontario wines, are 100% Ontario-grown wines. He also should know that when the Ontario grape growers asked us for help some time back with the lack of contracts for certain grapes, we provided one-time $4-million funding. We did that proudly. We did that very much in the context of standing in solidarity with our grape growers and wine producers. We continue to be proud of both.

We have urged them to continue to work together to resolve some historical difficulties and we're optimistic that that will come to, dare I say it, fruition.

ABORIGINAL HOUSING

Mr. Bill Mauro: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, recently you visited northwestern Ontario, including my riding of Thunder Bay—Atikokan, and I understand you also visited Fort Frances and the Northern Ontario Municipal Association annual conference.

As you know, ensuring that there is enough housing that is safe and affordable is a constant issue that all levels of government deal with. In many northern communities in particular, aboriginal communities have come forward asking our government to assist in providing more affordable housing. They are doing what they can to provide for their fellow citizens, but they need our help as well.

I was pleased that you and Ministers Duguid and Gravelle announced a new program for off-reserve housing for the aboriginal community. Could the minister please inform the House about the details of this program?

Hon. Jim Watson: I'd like to thank the honourable member. It was a pleasure to be back in his riding and also to be joined by my colleagues the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and the Minister of Natural Resources. Together with the Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres, the Métis Nation of Ontario and the Ontario Native Women's Association, we signed a historic memorandum of understanding that will see the investment of $60 million in affordable housing for over 500 low-income aboriginal households living off-reserve outside the greater Toronto area.

This is part of our government's continuing effort to work to build strong, vibrant communities across Ontario, and it marks a historic partnership between the government of Ontario and the aboriginal communities of Ontario. I thank the honourable member for his interest, and we look forward to seeing this money invested in—

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

Mr. Bill Mauro: Thank you, Minister. At the announcement, you emphasized that the recommendations made by the aboriginal community for their housing needs off-reserve formed the basis of the FIMUR housing program. The aboriginal community led extensive community engagement to determine the specific needs of the members of their communities. Across Ontario, the aboriginal community is demonstrating a true willingness to work with the government to provide the best for their communities and to strengthen Ontario.

This funding was made possible through the aboriginal housing trust. This is an important program that is delivering needed housing dollars to our aboriginal communities. Could the minister speak more broadly about the aboriginal housing trust?

Hon. Jim Watson: This is an opportunity for funds and programs to be run by the aboriginal community, for the aboriginal community, in the aboriginal community. It's a total of $80 million; $60 million will be going to off-reserve housing initiatives outside of the GTA, and for the remainder of $20 million, we've signed a separate MOU with the Miziwe Biik Development Corp. that will provide new affordable housing for up to 320 low-income aboriginal households living off-reserve in the GTA. Twenty million dollars will be available for new affordable housing rental units, homeownership loans and home repairs.

We will continue to consult with our aboriginal partners so we can help make a positive impact on the lives of aboriginal peoples as early as possible. My ministry will ensure that off-reserve aboriginal communities in Ontario have fair, transparent and equitable access to the trust funds.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question today is for the Minister of Education. Minister, this past weekend Simcoe county celebrated the annual maple syrup festival in Elmvale. Tens of thousands of people attend this great rural event each year, and this year the talk of the community was a decision by the local school board to close the Elmvale District High School.

The school board is reluctantly recommending the closing of schools such as Elmvale because they simply do not have the money and the funding to keep them open. In Toronto, you found $12 million to keep swimming pools open, but the Elmvale District High School does not have a swimming pool and they never asked for one. They just want their school to stay open, not a pool.

Will you support the citizens of Elmvale and flow funding to the local school board so the Elmvale District High School can remain open to serve this vibrant rural community well into the future?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Whenever there is a decision about a change like the closing of a school or consolidations of schools or changing a program, I know those can be difficult for communities. But what I also know is that when local boards engage in consultation with their communities and they make a decision that is going to provide for better programming for students, those kids get a better opportunity in their schools.

The fact is that over the last four or five years we have provided millions of dollars. This year alone, rural boards have received $131.6 million in new investments, bringing their total funding to $3.45 billion. They've received that money in the face of declining enrolment. By next September, there will be 106,000 fewer students in our schools than there were in 2002-03. We have worked very hard to buffer school boards against declining—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. The member for Simcoe—Grey.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I just want to quote from a letter that has been sent to you several times by the group Let's Build It Here and Let's Build It Now. It says: "The current situation at the school is unbearable. The on-the-ground capacity for the school is 366 students and our current enrolment is 585.... This year, 99% of our students will be attending at least one class in a portable, and at any given time 31% of our students are in portables. In fact, 44% of our school capacity is in portables."

Clearly, Minister, the need is there; it has been there for a few years. The school board could vote on June 17 to rebuild the Elmvale District High School.

