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

February 26, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Feb-26 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 26 February 2009 Jeudi 26 février 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GREEN ENERGY AND GREEN

ECONOMY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR L'ÉNERGIE VERTE

ET L'ÉCONOMIE VERTE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MINE TO MACE PROJECT

ORAL QUESTIONS

RENEWABLE ENERGY AND

ENERGY CONSERVATION

ONTARIO ECONOMY

POVERTY

TUITION

ENERGY CONSERVATION

ONTARIO ECONOMY

WASTE MANAGEMENT

LITERACY AND BASIC SKILLS

PUBLIC HEALTH

CITY OF TORONTO

BUTTONVILLE AIRPORT

PROPERTY TAXATION

HOSPITAL SERVICES

HOSPITAL SERVICES

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

CORRECTION OF RECORD

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

RENEWABLE ENERGY AND

ENERGY CONSERVATION

TEACHERS

ISRAEL APARTHEID WEEK

PROPERTY TAXATION

EVERGREEN HOSPICE

RENEWABLE ENERGY AND

ENERGY CONSERVATION

MINOR HOCKEY

CITY OF TORONTO

CUPE

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS

HEART MONTH

MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS

HEART MONTH

MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS

HEART MONTH

PETITIONS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

IDENTITY THEFT

HOSPITAL FUNDING

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

WORKPLACE HARASSMENT

FIREARMS CONTROL

HEALTH CARE

HOSPITAL FUNDING

HOSPITAL FUNDING

CHILD CUSTODY

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

CHILD POVERTY

LITERACY AND BASIC SKILLS

VISUAL FIRE ALARM SYSTEM

ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LES SYSTÈMES

D'ALARME-INCENDIE

À AFFICHAGE VISUEL

CHILD POVERTY

LITERACY AND BASIC SKILLS

VISUAL FIRE ALARM SYSTEM

ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LES SYSTÈMES

D'ALARME-INCENDIE

À AFFICHAGE VISUEL

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GREEN ENERGY AND GREEN

ECONOMY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR L'ÉNERGIE VERTE

ET L'ÉCONOMIE VERTE

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 25, 2009, on the motion for second reading of Bill 150,

An Act to enact the Green Energy Act, 2009 and to build a green economy, to repeal the Energy Conservation Leadership Act, 2006 and the Energy Efficiency Act and to amend other statutes / Projet de loi 150, Loi édictant la Loi de 2009 sur l'énergie verte et visant à développer une économie verte, abrogeant la Loi de 2006 sur le leadership en matière de conservation de l'énergie et la

Loi sur le rendement énergétique et modifiant d'autres lois.

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

Mr. Peter Shurman: This debate, despite the government's attempt to make it so, is not about whether green energy is a good thing or whether we should support the quest for a safer environment any more than my tie today makes me more or less motivated to live a greener life. We all know that we should, and we know that we have to. There's no debate about that at all.

This debate is less about a bill and more about vision, about honesty, about good policy and effective government. We live in an era where governments have the opportunity to introduce groundbreaking, innovative legislation that will revolutionize our lives. Ontario is indeed at a point at which it can and should choose a direction that will be an example and an inspiration to other jurisdictions. It is beyond disappointing that, with Bill 150, the McGuinty government is choosing again to squander that opportunity.

We already know that on McGuinty's watch Ontario has slipped from first place to last on the economic front. We know that there is no real leadership there to tackle the challenges that face our province now and which we will face in the future. We also know that the reason that this bill has been introduced now, without proper briefings for the opposition, without consultations and without any details outlined in its text, is because Mr. McGuinty would rather discuss a root canal than talk about his failure to address Ontario's economic crisis.

So two days ago, we heard the Minister of Energy lead off the debate on Bill 150. When he was czar of the Ontario health ministry, he built the LHINs, and you don't need me to tell you how well that worked out, how economically efficient and responsive our health care delivery did not get. At the rate at which resources disappeared at the Ministry of Health when he was minister, he'd run out of sand in the Sahara, given the opportunity.

Now, we let the fox back into the henhouse, this time dressed in a green robe, under the assertion that no one but he can bring green energy into Ontario, and that no way is a good way unless it's his way, never mind that it destroys real estate investments, negates personal freedoms and changes Ontario's energy infrastructure to something right out of Stalinist Russia.

He wasn't satisfied with H One, OEB, IESO, OEFC, ESA, OPA and CCO. Apparently there weren't enough acronyms in the systems yet, so he brought in REFO, which makes most of the other acronyms mean SFA, perhaps for the Secure Future Agency. This bill is crap–concerted robbery of all people. Is this a Liberal thing or what? When in doubt you create an agency?

First, the recent MPAC assessments, which Mr. McGuinty refused to review or reassess, and which increased property tax payments for most Ontarians, are bleeding our residents dry, assessing our homes at the peak of the cycle and now forcing us to pay taxes on a value we couldn't get if we sold—and many homes are having to be sold. I don't see any cities or towns lowering their mill rate to make the adjustment.

Just yesterday, across my desk came the position of the Ontario Real Estate Association. I quote their president: "This mandatory government regulation will impose a significant cost on home sellers." They have four points, and I'd like to read them into the record.

Point one: "Mandatory home energy audit reports will have serious cost implications for home sellers. Those with less than ideal energy audit ratings will face pressure from homebuyers to either spend thousands of dollars to improve the energy rating of their home or lower their sale price. Many middle- and low-income Ontarians simply cannot afford the cost of financing home energy retrofits."

Point two: "Those sellers who can afford expensive retrofits will want a premium sale price. As the cost of housing rises, fewer and fewer low- and moderate-income Ontarians will be able to find affordable housing. Government policy should promote affordable home ownership."

Point three, and this is a big one: "Seniors will also be disadvantaged by mandatory home energy audits. Most Ontario seniors rely on the equity they have built" into "their homes for retirement. Mandatory home energy audits will force homeowners who are seniors to complete energy retrofits at a tremendous cost to their retirement savings" at a time when they can ill afford it.

Point four: "Mandatory home energy audits will adversely affect first-time homebuyers" because "the majority of homes that will not score well on home energy audits are resale homes."

Important points to consider. Add to that actual losses that property values have suffered—over 6% in York region since last year—plus land transfer taxes basically doubled right here in Toronto, and what you have left are a number—indeed, thousands—of beleaguered homeowners struggling to salvage the investments they have made in their homes over many years. Our homes are, for most of us, the biggest single investment of our lives.

Enter the McGuinty team with fox in tow. They decide that now is a good time to whack the homeowner over the head with yet another hurdle, the mandatory energy audit. Beyond adding an extra cost to the sale of a home, the Liberals decided that it would be a great idea to help devalue the last investments that people may have left after their savings and retirement plans have taken the hit they have already taken on the markets.

What a fantastic thing to tell seniors whose retirement savings have been slashed in half: that they may have to put an extra 20 Gs into their home before they go ahead and sell it. What a time to do that. What a great thing to do to people who have lost their jobs in this economy and are trying to downsize, just so they can make ends meet. Let's hear it for Team McGuinty, who chose this particular moment to make sure that Ontario homes are devalued even further, and their owners will struggle that much longer in an already difficult housing market.

Hey, Ontarians, this government is trying to tell you that they will do everything they can to get green energy to Ontario. What they are not telling you is that they will take everything you've got to do it their way. They will. Why use a carrot when you can use a stick, right?

The sheer shamelessness of this bill is offensive to me, and if my correspondence is the yardstick, also to many Ontarians. The only thing that is green about the Green Energy Act is its title. Otherwise, it is as dirty as the coal plants that Mr. McGuinty, in two elections, promised to close but which are still open; the same coal plants that Mr. McGuinty could have cleaned with relatively acceptable dollars for high-tech scrubbers and which could have been a resource in the future of Ontario's clean energy plan, much like clean coal plants are an integral part of Germany's green energy strategy. Germany is touted by this minister as the model, by the way.

Liberals claim that this bill will create jobs. How exactly will it do that, and how did they arrive at 50,000 as the number? There is nothing in this bill that would actually support the claim of creating any employment outside of government-paid jobs. As written, the only thing that I can see Bill 150 creating is 50,000 inspector overlords with sweeping powers to monitor our residents' energy consumption: "Excuse me, ma'am, I have a search warrant to measure your refrigerator's power consumption, so I'm coming in under this warrant." Can you believe that? Can you believe it?

I cannot believe that we are actually discussing a bill that will allow provincial inspectors to descend on our homes to check on our energy conservation. What's next? Curfews? Food rations? Food rations checking for no trans fats, of course.

With Bill 150, the minister is implementing regulations that will undermine whatever economic stability Ontarians have managed to retain in these times of economic crisis. People fear for their jobs. They are afraid for their families. We have entered a cocooned siege mentality period, and in the name of all that's green and holy, this minister and the McGuinty government are preparing to drop an economic bomb on families. They are ready to say that he is on our side and that we, on this side, are not pro-conservation or pro-renewable energy if we vote it down. That would be patently untrue.

My suggestion to my friends the MPPs on the government side is that you take a good long look at your constituent e-mails, your calls and your letters before you stand in party solidarity to vote. Because if you push this down their throats, your vote may well add a member to my caucus to replace you. Ontarians know something is not right here. They know it when they see it, and they know, at the same time, that green is good, so there is an obvious disconnect. They will support green energy—Ontarians will—but they will not accept your plan to get it.

Liberals call Bill 150 revolutionary legislation, but all they really have is a pickpocket bill, a pickpocket bill with Ontarians as the designated victim. They tell us that energy costs are rising everywhere, but they don't tell us that their plan will increase the price of power in Ontario well beyond worldwide levels.

For all the regulation that they are subjecting Ontarians to, the Liberals are leaving themselves ample room to manoeuvre out of any accountability. I can hear it now: "That extra debt retirement amount on your power bill is not a tax. No, sir. It's what you owe the electricity supplier for infrastructure buildouts. But McGuinty didn't raise taxes." Well, the old saw: A rose by any other name is still a rose.

There are no benchmarks. There are no goals. There are no real commitments included in Bill 150, just a lofty assertion that we are going onto the green wagon; we're climbing aboard. They say they want a green Ontario, but they're remarkably shy about explaining just how they're going to get Ontario there. Now, I'm not really that surprised. If there's one thing that we have learned about this government, it is that it won't take the risk of being transparent.

Providing relevant and quantified information means that residents and stakeholders alike might turn to the government and well say: "This won't work. We don't have the infrastructure to support this pipe dream. It's too costly to consumers. You've got to have a better plan or you will jeopardize the quality of Ontario's power." Even McGuinty hasn't yet figured out how to get a good photo op out of that criticism.

So Mr. McGuinty decided that he won't bother Ontarians with relevant details such as what the power would cost and how much they would have to pay, and that he wouldn't provide any sort of guarantee that this plan will actually succeed in providing sufficient energy generation to meet Ontario's energy demands. He decided to quietly omit the fact that Ontarians would end up paying at least 30% more for their electricity, and that's if the scheme works at all. That is a very large number at a very bad time.

