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

April 2, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Apr-02 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 2 April 2009 Jeudi 2 avril 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GREATER TORONTO

AND HAMILTON AREA

TRANSIT IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT

DU RÉSEAU DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN

DE LA RÉGION DU GRAND TORONTO

ET DE HAMILTON

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

TAXATION

PROVINCIAL PURCHASING POLICY

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

AUTISM TREATMENT

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

PUBLIC TRANSIT

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

SMALL BUSINESS

PUBLIC TRANSIT

TAXATION

PUBLIC TRANSIT

HYDRO RATES

OFFICE DES AFFAIRES FRANCOPHONES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

POPE JOHN PAUL II

ORAL HEALTH

SENIORS

MINISTER'S VISIT

CARBON MONOXIDE POISONING

SPORTS CLINIC

HAROLD KENNEDY

NURSES

IMMIGRANTS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GENERAL GOVERNMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GENERAL GOVERNMENT

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

WORLD AUTISM AWARENESS DAY

WORLD AUTISM AWARENESS DAY

WORLD AUTISM AWARENESS DAY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CARBON MONOXIDE

AWARENESS WEEK ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA SEMAINE

DE LA SENSIBILISATION

AU MONOXYDE DE CARBONE

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

PROPERTY TAXATION

CEMETERIES

CHILD CARE

FIREARMS CONTROL

HOSPITAL FUNDING

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

ROAD SAFETY

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

CHILD CUSTODY

JUSTICE SYSTEM

HOSPITAL FUNDING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HEALTH CARE

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

HAWKINS GIGNAC ACT (CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTORS), 2009 /

LOI HAWKINS GIGNAC DE 2009 (DÉTECTEURS DE MONOXYDE

DE CARBONE)

HEALTH CARE

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

HAWKINS GIGNAC ACT (CARBON

MONOXIDE DETECTORS), 2009 /

LOI HAWKINS GIGNAC DE 2009

(DÉTECTEURS DE MONOXYDE

DE CARBONE)

ORDERS OF THE DAY

2009 ONTARIO BUDGET /

BUDGET DE L'ONTARIO DE 2009

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GREATER TORONTO

AND HAMILTON AREA

TRANSIT IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT

DU RÉSEAU DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN

DE LA RÉGION DU GRAND TORONTO

ET DE HAMILTON

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 1, 2009, on the motion for second reading of Bill 163,

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

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

Mr. Michael Prue: I would like to preface any remarks I might have: I'm seeking unanimous consent to hold down the NDP lead, as our member is not here today.

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

Mr. Michael Prue: I woke up this morning to a brave new world. I opened up the front page of the Toronto Star and I saw an announcement that had been announced before, but actually there seemed to be some meat on the bones. There actually seemed to be a date, and that's something I've not been used to seeing.

I want to start off any comments I have here on this whole thing about Metrolinx and GO Transit and Bill 163 with a clear understanding that we have to do what is being proposed and we have to do it in the most expeditious and fastest manner possible. Gridlock is killing the greater GTA, it is killing Toronto. It is costing some $2 billion in lost productivity. It is costing the city, the greater Toronto area and southern Ontario enormous opportunities. When and if we come out of this current recession/ depression, it is important that things are moving quickly.

I looked at the dates–2013, 2015, 2016—that were proposed on the front page of the Toronto Star, and I can only hope that we can even speed those up. I know that would be ambitious, but it would put literally tens of thousands of people to work; it would give an opportunity to get people out of their cars.

Having said that, I want to deal with the meat of Bill 163. It is far from clear to me that the forced merger between GO Transit and Metrolinx proposed in Bill 163 will address the real reasons for the McGuinty government's failure in the past to move on public transit. I know that the mayor of the city of Toronto, although he is lauding the developments of yesterday and into this morning, was very critical of this government for taking the unusual step that it did to take elected people off the board: to force the merger and, in so doing, take all of the elected representatives who had been on the board in the past off.

I want to talk about my own city, Toronto, where I have lived most of my life, save and except the little more than a year that I spent living in Ottawa. Toronto is probably one of the most expensive cities in all of Canada and in all of North America for monthly passes. The monthly pass in Toronto is exceptionally high. If you go to other cities and see what they have in Montreal, Ottawa and Vancouver in terms of monthly passes, you will see that Toronto ranks too high, near the top. We are anxious to get people out of their cars daily.

We are anxious for as many people as can to use a monthly Metropass and to get on the subway, the streetcars and the buses daily. It is not going to work if we continue to have monthly passes that are higher than everyone else's. We have to find ways, and this government has to find ways, of reducing that.

The government of Ontario once paid more than half of all transit costs and it now pays only one third. I would suggest that if the government is serious about not only building the new structures of the future, not only putting a line along Eglinton Avenue out to the airport, not only building Finch and not only extending the Scarborough LRT, then the government has to also look at covering the transit costs. These are very, very high, we need to pay a higher amount.

In some cities in Europe, quite literally, the government pays almost everything, so that you can get on streetcars in some places in Europe and Japan for a very, very small amount of money. It doesn't cover the cost of the ride—because the cities, municipalities and governments of those countries and provinces understand full well the necessity of building the transit system and having the transit system be economical so that people will want to get out of their cars.

Between 1998 and 2004, TTC fares increased by 14%, while the city's transit operating subsidy decreased by 17%. That is the reality of what happened over those years. From 2004 to 2007, Toronto Transit Commission cash fares increased by 75 cents and the monthly pass reached above $100. This cemented the TTC as one of the most expensive public transit systems to ride when compared to other North American cities.

Meanwhile, capital spending on roads has increased by 57%, and it appears that the government, up until that period of time, up until perhaps yesterday, was more intent upon building roads where people would drive their cars rather than on building transit systems that would be non-polluting, electric, easily accessible and cheap.

We know that the fare hikes reduce ridership, which in the long run leads to service cutbacks. We saw that whole round a couple of years ago, where service cutbacks of buses, streetcars and even in some cases of subways, by running them less frequently, not running them at night, produced crowding and people looking for alternatives. Hopefully, some of them would carpool, but the majority would get back into their cars. This was causing some grave gridlock.

I'm glad to see that over the last few years, people are starting to get back on to the transit system in this city and I would hope in cities with which I am less familiar across this entire province. But we know that every time fares increase, transit ridership goes down. It doesn't matter whether that's in Toronto or London or Peterborough; it doesn't matter whether it's in Ottawa or Hamilton or Sarnia—it doesn't matter. When the fares go up, the ridership goes down.

One of the key things is not only to build the new structures, but to ensure that the fares remain doable, to ensure that the fares are affordable to people and provide a better alternative than the use of the private automobile.

We know that having fare hikes means more cars on the road, and that in turn causes dirtier air and more children with asthma. Asthma has been an epidemic, in terms of the number of children and the number of people in our society who are getting asthma today, as opposed to 20 or 30 or 40 years ago. It was a relatively rare phenomenon; today, it is commonplace. I invite any of you to go into schools and see the number of children who come to school every day with puffers. That's really quite shocking. It was not the norm and it was not happening even 20 years ago.

Our current over-congested, car-based system is costing us billions of dollars, as I've said—a year in lost productivity. We see the expansion of public transit as the way to create well-paying jobs in Ontario. The whole question of Metrolinx: The implementation of Metrolinx's regional transportation plan would create some 430,000 jobs, we've been told; 17,000 in the first year alone.

I want to talk for a minute about the announcement yesterday. I want to talk about the ambitious plan for Toronto, about building the three new electrified systems across the city, because I didn't see in that announcement—I saw the construction announcement; I saw the end dates; I saw the costs. I saw the $9 billion; I saw the $3 million—contrast that to $9 billion—for a study in Hamilton. Although I welcome what is happening in Toronto, which is, after all, the largest urban agglomeration in all of Ontario, I still think we need to be looking at other places, other large cities like Hamilton and Ottawa.

We need to be more proactive than simply announcing a $3-million study plan. I'm hoping that we do that, because as Toronto will probably show the way in terms of how the money is spent and how we electrify and how we get people out of their cars, that same thing has to happen literally in every single transit system across this province, and it has to happen in smaller-city Ontario. I would suggest starting with the next-largest cities of Ottawa and Hamilton, and going down from there.

I didn't see anything in the announcement about a buy-Ontario plan. I didn't see anything in there about buying the streetcars, the light rapid transit cars, that are going to be needed by the years 2013, 2015 and 2016. That was not part of the plan and it was not part of the announcement. And if it was, it certainly didn't make the Toronto Star; it certainly didn't make the news yesterday. I watched the news last night. I watched CP24. Adam Giambrone was on there talking about the plan, but he didn't talk—

Mr. John O'Toole: Adam Giambrone is one of the problems.

Mr. Michael Prue: My friend from Durham here—I don't know whether he's jealous or what, but he is talking about Mr. Giambrone in terms that I think are not fair, because Mr. Giambrone has a very difficult job, in the largest transit system in this entire country, in trying to put everything together to keep people on—

Mr. John O'Toole: He's trying to do what David Miller tells him.

Mr. Michael Prue: Oh, I'm hearing my friend from Durham saying that he only does what David Miller tells him to do. Well, I would suggest my friend from Durham is absolutely wrong. I don't know whether he has ever met Mr. Giambrone, but I want to tell you, Mr. Giambrone is many things, but one of them is not a puppet. Mr. Giambrone is a person of great integrity. Mr. Giambrone is a person who believes very passionately in public transit and very passionately in how to get the best bang for the buck for the people of Toronto, who, after all, pay the majority of the costs of the TTC system.

Having said that, we wonder about where the government's announcement is in terms of where those light rail vehicles are going to come from, because we have, on this side of the House and certainly in our party, advocated for a long time that these vehicles should be built in Ontario. It is essential that the vehicles be built in Ontario, not only for the safety and security of our people here but for the jobs that will come from them. We know that we have the capability in both Thunder Bay, with Bombardier, and in Hamilton to produce light rail cars.

They should be produced here, and that should be part of the plan. We should be looking to start building those here, not waiting for some time or waiting for the lowest possible bid, but looking to start to build them here. We are in a recession. We need to know, and the people who work there in the companies need to know that they will have a market to sell these.

I know that Bombardier produced the LRT vehicles for Toronto earlier. Those LRT vehicles, some of which were driverless, went on to be used in other places. They were pioneered here in Ontario, but they went on to be used in other places. They're now used in Vancouver; they're used in parts of the United States. It was that leading technology, that opportunity to build which made them into a world leader. I want to do the same thing, and I think we need to do the same thing. We need to be upfront and bold, and we need to say that what is going to be planned here will be the next generation, the brand new cars of the future, the LRT cars of the future, and that we want them to be built here.

We want the whole world, when they're looking at electrifying their systems, when they're looking at new streetcars and new LRTs, to say, "I think the place we need to go is Canada. I think the place we need to go is Ontario. I think we need to go to Hamilton and Thunder Bay to buy them, because they have the technology and the expertise and the skilled workers."

