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

October 2, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-Oct-02 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 2 October 2008 Jeudi 2 octobre 2008

ORDERS OF THE DAY

IDEAS FOR THE FUTURE ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR DES IDÉES D'AVENIR

WEARING OF RIBBONS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

SKILLS TRAINING

DENTAL CARE

MANUFACTURING JOBS

LABORATORY SERVICES

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

CORONER'S OFFICE

SMALL BUSINESS

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS

HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

C. DIFFICILE

BREASTFEEDING

ONTARIO TRILLIUM FOUNDATION

VISITOR

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

BABY'S BEST START

COMMUNITY SAFETY

CHILD CUSTODY

BABY'S BEST START

HOSPITAL FUNDING

HOSPITAL SERVICES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

SEXUAL REASSIGNMENT SURGERY

COMMUNITY SAFETY

FIREARMS CONTROL

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AUTISM TREATMENT

LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS

AJAX FIRE STATION

MANUFACTURING JOBS

SKILLS TRAINING

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

FIRST NATIONS REVENUE SHARING

EMPLOYMENT ONTARIO

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SAFER COMMUNITIES

AND NEIGHBOURHOODS ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ ACCRUE

DES COLLECTIVITÉS ET DES QUARTIERS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH

WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH

WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

SIGNAGE TO PROMOTE ONTARIO GROWN AGRICULTURAL FOOD PRODUCTS ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR L'AFFICHAGE

VISANT À PROMOUVOIR

LES PRODUITS AGROALIMENTAIRES

CULTIVÉS EN ONTARIO

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS

MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT

SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT

(CANADIAN MANUFACTURING

AND ASSEMBLY

OF GOVERNMENT VEHICLES), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LE MINISTÈRE

DES SERVICES GOUVERNEMENTAUX

(FABRICATION ET MONTAGE

DE VÉHICULES GOUVERNEMENTAUX

AU CANADA)

SIGNAGE TO PROMOTE ONTARIO GROWN AGRICULTURAL FOOD PRODUCTS ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR L'AFFICHAGE

VISANT À PROMOUVOIR

LES PRODUITS AGROALIMENTAIRES

CULTIVÉS EN ONTARIO

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS

MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT

SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT

(CANADIAN MANUFACTURING

AND ASSEMBLY

OF GOVERNMENT VEHICLES), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LE MINISTÈRE

DES SERVICES GOUVERNEMENTAUX

(FABRICATION ET MONTAGE

DE VÉHICULES GOUVERNEMENTAUX

AU CANADA)

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

IDEAS FOR THE FUTURE ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR DES IDÉES D'AVENIR

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 1, 2008, on the motion for second reading of Bill 100,

An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act and the Taxation Act, 2007 / Projet de loi 100, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'imposition des sociétés et la Loi de 2007 sur les impôts.

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

Mr. Michael Prue: It's my privilege to stand here today for the one-hour leadoff, although I want to assure the members of the House that I don't think I am going to take it all. I can see the relief on the Deputy Premier's face.

I would like to preface the remarks I have with the chilling news that's been reported in today's Toronto Star. Many people will not have read it, because it's on the very last page of the business section, but it tells me everything about why we need to start investing more in our economy. In the business section, under the title "US Factories Weaken to Seven-year Low, Jobs Bleak," the body of that

article talks about what is happening in the United States economy. It talks about the downward spiral that has resulted not just from the events of this past week in the stock market but from the ongoing weakness of the economy of that country over the last many, many months.

It stated for the record that some 8,000 industrial jobs were lost in the United States. In a country as large as that, that may not appear to be a huge job loss, but 8,000 really good jobs were lost in the United States in the month of September.

It went on to say that the unemployment rate in that country has now gone up to its highest level in decades, resides at about 7% and continues to grow. It goes on and, in a little-used analysis tool, it says the factory index has gone down from 49.9% in August to 43.5% in September. People may not understand this index, but it's a very simple one. It's set at 50. If things are expanding, it's above 50; if things are declining, it's below 50. In August we had a very slight decline to 49.9%, a very small decline. In September we have a whopping decline. In September we're down to 43.5%, which is fully 6.5% below where things are normal, natural and stable.