It's too much to expect Mr. McGuinty to be accountable for his decisions, so what do we know about this so-called plan? Sadly, the answer is, "Nothing substantial." Will the price the government sets be enough to attract investment? Can the people of Ontario afford the price that would attract investment? If the price is too low, there will be no interest from investors, and if it is too high, it will be too costly for taxpayers. But this act affords broad powers to the minister to basically do whatever it takes, and in this area, at this time, for Ontario, we cannot afford "whatever it takes." Green energy, yes; this model, absolutely not, at least not without an amazing amount of work.

No wonder Mr. McGuinty would rather avoid the issue. He needs to give his communications team extra time to figure out how to spin either of these scenarios, just in case. This is vintage McGuinty rearing its head. "Don't worry about the 'how,'" he tells Ontario, "You don't need to know."

He is wrong. We need to know exactly what we are dealing with, and we need to know it now, before we can vote on it. I am not willing to take it on faith that this government will work it out in the end. I have no reason to believe that, and Ontarians have no reason to have such faith, especially at the costs they will have to bear, with absolutely no recourse.

Not a single thing that Mr. McGuinty has said or done has inspired any kind of faith in his leadership. He has blundered through government, coasting through the good times, by fiddling with meaningless legislation while he should have been on the lookout for warning signs and preparing this province for an economic crisis. They are somewhat cyclical; sometimes they are deeper. That is the case now. I ask rhetorically if we were the least bit prepared, and I say no.

And now, when the time comes to debate something that could be the difference between making and breaking our province, that could be setting a new course, he chooses to move forward with his pet projects on the backs of the very people who are trying to keep this province alive.

I once spoke in this Legislature and complained about the lack of substantive legislation to debate. Well, here it is, and look at it. It impacts everything and everyone in the way of green power, at any cost. I said this before, I want to say it again: Tunnel vision is an unacceptable flaw in a government. And did I mention tunnel vision is an unacceptable flaw in a government? If you, as leader, are incapable of fixing one problem without bringing the province to its knees somewhere else, then it's really simple: We can't afford you any longer. You've proven over and over again that you have no leadership, you have no ideas, you have no polices to answer the challenges of the 21st century.

This government is incapable of doing anything at all to help, to improve one thing in this province without sabotaging something else. It's kind of like an elephant going into a shop to buy a teacup and destroying three dozen sets of dishes in its wake. How any Liberal members are able to go back to their constituencies, look their constituents in the eye and defend this travesty of a bill, I don't understand. How you are able to tell your constituents that you are supporting this bill while you are jeopardizing their livelihoods is beyond me.

"Jeopardizing their livelihoods" sounds like hyperbole—it sounds like gross exaggeration—but it's not. Every day it gets worse. One day it will level out and get better, but we haven't reached it yet, and now is the time you want to put this imposition on them. I have a hard time understanding that.

Ontarians deserve better. They deserve a real plan. Here is an environmental tip for you: If you want to be green, save paper until you have something that's worth printing on it. Bill 150 doesn't cut it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): I just want to remind honourable members that when referring to other members, we refer to them by their riding name or their title.

Questions and comments?

Mais la question devient, est-ce que ce projet de loi nous amène vraiment dans cette direction d'une manière concrète? Je pense que c'est le point que le député essaie de faire, qu'à la fin on voit ce projet de loi qui dit, « On annonce une bonne direction », mais quand ça vient aux détails, il y manque beaucoup de détails faisant affaire avec ce qui pourrait vraiment concrétiser les actions que le gouvernement peut faire dans ce projet de loi.

Par exemple, justement, je parlais à un des députés ce matin de la question d'être capable de faire des investissements dans nos maisons personnelles faisant affaire avec l'usage de l'énergie solaire, l'énergie du vent ou autre. C'est très dispendieux. Tu parles de 12 000 $ à 14 000 $ pour faire cet investissement-là, et quand tu regardes ce que tu vas être capable d'économiser, soit sur l'hydro ou sur le gaz, ça ne tient pas debout quand ça vient à l'économie.

Donc, on a besoin d'avoir des programmes qui pourraient aider à accélérer ces investissements-là avec l'assistance du gouvernement, parce que chaque kilowatt qu'on est capable de conserver est un kilowatt qu'on n'a pas besoin de générer sur l'autre bord. Je pense que ce qu'on a besoin de regarder dans ce projet de loi est d'essayer de concrétiser comment être capable de mettre en place ces actions qui vont allouer aux individus d'être capables eux-mêmes de vivre une vie beaucoup plus verte.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The honourable member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

Mr. Jim Brownell: It's a pleasure to have a couple of minutes this morning to speak about the Green Energy Act. I certainly want to respond to the good member for Thornhill. He challenged us to go back and look our constituents in the eye. I'm going to tell you that for the past year I have been looking my constituents in the eye with regard to green energy and green energy opportunities.

Just the day before yesterday, I was over at the ROMA-Good Roads convention and looked in the eye the mayor of the township of South Stormont, when he once again commented on and referred to three projects in the township of South Stormont that they're chomping at the bit, as the old expression goes, to get going in my riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

I've met with Mayor McGillis, I've met with CBO Hilton Cryderman and I've met with CAO Betty de Haan from that municipality, and I've met with developers who are anxious to get going on projects of the kind that are being referred to in this Green Energy Act. To the member from Thornhill, I can say I'll look my constituents in the eye, and I know that they're going to tell me: "Go for it. Get this Green Energy Act through and let's move on."

Yesterday I heard the member from Chatham—Kent—Essex stand here and talk about green energy opportunities in his riding and the opportunities for jobs. There will be jobs created in my riding if we can get these projects off the ground. I know that by working with Honourable Minister George Smitherman and working with these companies, we will get more jobs in eastern Ontario and more jobs in the township of South Stormont in my riding. I certainly appreciate those people who come to me with the ideas that we can go out there and support through this Green Energy Act. To the member: We have it in Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

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

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: The member, of course, did an excellent job in making the case. I think that's an appropriate comment from the other side. He made a wonderful case.

During the election of 2003, the Premier stood up and said, "You know, we're going to close all the coal plants. We're going to close them all by 2007." That's where he gets his information on green energy, too, I think. I don't think he quite knows what the consequences of that are.

He's talking about 50,000 jobs being created. Well, unless they hire 35,000 auditors to look after the $200 to $300 energy audits, they're going to fall well short of that, as they fell well short of their credibility in closing coal-fired plants. Holding the price of energy to a 1% per year increase again is closing the coal-fired plants by 2007—there's no credibility to that number whatsoever, none whatsoever. A 1% increase would be almost impossible under this plan, if we're going to have a full recovery program with this Green Energy Act, which I understand is supposed to work out that way.

Unless this government is going to subsidize the cost of electricity through taxpayers, there's no way that can come to fruition.

The member from just north of Toronto—

Mr. Khalil Ramal: Thornhill.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: —Thornhill makes an excellent point: that the credibility of this government is significantly at risk. They have proven in the past that they have been unable to live up to their promises. Of course, this government is absolutely famous for breaking promises, not the least of which was closing the coal-fired plants. Closing the coal-fired plants was something that we said was impossible during the election. They knew it was impossible, and they promised it anyway, the same as this act. It's just not going to happen.

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

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I was listening carefully to the member from Thornhill for almost 20 minutes. At the beginning, I thought he supported the bill, when he started to talk about how he believes in green energy, and the tie he's wearing matches the ideology and philosophy. But when he started talking about the bill and said "but" and I started to listen to him, he went in a different direction. He doesn't like the bill, I guess. And you know, that's fine by us. We have a different direction.

We're committed to green energy and committed to the people of Ontario, to create more jobs, to make sure all the houses in the province go with our agenda, which is a green agenda. I believe strongly that this is the right way to go.

I had the chance to listen to many people from my constituency, London—Fanshawe. They talked to me about the importance of this bill, and many people are excited to participate in these programs because they think, and believe strongly, that it's the best way to go for a greener future.

I'll talk about creating jobs. There's no doubt in my mind that this bill is going to create jobs. It's going to convince and create incentives to many homeowners to change their electricity habits and also change their furnaces and their windows, whatever they have, in order to be able to participate in this program.

I believe strongly that it's the right step towards a brighter future, and I want to congratulate the Minister of Energy for bringing such an important and bold initiative forward in order to make sure the province of Ontario does not depend on coal energy or dirty energy, and for switching the whole atmosphere around in this province, to have all the people in the province participate in the mission to have a green future and green energy.

In the end, I would wish the honourable member—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you. The honourable member for Thornhill has up to two minutes to respond.

I think that there's an interesting theme developing here, regardless of whether I listen to my colleague from Halton or I listen to the members from Timmins—James Bay or Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry or London—Fanshawe, and that is that everybody here has the same goal: We want to create a greener, sustainable, renewable system of delivering energy to Ontarians. I pointed out at the very beginning that, yes, I think at this point in our history, believing in green energy and wanting to supply it and rebuild the grid and rebuild the system in Ontario is a priority.

So there has never been any disagreement with that. The issue is how you're going to do it, and that's why my comments—because we're debating the bill—were negative on the "how," not the "what." We agree on the "what."

My colleague from Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry responded to my call to my government colleagues, of which he is one, to talk to constituents and see what they feel by very pointedly saying, "I've done that. There are three projects that are ready to go." I don't doubt that. There are a lot of people who want to build these projects. There are a lot of people who are waiting to hear what the return to them is if they do act as providers, as there are many, many individuals who are waiting to hear what the result is going to be in terms of how it's delivered to them and for how much.

So when I say to talk to constituents, I say talk to individuals, because, to my friend from London—Fanshawe, who says he has, I can't believe that there's so much difference between London—Fanshawe and Thornhill. My mail is very negative, and it's not because Thornhill is entirely blue and London—Fanshawe is entirely red.

It is not the "what," it is the "how."

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

Mr. Paul Miller: Thank you for this opportunity to speak on Bill 150, the Green Energy Act.

There's no more important goal than to build a vibrant and sustainable green economy and energy system in our province. Our environmental grounds: We urgently need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions in order to minimize the already damaging effects of climate change. Economically, we need to spawn the development of a new economy that provides decent jobs for the future, while protecting and respecting our planet.

Bill 150 calls for government investment to upgrade the electricity transmission and distribution grid to support a greater proportion of renewable energy. Few would argue with that. Bill 150 aims to create a culture of conservation by greening public buildings, improving energy efficiency standards for appliances and making energy efficiency a priority of the building code. That sounds good, too. Bill 150 seeks to ensure that renewable energy projects are environmentally sound but don't take years to get off the ground. Who could argue with that? The government says the act will spark the development of a vibrant and growing green economy in Ontario. That should be welcomed.