So it is a leap of faith. And might it cost more? Yes, it might. We can probably buy them cheaper in China. I'm telling you that right now; you know it and I know it and the TTC probably knows it and everybody else probably knows it too, because if you pay $1 or $2 an hour versus the living wage that we pay here in Ontario, it's bound to be cheaper. But I will tell you that if you want the technology of the future and want Ontario to be on the leading edge, then we have to take that leap of faith. We have to say that we want our workers to be employed and we want our workers to be there.

We want to know that the people who pay the taxes for this Legislature, for the politicians who work in it, for the government, for all of the infrastructure that's going to take place, have jobs to do it.

So I'm asking the government, as part of the announcement yesterday, for that first step forward—or perhaps the second step, because they've already announced this before, but it seems to be becoming more and more pressing and the government is taking it stronger and stronger. They need to do it with a buy-in-Ontario policy. I'm suggesting that the current policy of having 25% produced in Ontario is simply not good enough.

I'm not talking about the whole thing, and I've heard the government spin about 82%; that's because it's 100% of the construction and 25% of the actual production. I'm talking about 100% of the construction and at least 50% of the manufacturing, because that is going to produce jobs in that key area and make us the technological leaders in Canada. These are wonderful opportunities for job creation through transit, but they have to be seized.

I've outlined a little bit about why we need to do this in terms of the economy. There are, of course, the environmental reasons. The environmental reasons are absolutely paramount because, as we know, Canada is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol. The environment is being degraded in many ways that oftentimes people are oblivious to, but we have to look at it. We see the news; we see the shrinking ice sheets; we see our iconic animal, the polar bear, being forced and squeezed into smaller and smaller spaces and the numbers starting to dwindle.

We see whole areas of degradation of our environment and that we need to do something about it. Transit, and taking people out of their cars, will be a big step forward.

I've also alluded a little bit to the health reasons: the puffers, the kids who have asthma. There are many health effects—not good ones—as a result of congestion, pollution and people in their cars that can be alleviated in a great way. Just as this government is committed, although they've taken so long and so many steps and so many back steps in getting rid of coal-fired generation—we need to, at the same time, do the same thing in terms of the automobile. I know that smarter heads around the world are looking to electrify cars. I know they're looking at lithium ion batteries.

I know they're trying to do everything possible in order to reduce the consumption of carbon-based fuels. We need to do the same thing here in Ontario, and we need to electrify the systems. We need to do it for health reasons. We need to do it for environmental reasons and, I suggest, for economic ones as well.

The question is: Will Bill 163, as it stands, speed the implementation of a regional transit plan or not? This is where I have some difficulties, because we have left out elected officials. I know that the government perhaps was a little bit concerned that some were too parochial, that some were looking at their own towns, their own cities and not at the broader picture. But if that is the problem, then they should simply say so. The government should have told the respective councils, the respective mayors, that the representatives who were being sent there were too parochial.

But to simply take people off the system, I would think, is a backward step. I would suggest that every time governments of any stripe have taken elected officials off boards or committees, it has been a retrograde step.

I do remember being for many years on the board of the Children's Aid Society here in Toronto. I was on the board when I was the mayor of the borough of East York and I continued on that board following the forced amalgamation of the municipalities into the megacity of Toronto. One day came along and the government of Ontario at the time, a Conservative government led by Mike Harris, said that the elected representatives were no longer going to be on the board of the Children's Aid Society.

I don't think that was a good step for children's aid because what happened to that board—and literally what has happened to every single board, including the transit board in Vancouver, which I'm gong to get to in a second. People who were on that board, who were public officials, made sure that everything was open and everything was transparent. The meetings weren't held in secret, the meetings weren't by invitation only and the meetings always had notes that were accessible to everyone because public officials could not participate unless that was the case.

As soon as that happened, I have to tell you—although I don't have firsthand experience—I stopped seeing the minutes. I stopped seeing what was happening and I started to see that that board retrenched and became much more secretive and much more difficult for ordinary people to access. We have seen, over the last seven and a half years that I have been in this Legislature, many problems. The same thing has happened—I won't have time—to the equivalent of Metrolinx in Vancouver. The same thing happened as soon as they took the public officials off the board.

I would caution the government that we need to have them back on, and perhaps at committee somebody can move such a recommendation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Before we do the questions and comments, I would like to welcome to the Legislature today Gilles Morin, the former member for Carleton East—a member of the 33rd, 34th, 35th and 36th provincial Parliaments. Mr. Morin served as Deputy Speaker during his tenure here. We welcome you here again today, sir.

Questions and comments?

Mr. Jeff Leal: I'd certainly like to acknowledge that the member for Beaches—East York has a long-standing interest in the provision of public transit here in Toronto, first during his time as the mayor of the borough of East York and then, of course, moving on to Toronto council after the amalgamation.

There's no question that in my own hometown of Peterborough, actually, we're quite excited. Over the last number of years, we've used the gas tax money to expand our transit significantly. I want to pay respect to councillor Len Vass, who headed up the transit review of Peterborough, and of course my good friend, Mayor Paul Ayotte, whom I have served with.

One of the things that was unique about that—those who are familiar with Peterborough—coming into Peterborough—about a decade ago we developed the Major Bennett Industrial Park. You could debate the pros and cons of the value of call centres coming into the community, but we established a unique program in our social services division in the city of Peterborough to provide job-ready opportunities for a whole variety of people who haven't had their first job experience. We developed transit into Major Bennett Industrial Park. We established the opportunity for people getting that first job to indeed use public transit because many of them didn't have cars.

In terms of Metrolinx, Metrolinx has been tasked with the responsibility to look at the feasibility study of the proposal to extend rail service from Toronto to Peterborough. I know my friend from Durham is quite excited about that initiative. So we're looking at Metrolinx to take the lead, to get the consultant in place and to take a look. We look at the opportunity; I know the member from Thunder Bay—Atikokan will be a real advocate for these rail cars to be manufactured in—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. Questions and comments?

Mr. John O'Toole: It's always a pleasure to follow the member from Beaches—East York. I apologize if I crossed his path with speaking broadly about Adam Giambrone, a very capable young guy. I know that when he was the policy adviser for your caucus, he was extremely thorough.

I just want to make my point, which is that the real point here is that you have to really look behind the billboard sign. This is about the ninth time they've announced this money. If you trust anything the government says, you're going to find that perhaps in 2011 or 2012 there'll be a big hole in the ground going nowhere. I'm really concerned. This amount of money going out without the people—like David Miller acting surprised. It just shows the lack of concentration. They're trying to change the channel here to a big amount of money on transit to keep Toronto happy. This is changing the channel. I have very little trust left after several broken promises, including the HST.

Here is what they're saying in my riding of Durham. I'm going to try and represent my riding and their interests to the best of my abilities. "'From Durham's perspective, there are significant gaps in the RTP (regional transportation plan)' over the entire 25 years," it was said at a regional council meeting.

"Regional chairman Roger Anderson agreed Durham isn't as well served with the plan."

I listened to the member from Peterborough. This is all about large cities, which I have no problem with, but the gas taxes—one glaring example of how this province caters to the urban vote. There is nothing for rural Ontario in this. Carol Mitchell, you should be ashamed. There's nothing in your area for transit. I think of my riding and how we get—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): The member knows full well that he shouldn't use another member's name as opposed to her riding, if he's making reference to it.

Questions and comments?

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: We're talking about Bill 163,

An Act to amend the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority Act, 2006. I normally enjoy the comments that are made by the member from Beaches—East York because mostly he makes sense, but I am really puzzled today about his comments. And I don't even know where the Conservatives are on this because Frank Klees, a leadership candidate, says he's in favour—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): I have to draw to your attention as well, apparently, that you should make reference to a member by his riding name, not by his first name or his last name.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: Before I get sidetracked by the position of the Conservatives, because we are hearing two versions this morning, I expected that there would be one version, especially when the leadership candidate is saying he supports this plan 100%. He says, and I wish the member from Durham would listen to this, "It's not"—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): I will have to caution the member because he's supposed to be making reference to the original speech that was made by the member for Beaches—East York, not attacking another member.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I stand corrected. I got sidetracked by the party that speaks from both sides of its mouth.

But let's get back to the original comments by the member from Beaches—East York. I think he should be more positive, because today we know it's $9 billion for transportation. It's the first time in the history of this province that this kind of money is being spent for transportation, and the member is not positive enough. I'd remind him that what's important to realize is that so many people will get jobs; I think he mentioned that to some degree. Secondly, we cannot hold this project up, and I hope his party will not be the one that will hold it up, because we're counting on them to support this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): I'll return to the member for Beaches—East York, who has two minutes to reply.

Mr. Dave Levac: There's another one, isn't there?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): I apologize. The member for Brant.

Mr. Dave Levac: I just wanted to take an opportunity to speak directly to the member of Beaches—East York. He has consistently been very level-headed when it comes to pointing out the good parts and the bad parts. That's his job, and he says it that way. And I appreciate that very much.

I was very interested in his comments about expanding beyond. There are two pieces that I wanted to make sure he was aware of, and if he can acknowledge that, then maybe he will give us the negative side, of course.

First, in the budget that's been presented to us, there is procurement legislation being proposed that indicates exactly what he's talking about in terms of "buy Ontario." It's called Buy Ontario, and it indicates that the province has designated that there would be proposed legislation to deal with the points he's actually making right now about whether or not procurement would be Ontario-made, and it's called Buy Ontario. I'm sure he can recognize that that's on the radar screen, and I'm glad he brought it up.

The second one is extending GO service and the transit concepts outside the areas designated in this particular legislation. He is aware that in Places to Grow he will notice that there's a 30-year build-out inside that piece of legislation, along with working with the Minister of Transportation in a 30-year build-out plan that would do the connect he's talking about. I fully support what he's talking about. I would be remiss if I didn't mention that I'm looking even beyond Hamilton, and I'm sure the member sitting beside you is aware of that.

We are looking for extensions beyond simply the GTA into Hamilton, and Hamilton has been mentioned as the next connect to GO service and improvements in GO service. I'm hoping that we extend that into the riding of Brant, which is what we're working on, and to form a loop in the transportation corridors we're talking about: Niagara, Brant, Cambridge, Kitchener-Waterloo, Barrie, Hamilton and the GTA, which I believe will address what he's talking about. I'm sure he understands that's a massive plan that takes time to accomplish.

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

Mr. Michael Prue: I'd like to thank the members from Peterborough, Durham, Davenport and Brant for their comments and questions, and I'll try to respond to them as best I can.

The member from Peterborough talked about his own municipality, and I thank him for the comments on Peterborough and what is happening in Peterborough. I tried to include Peterborough in my comments, because I do believe that what is happening and what was announced yesterday in Toronto needs to be emulated throughout the province, and that smaller cities need to have the same kind of experience, the same kind of electrification, the same kind of transit programs to get people out of their cars.