So we can see what is happening, and for the first time there is a person you don't often hear from, but I think he said it pretty well. His name is Marc Pado, a US market strategist at Cantor Fitzgerald and Co. in San Francisco. He said, "For the first time, it's really starting to look like a recession."

Many people in Canada have been talking about that for some time. We know that jobs are being lost at a horrendous rate in the manufacturing sector in this province. We know as well that some of our key indexes, such as auto sales, have suffered hugely as factory after factory shuts down, lays off workers, or downsizes operations from three shifts to two shifts to one shift, or takes time off.

I had some opportunity recently in Oshawa to talk to some laid-off members of the Canadian Auto Workers. They had been off for months, and they are not sure if they are ever going back to work in what had been a fine job for them, a well-paying job, a good job, a steady job, a job upon which they and their families relied.

I looked as well in today's paper to see that auto sales for the Big Three in the United States have declined into the 40% range in the month of September. The only auto company that actually showed a very, very slight increase was Toyota. Every other one, including Honda, the foreign manufacturers–everything has shown huge declines in the number of people working, and as well is expected to go down. The new president of the Canadian Auto Workers, Mr. Lewenza, said it's very hard to produce cars when there are no buyers out there.

So it is against that backdrop that I look at this particular bill, Bill 100. I look at what the finance minister had to say. Of course, finance ministers are wont to talk in very flowery terms and say how wonderful their programs are, how many jobs they're going to create, and how much of everything else. This is what the finance minister had to say about this bill:

"This bill is meant to attract individuals with great ideas from all across Canada to set up their businesses in Ontario.

"It would help launch the next wave of Ontario's innovators by helping companies keep more of their income to invest and grow. It would also reinforce the critical role that universities and other public research institutes play in our economy and the next generation of jobs."

Would that that were so. Would that this bill was going to do anything of that kind. Would that this bill had the opportunity to launch this new wave and to create tens of thousands of jobs in this province. Because, unfortunately—and sadly—this bill is not about that at all.

When this bill was released, a member of our staff went to the Ministry of Finance with a very simple question. It took a day or two to answer, but the simple question was, how much is going to be expended if this bill becomes law? How much are we going to spend on trying to create jobs in the province of Ontario by use of Bill 100 and the provisions that it contains? From the outset, I have to say that this bill is not going to do very much. This bill had a potential.

This bill could have done something, but the finance ministry, in setting up the parameters, has clearly indicated to me what is really going to happen. They've set aside for this fiscal year the sum of $5 million to institute the provisions of the bill. To put that in perspective, that's about the same amount that is spent putting out flowers and maintaining this building; I think it runs around the $5-million range. I'm happy that we put out flowers around Queen's Park. I don't want anyone to get me wrong; I'm very happy with maintaining the traditions of this building and everything that goes on in here.

But that is about what's going to be spent on the creation of jobs across the length and breadth of this province under this bill. Next year, they are talking about $7 million, which again, given the Ontario budget of closing in on $100 billion, is an extremely, extremely small amount.

When you put that against the backdrop, what is intended here? What is intended is to get innovators to come to the province of Ontario. What is intended here is to get them to actually look at Ontario as a place to build a new industry and to bring in the smartest and the brightest and the best, and to get industry to be on top of the technological pile. But with the greatest of respect, I don't think that is going to happen given the provisions of the bill.

First of all, are companies going to come here for the $5 million? This is the whole range of companies; are they going to come here for $5 million? Well, you might be able to convince one company to come with $5 million, but the amounts that are going to be given out—as we requested that too—were in the range o f $100,000 up to three quarters of a million dollars, which I think is the top level. We're looking at a very finite number of companies: 10 or 20 companies in total getting very, very insignificantly small amounts of money if they qualify for it.

Quite frankly, that's not going to induce, in my opinion, very many companies to come here and start up an enterprise in this province when they could start it up literally almost anywhere else.

The tax rebate, the system that's been set up here: They're not going to have to pay taxes for some 10 years. We made some phone calls. We talked to those businesses that might potentially actually benefit from a program like this. We talked to them at some length to find out whether or not the kind of incentive that's contained within the body of this bill would actually incent them to come to this province. They had some pretty chilling news for the researchers in our office.