But apart from the good words and lofty goals, the question is begged: Will this act actually stimulate the kind of green energy transformation that our province so desperately needs for both economic and environmental reasons? The minister claims that it will, but the minister claims a lot of things. The minister claims that Ontario is a leader in green energy production, while a more objective look at the Ontario Power Authority plan suggests otherwise. In fact, OPA is very conservative in terms of its renewable energy ambitions, only aiming to achieve about one sixth of what the Green Energy Act Alliance has deemed possible.

The minister claims that Ontario is making energy conservation a priority. Meanwhile, a recent report from the Ontario Clean Air Alliance shows that for every dollar that the Ontario Power Authority spends on energy conservation and efficiency, it spends $60 on new energy supply. The minister says that we need new nuclear plants in this province to meet our energy needs, yet group after group and expert after expert, including Dr. David Suzuki, says that Ontario can meet its future energy needs without new nuclear but through renewable energy and conservation alone.

The minister says that his approach to electricity supply is balanced, yet the Ontario Clean Air Alliance recently showed that the McGuinty government is willing to spend 50 times more for a kilowatt of nuclear energy than it is willing to pay for a kilowatt of energy conservation.

So we in the NDP, and indeed all Ontarians, should ask serious questions about this legislation: Will it actually significantly increase the percentage of renewable energy in the electricity grid in Ontario? Will it significantly enhance the level of conservation and energy efficiency in the province? Will it help to reduce our reliance on polluting and non-renewable forms of power such as coal, natural gas and nuclear? Will it protect individuals and companies who are vulnerable to electricity price increases? Will it ensure that Ontario becomes a leader in manufacturing of renewable energy technologies? At this point in time, the answers to these questions are lacking.

The minister says the act will lead to a rapid expansion of renewable energy, but refuses to set any targets or timelines for the increase in green energy. The act is supposed to provide loans and perhaps grants for retrofits and conservation, but the bill has no details about how many, how much money and what will be supported. The minister says that attractive feed-in tariffs will be paid to green energy producers, but we don't know what these tariffs will be, so we don't know whether they will be high enough to spark many new green energy projects.

The minister says there will be reasonable domestic content rules, but again, the proposed legislation provides no details as to the extent to which energy producers will be required to purchase components or services domestically.

The minister is quite specific about some things, like the claim that 50,000 direct and indirect jobs will be created over five years, but has done little to explain how this number is arrived at. The minister claimed that the act will lead to only very modest increases in electricity rates, about 1%, but can't say how much renewable energy will come online when or what the feed-in tariff paid will be.

There are elements to the act that on the surface make sense: the creation of an energy facilitator to support new projects; stronger building code standards; more efficient government buildings; more efficient appliances. But there is little detail about these initiatives: their scope, their cost, their impact. Many hard questions need to be answered by the government if it is to show Ontarians that the act is in fact a green energy act and not merely

an act of greenwashing.

At this time, I want to address four main concerns with the bill: lack of targets for renewable energy, uncertain costs to vulnerable ratepayers and energy-intensive industries, uncertainty about the creation of jobs in Ontario and, finally, the question of public-private mix of power production.

First of all, there is the question of targets and caps. The minister said yesterday that Ontario is following the European approach of no targets or caps. He said that by paying an attractive feed-in tariff, the government is creating an open-ended opportunity for the production of renewable energy and that it is not up to the government to set limits on how much green energy is provided to the grid. But in the next breath, the minister said that 75% of Ontario energy will continue to come from nuclear and hydro.

The fact is, by continuing to pursue costly, dirty, unreliable nuclear, the government is setting a de facto cap on the development and provision of renewable energy because only so much energy is needed in the province of Ontario.

The potential for renewable energy is vast. According to the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, Ontario's wind power potential is more than 10 times greater than our total electricity consumption, and Ontario's biomass potential from agricultural and municipal waste is equal to 25% of our electricity consumption. We also have untapped water power potential and can import large amounts of hydro, if necessary, from Quebec. Despite this vast potential for renewable energy in Ontario, according to the latest OPA plan, the McGuinty government only plans to develop 8,000 megawatts of renewable energy by 2025.

That's only 500 megawatts a year for the next 16 years. The renewable energy contribution in Ontario, according to the current OPA plan, will increase from 22% this year to 30% in 2016. Between 2016 and 2025, renewable energy will be flatlined. That's no renewable energy for nine years.

To put this in perspective, over the next 20 years, Ontario will install less than one fifth of the solar panels that Germany has put in in one year, and in 2027 Ontario will have less wind capacity than the state of Texas already has today.

Why are other jurisdictions moving faster than Ontario when Ontario has an abundance of space for wind power and an abundance of access to the sun? Why is Ontario setting its renewable energy sights so low? The main reason is that by remaining stubbornly committed to building new nuclear plants in order to have nuclear power continue to comprise 50% of overall generation, the government is capping the growth of renewable energy.

That is the message of leading environmental groups in the province.

According to Greenpeace, "The government's 2006 electricity plan caps the development of green energy so the government could meet its self-imposed target of maintaining nuclear at 50% of supply." According to the Pembina Institute, "Ontario's electricity plan actually halts construction of all new wind turbines in 2018 in order to leave space for the new nuclear reactors that the province is considering purchasing." According to the David Suzuki Foundation, "To be effective in making Ontario a global green energy leader," the government must avoid "new investments in nuclear facilities to avoid 'capping' renewables and efficiency gains due to oversupply from non-renewable sources." According to the World Wildlife Fund, "We will get a sign of the degree of ambition when we see the new" OPA "plan in March."

The bill supposedly establishes the right to connect renewable projects, but the McGuinty government is putting nuclear first and leaving only the leftover space for green energy. In other words, as much as Bill 150 might encourage new investment in and production of renewable energy, it is doomed to failure unless the McGuinty government reverses its plan to build new nuclear plants at Darlington and to refurbish its Pickering B plant and opens up space on the grid for renewable energy.

Yesterday again, the minister said that we need nuclear energy because renewable energy sources like wind and solar are unreliable and intermittent. The double standard here is interesting. Complex new generation nuclear energy plants like the ones that the Ontario government is considering are facing unresolved technical setbacks around the world. New designs from Westinghouse, AECL and Areva, the contenders for the contract to build new nuclear plants in Ontario, are all either in prototype stages or years behind

schedule in deployment. And there is no accepted safe solution for storing radioactive waste, yet this government talks of nuclear as a proven and reliable source.

On the other hand, it characterizes renewable energy as flawed, unreliable and intermittent, ignoring the fact that the storage of wind energy is now viable; ignoring the complementarity between solar and wind—wind may not blow as much on hot summer days, but the sun does shine; ignoring the vast and reliable potential of renewable energy sources such as waste-heat recycling, combined heat and power—so-called cogeneration—and biomass.

Why does the government maintain so much faith in nuclear and so little faith in renewable energy? The minister said yesterday that continuing to draw 50% of Ontario's electricity supply from nuclear plants makes it possible to pursue green energy. I think the minister has it backwards: The continued reliance on nuclear for 50% of the electricity supply for Ontario doesn't make this act viable; it does the opposite.

Pursuing new nuclear energy in Ontario dooms Bill 150 to being entirely marginal, to bringing only small amounts of renewable energy online in Ontario, something that would have happened even without this bill. If the McGuinty government is serious about aggressively increasing green energy supply and conservation, it would put a moratorium on building or refurbishing nuclear plants until it at least sees what potential Bill 150 has to spark in these new renewable projects.

Even the minister's own staff has suggested, while the new nuclear plants remain on the table, that there is a need to see how this goes, and anything is possible. In other words, new plants may not be necessary if the renewable energy response to the act is strong. If the act is as great as the government suggests and if reasonable prices are paid for renewable energy, then surely it will stimulate the introduction of more than 8,000 megawatts over the next 16 years. The government can't have it both ways. It can't say that the act has the capacity to rapidly increase green energy supply and then limit it to 500 megawatts a year by giving priority to its nuclear plants.

It's not only the NDP that is concerned about lack of strong baseline targets for this green energy bill. Two University of Western Ontario professors, who interviewed 63 wind developers, also say that the act does not go far enough because it fails to include long-term targets for renewable capacity and leaves too many decisions to ministers.

They say that the act does not remove investor uncertainty that has hindered investment to date because it does not establish long-term targets for renewable capacity, and instead "leaves key decisions on targets and power pricing in the hands of the minister," who can easily change policies if political priorities shift. They say that the Green Energy Act further broadens ministerial powers, exposing policy even more to political pressures.

The second key issue is about costs. Yesterday, the minister suggested that this bill would only increase ratepayers' tax cost by 1%. If the government hasn't yet seen the price at which they will buy green energy and won't say how much green energy will come online, then how do they know electricity rates will only go up by 1%? Given the fact that the feed-in tariffs for wind and solar are two to three times higher than the cost of coal-fired electricity, how is it that the increase in hydro rates will be so low? A good question.

The only way I can see that rate increases will be kept low is if the government is anticipating a very low uptake of the program, contrary to their rhetoric of turbo-charging green energy development.

Whatever the rate increase, we know that low-income people are very vulnerable to changes in expenses. We hear increasingly of people becoming homeless, not because they can't afford rent, but because they can't afford their utilities. The government says that there will be some protection for low-income people, but, again, the bill tells us little in terms of what these protections will be.

It's not only low-income individuals who are threatened by increasing hydro rates. Struggling companies in the resource sector are already being pushed out of business by high electricity rates in the province of Ontario, and they're moving out of Ontario at a drastic rate. Xstrata and AbitibiBowater are recent examples of large companies under constant pressure to move.

Electricity already costs $72 per megawatt hour in Ontario, the second-highest in Canada. We have Niagara Falls, the biggest producer in North America for electricity. We sell it to the States.

Hon. George Smitherman: No, we don't.

Mr. Paul Miller: Yes, we do.

We have many falls up north that are not being utilized. There are towns and cities in northern Ontario that could be self-sufficient with electricity, but they're putting it into the grid and then their prices go up. It doesn't make sense. The NDP has called for an industrial hydro rate of between $45 and $50 dollars per hour, but the McGuinty government has ignored their calls as usual.

What will be done to protect these companies from further hydro rate hikes and more job losses in struggling parts of this province? I don't know. Which brings me to a third and final concern about Bill 150: the lack of specifics around domestic content requirements needed to stimulate new green jobs in Ontario. It's true that setting a fair price for renewable energy is the key to attracting investments in green energy production, but we need to ensure that components for solar panels and wind turbines are produced in Ontario.

I'll give you a perfect example of what the government should be pursuing in the city of Hamilton. We have National Steel Car. It's the second-biggest producer of railway cars in North America, with a workforce three years ago of 2,200 employees, mostly welders. They are now down to less than 600. The company is talking about building a new plant in Alabama and pulling out of Ontario. They've been there 100 years, the last Canadian railway car manufacturer. Why? Because the federal government is also to blame. They are allowing these rail companies—CP, CN—to lease these cars that are built in the States, taking jobs away from Ontarians.