The member from Durham made the very strange statement that Mr. Giambrone was a policy adviser for the NDP. I have been here for seven and a half years and I have known Mr. Giambrone even longer than that, and I want to assure the member from Durham that Mr. Giambrone never worked here—never once. I know he is a New Democrat, and I know he did hold federal office within the administration, but he has been a councillor now for two terms and is a very level-headed one on a council that does not have party politics.

I'm very puzzled by what the member from Davenport had to say. He wants me to be more positive, and he doesn't want me to hold up a bill. It is not my intention to hold up any bill. It is not the intention of the NDP to hold up any bill. It is the job of opposition to point out things in a bill that may not be exactly right. It is our job to point out some faults.

I started by commending the government for the announcement yesterday. I talked about the rationale and the reason and the jobs that are going to be created, and I am supportive of that. My job is to tell you, and where I was getting toward the end is that I believe it is important to keep elected representatives on the board of Metrolinx. I do not think it is the right policy for this government to take them off, because it will drive it into secrecy and that's the—

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

Mr. Bob Delaney: Almost inadvertently, I hope I was an example of the kind of behaviour that this particular bill is intended to foster and to provide an incentive for.

This morning I got up at my usual time of just shortly after 6 and dashed out of the house at 7:28. Here's how I got to work this morning: I have to pick up the 41A East at the corner of Churchill Meadows and Tacc and I have to pay for that with a 60-cent-cash fare and show them my GO train pass with an uncancelled ticket. That's one method of transit and one method of paying for it. That takes me to the Streetsville GO train station. I cancel my GO train 10-ride pass, and I take it down to Union Station. So those are two methods of transportation operated by two companies, paid for in two different ways.

At Union Station, I walk over and I get on the TTC and I take it to Queen's Park, then walk through the tunnel and I'm here. So that is the third method of transportation, operated by the third independent company which I've had to pay for—in this case using a token—just to get here.

This area, here in the greater Toronto area, has just about overtaken Chicago as the third-largest metropolitan area in North America. The largest is New York, the second-largest is Los Angeles and now the third-largest is here in the greater Toronto area. We have got to be able to do better to enable people to get from where they live to where they work, to where they study, to where they want to go for entertainment.

This bill is part of a whole series of initiatives—some of which I'm going to discuss in my 20 minutes—that enable Ontarians to do something sensible and not have to drive their cars everywhere they go. God bless; we all love our cars. Indeed, there's nothing wrong with having your car, but do you have to take your car everywhere you go? Our job as legislators is to provide a framework and the resources to enable people to have the kind of public transit they need, the kind of transit that people see when they travel abroad.

I'll use the example of two that I've seen. One is Washington, DC, where transit goes pretty much everywhere. Washington, DC, started from way behind Toronto. Toronto had a subway when Washington was car city. Another place that I was at earlier in this decade was Hong Kong. Hong Kong is roughly the equivalent of taking the entire population of the GTA and moving it into one neighbourhood. Hong Kong is dense, and for public transit, density is everything. This is something that our province was also late in learning.

If we want to have cost-effective, efficient, workable public transit, then one of the things that we need is density, and that's what the Places to Grow legislation has helped us do.

In Hong Kong, when you get off the plane at the airport, you don't have to leave the terminal to get on the train that connects you with Central in Hong Kong, which is, as the name suggests, the centre of the city. You're there.

When I get on the 41A East in Mississauga, I see my fellow sleepy, bleary-eyed commuters, and I can recall that on one occasion a gentleman came up to me and he said, "Good morning. How are you?"—a little bit of chitchat. He said to me just before I got off the bus, "It's really good to see our MPP taking the bus with us. It inspires us." I found, personally, that was very flattering, and if that's all I have to do, I'm pleased to do that. Besides, on those days that I don't have to take my car, that's an awful lot less stress on me and on every other commuter who has the luxury of not having to drive.

As well, and I'm speaking personally as a legislator, I have an opportunity on the train in the morning to do a little focus group, to have people sit down and talk to me about whatever is on their minds, and that's something that's very precious to me as a legislator. I get a chance to hear people's thoughts.

In the course of listening to people, I find that they like the things the province of Ontario has been doing in public transit. I'd like to talk about those things, in addition to mentioning some of the announcements just yesterday—the some $7.2 billion to build two new light rail transit lines along Eglinton and Finch Avenue, and, of course, to upgrade the existing Scarborough rapid transit line. I'll come back to that a little bit later.

Some of the initiatives that the province of Ontario has taken in recent years have really made a difference in our neighbourhoods of western Mississauga. Let me just go over a few of them. We can all remember—or at least those of us who are over 30, I think—when inside every bus and every subway car and every GO bus and every GO train there was a sign that said, "The operation of this transit service is financially assisted by the government of Ontario." Then one day during the mid-1990s, all those signs disappeared, because for a period of years, the province of Ontario got out of the public transit business, and our roads became more and more choked with traffic.

Now the province of Ontario is back assisting public transit, doing for people here what nations across the world do to enable their people to, as I said earlier, get from where they live to where they work to where they study to where they want to go for entertainment.

We have to use public transit, and we have to marshal our resources to minimize the number of cars on our roads. Let me talk about the story of that as it applies on the Milton GO line, which serves our neighbourhoods in western Mississauga—neighbourhoods like Lisgar, Meadowvale, Streetsville, western Erin Mills and Churchill Meadows. Lisgar was the first new station to be built in the city of Mississauga in 25 years. It got started when, frankly, I began to petition the Minister of Transportation in this House and we read petitions here for more than a year.

In January, a very cold day in January, the Minister of Transportation and I announced our government's intention to provide funds to GO Transit to built a new station at Lisgar to serve a very dense neighbourhood in northwest Mississauga. At a stroke, that station would help get traffic off roads like Derry Road, Aquitaine, Britannia, Battleford—all of those roads that head east in the morning. A lot of that traffic, instead of clogging those roads going this way, could go up north to Lisgar.

In point of fact, many days when I'm taking the train, I drive my car up and park it at Lisgar—a brand new station. Why do I do that? Because, among other things, while parking is very difficult to find at many GO train stations in Mississauga, you can park at Lisgar. For those who live in those neighbourhoods of Meadowvale and Lisgar and Churchill Meadows, here's a great secret from one of your MPPs: If you want to park, you can get a parking spot at Lisgar. It won't last forever, but right at the moment, it's still easy to park at Lisgar.

Construction got going in late 2006—again, on a bitterly cold day—when then-Minister of Transportation Donna Cansfield joined with our local city councillors and we turned the sod. That project proceeded very, very well. It was finished nine weeks ahead of schedule. It opened in early September 2007, and it was completed under budget. Part of the reason for that is the effective way that the city of Mississauga and the government of Ontario worked together.

It's not like the project didn't have a few bumps in the road; it certainly did, but anytime anything went wrong, our local councillor worked with me—and I can't say enough about her: Pat Saito, the councillor for ward 9 in Mississauga. Pat and I talked about Lisgar often. Anytime anything went wrong, if she didn't solve it on her end, I was able to solve it on my end, and as the guys in the construction shack told us, "Nothing happened to derail this project, and anytime anything did, you guys fixed it." So we had our GO train station nine weeks early, in the fall of 2007.

Construction on the station is now complete and, as I speak in this month of April 2009, there is a brand new windmill that's going to generate just about all of the electricity for the station, when the wind is blowing, and be able to make a contribution for the grid. That windmill is pretty much complete. They're just synchronizing it and doing the testing before they connect it up and enable it to power Lisgar and to make a contribution for the grid.

As well, when the Lisgar station was built, it was designed from the very outset to accommodate 12-car-long trains—12-car-long trains that at the time the station was built weren't then running on the GO line, but we knew they were coming and they were designed in from the very start. These days on the Milton line, all of the trains pull 12 cars. The station was designed from the very outset to assume that there was going to be a third track on the Milton line—a third track that was announced in July 2007 as part of Ontario's Move 2020 plan. So Lisgar is completely ready.

Let's talk about some of the work on the other GO train stations on the Milton line. At Meadowvale, near where I lived for about 11 years, the platform has been extended to accommodate those 12-car trains. When Meadowvale was built in the early 1980s, at a time when interest rates were peaking at some 20%, they cut every corner they could in construction. So finally, years later, we have proper disabled access to get from the station on to the platform; there's a brand new elevator, a brand new tunnel; there are more platform shelters; they've resurfaced the area.

There's a general station upgrade at Meadowvale so at least the experience of taking the train at Meadowvale has been substantially enhanced in recent years.

At Streetsville, in 2003, when I was knocking on doors and asking for people's support in my first election, one of the things that several of the residents mentioned—and then I started to talk about it and more residents mentioned it—was the length of the parking lot and the fact that you've got a long walk if you're on the last three trains—to park your car, to walk literally about a city block to get up to the station, to buy your fare, cancel your ticket, to go under the tunnel, to get on the platform, to walk part of the way back to get on the train. The good part about that is, it keeps you in shape.

The flip side of that is it's a pretty miserable walk when you're walking into the teeth of a blizzard or into driving rain. So I spoke with the people from GO Transit. They sent out the traffic engineers and they said, "You know, you're right. We can do this for the people of Streetsville. We can put in a new access tunnel." Work on that tunnel began in July 2008; it's nearing completion. So for those of us who occasionally drive our cars and park them at Streetsville, if you're on the last three trains and you're parking near the back of the lot, you're going to have a much shorter walk.

They're not going to be selling tickets at the access tunnel, but if you've got a monthly pass or a 10-ride ticket or a two-ride ticket, you can cancel your ticket, go underneath the tunnel and get on the train and skip an awful lot of that long walk—a real progressive move for GO Transit. I really thank them for their co-operation.

Among the other things that are in the process of happening or are substantially completed at Streetsville, the old bricks that over the decades had heaved and cracked and were notorious for puddles when it was raining and really slick ice when it was cold have all been taken up and they've been replaced with new concrete. The station has received a general upgrade. You can now buy a cup of coffee there.

in Streetsville, Meadowvale and Lisgar—to my good friend at the Toronto Star, Jim Coyle, who was wondering out loud in print about a week ago about what difference a government member who is not a cabinet minister can make, I can point to those three projects, as well as to the extension of Credit Valley Hospital, and say that those are projects that, as a member, I worked on and those are projects that are under way today in part because our government listened to the people of the city. That's some of the difference that an individual member can make.

One of the other projects that GO Transit has been very effective with has been the brand new bus garage and repair facility in Streetsville. It opened just this past winter, provided 180 new jobs—this was about a $50-million project—and one of the features about the bus garage is its green footprint. This is a facility that is energy-efficient to the limit of the way technology can do it today.

This enables a lot of the GO buses that serve our northwest neighbourhoods to basically come home to go to sleep close to where they're going to start in the morning, to be able to be washed and repaired close to where they operate, and to minimize the amount of deadheading of an empty bus driving on roads and taking up traffic space. It's a very attractive facility and, frankly, is a major enhancement to the neighbourhood.