They said that it takes at least eight and sometimes 10 or more years to take the raw technology that is out there and that is being developed in our colleges, universities and our other places of higher learning, and turn it into a commercialized product that can be sold at a profit.

They tell us that in those eight to 10 years of a new company, they seldom pay any corporate tax. There is no tax that is paid, and therefore there will be no tax that will be rebatable. This program will not assist them, will not assist the majority of companies in bringing technology to this province. It will not make companies in the health and biotechnology sectors profitable. It will not speed up the process. It takes eight to 10 years of hard slogging to take an idea and turn it into profit. This means that a refund of the corporate taxes—zero in many, if not all, cases— won't give them extra dollars to reinvest in their business.

We questioned, why would the minister introduce a 10-year tax refund bill that won't actually help commercializers of research? The only thing we can figure out is that this is another photo opportunity for the minister and the government to talk about trying to do something in the face of the recession that is descending on us all too rapidly. It is a photo opportunity. In fact, it is not a bill that is going to do what it is meant to do.

We think that the tax breaks that aren't used don't cost the province a cent. That's why the limited budget here is a reality. That is why the government has set such a low amount—because they don't actually expect to spend anything. Ontarians are looking for far more than that. Ontarians are looking for real solutions. Ontarians are looking for real jobs, and the keeping of real jobs. They're not going to find it within the body of this bill, particularly when the amounts of money set aside are so minuscule.

We don't believe that this bill will create any jobs—I'm sad to say that. There will be little take-up on the program, and I think the minister knows that. There will be little government spending. The minister has already acknowledged that, and his staff have acknowledged that. New companies in this sector simply aren't profitable for 10 years to take advantage of what is contained in the bill. Those who invest in the new companies don't see the tax structure as a problem. They don't see the tax structure that is set up in this bill as a problem. That is not the problem to them; the problem to them is that there is not enough venture capital.

Now, we all know that venture capital flew south in the year 2000-01. That's sort of when the bubble burst, and it never really recovered from the meltdown of those years. Venture capital is not here in this province in sufficient monies to actually incent people to start up new industries, particularly to take the commercialization of new inventions and new thoughts and new processes and turn it into economic reality. The venture capital has simply dried up, and it's not there.

Now, what has been the government's response to something that would work and would create jobs? It has been totally inadequate. They have created a $165-million venture capital fund, which in reality is a token amount that industry insiders say will do little to help the circumstances. This measly proposal—$5 million and $7 million over two years—will do even less. The province could do things, but they're choosing not to.

I am, for the life of me, flummoxed and flabbergasted that the province is following a course of action to reduce the number of people who actually want to invest. There's a whole class of labour-sponsored investment funds out there—a whole class. The government's answer is to eliminate it—eliminate it. I don't know what the rationality behind all that is. It's being eliminated by the end of 2010. It was supposed to have been eliminated by this year, but the government saw fit to extend it another year or two, seeing that there was a continuing need for these funds.

I have a hard time understanding why the government would turn its back on the hundreds of millions of dollars that are available in the labour-sponsored investment funds and then come up with a bill that's going to spend $5 million. It does not make any real economic sense to me. I'm sure it makes no economic sense to the labour-sponsored investment funds of labour unions and other progressive people who want to put their money into the economy of this province. I fail to understand the government's action.

I fail to understand why former Finance Minister Sorbara was so hot to go down this road of cutting off those funds, which were probably the only thing left in venture capital after 2000-01. But he chose to do so, and the current finance minister has really not resolved that, has really not taken the steps to continue that pool of venture capital flowing. By cutting the credit, the government is signalling that it doesn't want everyday Ontarians to invest in small start-ups that create jobs in the long run.

It has replaced what was a good and ongoing and meaningful policy of accepting those funds—with the tax breaks that came with them—with gimmicks. I think this bill is more of a gimmick than it is a reality. Having said that, I'm probably going to vote for it, because $5 million is better than nothing. Anything we can do to help the economy is better than nothing, but I want everyone to realize that this is not, as my good friend from Ajax—Pickering said the other day, a cornerstone, or, as the finance minister said, a landmark.