Here's a perfect opportunity for the minister to go to Hamilton, because I've talked to the president of the local in Hamilton and a company representative. Their plant can be retrofitted quickly to accommodate building wind turbines and other structures that would be part of the new renewable energy. They have the facility. They have the manpower. They have the transportation right there in Hamilton. National Steel Car should be utilized, and the company has expressed an interest in going to the green energy system.

We know that the act allows for regulation of domestic content quotas, but again, the levels remain to be determined. The government repeatedly cites the 50,000-person-year job figure over three years, but 16,000 jobs per year doesn't go a long way when 300,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost over the last four years. Moreover, the industry observers question whether the 50,000 target is feasible given the lack of trained workers and time to get the project off the ground.

Finally, there's the question of public versus private delivery of power. Why is the McGuinty government allowing large, private companies to produce green power while continuing to bar OPG from producing green power? How will factoring in profit margins for companies impact electricity rates? The Quebec government has made significant advances in renewable energy and job creation through a public power model. Is the government sure that a feed-in tariff model that excludes the major public utilities is the most efficient and cost-effective approach?

In

summary, the NDP shares the objectives outlined in the bill for a green energy future for Ontario. We most likely will support the bill to committee, but we sure need a lot more amendments and a lot more input, and we have serious doubts as to whether the act will achieve this objective without reconsideration of government plans for new nuclear energy and without better protection against electricity rate increases.

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

Ms. Laurel C. Broten: I'm very pleased to respond to the member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek and take the few minutes that I have before me now to put some facts forward in response to the rhetoric that we hear in the context of the debate, and reaffirm and explain our government's commitment with respect to renewables.

The facts are that Ontario has already brought about 1,000 megawatts of new renewable energy online since October 2003. More than 1,200 megawatts of renewables will be online in 2009, and that is enough to power 325,000 homes.

Investment in renewable projects already in place or under construction in Ontario totals about $4 billion. As the member did not refer to, our minister has directed the Ontario Power Authority to review the portion of the proposed IPSP focusing on renewable energy and conservation, because since 2003, such progress has been made in the renaissance of Ontario's energy sector, including developing a plan to get rid of coal-fired generation by 2014 while at the same time renewing Ontario's nuclear power fleet.

The amount and diversity of renewable energy sources will be examined. The viability of accelerating the achievement of stated conservation goals, the potential of converting existing coal-fired assets to biomass—all of those questions are being examined in light of the recent successes that we have had, to just reaffirm to this House that unlike the member opposite, many others do believe that this government is absolutely on the right track. We only need to refer to the editorial in the Toronto Star dated February 24, "'Green Energy' Includes Nuclear.

"The government has good reason to stick with nuclear power, which currently accounts for 50% of our electricity."

It is part of a green energy strategy going forward.

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

Mr. Peter Shurman: First of all, I have to say that any time my friend from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek speaks, I know that he speaks from the heart and he speaks with passion, and I admire that passion. If his speech in this debate, along with mine and those of some of the other members opposite the government who have spoken, is any indication, it's further proof that we really needed significant and fulsome hearings at this stage, before we got into a second reading debate. There are so many stakeholders who would give credibility, or take it away, from one position or the other, and it proves further that the positions are divergent.

I've talked about the lack of detail that this bill has exposed and the lack of consequences that we are able to calculate as a result of some of the elements of this bill, and have got great agreement in the words of my friend from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. Where we differ is that our party's position is very much pro-nuclear and the NDP's position is anti-nuclear. I would argue—

Hon. George Smitherman: Oh, really?

Mr. Peter Shurman: Yes.

I would argue on behalf of nuclear as a part of a green strategy; however, we recognize that it's a non-renewable. I would prefer to discuss that and look to examples like France, where the majority of power is generated with nuclear facilities, rather than deal with one of the suggestions, for example, that my friend has offered, which is, "We'll import a significant amount of hydraulic power from the province of Quebec." Albeit that's possible, we have no way of knowing at this stage whether Quebec has the appropriate capacity going forward for the long term. So we have to be self-sufficient, and we saw that during the huge brownout of four or five years ago.

The bottom line here is, everybody has an idea that says "green"; everybody has a different idea of how to do it. That's why substantial hearings are required.

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

Mr. Mike Colle: I want to say that I was listening to the member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek and I agree with a lot of the points he was making. I agree with his approach, which is saying, "Listen, this is how you can make this bill better." I think these suggestions are going to make the bill better, because that's what we need in this. It is a huge undertaking the minister has done, and I look forward to him putting that input.

I know one of the areas I'm also interested in and something he has raised in Hamilton is, how can we ensure that these jobs in the new economy can be created in our own ridings and our own cities and towns across Ontario? I think this is really a great opportunity to do that. That's where we have to spend our time and energy, as opposed to the old Conservatives, who just sit around saying, "Well, this should have been debated last week. This is too slow"—all these clichés about the bill, and name-calling. They're the old protectors of the status quo, which is basically saying, "Sit around; do nothing. Everything is fine." But we don't have that option.

We all agree we have to take some effective, intelligent action on this front as we face climate change and issues of energy independence. This, I think, gets us toward energy conservation and energy independence, and on top of it, it creates a dovetailing into the new jobs of the new millennium. That's where we have to go. We don't have a choice. There is an economic, environmental imperative to do this.

So the people who talk about maintaining things and—these name-calling approaches aren't the answer. We have to move forward, and I want to say that's where we're going with this.

The other thing that we're fighting, too, is all the people who say, "Well, we're against nuclear," yet they're out in droves protesting wind. They're against the wind—the NIMBYs, you know? Then they're against solar farms. Then they're against natural gas-fired generation. So I tell them, by being against wind, solar and natural gas—

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

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: At the outset, let me say that I do support a certain amount of wind power.

There are two things you have to understand about wind power. Firstly, when you build wind power, the wind doesn't always blow, so you have to have backup power to support the wind power. Last summer, July 26, I believe, was the hottest day of the year. Ontario had about 48 megawatts of wind power available for generation. As is typical with a very hot day, the reason that it's so hot is because there's no wind. The same thing could be said of a very, very cold day. It's very cold because there's no wind to stir the air.

But that July 26—I believe that's the right date—when there were 48 megawatts of wind power available for generation, there were two megawatts being generated, because there was no wind in the province. When you build wind power, you also have to build backup power that goes along with it.

So not only are we looking at—I don't know, pick a number—16 to 20 cents for wind power generation in a modern wind turbine; not only do we have to build that power, but we also have to build something in the surge area—perhaps natural gas, perhaps clean coal—in a reasonable area.

Germany is building 26 clean coal plants to back up their wind power. It's a very green program in Germany. It's seen to be a very green program in Germany. The NO x and SO x generated out of a clean coal plant are identical, or almost identical, to those generated out of a natural gas plant. It's a very, very clean process.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The honourable member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek has up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Paul Miller: I would like to thank the members from Thornhill, Halton, Etobicoke—Lakeshore and Eglinton—Lawrence for their comments.

In reference to the statements of the member from Etobicoke—Lakeshore, I disagree with them. She actually made an error by saying that they've created 1,000 megawatts since 2003. That's probably correct; however, if you break that down, that's about 170 megawatts a year, and falls quite short of their 500-megawatt promise in the new Green Energy Act. That's nothing to be bragging about.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: That was a Liberal promise.

Mr. Paul Miller: Yes, that was another failed effort.

In reference to the member from Eglinton—Lawrence, I thank him for his comments. I feel that, yes, we can work together to make this bill better for Ontario and for the people of this province. I'm glad to see that the minister is willing to work with suggestions from all parties about improving this bill, because it benefits us all and makes us a little more self-sufficient and less reliant on world economies and world energy, and we have lots here to spread out.

The comments of the member from Halton were well addressed, but he said that the backup generation—if the wind doesn't blow, we don't have electricity. If the green plan is effective, as the government says, we have biomass and we have gas. But I would also like to mention to the minister that maybe he should consider re-energizing the project that fell short, by the federal government in Hamilton, with cogeneration from the coke oven plants in the steel mills. They can create a lot of energy for the grid. That should be looked at as soon as possible.

All in all, I think that everybody basically wants to improve our situation in the energy sector in this province. I believe that, with some co-operation, we can do it.

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

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I'm pleased to enter the debate on Bill 150, the Green Energy and Green Economy Act, and I'm speaking in support. First, I congratulate the minister for this bold initiative and a very important step toward a greener future.

Many speakers before me talked about different directions and raised so many questions: from the opposition, from the third party and also from our colleagues. No doubt about it, it's a very important step. It's a very complex, huge bill. It's very important for the people of Ontario.

No doubt, we have to raise so many different questions. We are introducing this bill in this House to be able to listen to suggestions from the opposition and the third party. I listened to the Minister of Energy responding to the member from the third party. He said: "Yes, I'm going to take your questions seriously. I'm going to address them one by one. As a matter of fact, I've addressed most of them, and we're going to work on all of them in order to make sure that Bill 150 serves the people of Ontario, serves our agenda and the future of this province."

Everyone around the globe is talking about climate change: talking about our effect on the climate, on the polar bears, on flowers, plants, fish and many different species around us. Many different elements in our life affect the species around us and our environment and make it warmer. That's why we're seeing a lot of crazy weather on a daily basis in Ontario and also around the globe, from floods to extra snow or less snow. Everything around us is mixed up because we throw a lot of dirt in the air, mess up our air and make it less clean and also warmer.

Therefore, our duty and obligation is to do something about it. That's why this bill came about: in order to help the environment and create green energy to serve our needs for industrial and domestic use.

This debate has been around for many, many years. Every party has a different philosophy, has a different approach as to how we can act on this issue. I want to thank the Minister of Energy for coming forward with his bold initiative in order to address it in a professional and scientific manner in a very important era, when our economy is struggling and looking for some kind of stimulus initiative. I think strongly that this initiative, this bill, will create some kind of stimulus to our economy.

It's going to convince so many people in the province of Ontario to reconstruct their homes and have strategies for lighting their houses and using energy. It will create jobs on construction sites, in the service industry, in installations, financing, engineering, and computing systems. In many different aspects of our economy, this bill is going to create great movement in our economy. We believe strongly that it will create more than 50,000 jobs.

This question has been asked by the opposition and responded to by our government: How can we create those 50,000 jobs and how did we come up with this number? The people I spoke with last week and this week—especially, when the Premier, Dalton McGuinty, came to London and made this announcement in our riding, London—Fanshawe, he spoke to many different stakeholders, from the chamber of commerce to energy producers and environmental groups, and all of them were very impressed by our initiative.

They thought it was a great and bold initiative toward a greener future and toward correcting the mistakes that people before us made in order to make this earth dirtier and unfriendly for the species who share life with us.