On the other stations on the Milton line, Erindale and Cooksville are in the middle of major expansions of their parking capacity. For those residents who live in those neighbourhoods, this is going to mean that if you want to connect to the GO train and take it downtown, you can connect close to where you live, and the shortage of parking will soon be alleviated.

I'd like to talk about two more things in my remaining time. One is the capacity expansion, given the limitations that we do have. I mentioned earlier that the trains on the Milton line are now all 12 cars long. The Milton line was the first place that GO Transit deployed its new locomotives, which I think are called the MP40 series, that are powerful enough to haul 12 loaded passenger cars.

By increasing those trains from 10 to 12 cars, we immediately increased the capacity of each train by 20%—and GO has recently announced one new train on the Milton line, one in the morning and another one in the afternoon, so we're going to increase the capacity by another 16% on those crowded trains with one new train.

The other one I want to mention in my remaining time is the third track on the Milton line. In the Kinsmen Centre in Streetsville, there's an aerial picture of Mississauga taken in July 1950, looking northwest. Running right down the centre of that are two rail lines. There were probably two rail lines for decades before that. Today, there are just two rail lines that connect Milton to Toronto down through the Milton corridor. There has been a lot of growth since then. We have got to make the pie larger in order to be able to provide more reliable GO train service two ways.

As it is, the trains only go east in the morning and only come west in the afternoon. We need two-way GO train service to help more people get out of their cars and take the train to and from work, whether they're going or coming in the middle of the day.

The line is owned by CP Rail, and CP Rail uses that line for freight purposes, for all intents and purposes, at 100% of its capacity. Those big freight trains are now upwards of a kilometre or two kilometres long as they rumble past. So to make that pie larger, we have to build a third track to enable two-way GO train service.

I've spoken to GO Transit about that for a number of years. GO Transit had the first level of environmental assessment in the fall of 2006. In 2007-08, they did the full-blown environmental assessment, which, not surprisingly, has shown that there are no insurmountable problems in adding a third track to the Milton GO line. The engineering study to lead to the drafting of tender documents to go to request for proposals will be done, I am told, this year.

That would mean that as early as next year—and we do hope it will be next year—GO Transit can issue that request for proposals and hope to get a good, competitive winning tender. It's about a three-year build-out from the time the shovel goes in the ground until the time the third track is complete and we can put more trains on the line, and we can have all-day train service helping people who live in those Mississauga neighbourhoods of Meadowvale, Streetsville, Lisgar, Churchill Meadows, central Erin Mills, Cooksville, Dixie and so on and so forth to get to and from Toronto.

This has all been a part of projects such as what was announced yesterday. In doing my

summary of the work on the Milton GO line, I've also left out the expansion of the Lakeshore line, where a third track will be added to greatly enhance the ability of commuters in Clarkson and Port Credit to get to and from downtown. These are just a small part of our government's efforts to work for the benefit of Ontario to enable people to commute more efficiently.

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

Mr. John O'Toole: The member from Mississauga—Streetsville did give us a fairly decent itinerary of how he gets to work, but there was little content in his remarks on Bill 163, dealing with the governance of Metrolinx, as well as the question, "Where's the money?" We see the money announced this morning; we saw the same money announced in 2007. It's 2009, and we've just had a budget. I'm concerned that this Move Ontario plan, the MoveOntario 2020 plan that was part of their election scheme in 2007, is part of a grander scheme of not being straightforward with the people of Ontario.

I am looking forward to a more critical assessment of Bill 163 by the member from Newmarket—Aurora, Mr. Klees. Mr. Klees did serve as the Minister of Transportation. He's also one of the highly respected members who will be seeking the leadership of the Conservative Party, which I think would be quite threatening to the current McGuinty government.

That being said, the member from Streetsville talked about his particular application to the minister. I think it could be considered a conflict of interest that he is improving his own conditions. I can understand looking after constituents, but it sounds to me like you're taking credit for the tunnel being dug. I'd like to see where that money has been allocated. If it had anything to do with you, I think you should be dealing with the Integrity Commissioner.

I would sooner deal with the lack of service in Durham. When you start to talk about the east-west spine, Durham region—the regional transit in Durham—is working hard, but they're being ignored by the government. In fact, I cited that earlier today in quotes from the paper by Roger Anderson as well as the director of transportation for the region.

The member from Mississauga—Streetsville means well, and I think he should consider his investments—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. Questions and comments?

Mr. Paul Miller: I also would echo some of the member's concerns. The member from Mississauga is doing his job. He's trying to represent his people the best way he can, and I commend him for that. However, I must inform him that Ontario doesn't end in Mississauga and Streetsville. It's not all about that area. The member from Brant and I can attest to the needs of Hamilton and Brantford. I know he's doing his thing for his people and is doing a good job; however, he's forgetting about the rest of us.

We need some major, major transitions in Hamilton: one from the James Street train station to the airport—they're trying to expand Hamilton airport to expand commerce and transport in Ontario. And we also need a B line, which I hear is going ahead—we're in the top five under consideration. But I can't emphasize enough that the member has to look at the big picture. It's not all about one area and the needs of one area. Ontario is a big place.

Also there is another side to Ontario, across that Skyway Bridge, that is not getting its fair shake when it comes to transit or light rail or the things we need. Hamilton has been overlooked for years. We're one of the largest cities in Ontario, and we've been overlooked many, many times. There is a little bit—a tidbit—of the billions of dollars that are coming to Hamilton. Not enough, not fast enough. We need consideration west of the Skyway Bridge.

I hope that, in deliberations with his caucus, this member and the rest of the members will consider a good portion of Ontario that is being ignored.

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

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: I want to congratulate the member from Mississauga—Streetsville. Some of the comments that were made by the member from Durham with regard to the comments of the member from Mississauga—Streetsville—he talked about riding public transit, he talked about the planning, he talked about the impact on his community, he talked about the regional aspect of it. Then the member stands up and criticizes that.

Don't just take the word of the member from Mississauga—Streetsville on it; let's hear what the mayor of Mississauga has to say about this important piece of legislation. "I'm very pleased with it," said Hazel McCallion, mayor of Mississauga, when asked what she thinks of the proposed legislation.

"First of all, Metrolinx was delayed more than a year because of controversies between municipalities as to how many elected people should be on the board. I think an independent board overseeing all of the systems is important for resolving these kinds of disputes. There needs to be more than the regional systems, so I'm delighted."

When we hear the concerns of the members from across the way, we understand that a regional system is a system that looks to the future of what we need for transit to move people around. That is certainly how we've moved forward with growth patterns and how we have made significant investments in infrastructure.

I just wanted to set the record straight with regard to the gas tax after a comment made by the member from Durham region, just to let him know that in fact Huron—Bruce does receive funding from the gas tax. We don't have GO Transit, we don't have subway links, but what we do have are buses moving around, albeit limited, but we do what we can. And this is the first time the provincial government has come to the table.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to enter the debate.

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

Mr. John O'Toole: Yes—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): You've already had one. You can't.

Member for Beaches—East York.

Mr. Michael Prue: To comment on the member from Mississauga—Streetsville, I always enjoy listening to him. He is articulate. He brings home his riding to this Legislature. He lets us know what is happening in Mississauga, particularly in Mississauga—Streetsville. But I was hoping to have heard some more from a government member, especially one who is so articulate, because Bill 163 talks about a lot more than just what is happening in any particular area. I know that I perhaps dwelt a little long on what was happening in Toronto, but that is an agglomeration of 22 or 23 ridings, and it impacts the ridings outside of it as well, with moving people around.

I was hoping he would have talked—and he should have talked—about the structure of what is being set up in Metrolinx and how that will improve or not improve the structure that exists today.

I was hoping he would have talked about public participation on the new board—because oftentimes boards that do not contain public figures tend to be closed boards—and whether or not he thought that a closed-board system was better than what was taking place at the present time.

I was hoping he would have talked about the transparency, whether or not this new Metrolinx is going to have public meetings and public records and people will be able to come and listen, or at least see the minutes.

I was hoping he was going to talk about the ownership of assets—because right now the assets are primarily contained and owned by the respective municipalities, Toronto having the largest assets, but Mississauga also having a fair amount of assets of public vehicles and a public vehicle system—and who will own the assets in the future, whether or not the municipalities will have to give them up; and, last but not least, the local plans for transit. Maybe he can address those in the two—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. I'll return to the member from Mississauga—Streetsville to respond.

Mr. Bob Delaney: I want to thank the members for Durham, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, Huron—Bruce and Beaches—East York for their comments.

To the member for Durham: Mayor McCallion, as the member for Huron—Bruce has pointed out, supports the new governance model. The Milton line is a perfect example of how a promise made is in fact a project delivered and a real success.

With regard to his comments on the Streetsville upgrades and the access tunnel, I do take part of the credit for that. I say to the member for Durham: If you have a problem with that, shame on you.

To the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, I thank him for acknowledging our success. One of the things that we need is those rail upgrades on the Lakeshore line to better serve not only Hamilton but the Niagara Peninsula. So I thank you for the comments; you're absolutely right. Those things that we need are the things that are going to be required to get rail service going between Hamilton and Metro Toronto, because you can't just fly over Mississauga; you have to go through Mississauga.

The member for Huron—Bruce has pointed out that if we don't have the infrastructure, then, for example, we cannot expand the Milton line, which is already running at capacity, to Cambridge and beyond. We can't better serve the rapidly growing neighbourhoods in Milton unless we expand capacity on the Milton line.

I thank the member for Beaches—East York as well. Just to make something very clear on it, the Milton line impacts some 12 or 14 different ridings. If we don't improve the infrastructure on the Milton line, we can't properly service a big chunk of Metro Toronto that depends on the Milton line. So I thank you very much for pointing out how Bill 163, through its application on the Milton line, is going to make a difference for the province of Ontario.

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

Mr. Frank Klees: I'm pleased to participate in this debate. As I indicated in my response to the minister's statement when he tabled this legislation, I will speak in favour of the legislation and support it.

What is interesting is how long it took this government to realize that the governance model that they have had in place simply would not achieve the objective of a truly coordinated transportation and transit system for the greater Toronto and Hamilton area. The reason for that, I think, is predictable. We can't blame elected officials for advocating for their particular region or their particular priorities. In fact, that is what they get elected to do.

I represent one of the fastest-growing regions in this province, perhaps even in the country, York region, so the issue of transit and transportation is always top of mind. The issue of gridlock and its impact on the economy and on the quality of life in our communities is a major one. Since being elected in 1995, I've identified the issue of gridlock as one of the top three priority issues that governments should be addressing. Unfortunately, it hasn't been within the top three priorities either of this government or, unfortunately, the previous government of which I was part.

I believe it was a grave error, because transportation, transit, the ability to move throughout our communities, is critical not only to the quality of life of individuals but to our economy as well. It really should be seen as fundamental, and it should be a priority in the decision-making of any government, and that's why I recommend it.