This is a very tiny, minute-natured bill that is going to do very little in terms of getting new jobs to this province.

He has put the whole thing down to a photo op. I'm sure that Liberals across this province are going to run around at some point and say, "Look what we're doing; look how innovative we are; look at how we're spending $5 million."

Hon. George Smitherman: Celebrating Ontario.

Mr. Michael Prue: Celebrating Ontario with $5 million.

As my good friend and colleague from the former riding of Erie—Lincoln—I believe it's now Niagara West—Glanbrook—said so well yesterday, they are spending some $8 million on a tourism study. I guess it's a good thing to spend $8 million on a tourism study, but it's quite obvious that what this is intended to do is minor in comparison, because the amount that is being spent is a great deal less.

This government has decided to put commercialization photo ops before the real high-tech growth policies. It's unfortunate, because the industry has put real proposals on the table. I certainly know from estimates last week. We had an opportunity, over many hours, to question the Minister of Innovation, and he was really quite excited about many of the innovative proposals that have been put forward. We're excited about those too. But the McGuinty Liberals have virtually ignored them all, prioritizing press releases and quick announcements.

I think it's a shame, but I'm going to vote for this bill, and I'm sure my caucus will support me in voting for this bill, because we need to send this bill to committee. We need to send it to committee, and we need to get some assurances on many fronts.

One of the fronts that was raised by the Progressive Conservatives is that the innovation that is taking place can take place in places other than institutes of higher education, that it can take place in places other than universities, community colleges and other think tanks, that it can take place in a whole broad range of institutions and government and non-government services, and that they too should be included.

I'd like to take the other tack, because I think we need to discuss in committee the purpose of this bill and whether in fact it is heading in the right direction. I say that because we continue, in the New Democratic Party, to believe in basic research: the scientific study done to create new knowledge for the purpose of learning or finding truth. We believe in basic research. We believe in that because we think that is every bit as important as the commercialization of that research.

We go back in Ontario and even to the University of Toronto—one of my two alma maters—and we have a look at the success of scientific research at the University of Toronto. Six Nobel Prize recipients have come out of that university—six of them.

Ms. Laurie Scott: That's amazing. Wow.

Mr. Michael Prue: Yes, six who have developed independent and scientific knowledge which was not commercialized. It was done for the pure benefit of science, for the basic research. Now, obviously some of that went on to be commercialized—Banting, with the discovery of insulin. He discovered it not for a commercialized purpose, but for the benefit of all mankind. That's what he did it for. I don't even believe he made any money off it. He didn't try to patent it. He didn't try to do anything else in terms of the insulin. He simply discovered it, worked on it, gave it away and benefited everyone. We believe, and continue to believe, in basic research.

The name RIM is talked about a lot in this province, particularly by people from the Kitchener-Waterloo area. It has been a huge success story—BlackBerries and all the things that flowed out of that. I think we should be listening to people like Mike Lazaridis, the founder of Research In Motion, whom this government often trots out. I believe this bill is hoping to find another RIM; that's what it is, isn't it? My friend here shakes his head in ponderment, but I believe it is.

This is what Mike Lazaridis, the founder of Research In Motion, said about basic research; I think he said it very well: "The number one reason to fund basic research well and with vision is to attract the very best researchers from around the world. Once here, they can prepare Canada's next generations of graduates, masters, PhDs and post-doctorates, including the finest foreign students.

All else flows from this." He went on to say that commercialization will happen—Canadian researchers will use the high-quality education, well-funded laboratories and their international contacts to design commercial applications to their discoveries—but it's a natural progression and doesn't need to be forced.

So I think we have to also question: If we are content with this bill and believe it is being done for the production of jobs, that's one thing. But if we also want to look at the other path, which I think is equally valuable in places like universities and educational institutions, it is to help fund them not only so they can benefit the private sector and the companies that are going to proceed with jobs, but also for the sheer joy of the basic research.

It is for the foundation, so that the schools can develop and we can bring in the best and the brightest, not just to the places of employment but to the places in the university where they can study, where they can trade ideas, where they can meet with people from around the world, where we can have an intellectual hub. I believe this bill doesn't do that, and this bill should be doing that. It should be part of the bill that I'm hoping will be talked about in committee.