When we introduce something new, people get suspicious and ask a lot of questions about it. They get scared and have a lot of questions: How can we do it? How will it affect our lives? As you remember, when we introduced the energy bill, Bill 100, four years ago when Dwight Duncan was the minister, I served on that committee and we travelled the province of Ontario. We listened to a lot of stakeholders who raised a lot of concerns. After four years, people are very comfortable about it, especially with the smart meters, which have software to allow people to monitor their consumption of energy. Now people are happy and comfortable.

This initiative created big jobs for the people of Ontario. A big company in Kingston produces the smart meters. We are not just supplying the people of Ontario; we also supply many different jurisdictions outside Ontario. So I think it's a very important step.

Also, when we created a smoke-free Ontario, I still remember that many people from my riding, especially the restaurant owners, came to us and complained. They thought they were going to lose their jobs and it was going to affect their businesses. Many people started complaining, came to all of us from both sides of the House and complained. But look: Now it's very normal. If you go to a restaurant or coffee shop and you see somebody smoking, it's something weird and different.

Sometimes when I go to different provinces or countries and go on the train, the bus, to coffee shops or restaurants and see people smoking, I feel different. I'm not comfortable, because after many years, I guess we get accustomed to it and we start to feel the positive effect on us.

This bill, I think, is a very important step.I listened to the member from the third party speaking about his doubt about our ability to implement it. I've witnessed the Minister of Energy on many different occasions and on many different bills. I served on the social committee, and we went around the province of Ontario to discuss the bill he introduced in this House. I noticed his determination and his commitment to the project he moved and initiated. I think this bill is going to see the light. It's going to see important steps toward making sure the province of Ontario is fit and will be ready for the future.

All this talk about how we can consume energy, how we can conserve energy, how we can save on energy—I heard people talking about Germany, I heard people talking about Denmark, I heard people talk about Spain. I watched the movie by the David Suzuki Foundation. He went on a trip with his daughter to Spain, Denmark and Germany. He showed us how they utilize the wind and also the solar system in those countries and harness the electricity and feed their grids. But you know what? I've heard a lot of stories about it. You know how much a kilowatt costs in Germany? Twenty cents per kilowatt. How much does it cost us in Ontario? Way, way, way less than that.

Mr. Mike Colle: I want to know about London.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: Well, yes. We're talking about our people. When we make a comparison, we have to make a fair comparison. Also, we have to remember how much Germany depends on nuclear—almost 60% to 70%, the dependency on nuclear.

If we pass this bill, I guess by the year 2025 our dependency on nuclear will be reduced by 15%. Also, we're going to create a conservation culture, and that culture is going to go across the province of Ontario. We're talking about creating jobs. I heard the minister the other day respond to the member opposite about the content of this project—at the present time, 50% content—and the future. As we go into the future, it's going to be 60% and 70% and 80% and maybe 90%.

Maybe in the future, if we create that culture, it will go across the board to colleges and universities, and then many different researchers can get involved in this project. It's going to give us the ability to produce green energy tools and materials. We can expand it and sell it across the globe. I think it's a very important step.

We have an initiative in London, Ontario—myself and my colleague the Attorney General—a project we do every year. What we do is we invite so many different environmental companies, energy companies, producers of energy and people concerned about the environment to a project we call Think Globally, Act Locally. So many different stakeholders come to this event. We have it every year. It's going to come this year in April at White Oaks Mall in London, Ontario, in my riding.

People come from many different cities and small towns to visit all these shops. People talk about solar systems, wind, conservation, environmental materials. People talk about degradable cups and forks and spoons and many different products. They are things that are very important to creating that culture and educating people about the importance of protecting our environment. Also, if they take the initiative and convert their homes to be—

Mr. Jeff Leal: Anybody from Peterborough there at that event?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: Well, we have a company from Kitchener that also came to this area.

I also want to tell you something. Yesterday, I went to Peterborough Day. I was very impressed. I had the chance to speak to many people working in the energy field, and they were very impressed with this bill and supported this bill, trying to convince the members from the opposition party to support it because they think, with scientific evidence, this will help the province of Ontario, help the people of Ontario and create jobs in Ontario.

I think I don't have much time. I want to continue the debate in the future with more examples from my riding of London—Fanshawe. We believe we have a lot of different initiatives, we have a lot of companies, a lot of solar panel companies, that want to take advantage of this bill and also make sure all the people in Ontario are able to participate with the government, as a whole society, to make sure the future is greener and to protect our environment. Thank you.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you. It being just about 10:15 of the clock, this House stands in recess until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. John Milloy: I'd like members to join me in welcoming Vic and Beth Degutis, who are here from my community. They're both outstanding leaders in the area, particularly in the area of education, and we welcome them to Queen's Park today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'll take this opportunity, on behalf of the MPP from Oakville and page Alexander Glista, to welcome his father, Greg; his grandmothers, Marina Glista and Marlene DeFehr; his aunts Carolyn McLellan, Joanne Luchenski and Kristin DeFehr; and his cousins John Paul Luchenski, Jada Piro DeFehr and Ben Piro DeFehr, in the east members' gallery. Welcome to Queen's Park today.

On behalf of the constituents of Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock and page Maddie van Warmerdam, we'd like to welcome her mother, Anne; her father, Mike; her sister, Jacqui, who is a former page here at Queen's Park; her grandmother, Dorothy; and her grandfather, Peter, in the public galleries today. Welcome to all of them, and to a guest of mine who will be joining me this morning in the Speaker's gallery, Nancy Sanderson Swartz.

As well, happy birthday to a couple of members. Garfield Dunlop and Randy Hillier are both celebrating birthdays today. Happy birthday to them.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I do want to introduce someone who's on the way to the House and may not be here yet. The mayor of the great gold-mining town of Red Lake, Phil Vinet, will be here shortly, so let's welcome him into the House.

MINE TO MACE PROJECT

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I beg the indulgence of the House to make a short announcement. Later today, I will be distributing letters to all members referencing a special event taking place at the legislative precinct commencing next week. Members are aware, during this sitting period, that we have been using the province's first mace. This is because our current mace is out for a much-needed cleaning and replating in preparation for a special role in what we're calling the Mine to Mace project.

Some time ago, De Beers Canada sought to donate two diamonds extracted from Ontario's first diamond mine to the Legislative Assembly, and the concept of mounting these diamonds on our mace was accepted. The design for the diamond setting in the mace will include one rough and one polished stone. The letter that I'm sending each of you provides more extensive detail of this Mine to Mace project and identifies the numerous organizations who have generously donated time and effort to it.

This is an especially exciting project for the assembly because the diamonds are to be cut at a site here in the legislative precinct. Commencing Monday in the north heritage room adjacent to the Speaker's office, a supreme master diamond cutter will be cutting and polishing one of the diamonds. This will mark the very first occasion on which a diamond has ever been cut in the province of Ontario.

Anyone who's interested is invited to drop by the north heritage room next week and view the historic event in progress. A camera will also be installed so that you can get a close-up view of the work being done. Once the diamond has been cut and polished and is ready to be set, it will be laser-etched with the number ONT-1-00001, signifying the finished stone as the first diamond to be mined, cut and polished in Ontario. The stone will also be etched with the Latin motto found on the assembly's coat of arms: "audi alteram partem." By way of digression, I urge all members to take note and commit to memory the translation of that motto, which is, "Hear the other side."

Upon completion of this project, there will be a ceremony in which we formally retake possession of the mace, which will now hold evidence of the ancient geological history of northern Ontario.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RENEWABLE ENERGY AND

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question to the Premier: Finally, after months of rather painful anticipation, after months of the Premier's Hamlet-like soliloquies about his desperate search for new and big ideas, and after poor Professor Florida was quietly hustled off the stage, we finally have the have-not Premier's job creation plan: a windmill in every pot and an energy inspector in every home.

Premier, do you really expect taxpayers to believe this latest fiction that further jamming up the real estate market with a new tax and an army of home energy inspectors is the road to recovery?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm always appreciative of the thespian qualities that my honourable colleague brings to his interventions in this Legislature—very energetic.

There is no doubt whatsoever that we bring a markedly different approach to managing the people's finances and growing this economy. We have, for example, invested billions of dollars in infrastructure, creating thousands and thousands of jobs. We're building new schools, new hospitals, new roads, new bridges, new public transit and new border crossings, but they don't support that. They don't support the thousands and thousands of jobs that come along with that. That's just one example of the markedly different approach that we're bringing to managing the people's finances and growing the economy.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I know that the Premier is doing his best, from the veranda of his Liberal-Party-owned Rosedale home, not to lose sight of the status of the real estate market in the province of Ontario. Since your last do-nothing budget, Premier, real estate prices have plummeted by double digits. What did you do about it? You whacked homeowners with massive assessment increases while the values of their homes are in sharp decline. You ushered in a new era of a Toronto land transfer tax that can add as much as $3,500 or more to the cost of buying a home.

Now you want to give beleaguered homeowners another good, old-fashioned kick in the pants with this $300 energy reno tax grab. Premier, in this worst real estate market in a generation, why do you want to whack people with a new tax and make every home or condo exchange subject to the whims and personal

schedule of your home energy inspectors?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: A couple of things on this score: First of all, it was in their platform. I just can't understand how they now decry a policy which was specifically adopted in their platform. When the matter was introduced as a subject of a private member's bill in this very Legislature, their members voted in favour of that, but now, in the face of a little bit of opposition, they want to turn and run from this.

First of all, it's $150 all-in. Secondly, we look forward to committee and to hearing from Ontarians on the very best way for us to implement this. It's part and parcel of a big package to create jobs in the province of Ontario, which is exactly what Ontarians want.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, let me get this straight: The housing market in Dalton McGuinty's Ontario is in shambles, and you want to hit it with a spanking, brand-new McGuinty energy tax of $300 or more, and then you want to delay home closings by at least a month, as the home inspectors do the work?

The manufacturing sector has shed some 275,000 well-paying jobs due in significant part to your uncompetitive energy prices and you want to increase energy costs by an additional 30%. Did you bother talking to the folks who are going to be laid off in the construction sector, greenhouses, forges and assembly plants? You say you're going to hire 50,000 people; they're all going to be home energy inspectors.

Premier, why don't you just admit that it has nothing to do with job creation; it is simply a rough tool to plant windmills and plough wide swaths of transmission lines in neighbourhoods that don't want them?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: There are a few things that we know, and I said this yesterday but I think it's worth repeating. With absolute certainly, oil and gas are going to go up in terms of their costs; we know that for sure. We also know that over time the cost of electricity from wind, sun, biogas and biomass are going to come down. We also know that when we buy oil and gas from Alberta, we don't create any jobs in Ontario whatsoever, but when we invest in our renewables sector and put up those wind turbines, solar farms and biogas operations, that does create jobs here.

We know that as consumers Ontarians are looking to better understand what they're buying when it comes to energy efficiency associated with their particular home. It's the biggest investment Ontarians make during the course of their lifetime.