In fact, as Minister of Transportation, my recommendation was that we would move to a regional system. From the very outset, it was my opinion that any board overseeing a regional authority would consist not of elected officials, but would have individuals responsible for decision-making who are experts in the field of transit and transportation planning and land use so that there isn't a conflict in terms of political override of what the appropriate plan for transportation and transit should look like. It shouldn't be whether I think the priority is for my particular community.

There's a responsibility that we ensure that we have an interconnected, congruous transportation and transit system that in fact serves the greater area, and that it is also then constructed in the most efficient way and in an accountable way so that all who are contributing to its cost will not only know that it's being done efficiently but will also be assured that there is value for the tax dollars that are being invested.

The first comment that I made to the minister when I saw this new act was that I welcome this governance model. When the previous bill was introduced in this House, I criticized the legislation at that time because the governance model was not right. Unfortunately, it took this government considerable time to come to that realization, and we've wasted a lot of time as a result of that. With every day that goes by that we don't take action on a substantive policy, we lose the opportunity to regain some of that lost time. However, here we are.

The one thing that I will say, though, is that I don't understand why this government continues to do business the way it does. One of the questions that I asked during the briefing that we had was, were the municipalities consulted before this plan was proposed? The response that I got was that Metrolinx was consulted, but municipalities were not. I think that municipalities have to be wondering why this government chose not to consult with them prior to taking this very significant step that essentially, in one way, closes municipalities out of the loop.

I'm not saying that they should have compromised on the governance model, and I hear the third party saying that they want to introduce amendments that will bring elected officials back into the governance model. I want to be very straight with the member who's proposing this, Mr. Prue. I certainly will not support that amendment, because I think it's been too long coming to give us what we have before us now, and I have a feeling that the government won't support that amendment either.

But having said that, I do think that with regard to any legislation that's introduced in this House that affects our municipal partners, the right thing to do is to bring them into consultation early on in the deliberations. I think that simply shows respect for our partners.

What I want to address here is the issue of—I want to raise a caution, because one of the important steps taken in this legislation is to give this new agency, Metrolinx—which combines GO Transit with Metrolinx—the authority to own new transit infrastructure. That sounds reasonable, because the justification is that we're going to place the ownership into this agency, which is then controlled by the provincial government, which allows, then, for the provincial government to deal with the funding issues in a more efficient way—and that, again, makes good sense.

My caution goes to the transparency and the accountability measures that are put in place to ensure the appropriate accountability by Metrolinx to the provincial government.

We have an example that I'm reviewing now that actually came to my attention just a couple of weeks ago within York region, where its transit authority appears to have the authority not only to own infrastructure that relates to transit—stations, buses and so on—but it also appears to transfer the authority to own property that would then be developed for purposes other than transit. It may be justifiably related in some stretch of the definition, but essentially what it would do is give that authority the right to own property for the purposes of developing commercial property and even residential property.

I don't believe that is the role, nor should it be the role, of a transit authority. That's the role of the private sector. If there will be expropriations of land for the purpose of facilitating transit or transportation or rights of way, then there should be a very specific framework of responsibility. It should be well defined what this agency can and cannot do with that property.

The last thing that we want is for Metrolinx, or any other transit authority, for that matter, to on the one hand have the authority, the power and the support of the provincial government to expropriate lands and then to take it upon itself to actually develop those lands for purposes other than directly related to transit. I don't think that's appropriate and I believe that in the final analysis we have to put some specific guidelines in place to ensure that.

I see, Speaker, that you're giving me notice that my time is up. I have much more to say on that, but I have to defer to you, sir, as the Speaker.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): I have to observe the rules of the House and the standing orders. As such, this House stands in recess until 10:30, when we'll reconvene for question period.

The House recessed from 1017 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I'd like to welcome Patricia Pepper in the assembly today: a dedicated volunteer from the great city of Ottawa.

Hon. George Smitherman: Today in the galleries and here at the Legislature are several hundred women from the Ontario Women's Liberal Commission, and in particular, I hope that members of the assembly might join me in welcoming the member of Parliament for Scarborough Southwest, Michelle Simson, and Liana Turrin, the president of the Ontario Women's Liberal Commission, and all others who have come to the Legislature today.

M me France Gélinas: J'aimerais reconnaître plusieurs jeunes qui font

partie du Parlement jeunesse et qui sont ici avec nous aujourd'hui. Je commence avec Kamal Alem, qui est de Sudbury; ensuite, Justin Bélanger, qui est de Timmins—Baie James; Mélanie Dufresne, également de Timmins; Mireille Lemieux, Rémi Nolet et Brandon Garnett, qui sont tous du comté de Timmins—Baie James; Jessie Turcotte; Justin Morin-Carpentier; Chantal Renaud, qui est de Nickel Belt; Kevin Dumoulin; Courtney Tresidder; Carla DeCeccio; Alexire Morier; William Stuckless; et Vincent Bergeron, qui font tous

partie du Parlement jeunesse francophone. Ce sont des jeunes du nord. Bienvenue à Queen's Park.

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde: Il me fait plaisir de souhaiter la bienvenue aux élèves de 41 écoles secondaires francophones de l'Ontario. Ces élèves, qui représentent les écoles de leur région, participent aux troisième Parlement jeunesse francophone, qui se déroule ici même à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario.

Merci au personnel enseignant qui les accompagne. Bienvenue à Queen's Park et bon succès dans vos délibérations.

I would like also to mention that there are 11 students from my own riding who are part of the group today.

M me France Gélinas: Today being World Autism Day, I would like to ask for unanimous consent for everybody to be allowed to wear the bracelet that represents autism.

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

M me France Gélinas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Rick Johnson: I'd like to welcome two very good friends in the east gallery this morning, Niki Worton and Cathy Caissie, from my riding of Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

Mr. Joe Dickson: I have several guests from Ajax—Pickering, but I would certainly like to focus on one lady in the east members' gallery. I am related to her through marriage. I'd like to introduce my wife to the Legislature this morning.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: As I'm unable to be here this afternoon and I believe some members of my riding will be here, I want to welcome them in advance: Tom, Pam, Kayla and Debbie Hawkins, who are family to the family who unfortunately passed away due to carbon monoxide poisoning and who will be here this afternoon for the private member's bill. I'm really pleased that they'll be able to be here for that today.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I'd like to welcome, from my riding, Chloée Godin-Jacques, who is in the Speaker's gallery today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the member from Scarborough Southwest and page Olivia Peters, I'd like to welcome her mother, Irene Makeeff Peters; her brother, Nicholas Peters; her grandmother, Lydia Makeeff; her uncle, Winston Shantora; and her aunt, Nadia Shantora, sitting today in the Speaker's gallery. Welcome. A special welcome to my nephew, Nick.

As well, on behalf of the Minister of Small Business and Consumer Services and page Jackson Amos, I would like to welcome his mother, Linda Amos, and his sister, Elizabeth Amos, sitting today in the east members' gallery.

Also, we'd like to acknowledge in the Speaker's gallery Mr. Gilles Morin, the member for Carleton East in the 33rd, 34th, 35th and 36th Parliaments, and also a former Deputy Speaker. Welcome back, Gilles.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Eglinton—Lawrence is out of order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is to the Minister of Health. Electronic health records will improve patient access to care and patient safety. By the Minister of Health's own admission to a group of nurses on January 22, 2009, he said, "Ontario really lags behind other jurisdictions and provinces in developing electronic health services." One has to question why that is the case when this Premier has poured over half a billion taxpayer dollars into the Smart Systems for Health Agency.

Minister, in your opinion, is pouring more than $600 million into a now defunct agency a prudent and caring thing to do during such challenging economic times?

Hon. David Caplan: The member well knows the Smart Systems for Health Agency. I believe she was the one who had set it up. I do think it's a fair characterization. While they did much good work, they did not achieve the goal in the mandate which they were set. That is why, upon becoming Minister of Health, I set about creating eHealth Ontario. I think that in eHealth Ontario we have the individuals and the expertise which are going to be necessary to be able to transform Ontario's electronic health infrastructure to be what it should be.

In fact, we've been able to attract on the board David Livingston, president and CEO of Infrastructure Ontario; Matthew Anderson, CEO of the Toronto Central Local Health Integration Network; Heather Sherrard, vice-president of clinical services at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, and many, many others. I believe these individuals, along with its chair, Alan Hudson, will make wise use of the—

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: After sinking more than 600 million taxpayer dollars into Smart Systems for Health, the Premier decided to abolish it and set up another agency. He did so, by the way, very quietly.

Minister, the fact that this organization was abolished is a clear admission that it was an utterly failed program on your part. The fact that not one board member of the former agency is now part of the new agency shows an utter failure on your part. In the Ministry of Health results plan briefing book, it says, "Ontarians are entitled to know what they are getting for their money." I agree. Minister, will you today call in the Auditor General to do a value-for-money audit of the agency?

Hon. David Caplan: In fact the Auditor General, as an independent officer of this Legislature, is available to be able to, if he believes, provide any analysis, but I can tell the member that I have tremendous confidence in Dr. Hudson and in Sarah Kramer, the new president and CEO, to be able to transform Ontario's electronic health infrastructure.

I've instructed them to begin with a diabetes registry. The next product that I believe is going to be critical is an e-prescribing regime that will link Ontario physicians with pharmacists, and we'll be able to cut down on adverse events and errors. The third one, of course, which is critical to us and which we are absolutely determined to see put into place, is an electronic health record for all Ontarians.

In fact, we've celebrated 10 years of the Electronic Child Health Network, where they have provided a fabulous template, and that is a good example of some of the work that has been done previously.

I can assure this member that I have placed at my—

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: It's obvious that this minister does not want to talk about Smart Systems for Health. He is totally disregarding the right of the public to know how this $647 million was spent—this at a time when this government has demonstrated runaway spending and mismanagement of millions and millions of dollars.

I say to you today: Minister, are you willing to direct the Auditor General to commence a value-for-money audit of the Smart Systems for Health Agency, or are you going to continue to show your disregard and disdain for the taxpayers in this province?

Hon. David Caplan: I disagree with the rhetoric and nonsense of the member opposite. Quite frankly, she set up an agency which didn't fulfill its mandate. That's why I came along, along with my predecessor, to be able to re-form this agency, eHealth Ontario, with, I believe, the board and the personnel in place to be able to fulfill a very important function of an e-health infrastructure. I believe they are on the right track.

I would also mention to the member opposite that we're working very closely with our federal counterparts—they, in their recent budget, also recapitalized Canada Health Infoway to the tune of half a billion dollars. I expect that Ontario will be receiving its appropriate and fair share of those funds to be able to invest in important electronic health infrastructure that Ontarians would expect would fuel the revolution in health care. The 2008 budget committed $47 million, and in the most recent budget brought down—

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

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: It's apparent that the Minister of Health and the Premier have something to hide, and they're avoiding calling in the Auditor General.