I was also at the maple syrup festival this weekend and was reminded in discussions with many merchants that the high school in Elmvale is really the lifeblood of the community and certainly the economic lifeblood of the community. So there are the jobs to be considered and the businesses to be considered, as well as the quality of education for the students.

If the school board votes on June 17 to build that school, will you help to pay for it?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think the member opposite knows that these decisions have to be made locally. The funding for the Simcoe County District School Board has increased by $117 million since we've been in office. I think it is clear that we have continued to provide support for this board and boards across the province even though there are fewer students in the schools.

I think it would be irresponsible for a minister at the corner of Bay and Wellesley to make a decision about a school in a community where there are particular needs and there are trustees who know the community. Every board in the province has to develop a capital plan that provides the facilities and the programming for the students in those local communities. I have every confidence that the Simcoe board is going to be able to do that. My hope would be, actually, that the MPPs would be part of a constructive community process that would provide for better programming for the kids down the road.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday Magna announced it was laying off 725 workers at its Formet Industries plant in St. Thomas. That's on top of 120 layoffs already announced in January; that's on top of major layoffs at the Ford assembly plant in St. Thomas.

St. Thomas and other communities like it are being devastated by this massive job loss. Workers like these now-to-be-laid-off workers in St. Thomas want to know: What is and where is the McGuinty government's plan to sustain manufacturing jobs in Ontario?

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

Hon. Michael Bryant: To answer the member's question quite directly, the support for the manufacturing jobs comes first from the budget, which provides significant tax changes for significant assistance to the manufacturing industry. Secondly, the government for some years now has been investing hundreds of millions of dollars to leverage billions of dollars of investment by the manufacturing industry through the advanced manufacturing investment strategy and other programs that have sometimes grown companies within the manufacturing industry and, in some cases, as we are heading through these consolidation battles between suppliers, provided assistance for future growth.

We met with Magna executives yesterday. These layoffs are temporary layoffs, I know the member would want to point out, and they reflect the huge drop in demand that people have had for automobiles.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: I think we should take from that that the McGuinty government's plan is the same old, same old—the same old that has seen over 300,000 manufacturing jobs disappear in the last couple of years, the same old that has the unemployment rate headed to double digits.

My question is more specifically this: It's interesting that when one of the Premier's so-called economic gurus, Professor Florida, was asked, "What should laid-off workers do?", his advice was, "Well, they should become creative and open an art gallery." Is that the McGuinty government's real economic strategy here for laid-off workers? Because the same old, same old obviously isn't working. What is the strategy? And is Professor Florida right in saying, "Oh, simply be creative; get a job in an art gallery"?

Hon. Michael Bryant: The member reminds me that the Martin Prosperity Institute and the dean of the Rotman School of Management said just two weeks ago that the budget that was introduced by the Ontario government is literally going to completely turn around the approach, fiscally, that will allow for growth of our export companies. Roger Martin referred to the budget as "fantastic" and "excellent," and said as much on several occasions. In fact, it is a huge boost to the manufacturing industry.

It's a very tough time, no question, Mr. Speaker, for those workers in St. Thomas, something that I know you care very deeply about, and you continue to do your job as an MPP in that regard.

The government of Ontario has provided literally hundreds of millions of dollars in both assistance and stimulus to the manufacturing industry. We've been there for that industry before, and we'll continue to be with that industry in the future.

AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. We all know about the importance of eating locally produced food. It provides benefits to the local economy and better returns for farmers, and is beneficial for our environment. We have talked about this issue many times here in this House, and I've spoken about this issue back home in my great riding of Hamilton Mountain, where my constituents are very interested in knowing where their food comes from.

A recent study conducted by Farmers' Markets Ontario shows that there is an increasing demand for farmers' markets in this province, and Ontarians place great value on knowing where their food comes from. Can the minister tell this House some of the results of this study?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I thank the honourable member for the question. It is really important that we talk about the successful partnerships we have forged with groups like Farmers' Markets Ontario. They indicated to us that it would be important for them to do some research to understand what the purchase patterns are for the people of Ontario, and that study was conducted.

Among the highlights of the study by Farmers' Markets Ontario: Over 15 million shoppers visit farmers' markets in Ontario and 47% of Ontario vendors report that a greater-than-50% total of the farm income is generated through farmers' markets—indeed, a very successful venture in the province of Ontario. Fifty per cent of vendors report the creation of up to five jobs as a result of market participation. Farmers understand that by participating in farmers' markets, there is definitely job creation there.

The economic impact of farmers' markets in the province of Ontario is estimated to be up to $1.9 billion per year. That is money that is raised and largely reinvested in rural communities right across Ontario.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Pursuant to standing order 38(a), the member for Nepean—Carleton has given notice of her dissatisfaction with the answer to her question given by the Minister of Small Business and Consumer Services concerning TICO and the collapse of Conquest Vacations. This matter will be debated today at 6 p.m.

There being no deferred votes, this House stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1134 to 1500.

INTRODUCTION OF VIS