We're talking about a big package which is designed to create jobs, attack climate change and ensure that we have more access to clean and green electricity. I think Ontarians are going to embrace this.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier. Premier, if you owned a business that had a 41% increase in revenue over five years, but you lost some of your most talented staff, you made fewer products and you ended up deeply in the red, should the manager be fired?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It's a bit cryptic, but I'll bring my own particular

interpretation to it.

During the course of the past five years, not only have we revitalized our public services, restored confidence in our schools, in our health care, in our ability to protect ourselves by looking after the environment and things like meat and water inspection, we have also invested heavily in the growth of our economy by investing in innovation, in infrastructure, and cutting business taxes, by investing in partnerships with our businesses. Those are the kinds of things we've done during the course of the past five years. That's a good record. I think it's a solid record, and it positions us to withstand the present economic challenges that we're going through together.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I'm disappointed the Premier found those results cryptic because, sadly, Premier, that's the Dalton McGuinty record.

Since 2003, revenues are up $27 billion or 41%, chiefly through higher taxes and increased federal transfers. As John Tory and I demonstrated this morning, you took all that money and you blew it. You chewed up every last cent in one gluttonous spending spree and now the cupboards are bare. We have 500,000 fewer cars produced than in 2003 and we've lost tens of thousands of jobs. We had 19 northern communities operating in the forestry sector a few years ago and we are now down to six. Some 275,000 well-paying manufacturing jobs are gone. Now we find out we are heading for a record massive deficit.

Premier, you must have a few bucks tucked away somewhere. If not, is this not a massive failure—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, it's no secret we

part company when it comes to how we should support public services for Ontarians and how we should put our weight behind economic growth.

As I said a moment ago, we've invested billions of dollars in infrastructure, creating thousands and thousands of jobs; they don't support that. We've invested heavily in the skills and education of our workers and we have 11,000 more young people graduating from high schools every year; they don't support that. We have 50,000 more people in apprenticeship programs; they don't support that. We have 100,000 more people in colleges and universities; they don't support that. We're partnering with innovative, creative Ontarians and we've funded over 1,000 research and commercialization projects because they are creating the jobs of the future; they don't support that. I understand that.

What they do support are continuing cuts to services that families have to be able to count on, like their schools and health care. We are indeed different in terms of our approach to public services and growing this economy.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: The Premier has failed Ontario families by blowing the entire $27-billion revenue increase and not keeping any kind of cushion to cut taxes and make key investments when times got tough. That is an extraordinary failure of leadership.

Sir, you ran this province on autopilot for five years as Canada's once-dominant province drifted into have-not status and onto the welfare rolls of Confederation. When it comes to ideas to grow us out of it, you are the have-not Premier for moving us ahead.

Now, this week, we find out you want to close down more factories by hiking energy rates and gumming up an already ailing real estate market with a brand new tax and an army of home energy inspectors.

Premier, when will you finally act? Will you bring forward a new jobs plan and a budget immediately?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: They also don't believe in cutting taxes. They say that. We're cutting them by $3 billion for our businesses, but they don't support that.

We have done much by way of entering into new partnerships with Ontario businesses—hundreds of partnerships. Over $8 billion worth of new investments have flowed from that, and we have some 9,000 new jobs. Again, they don't support that.

On the other hand, they tell us from time to time in the Legislature that they in fact want us to spend more on rural health care, they're going to eliminate the health premium—all kinds of irreconcilable positions they take on any one particular day.

We're proud of our record, and we are going to keep moving forward, protecting the gains we've made with respect to public services, continuing to find ways to partner with Ontario businesses, and we are going to move forward aggressively to build a stronger, greener economy here in Ontario.

POVERTY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Ontarians are confused about whether or not this government is committed to achieving a 25% reduction in poverty over five years. The new poverty bill, which was supposed to enshrine a 25% target in law, instead calls success dependent on "the sustained commitment of all levels of government, all sectors of Ontario society and a growing economy." In other words, if conditions beyond this government's control are not perfect, the 25% target gets tossed out the back door.

When will this government stop making excuses, stop creating escape clauses and commit unequivocally to reducing poverty by 25%?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm very proud of the new legislation that we've introduced in this House. You would have thought that the NDP, while they were in government, would have attempted to do something along these lines, but they chose not to.

We have put in place—and I know that my honourable colleague understands this—a target now. We have put in place a specific strategy to achieve that target. We have chosen some very real indicators that tell us whether we're making success or not; we're the first government to do that. We've committed serious dollars to ensure that we can make progress in achieving that target, but we've always said, as a government we can't address poverty on our own. We've going to need the help of the federal government, we're going to need the help of community organizations, but we are certainly going to do our part.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier claims that his anti-poverty act is strong, but that is not the case. Let's compare it to Quebec's legislation, which was in fact put in place six years ago. Quebec sets an ambitious and concrete target; the McGuinty bill does not do that. The Quebec bill sets up a fund to actually tackle poverty; the McGuinty bill does not do that. Quebec has a citizens advisory committee; the McGuinty bill does not have that. Quebec requires comprehensive action on education, on incomes, on housing, on jobs; the McGuinty bill does none of that. Quebec requires action to address the causes of poverty; the McGuinty bill does not do that either.

So I ask the Premier: Why is this government putting forward a bill that is so much weaker than the one in Quebec?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know that my colleague has her own particular perspective on this, but I think it's worthwhile considering the perspective of others as well.

Here is what Sarah Blackstock of the Income Security Advocacy Centre said: "The Poverty Reduction Act is very significant because it acknowledges that poverty is not inevitable and that government can and should create policy to reduce poverty."

Adam Spence, executive director of the Ontario Association of Food Banks, said, "We welcome this new legislation as an important step forward as it establishes an ongoing mandate for poverty reduction."

I have a number of other quotes as well, but the point is that I think a lot of folks who work on the front lines when it comes to addressing poverty know that this represents real progress. I think they know that they have a government that has put in place for the first time in Ontario a target, a strategy, indicators that we've settled upon, and we've put in place serious dollars to help us achieve progress. They also recognize that we can't do this, as a provincial government, alone. We're going to have to move in concert with our partners.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I would say the point is that this bill is thin and will not help people get out of poverty in the province of Ontario. So what we are doing is urging this government to hold widespread public hearings and seriously, seriously consider amendments to its poverty bill.

Beyond the bill, the McGuinty government has yet to show that it will make investments to really reduce poverty in Ontario. Anti-poverty groups have made it very clear: $300 million over five years, as the government proposes, is not enough. Groups are calling for an investment of $2.5 billion in social infrastructure and public programs in the 2009 budget as a minimum down payment to achieve the 25% target.

Will the Premier assure Ontarians now that serious investment of this order will be included in the upcoming budget, or would he prefer to list further excuses for inaction?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We have not forgotten the poor in past budgets, and we will not forget the poor in this budget; I can tell you that.

It would be nice if we had some support from time to time from the NDP when it comes to initiatives that we take to support the poor. We've raised social assistance 9.3%; they voted against that. We've introduced a brand new Ontario child benefit that will go to $1.3 billion annually—$1,310 annually for 1.3 million children living in low-income families; they opposed that. We've raised the minimum wage five times; again, they opposed that. It seems that every time we introduce an initiative to help the poor, they vote against it. So I look forward to receiving their support when we present our budget in this House.

TUITION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Again, to the Premier: Today, a report was released calling for a 25% increase in tuition fees over two years. More than 70,000 Ontarians lost their jobs in Ontario in January alone. Youth unemployment has been steadily on the rise in this province. For anyone to say that the average parent or student in Ontario can afford to pay more for necessities is completely out of touch. Post-secondary education is a necessity. More than 70% of jobs require it. In fact, the Martin-Florida report indicates that, as well.

Each tuition increase makes higher education inaccessible in this province. Will the Premier guarantee that there will be no tuition fee increases beyond the cap already set?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. John Milloy: I thank the member for the question.

First of all, to dispel any confusion here in the Legislature, this was not a government report. It was a report by a think tank that came out. Of course, we welcome advice from all quarters.

I'm very cognizant of the fact that all members of this Legislature want to make sure that post-secondary education is accessible to all qualified students and that finances are never a barrier. That's why I was very proud that one of the key elements of the Reaching Higher plan was $1.5 billion in additional student assistance. Through that, we've seen investments in student aid doubled; we've tripled the number of grants available to students.

I'm pleased to say that Ontario students receive the highest amount of needs-based assistance than any other province in Canada.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I was looking for the minister to speak about the cap, so I'm going to ask again.

The state of post-secondary education in Ontario under this government is like this: We're dead last in per capita funding nationally; we have the worst student-faculty ratio, not just in Canada but in comparison to peer institutions in the United States; and we have the second-highest tuition fees in Canada.

How much worse is it going to get before this government begins making the adequate, strategic investments that Ontario colleges and universities desperately require to prevent burdening students with higher tuition fees and increased debt load?

Hon. John Milloy: I'm willing to admit to this House that there are challenges in the post-secondary education system, but the simple fact is that Ontario has one of the finest systems of colleges and universities in this world.

We invested $6.2 billion, the largest investment in 40 years. What have we seen? Some 100,000 more students in our colleges and universities. In a recent ranking of the top 100 research universities on this planet, four of them were from Ontario, with the University of Toronto ranking number nine. McMaster University, from the community that she represents, was recently ranked first in the country in research intensity, a measure of research income per full-time faculty member: an average of $308,000 per faculty member.

As I said, we're going to continue to work with our colleges and universities as they move forward.

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

Hon. John Milloy: We've doubled the number of students who receive student aid in this province. We've doubled our investment. We invested $1.5 billion. We have 100,000 more students who have come forward to our colleges and universities. That's our record.

What's their record? Let me tell you about their record. When the NDP got into power, they increased tuition by 50%. They cut funding. They cut funding to post-secondary institutions and they eliminated upfront grants for students.

I'll put our record up against their record any day of the week.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is also for the Premier. Yesterday, you delved into the past. Let me refresh your memory further. You stood in this very House during the debate on Bill 118, the hydro bill, in 1991, and you said, "We have got to question the wisdom of the minister in introducing a bill in a recession which is saying to employers and investors, 'Here comes an additional tax which we're going to tack on to your hydro bill.'" Your words then, and now your wisdom, Premier.

During times of unprecedented economic crisis, when your own mismanagement has torn Ontario down and landed our province in last place economically, you have the audacity to whack Ontarians with yet another tax, a $300 mandatory audit. They've been hit with MPAC assessments at peak price and they are dealing with job losses and income reductions, all while our province is trying to keep its head above water. How do you justify this? How do you justify sabotaging citizens at a time when what they need is leadership in government and not more taxes?

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

Hon. George Smitherman: Certainly I want to credit the honourable member and his party opposite with instigating this very sound idea which is embedded in our piece of legislation. I know that the honourable member was a candidate in the last election and therefore ran under the Tory platform, and it said as follows: "A John Tory government will … [require] home energy audits before every sale of a house—so that the market will reward homes which are energy efficient. This will be a signal to homeowners that they will get a return on energy investments in their homes."