We found some information through a freedom-of-information inquiry. We found some secrets that you would like to bury under the bushes. Despite no results, let me quote some of the spending that you allowed from 2003 to 2008. In 2003, the agency had $24,000 in travel expenses; in 2008, that number had skyrocketed to nearly $430,000. Food expenses in 2008: $85,000. The list goes on and on.

Minister, why do you want to hide this information from taxpayers?

Hon. David Caplan: The member's question belies her charge in this Legislature. In fact, all of the information is presented in public accounts, which I assume is where the member was able to obtain the information.

In fact, it had not been the case when that member had the privilege to sit on your right hand that such information was easily made available to this Legislature and to the public. I would suggest that that is a significant contrast between her actions and the actions of this government. This government believes in transparency. This government believes in accountability. This government believes in expanding the powers of the Provincial Auditor to go in and take a look at the various agencies, boards and commissions right across the province of Ontario.

That member has opposed those actions, and that member has opposed accountability and transparency. I'll take no such lectures from the member, given such a sorry track record as we've seen in the past. Our record on electronic health in fact is to correct her errors and see—

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I gather from the minister's response that he's either in complete denial or—just as unacceptable, and I sometimes feel that might be the case—he really doesn't really know what's going on at his ministry.

Let me point out some other examples of the entitlement atmosphere of this government. The agency was disbanded by the Premier and given a new name and a new CEO. So what happened? The new CEO spent $24,000 on new furniture, $17,000 on office renovations, over $1,000 on artwork and over $1,000 on blinds and window dressings. This is one office where this government spent nearly $50,000. That's more than most Ontarians make in a year.

Minister, how can you find that acceptable and why are you trying to hide the facts from the public? Why will you not ask the—

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

Hon. David Caplan: Nothing could be further from the truth. All of this information is public through, first of all, estimates and then through public accounts.

I can tell you that I and the government have directed Infrastructure Ontario to identify and examine new and innovative alternative finance and procurement models that can be used to successfully deliver health information technology projects. For example, the diabetes registry will help 900,000 people living with diabetes be able to manage their care by providing them with up-to-date information and educational tools electronically.

Its purpose is to reduce the gap between recommended guidelines and the care Ontarians receive by providing clinicians with reminders and reports; by linking those allied health professionals—physicians, nurses, dietitians, physiotherapists and pharmacists and many, many others—with the patients to be able to manage their conditions. I believe we have the right individuals in the right place with the right mandate to revolutionize—

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: It's obvious the minister doesn't want to talk about Smart Systems for Health, and with good reason. This government is not going to achieve until 2015 what other provinces are going to achieve in 2010. The taxpayers have a right to know that the money that is being set aside by this government is going to be well spent, because we have six more years where you have the opportunity to squander their money. And you've already done so: You've wasted $647 million.

So I ask you today one more time: Will you call in the Auditor General to do a value-for-money audit of this agency, or will you continue to hide the truth from the taxpayers?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I don't need the honourable member's—withdraw the comment, please.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I will.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister.

Hon. David Caplan: Nothing could be further from the truth. The member knows that all of the information is available to the public through estimates and through public accounts. The member equivocates when it comes to these matters. She in fact was the one who set up the Smart Systems for Health Agency. It was the actions of myself and this government which have eliminated or quashed Smart Systems for Health and formed eHealth Ontario. As I've said, Dr. Alan Hudson is its chair, and Sarah Kramer, formerly at Cancer Care Ontario, is its current president and CEO.

I believe these individuals have the ability, the acumen and the dedication to be able to implement a very aggressive and important program, which unfortunately was not started under a previous government. We will reach our goal of a diabetes registry. We will reach our goal of e-prescribing. We will reach our goal of an electronic health record for all Ontarians. This member offers no constructive suggestion—

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

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. The average Ontario family spends $4,174 on basics like gas for the car, home heating and electricity. An 8% tax hike is going to cost them an extra $330 on those basics alone. When families are worried about job loss and fewer work hours that are available to them in this economic situation, why are the McGuinty Liberals hitting them with an 8% tax hike?

Hon. George Smitherman: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I would remind the leader of the third party that in fact Ontario families can expect a $10.6-billion cut in personal taxes, much of that accruing to low-income families. I would remind the member opposite that Ontario is creating the largest sales tax credit in the country. That will help Ontarians of modest income. We are increasing the Ontario child benefit to $1,100. The NDP vote and speak against that. That kind of initiative, sir—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): You may want to be in your seat.

Minister.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The members of the NDP voted against every one of those initiatives.

Finally, I'd remind the leader of the third party that she and her predecessor signed a letter to this government, inviting us—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): No, don't stop the clock. I'd just remind the member from Hamilton East that if he's going to be making any interjections, he would probably be best sitting in his own seat.

Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The average household spends about $7,700 on purchases that will be hit with an 8% tax hike. That is the fact. That includes everything from gas to the Internet bill to magazines to haircuts. The tax hike means more than $580 a year extra in taxes. It will be thousands more if you buy a house or if you have the misfortune of having to bury a loved one and pay for the funeral.

Why are the McGuinty Liberals taking more than $580 out of the average family budget when people are losing their jobs?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In fact, 93% of Ontarians will see their overall tax burden decrease because of this government.

I'd say to the leader of the third party: Why is it that your party very recently called upon us to increase the provincial sales tax? You didn't ask us to increase the child benefit; in fact, you voted against that. You didn't ask us to cut personal taxes for the lowest bracket in Canada to give our people of modest incomes the lowest tax rates.

Why did you want us to increase the provincial sales tax without any of that? That party and its leader don't understand the importance of cutting personal taxes at this time. They don't understand the importance of the Ontario child benefit. This government, this party and our Premier certainly do.

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

Ms. Horwath: Again, I'm asking questions to this minister about his tax policy. We've actually used this government's own online calculator to compare the $580 in higher taxes to their permanent tax savings that this minister brags so much about. The one-earner couple with two children in Thunder Bay making $50,000 is going to stand to lose—to lose, Minister—$356 a year. With your own calculator, the two-earner couple with one child in Toronto making $50,000 will stand to lose $140 a year. The two-earner couple in Windsor making $75,000 a year will stand to lose $75 a year.

Why are the McGuinty Liberals telling worried families that they're going to be better off when clearly they won't?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: What's clear is that the member hasn't even listened to groups and individuals like Hugh Mackenzie, who say that this is a positive tax cut for Ontarians of modest income.

Again, I remind her that she asked me what our policy is. Our policy is to cut taxes for low-income Ontarians, which is exactly what we're doing. In contrast, she and her party laid out a very clear policy. They said, in a letter to Premier McGuinty dated November 2007, "Raise the provincial sales tax 1%." That would have hit low-income Ontarians. That would have hurt the poorest in our society. It shows no vision and no understanding of reality. To make matters worse, it's no wonder she's got her math all wrong: She refused to get a briefing from the Ministry of Finance. She wouldn't take us up on it. Mr. Hudak did; the—

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

PROVINCIAL PURCHASING POLICY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Acting Premier. Yesterday, the government announced funding for two of Toronto's transit city lines, which is something that we support. But without a buy-Ontario requirement there is no guarantee that the value-added transit vehicle manufacturing work is going to take place right here in Ontario. Why is this government missing an opportunity to create long-term jobs by rejecting a buy-Ontario policy?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. James J. Bradley: The member would know that in fact we do have a policy on procurement, which calls for a minimum of 25% Canadian content, recognizing, of course, that Ontario is an exporting province that relies on no retaliation from other jurisdictions, which the member wishes to invite.

I say this as well: She will know that the Toronto Transit Commission has made a policy that says they will have 25% Canadian content. The Toronto Transit Commission is an organization which has, I think, a strong social conscience and recognizes the importance of creating jobs in the province. And we are—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I think everyone would agree that money for transit is definitely good, but creating long-term, value-added jobs in our struggling manufacturing sector while making Ontario the international hub for light rail is even better. Ontario families should be able to expect good streetcar service in Toronto and the manufacturing jobs of the future in Thunder Bay, in Mississauga, in Oshawa and in Windsor. A buy-Ontario policy with a 50% transit vehicle manufacturing requirement would get us there. Why is this government rejecting a strong buy-Ontario policy?

Hon. James J. Bradley: The member would understand as well that approximately 82% of the jobs that will be created from the major initiatives that this government is undertaking are in fact jobs which will be helping the province of Ontario, will be in the province of Ontario. That is a substantial number.

I think if you looked at various projects in various jurisdictions, to have 82% of the jobs in your own jurisdiction is rather astounding. So I could play a game, and that game would be, on one particular project you could say 75%, because that particular vehicle, for instance, is made only in Ontario. I don't play that particular game. Nevertheless, we are successful in those bids, and again, overall—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: But what I would hope this minister would understand is that companies are closing down across Ontario and thousands of families are being affected by job loss. The impact is real, yet the McGuinty Liberals are content with spending money on transit without thinking about ways to make those dollars work for our struggling families in this province, in hard-hit communities across Ontario.

Transit spending and bringing jobs for the future to Ontario go hand in hand. Why are the McGuinty Liberals rejecting a buy-Ontario policy for this province?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Well, in fact, we have not. That is the difference. We have created a policy, after very wide consultation with all concerned, of a minimum of 25% Canadian content on any procurement that takes place. Nevertheless, 82% of the jobs in these particular projects will originate in Ontario. Steel will come from the province of Ontario, other products will come from the province of Ontario, and I can assure you that the workers will be from Ontario.

But the member should remember that the people from the province of Ontario who make products for other places do not want to face the kind of retaliation that she invites with the kind of policies that she's advocating at the present time. If you look at vehicles, for instance, 85% of our cars in this province are sold in the United States. How would you like retaliatory—

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

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Frank Klees: The question is to the Minister of Finance. Car dealers experienced the worst March in 12 years in this province. Two months before the tabling of the budget, the PC caucus put forward recommendations to the Minister of Finance and asked him to come to the aid of this industry by providing incentives to consumers. Specifically, we proposed a three-month provincial sales tax holiday, with which we have experience in this province, very successfully, in 1989. There was nothing in this budget at all.

In fact, there wasn't even a mention of the auto sector in the minister's speech—nothing—and now, car dealers across this province continue to suffer. I ask the minister, why was there no provision for a provincial sales tax holiday and no aid to the auto industry in this budget?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Let me address the question. First of all, we do have experience with that, with a tax holiday, and the experience was that it didn't increase vehicle sales. It certainly did not work. What we did, however, and what we are doing: In December, we committed $1.3 billion to help the auto sector; that member's party didn't support that. We created the AMIS fund, the Next Generation of Jobs Fund. We have helped retool our plants over the last number of years so they can be competitive—and they are and they're among the best plants in the world. That member and his party voted and spoke against those initiatives.

At a time of global economic crisis, this government is the only subnational government that has come through with assistance to the automobile sector. We're proud to be there, and we're going to continue to work with the industry, with the CAW, to help protect that vital footprint in Ontario's economy.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: The Minister of Finance has it absolutely wrong. The facts show that when the provincial sales tax holiday was implemented in this province, sales of cars and trucks increased by 17%. In one month, there were 17,500 units that moved off car lots in this province. Why didn't he do the research? Why didn't he do what we asked him to do: a simple sales tax holiday for three months that would stimulate sales, that would help people in the auto sector and car dealers across this province cope with the gridlock on their parking lots? Why did he not include it? The evidence is there that it works.

It would have been transparent; it would have been funds that would have gone directly to consumers. He failed to address the issue. Why not?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The member said that there's no mention in the budget of the auto sector; I'd refer him to page 15.

The member is right: That one month they did go up, but the next month they fell back down, and there was no increase in sales over time. We don't accept the policy; we think you're wrong about it. We didn't include it. We have, however, included enormous tax cuts for the manufacturing and automotive sector.

I remind the member of some of the quotes from those—let's take Ian Howcroft, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters: "Overall we're very pleased with today's budget, it addresses many of our long-standing issues and priorities. I think that it shows that the government was listening. We're particularly pleased with regards to the harmonization of the GST and PST, we've been advocating that for a long, long time." They're also pleased with the corporate tax cuts.

I support those folks, people like Ian Howcroft and other independents. We have laid out the right plan for the future. I hope that member—

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

AUTISM TREATMENT

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. A distraught father, Paul Ceretti of Hamilton, came to Queen's Park yesterday with his six-year-old twins, Mackenzie and Delanie. Both girls have autism and were receiving IBI therapy until the government suddenly terminated Delanie's IBI therapy just nine months into her treatment. But at the same time, the treatment was continued for her twin sister. Delanie is making progress with IBI, but she is not ready to go to school. Will this minister commit to ensuring that Delanie's treatment continues, as recommended by her IBI therapist?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It's world autism day, so I think it's appropriate that we talk about autism. I want to start by saying that I have enormous respect for kids with autism, for adults with autism, and for their parents and their families.

The member has asked about a specific case; of course, I cannot address that specific case, but what I can tell you is that we must leave it to experts to determine who is benefiting from IBI therapy and who would be better served by different supports. I don't think the member opposite would like this to become a political decision. The decisions are made by experts. We have tripled funding for IBI therapy and more than doubled the number of children receiving IBI therapy. It is very difficult when IBI is over and it's time—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Who's more expert than the provider of the service themselves to determine whether or not the girl needs the therapy?

The minister knows that both girls—they're twins—need the IBI services absolutely. It's unacceptable that one twin can receive therapy and the other is cut off when both of them need it and both of them are benefiting from it.

The Premier promised that all Ontario children would be served, regardless of their age. What will this minister do to ensure that Mr. Ceretti will be able to obtain continuing treatment for Delanie, as recommended by her IBI provider and as is her right in this province?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The member, I think, recognizes that there is a continuum of support that is necessary for kids with autism. We have expanded the continuum of supports. We're providing more respite, more summer camp for kids. But most importantly, I think, what we are doing is smoothing the transition from IBI therapy into schools. I'm working very, very closely with the Minister of Education to make sure that kids, as they transition into school, which is where kids belong—that that is done with the support of the school community, the IBI community, and their family.

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

Mr. Mike Colle: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Minister, as you know, the plight of temporary foreign workers has been in the news lately.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Turn around.

Mr. Mike Colle: Member from Niagara West, this is a very serious issue for people in my riding. I hope he takes this seriously.

Many of these caregivers say they are being exploited and charged thousands of dollars, which they are forced to pay through alternate illegal work if contracts are cancelled. Some even say that they've been forced to work long hours without days off or even minimum-wage salaries.

Minister, the situation that these foreign workers are facing is of great concern to the people of Toronto, to the people right across Ontario, and to me. My constituents and other members of this House all feel something should be done, I hope. Can you please tell us what your ministry is going to do to help protect foreign workers from these abuses?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I'd like to thank my colleague and my friend the member from Eglinton—Lawrence for sharing his concerns on this very important matter.

These stories of exploitation of vulnerable workers in Ontario are very disheartening. Many of these temporary workers devote their lives to caring for our loved ones. That is why my ministry intends to introduce legislation to protect foreign workers in Ontario. The proposed legislation would start by banning fees from being charged to these workers. Also, we will be licensing this program. We will target abuses of these workers by providing a 1-800 hotline and outreach, including education and targeted investigations. My ministry will continue to move forward with a made-in-Ontario solution to weed out these unscrupulous agents and—

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

Mr. David Zimmer: Minister, I want to thank you for acting swiftly on this issue to help vulnerable workers in Ontario. The proposed legislation shows that our government is listening to the concerns of some of the most—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Parkdale may want to be in her seat. Order. We're not setting a very good example for all the guests, particularly the model parliamentarians who are here today.

The member from Willowdale.

Mr. David Zimmer: The proposed legislation shows that our government is listening to the concerns of Ontario's most vulnerable workers. It's a strong program. It will protect workers. It will help families raise their children. It's the right thing to do. But unfortunately, there are always a few bad apples out there. These people are unscrupulous, they prey on men and women who come here through the live-in caregiving program, and they need to be stopped. What else are we going to do in addition to banning fees?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I want to thank the member for Willowdale for being such a great advocate on this important matter. We will be working over the coming weeks to see how Manitoba's legislation works and make sure that we get it right for Ontario. For our part, the province will move to ensure that the rights of caregivers working in Ontario are respected. We will target abuses of these workers by providing a 1-800 hotline, conducting targeted investigations and providing outreach, including education in their native language.

At this time, I would like to thank all of my colleagues, and particularly for the support of MPP Mike Colle. We want to ensure that any approach that is taken meets the needs of this vulnerable population.

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

Interjections.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. John O'Toole: It's the theatre of the absurd.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation. The government has once again reannounced the GTA transit plan, and I emphasize that this is a reannouncement of a reannouncement, because we've all heard it several times before—first in June 2006 on Bill 104, during the 2007 election, and in your 2007 throne speech you promised to introduce the Move Ontario 2020 plan, which was billed as an historic expansion. Still nothing.

This was almost three years ago. So far, it appears that the Move Ontario plan is stuck in gridlock. The latest announcement looks like it's a way to distract Ontarians from a 13% new tax, increased deficits, increased spending. Minister, how can we trust that you can deliver on this transit plan for Ontario?

Hon. James J. Bradley: First of all, I find it interesting that a member of the Progressive Conservative caucus—at least I think it's the Progressive Conservative caucus—would ask this question, because you will remember when you were in power and part of the government of Premier Harris, at that time you completely abandoned public transit. You got out of the business of GO Transit, for instance. The amount per capita just dwindled completely. Under this government, we have seen very significant—billions of dollars being allocated for public transit. I must say Mayor Miller was there yesterday, applauding the Premier's announcements.

Interjection: Bill Fisch.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Bill Fisch was there applauding the Premier's announcements. Adam Giambrone was there applauding the Premier's announcements. They have faith that at long last, after the previous government, we're going to see action on projects—

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

Mr. John O'Toole: The people who were there at your announcement, you just fired them from the Metrolinx board. They were there to see what was next, because they didn't know what was next.

I'd like to draw your attention to the article, which I'm sure you've been concerned about, in the Toronto Star this morning that says "Transit Gets $9 Billion Jump Start." But what it says at the end is an interesting question: "It's still not clear where most of the money to implement the Metrolinx plan will come from."

I put to you, the Metrolinx plan, the $50-billion plan, is $5 billion a year for 10 years. Let's be honest with the people of Ontario. Where are you going to get the money? Or is this just another announcement?

Hon. James J. Bradley: This is a long-term project, as the member would know. We have made that commitment of $9 billion.

The projects we talked about yesterday will overall create some 430,000 jobs in the province of Ontario, which is very significant. At long last we have funding that has been allocated by the treasurer of the province of Ontario; that has been approved. We will see shovels in the ground this year and next year on these projects. We have an environmental assessment process which allows them to be very carefully assessed within a six-month period of time. Everybody was enthusiastic and excited about it, because they remember the bad old days when the Tories got out of public funding for public transit.

So, have faith; we are moving forward. Come on board. This is good news for the people of the province of Ontario—

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

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Today is a sad day for Ontario's 70,000 farm workers. This morning, the Supreme Court of Canada granted the McGuinty government leave to appeal the Superior Court decision that found the Agricultural Employees Protection Act unconstitutional.

As you know, this 2002 act denied farm workers the right to collectively bargain. Farm workers, most of whom work on large factory farms, deserve the protecttion of unions like all other workers. When will the McGuinty government finally stop its endless and costly legal appeals and grant farm workers the right to join a union and bargain collectively?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I thank the member for the question. The member is aware that it is before the courts. I'm pleased that the Supreme Court of Canada has granted leave to appeal. The Ontario government believes the Court of Appeal's decision raises issues that should be considered by the Supreme Court of Canada. As the case remains before the courts, I say to the member, it is not appropriate for me to comment further at this time.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Minister of Labour is the Minister of Labour. It's absolutely appropriate for him to talk about labour issues in this province.

Farm workers are no different from any other workers in the province of Ontario. They work hard each and every day to provide a decent life for their families, but they also tend to work longer hours and for less pay than most other workers.

The reason they don't have protection under unions like the UFCW—in all other provinces, actually, they do have that protection, and that minister knows it. Except for Alberta, all other provinces have granted farm workers the right to collectively bargain.

When will this government stop delaying, stop appealing, stop being unjust to farm workers in the province and finally provide them with the right that all Ontario workers have? That is the right to collectively bargain and join a union.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Our number one priority is the health and safety of Ontario workers. That's why, when we looked at our farms and agriculture, we ensured that we brought forward the Occupational Health and Safety Act to cover those workers.

What the member is asking, as she well knows, is before the court. It is before the Supreme Court of Canada. We believe that there are issues that need to be looked at by the Supreme Court. Those are being done, and I ask that the member wait and see what the court has to say.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr. Joe Dickson: My question is for the Minister of Small Business and Consumer Services. My riding of Ajax—Pickering is home to many small businesses, both medium and large in size. These businesses are vital to our community and are key contributors to our local economy.

Minister, I often hear from local small business owners that they are overwhelmed by the amount of red tape they face when dealing with government. Business owners would like to spend less time completing paperwork and spend more time focusing on growing their businesses, particularly in these challenging economic times. What is the government doing to cut red tape and ease the paper burden on our small businesses in Ajax—Pickering and Ontario?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I want to thank the member from Ajax—Pickering for asking this question, and I also want to welcome his wife to the Legislature.

The member is right. I think small businesses are the major contributor to the economic well-being of our province. He's also right that some of the small businesses are facing some challenges at this point in time. That's why our government has a very aggressive agenda to make sure that we cut red tape.