On the matter of the cost, the honourable member continues to misstate this. Yes, indeed, we have said it's likely that such audits would cost about $300. Already the government has on offer one half towards that. And on important points of implementation, in order to have enough people certified to do this work, it will obviously take some time to phase this in across the breadth of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Shurman: Number one, that was then and this is now. And number two, you love—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. As I reminded you earlier, I too need to be able to hear the other side, and I can't hear the other side right now.

The member from Thornhill.

Mr. Peter Shurman: The other thing I say to the minister is, there's a difference between our carrot and his stick. Minister, your answers show that you've lost touch with economic reality. You have no clue what Ontarians are battling today, and you have no plan. You have shown no leadership. Your Premier has said, "... there is a direct correlation between Hydro's rates and our rate of unemployment in Ontario.

As the rates go up, so will the rate of unemployment." Yet, you have introduced a pickpocket bill, one that will surely increase the cost of power, and your Green Energy Act attacks the last and, for most, the most significant investment of their lives. Justify pickpocketing taxpayers at this time, Minister.

Hon. George Smitherman: Mr. Speaker, I know you couldn't hear what the honourable member said: "That was then, and this is now." He has declared a big, fat asterisk on all of the policies they might offer up with the idea that those are for today, but tomorrow could be a whole new story.

At the heart of the matter, knowing how much energy a home uses is a very valuable piece of information. There is agreement on that. It was in their platform. It was supported in a private member's bill here. But everybody agrees that the current economic situation, and the circumstances for homeowners who might wish to sell their homes, is challenging.

Indeed, I've had the opportunity in this House and outside the House to say that as we move forward to implement this, we'll look for all inputs, from realtors, from the opposition, to do this in a fashion which is very reasonable. It will take some time to be able to do this on a standardized basis across the province and to have the appropriate array of people who are certified to do so. We'll be happy to work with the opposition on implementation details that give—

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

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development. Nortel has announced 3,200 more job cuts here in Ontario. EI claimants are up 30% year over year, with many communities up 50% or more. Over 300,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in the last four years. The NDP has a five-part jobs plan. Where's the government's plan?

Hon. Michael Bryant: It's the plan the member voted against. It's the plan that made investments in places like Mississauga—Brampton South, Vaughan, Kitchener—Waterloo, Scarborough Centre, Newmarket—Aurora and in the member's own riding; made investments in companies like 2Source Manufacturing, 6N Silicon and Agfa HealthCare; made investments in companies that will leverage into larger investments. In other words, the government jumped in and jump-started these companies to allow them to jump ahead of their competitors.

Yes, the news, amidst all these consolidation battles, can be very grim for those people facing those challenges, but there are also some success stories arising from this, and it is as a result of a plan of providing strategic funds directly to businesses in areas where we're going to have economic growth. We've been doing it and will continue to do it all across this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: We've done the minister a favour. We've laid out a plan that would get Ontario's economy moving again. We need an aggressive Buy Ontario program, starting with 50% Ontario content in transit and 60% Ontario content in green energy, as they do in Quebec. We need a massive transit expansion program, along with new roads, sewers, bridges, that not only puts people back to work immediately, but will lay the groundwork for jobs of the future. We need a $10.25-an-hour minimum wage immediately to put money in the pockets of those who will spend it immediately.

The NDP has done its part. Where is the government's plan?

Hon. Michael Bryant: It's the plan that the member voted against. It's the plan he doesn't agree with, I suppose. But, in fact, it's got a lot of the elements of what he just described: massive investments in infrastructure—we've seen that done under the McGuinty government—massive investments in transportation. Your leader, I say to the member, was against the subway expansion. He was against it. He thought it was a waste of money, I seem to recall.

In addition to the infrastructure spending, the plan includes direct injection of investments or loans to those companies meeting the criteria in areas of economic growth, those companies showing ingenuity and innovation—and they are growing. They're companies like Héroux-Devtek, Mitchell Plastics, Agfa HealthCare, Powerbase Energy Systems and Hanwha L & C. These are companies that deserve much congratulation and success for their innovation and ingenuity, and we will continue to partner with them and support them to find ways during these consolidation—

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

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr. Jim Brownell: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Minister, there is a common tenet for those who make use of Ontario's trails and outdoor recreation areas: "Take only pictures, leave only footprints." Ontarians are now thinking about this rule in the context of their daily lives.

We now talk about an environmental footprint and how to minimize it. We cannot avoid waste; it is an unavoidable by-product of living in a society. What we can do, however, is minimize the amount of waste we create in the first place, reuse what we can and recycle, as much as possible, what's left.

Minister, the blue box program provides a great opportunity for Ontarians to easily recycle common items like paper, plastic and glass. Through improvements, even more materials could be recycled, and the program could be more user-friendly by making the program consistent across the municipalities. What is our government doing to improve the blue box program?

Hon. John Gerretsen: Let me first of all congratulate this member on being such a passionate backer of the blue box program. He's indeed been a leader in his own community in that regard. Let me also say that Ontario households have embraced the blue box program, because as a matter of fact, the targets that were originally set out by 2006 were improved to 63%, two years ahead of the 60% target.

But we could do so much more, and that's why we're talking to the waste diversion organizations and basically have asked them to come up with some new recommendations that deal with such issues as to how we can reduce the amount of packaging, how we can include even more materials in blue box programs and how we can bring greater consistency between the material that's picked up in different municipals.

We want to also have the notion of extended producer responsibility be an integral part of the blue box program. We also want to expand it to such areas as industrial, commercial and—

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

Mr. Jim Brownell: Ontarians want to do the right thing. They want to protect the environment for future generations. They want to minimize the negative impact they can have on the world they live in. With busy lives and time constraints, it is important that the government make it easier for Ontarians to do the right thing. As the Premier has often stated, the environment and the economy can go hand in hand. We can protect our environment and create new green industries at the same time.

It is my understanding that there are communities in Ontario that ship recyclable materials to foreign countries like China and South Korea, where those products are turned into new products that are then sold back to us. We should be building green businesses and industries here at home in Ontario. Minister, what opportunities are there for companies that could fill that role and create new green industries here in Ontario?

Hon. John Gerretsen: That is a concern as to what happens to these materials, indeed, not only in Ontario but throughout the world. That's why we've asked Waste Diversion Ontario to look at some of the concerns about where the waste actually ends up. We've asked them to track the material system. We've asked them to help us promote the green economy. We want to make sure that we are working towards that zero-waste mentality.

There's some good material in everything that's out there, and anything we put down in landfill sites eventually will have to be cleaned up by somebody. The other thing that's very interesting about that is that when we remanufacture from recycled materials, about 25 times the number of jobs are created rather than by simply landfilling it. We want to make sure that we can repair and utilize the material that we have so that it doesn't end up in our landfill sites, to the detriment of everyone and to the detriment of our environment.

LITERACY AND BASIC SKILLS

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question today is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, you understand that thousands of Ontarians with literacy problems are losing their jobs as we speak. In the upcoming provincial election, will you take a leadership role and advocate for increased funding for community-based literacy and basic skills programs so that unemployed Ontarians can learn to properly read and write?

Hon. John Milloy: I want to thank the honourable member for his question. Certainly adult literacy is a great concern to all members of the House. It's estimated that we have about 3.4 million people in the province of Ontario who don't read and write at a level which would allow them to function properly in this workforce. As a government, we invest some $75 million a year through community agencies, school boards and community colleges to offer a variety of literacy programs. I certainly thank those agencies and organizations for the fine work they do.

I'm happy to tell the member that this year we have been able to give $2.68 million in one-time funding to help with special needs amongst these agencies and organizations. We look forward to continuing to work with them as we move forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Thank you, Minister. As you know, basic funding for community-based literacy and basic skills programs has been frozen for over a decade. With tens of thousands of Ontarians losing their jobs every month, the badly flawed Second Career program provides virtually no assistance to those requiring help in literacy and basic skills. By your own ministry's data, there are 2.4 million unemployed Ontarians who do not have basic literacy skills for a knowledge economy.

Thousands of Ontarians are losing their jobs as we sit here today. Many will turn to their local community-based agencies for assistance in basic training and literacy. Can you inform the House that you will advocate on their behalf for increased long-term, stable funding in the 2009-10 budget?

Hon. John Milloy: Again I thank the honourable member for his question. I want to assure him that we will continue to work with the organizations and institutions which offer literacy programs. I do want to correct something, however, that he said in his question about Second Career: The fact of the matter is that we have ensured that Second Career has a literacy and basic skills component.

An individual who comes forward and wants to seek long-term training through Second Career has the opportunity to do a literacy and basic skills upgrade of up to a year, meaning that they can actually extend the two-year Second Career program to three years. We are making sure that that program takes into account those workers who need that extra boost in order to enter into a retraining program and enter back into the workforce.

PUBLIC HEALTH

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. Health units across this province do not have the resources to deliver the services mandated by the province. A third of the public health units do not have permanent, full-time chief medical officers of health and many are struggling to deliver the services they are legislated to provide. Minister, it is high time that you commit the needed resources to public health units. I ask, why is the McGuinty government neglecting public health, especially in this post-SARS era, and not enforcing its own legislated mandatory services?

Hon. David Caplan: If more than doubling the amount of funding for public health is neglect, I think the member needs a new definition of "neglect" in this province. Funding for public health has more than doubled, from $233.4 million in 2003-04 to $680 million in 2008-09. In fact the way public health, as the member should be aware, was previously downloaded was by New Democrat and Conservative governments.

Because of the efforts of this Premier and this government, we have uploaded the cost of public health from municipalities, increasing the province's share for mandatory programs from 50% to 75%—a 96% increase in support to local public health and mandatory programs. In fact, the challenge the member mentioned earlier about full-time chief medical officers of health is a longstanding one. We believe that our recent—

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

M me France Gélinas: I do know that there has been a significant increase in the funding of the public health units, but 100 residents who met in Owen Sound this week are still concerned about the services provided by the Grey Bruce Health Unit. The health unit has closed some satellite offices and cut nursing positions. They have cut mandatory services in family health, in reproductive health—including one close to my heart, the breastfeeding initiative. They have cut services in communicable diseases, including reportable diseases. They have cut sexual health and community injury prevention.

In January, the Ontario Nurses' Association asked the minister to appoint an assessor under

section 82 of the Health Protection and Promotion Act to investigate the status of mandatory services in the Grey Bruce Health Unit. My question is, will the minister listen to the people of Grey-Bruce and appoint an assessor?

Hon. David Caplan: I'm glad the member acknowledges that resources have gone to increase the funding for public health units—in fact, in Grey-Bruce, that the member mentions, from $3,457,000 to over $8.5 million. That's a 60% increase in funding to this unit.

The Ontario Nurses' Association and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union have requested to conduct a review of the Grey Bruce public health unit.

It's not the practice of the Minister of Health to get involved in labour and management conflicts. I can tell you that it is the duty of boards of health to ensure the provision of health care program services, as required under the Health Protection and Promotion Act. Part of this responsibility includes setting priorities and determining the appropriate allocation of its resources.