Through the Small Business Agency of Ontario, which is part of my ministry, we are moving very aggressively to make sure that businesses can focus on their businesses, rather than focusing on filling out forms for the government. In the first phase of our project, in seven ministries we cut down the paperwork by about 24%. In the second phase, in the next eight ministries, we cut it down by 25.6%. Now we are working on the 10 ministries so that we can—

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

Mr. Joe Dickson: I'm pleased to hear the minister speak about the reduction of the paper burden on our small and mid-sized businesses. No doubt, it will make a difference.

But the red tape for businesses in my riding isn't just the paper burden. To operate, every business has to ensure it has the right licences and permits in place from federal, provincial and municipal bodies, such as Ajax and Pickering. Getting all of this sorted out can be onerous, overwhelming and costly, as it could delay the opening of a new business.

We all want to see more entrepreneurs up and running as quickly as possible. Can the minister tell me and my constituents what, if any, actions are being taken to help businesses in terms of getting the right licences and permits for their operations?

Hon. Harinder Takhar: To the Minister of Government Services.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I'm pleased to weigh in on this important issue. I thank the member for the question.

In this regard, I'm particularly pleased to let members of the assembly know about an initiative called BizPal. BizPal is a partnership between all levels of government which makes it easier for businesses that want to start up to get the licences and the permits that they need. It's a one-stop shop, so to speak. If you want to open a new restaurant or if you want to expand your chain of stores or whatever, you can go there and get the help you need. I'm pleased to say that there's one in Ajax—Pickering. That's one of the municipalities we're working with. Tomorrow, I'll be in my beloved Hamilton, making an announcement about the BizPal expansion there, because, to be frank—

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

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Toby Barrett: To the Minister of Transportation: Reading my paper this morning, I did a double take on the headline "GTA Transit Gets a $9B Boost." The ink is barely dry on the budget. We didn't see $9 billion of Ontario taxpayers' money mentioned.

Minister, we ask again: Can you tell the people of Ontario where the $9 billion is coming from? What is the federal share? What is the Toronto share?

Ontario taxpayers in my riding of Haldimand—Norfolk are paying for this $9-billion transit boost for Toronto, yet they get nothing.

Minister, my question: When can rural residents—for example, in Haldimand—Norfolk—expect to hear news from you of their very own public transit funding announcement?

Hon. James J. Bradley: This is a "spend" question, by the way—we're in the second half of question period. Now the Conservatives want to spend money, and I'm happy to see that. The first half of the question period is always "save money"; the second is "spend money." That's why it's called the Progressive Conservative Party.

First of all, already we have seen $2.5 billion in new funding to go since 2003—over $750 million in 2008-09.

You'll remember the gas tax. You people refused to share the gas tax with the people of the province of Ontario. Our government has shared the gas tax this year: some $321 million shared with municipalities; two cents of the gas tax. They have appreciated that very much. It has allowed them to expand their services, enhance their services, make them more comprehensive and—

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

Mr. Toby Barrett: You're right, Minister; we remember the gas tax, and I ask you not to rub it in. My riding got nothing from that gas tax. Three weeks ago, you said no to sharing two cents a litre with municipalities. Haldimand county and Norfolk county got nothing.

Your McGuinty government has been making these gas tax announcements since 2004. Nothing for Dunnville, nothing for Caledonia and other small towns, in spite of their lobbying, the petitions I bring into the House—the last one had over 1,000 names. They want an answer—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister of the Environment, I may have to retract what I said in a TV interview about you.

You have 10 seconds.

Mr. Toby Barrett: Don't rub it in. We get nothing in the gas tax. We pay 14.7 cents a litre like everybody else—nothing from this $9-billion announcement—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. It's Thursday. I think we would like to get through question period. I'm very happy, though, to continue to stop the clock.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I've been as helpful as I could today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): You're not being helpful right now, member from Renfrew.

I would just ask the co-operation and indulgence of all members of the House to tone it down a little, please, and let's allow the questioning to continue.

Minister of Transportation.

Hon. James J. Bradley: First of all, the member would know that those municipalities that have developed transit programs in recent years have been eligible for gas tax, the many communities that have done so.

But since 2003, our government has provided $2.3 billion in funding to support road and bridge projects across the province; $1.1 billion, announced under the Investing in Ontario Act in August 2008, for municipal infrastructure that can be used for roads, bridges transit and other projects; the municipal infrastructure investment initiative, $450 million in one-time funding to support municipal infrastructure priorities, such as roads and bridges, in communities across Ontario; the $400-million road and bridge fund, announced in the 2008 budget; the Ontario Infrastructure Projects Corp. loan program, which provides long-term loans to municipalities for critical infrastructure projects; the RED program under the auspices of the Ministry of—

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

TAXATION

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Last week's budget cut more than $2 billion in corporate income taxes, but the minister knows full well that to benefit from corporate income tax cuts, companies must be profitable. The companies that are make money in this economic climate are not the same companies that are shedding Ontario jobs by the tens of thousands and may not be the companies creating jobs of the future. My question: Will the minister admit that his $2-billion corporate tax cut is the wrong policy at the wrong time and is simply bad economics when it comes to job creation?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I am glad that the member at least acknowledges that there's an important role for corporate tax cuts. That's why last year we eliminated the capital tax for manufacturers. That tax accrues to any company, whether or not it's making money. For instance, a number of forestry companies in northern Ontario applauded that. The forestry sector industry applauded this—

Mr. Howard Hampton: Name them.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Do you want them in alphabetic or numeric order?

This is the right policy for Ontario. The member voted against the capital tax elimination for forestry, farmers and manufacturers. I don't know why you would have done that. It put cash in their hands last July. Tens of thousands of other businesses are going to benefit from this. But what we're most proud of is $10.6 billion in personal tax cuts for the lowest-income citizens among us.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: Minister, here is the truth of the matter: Liberals believe in shovelling billions of dollars out the door to already profitable companies in the faint hope that maybe a few jobs will be created. New Democrats support the highly targeted approach successfully used in both Quebec and Manitoba, which only rewards companies making real investments and creating real jobs. One is a philosophy of listening to big business. When they say "Jump," you ask, "How high?" The other is a tightly focused one on real-world economics by creating real jobs for real people.

Will the minister admit his $2-billion corporate tax giveaway is bad economics and nothing more than unseemly pandering to powerful and already profitable corporate interests?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: It's interesting, but one of the facts that the member opposite overlooks is that Manitoba has actually lost 16% of its manufacturing jobs—almost three times as high as Ontario—in the last year.

We have taken a balanced approach to public policy, an approach that saw us last year eliminating the capital tax for manufacturers in the forestry industry, which was applauded across the board by them. That cash flowed into their hands last July. That cash was used to keep people working and to keep plants operating.

There's more to do. That's why we have cut corporate tax rates. That's why the forest sector industry came out and said, "This is a very good budget for the forest products industry." In a period of obvious economic challenges, this is the right course of action.

I reject what he says; we reject their philosophy. We're building a new Ontario for a stronger—

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

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Reza Moridi: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. Yesterday, the minister announced, along with the Premier, York regional chairman Bill Fisch and many others, that this government will be funding the development of a bus rapid transit system for our Viva public transit.

First of all, Minister, on behalf of the people of Richmond Hill, I would like to thank you for the huge investment. Our relatively young transit system in York region has been an enormous success. As you know, demand has been outstripping our ability to service riders. We need to move faster in getting people out of single-occupancy vehicles and onto public transit.

Would the minister tell me and my constituents of Richmond Hill a little bit more about this investment, when we can expect to get shovels in the ground and how a bus rapid transit system will—

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: I'd like to thank the member for Richmond Hill for an excellent question about the announcement yesterday which includes a $1.4-billion investment to improve the York region Viva bus rapid transit system. The Viva bus system is already a very successful transit system, and we want to make it even better.

One of the problems has been the traffic gridlock which buses can often find themselves in. In order to make transit more attractive to people, we need to ensure that the buses are not sitting in the same traffic that they're trying to avoid. That is why we're funding the development of a network of separate lanes for buses, including bypass lanes along Highway 7 and the Yonge Street corridor through Richmond Hill. We can expect that people will be at work this year on this project. Components of the network will be up and running in two years, and the remainder by 2013. That's quick action.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from York South—Weston.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: To the Minister of Transportation: Yesterday's announcement totalled more than $7 billion in transit projects for the people of Toronto. Without question, this is the single largest investment in public transit in the city in decades.

One of the projects being funded, the Eglinton crosstown rapid transit line, will be of enormous benefit to my constituents in the riding of York South—Weston. I understand that this will span the entire length of the city and connect as far west as Pearson International Airport. This will provide people in underserviced areas with new public transit, connecting them to the rest of the city and providing new opportunity to families across my riding and beyond.

Given the importance of this project, would the minister please tell us more about it and let us know when we can expect things to get moving?

Hon. James J. Bradley: As the member would know, public transit is more than simply moving people from A to B; it's often about connecting communities and about ensuring that underserviced neighbourhoods get access to quality transportation and are properly connected to schools, hospitals and employment opportunities.

We're excited about the Eglinton crosstown rapid transit project. That is why we announced that we will be investing $4.6 billion to make it easier for people to move across the GTA—to Kennedy station, to Pearson airport. As you know, it will take some time to build a project of this magnitude, but we are confident that our commitment to fund this project will make it a reality. We need to be reducing greenhouse gases. We need to reduce gridlock, connect communities and move our economy forward.

I would like to recognize our provincial agency, Metrolinx, for all their hard work and all the work the city of Toronto has done to get us to the point where these projects are in fact becoming a—

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

HYDRO RATES

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure. Minister, in response to a recent question, you stated that the average family's electricity bill would only rise by 1% under the new Green Energy Act. Subsequently, you gave me a vague breakdown of where those costs would come from. What you didn't account for was the cost of backup generation for wind and solar, because, to use your words and the Premier's words, they're not reliable.

Are you promising that an average family's hydro bill of about $1,000 per year will only rise by $10 in each of the next 10 years?

Hon. George Smitherman: I want to thank the honourable member for the question. I repeat what I've offered the honourable member on several prior occasions. We'd be very happy at the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure to establish for the honourable member a foundation briefing that gives him some insight into the overall energy supply mix in Ontario. I have mentioned before in the Legislature that 75% of all of Ontario's electricity needs last year were met by a combination of emission-free nuclear and emission-free hydroelectric power.

On top of that, the renaissance of our energy sector has seen the emergence of several gas-fired plants which provide reliability in those circumstances when ratepayers demand more electricity. In the space between that foundation and those gas-fired peaker plants are tremendous opportunities to integrate a greater degree of renewable energy. That's what the Green Energy Act is all about.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Minister, you like to use Germany as an example when attempting to inculcate people, which I know you're going to be doing some more of this afternoon, with the benefits of your Green Energy Act. What you don't tell them is that power in Germany is about 24 cents a kilowatt hour, and it is now planning to build—get this—at least 15 new