I'm going to continue to monitor the situation—

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

CITY OF TORONTO

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: My question is for the Minister of Culture. Minister, a vibrant cultural experience is quickly becoming recognized as an important contributor to a successful international city. In a recent issue of Foreign Policy magazine, the best global cities were ranked according to a variety of important factors, including the level of diverse attractions for international residents and travellers. This includes everything from how many major events a city hosts to the number of performing arts venues a city boasts. Only one Canadian city placed in the top 10 global cities, and I, like other members from Toronto, am pleased that Toronto was ranked 10th in the world.

Can the minister tell this House what cultural attractions helped make Toronto one of the best cities in the world?

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: I join with my Toronto colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River in celebrating this event. Indeed, I'm delighted that Toronto was ranked a global city. I think it's really important to know that it was ranked the fourth-best global city for cultural experience, just tucked in behind London, Paris and New York. Toronto is in elite company.

The government's $123-million investment to renew six of Ontario's cultural institutions really contributed significantly to Toronto's cultural renaissance. The ROM Crystal has been named one of the seven new wonders of the world; an elegant new home was built for the Canadian Opera Company; and most recently, the AGO was transformed by Frank Gehry into an architectural jewel. All of this contributes to making Toronto a vibrant, fabulous place to come.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: Minister, in the aforementioned issue of Foreign Policy magazine, global cities were ranked based on a myriad of criteria. You shared with our colleagues how Toronto's cultural assets helped the city score well. However, Toronto scored highly in other areas besides cultural institutions. In fact, labour-market mobility and the city's ability to integrate newcomer populations are seen as major assets in the global marketplace and a source of competitive advantage. According to Foreign Policy, people living in cities such as Toronto enjoy a high quality of life—and attract worldly people and offer cultural experiences to spare.

Minister, Ontario is home to people from all over the world, and many make Toronto their first residence upon entering Canada. Would the minister tell us how the Ontario government supports newcomers—and in your experience, is this expertise recognized around the world?

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: I'd like to refer the supplementary to my colleague the Minister of Citizenship.

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to thank the minister for sharing the time with me.

Toronto, Ontario, welcomes immigrants. Since Confederation, countless immigrants have come to Toronto and called it home. In addition to bringing their language, culture and beliefs to Canada, newcomers bring their talents, expertise and investment.

Newcomers choose Toronto as their home for its strong business climate and cultural institutions, but most of all, its welcoming atmosphere, where diversity is celebrated as a strength.

In fact, during my time as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, I have met ambassadors and consuls general from Ireland, Serbia, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Korea, China, Pakistan, India, Russia and Switzerland. Toronto is truly a global city.

I am pleased that Foreign Policy magazine—

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

BUTTONVILLE AIRPORT

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I see a minister with his hand cupped trying to hear. I would appreciate all the members listening and being all ears.

Member for Thornhill.

Mr. Peter Shurman: Thank you, Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Transportation. As the minister is aware, the future of a vital part of York region and the GTA is in peril. Buttonville airport, a key component of York's infrastructure, is at risk of closure due to an ill-considered Greater Toronto Airports Authority decision to cancel its capacity maintenance agreement, a loss of $1.5 million annually to Buttonville. Without those funds, Buttonville airport cannot survive.

Buttonville is second only to Pearson International Airport in handling air traffic in this region and it includes air ambulance, police surveillance, media services, commercial cargo, corporate aviation, charters and private aircraft. As you see, jobs are at stake and so is a vital lifeline for York region.

Minister, what are you prepared to do to support this integral part of York and the GTA?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I'm glad the member asked the question and I thank him very much for bringing this to my attention. It was interesting that at the ROMA conference—the rural Ontario municipalities conference—this was raised with me. I met, at that time, with what I call the ministry's air advisory panel and that very issue was raised. This airport provides a very vital service for the people not only in the Toronto area but beyond the Toronto area, and I think it was an ill-conceived decision on the part of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority to end the subsidy which it was providing.

Minister Chan as well approached me with this, you've approached me with this, the air advisory panel, and it is my intention, as a result of meetings I had, to raise the issue with the Minister of Transport of Canada, with a view to applying pressure to the GTAA to restore that particular subsidy.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Shurman: In my view, these extraordinary times demand extraordinary measures, and I would like to think that the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, which runs Pearson, the biggest economic sinkhole in the airport world, would understand the integral piece that Buttonville represents to an already sparse Toronto aviation system. I urge you to review this file, as you've said you will, consider York region's growth and invest in the future of the central 905.

Buttonville is very crucial to York's economic success, so I would ask the minister if he will commit to a multi-year contractual support agreement, either through his good offices with the federal government or from Ontario coffers.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I know, since my friend from Niagara West—Glanbrook is sitting in front of you and asked us to save money and not spend money, you're probably suggesting that I make representations to the federal government, which has much more access to funding than the provincial government and has jurisdiction largely for airports, and I'm pleased to do that.

I think the member has raised a very good question. I think there should be a public debate about this. I'm willing to meet with the airport officials themselves to discuss this matter and I'm willing to go to bat, as I know he is, Minister Chan is, the air advisory panel of the Ministry of Transportation—we're all prepared to go to bat for Buttonville airport because we agree that it is a very vital transportation link here in Ontario. So I give him that assurance that I will pursue this matter vigorously.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Premier. There's more and more evidence that something is critically wrong with MPAC property assessments. An analysis of 47 MPAC assessments in my own riding showed everything from assessments that were 50% above where they should be, to 30% below. Premier, assessments that are as much as 50% higher than they should be will force seniors out of their long-term homes and away from family and friends. Will you finally admit that MPAC is fundamentally broken?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Jim Watson: As the honourable member knows, an increase in assessment does not necessarily mean an increase in taxes. That's the fundamental principle of the assessment system. The second thing is that the McGuinty government has brought forward a series of recommendations brought to our attention by the Ombudsman and we have implemented virtually all of those recommendations, as he laid out in his report. Furthermore, we also brought in a new system of phasing in the assessment increases over a four-year period so it is not as harsh on the individual property taxpayer.

And finally, we did bring about a senior citizens' property tax grant program that the honourable member voted against in the last budget.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: To the minister: An increase in assessment almost always leads to an increase in taxes. MPAC is broken and needs to be fixed. But the extreme volatility we're seeing is present in any market-based assessment system such as Ontario's. The NDP believes that seniors shouldn't be forced out of their long-time homes by the arbitrary volatility of property markets. That's why we proposed our freeze-till-resale model.

Will you commit to freeze-till-resale today, or will you continue to allow seniors to be forced out of their homes by a deeply flawed assessment model?

Hon. Jim Watson: The honourable member's proposal would create this patchwork quilt where one individual with exactly the same house would have a completely different assessment than their next-door neighbour. That is not fair to individuals moving into a particular neighbourhood.

We also understand—because there is from time to time extreme volatility with the assessment system, that's exactly why this government brought in a four-year, phased-in approach to try to give some greater comfort to those individuals who happen to see a particularly high spike in their assessment. It's also why we understand—I have a number of senior citizens in my riding of Ottawa West—Nepean, and this government understands that we have to bring in programs that are going to give those people some help to allow them to stay in their homes. That's why we brought in the senior citizens' property tax grant.

I would ask the NDP why they voted against the senior citizens and why they voted against the property tax grant program that helps the people that they purport to want to help.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mrs. Laura Albanese: My question is addressed to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. As part of its plan to improve emergency room wait times in our hospitals, the ministry has set provincial targets for the time spent in ER. Just last week, it started to report publicly the time that Ontario residents spent waiting, on average, in the emergency rooms of their hospitals.

This list, publicly released, shows that the Church Street site of the Humber River Regional Hospital, located in York South—Weston, has reported high wait times for patients with complex conditions requiring more time for diagnosis, treatment or hospital bed admission. Improving ER performance is one of our health care priorities. Our ministry has also very recently announced a $109-million comprehensive ER strategy.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, how will this strategy help the hospitals improve their performance and help Ontarians spend less time waiting in the emergency room in their area?

Hon. David Caplan: I'd like to thank the member from York South—Weston for her question and also for her advocacy on behalf of her constituents. My honourable colleague is quite right: Improving ER wait times is a major priority for myself and for this government. That's why we launched a comprehensive $109-million ER strategy. It's a strategy that recognizes that there is a multiplicity of factors that affect ER performance.

The strategy includes nearly $40 million for a performance fund to target Ontario's 23 poorest-performing emergency rooms with IT enhancement and coaching teams to enhance hospital efficiency. It includes nearly $39 million for increased home care, personal support and homemaking services, and enhanced integration between hospitals and community care access centres. It gives Ontario's 14 local health integration networks $22 million to invest in local solutions for their ALC pressures.

I'm confident that this strategy will deliver some great results for Ontario ERs. And because we're now—

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

Mrs. Laura Albanese: Improving emergency care does require making improvements across the entire system. These investments and initiatives in a number of areas of our health system will help to provide Ontarians with alternative options and help them receive the high-quality, prompt assistance that they expect when they need to visit their hospital's emergency room.

These investments also help our hospitals excel in a number of different areas. Humber River Regional Hospital, for example, is considered a bariatric centre of excellence for the services it offers to patients struggling with severe obesity.

Minister, the government announced this week that it will be improving access to bariatric treatment. Could you please explain what this expansion will mean for the residents of Ontario who require such services?

Hon. David Caplan: I again thank the member for the question because, as health minister, preventing and managing the spread of chronic diseases is one of my top priorities. That's why I launched a comprehensive diabetes strategy this last summer; that's a $741-million investment. Increasing access to bariatric surgeries is part of that strategy.

We're devoting $75 million over the next three years to increase bariatric surgery capacity in our province by some 500%. Humber River Regional Hospital, in the member's riding, is one of the hospitals that will benefit from this investment. Currently it has the capacity to perform 57 surgeries each year, but by 2011-12 it will perform up to 330 bariatric surgeries annually. Humber River Regional has been a bariatric centre of excellence since 2007. The centre provides pre- and post-bariatric surgical care, counselling, referral and weight loss treatment. The centre is delivering, by a—

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

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: To the Minister of Health: Oakville, as you will know, is one of the fastest-growing towns in Canada, and the current hospital is busting at the seams. Last June, your predecessor announced that there would be a one-year delay on the construction of the new hospital. To get that important project up and running as quickly as possible, Minister, will you allow the request for qualification of builders to go forward?

Hon. David Caplan: I know very well that Infrastructure Ontario is working with the hospital in Oakville, Trafalgar Memorial, to get this project on track as quickly as we possibly can. It's with tremendous regret that there was any delay, and it was simply because we have put so much work on to the market that there is a need to match up the capacity to deliver the project with the ability and all that's out there. I know that the folks at Infrastructure Ontario are working with John Oliver and the board, and we will be moving ahead with the requests, as has been laid out b