This province is putting a significant amount of resources into the commercialization plan with this bill and with others. They have put over a billion dollars on the table, telling researchers that there will be rewards for finding commercial applications for their findings. This is money that could go, and in part should go, to basic research.

We must ask ourselves, what discoveries are we sacrificing by diverting funds from this basic research? As I said earlier, we're trying to recreate a new Research In Motion, I guess. But that's not the way companies get started. It begins with smart people working in high-class institutions with top-notch professors, seeking answers to questions they may not have fully developed.

So the whole thing comes down to this: Is this bill sufficient to reach the commercialization of new ideas and create jobs in Ontario? The answer, quite simply, is no. It is set up in a way that companies are probably not going to get any money for eight to 10 years because of the tax regime that is set up with it, because they don't make any profit in those first eight to 10 years. Is this bill going to resolve the difficulties inherent between basic research and applied research?

Probably not, and it's probably not going to help the institutes of higher education, because they need to develop the ideas first, as Mr. Lazaridis so brilliantly put it—that's the first step, which has been omitted by this bill.

Is the government going to be spending enough money in this bill to make its application work? I would suggest that $5 million this year and $7 million next year is a pittance and is not going to bring the best and the brightest from around the world to develop here. It is not the kind of money that will make someone choose Toronto over San Francisco or Ottawa over Berlin; it's just not going to happen. It is not a realistic amount of money for the government to put forward.

In a nutshell it all comes down to sending this bill to committee, to having the government look at it again, putting the resources into it and changing where the research money can come from.

I accept what my friends in the Progressive Conservative Party have to say in terms of other research facilities not being included. I hope they and the government will accept what I have to say around basic research, about funding the universities to look at things that may not be immediately commercially applicable. In the end, I'm hoping, when everyone has a chance, to make this bill into something that today it is not: a vehicle to produce jobs in this province.

We know that the people of Ontario are potentially in for hard times. We know what is happening in the United States and what has happened for the last several years across the length and breadth of this province, where manufacturing jobs are being shredded and shed on a huge and ongoing basis, where towns like Goderich woke up yesterday to the news that—

Ms. Laurie Scott: Five hundred.

Mr. Michael Prue: —500 of their best-paying jobs in their largest factory and their largest commercial warehouse are being shut down. That's really going to do damage to a town of 7,500 people. We know that that same thing has happened in Windsor, in Chatham, in London, in Welland, in Ottawa and in Toronto. We know that. I believe that every member of this House from every party has the obligation to do what we can to help create new wealth.

This bill, if amended, might be part of the solution. This bill, as it is presently constituted, will do very little. So, I await the government and I await everyone else, and I trust that they will send this to committee for review and will listen carefully to amendments that come forward to strengthen it so that it actually can do what the minister set out in his lofty goal to do. It will take resolve, and it will take money, and it will take ingenuity, but together I think this Legislature has an obligation to the people of this province to do something in these times of economic uncertainty and do it well.

With about half an hour, I think that's about all I need to say today. I look forward to further debate at third reading, when I can stand and talk about the successes of the committee process and how the government has listened and done far more than use this present bill, in its course of action, as a photo op.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I listened to the member from Beaches—East York speak, for almost half an hour, about Bill 100. I was happy to see the member's kind of support in the end, because I think it's a very important step on a very important issue.

I was listening to him carefully when he was talking about researchers and scientists, and I agree with him: When people come to do research and science in Ontario, they don't look at the money; they do it because they love it, because they believe in it and because they want to serve humanity. Over the years, I met many different researchers from the University of Western Ontario and listened to them. They talk about their issues with passion and with love, because they care about their jobs and about their ideas. They want to implement them; they want to serve humanity.

That's why I think this bill is a very important step to allow many researchers and innovators to come to Ontario to execute their innovative ideas.

He spoke about the money part. He knows very well that the money

part is not the only element of the bill—he is a well-experienced politician; he has been around for many years. Most of the time, money is not the only thing; it's the rules and regulations that allow people to come and practise—it's very important when you break all the rules and regulations, all the barriers to people implementing ideas and their research.

I think this bill is a cornerstone for many researchers and innovators to come to this beautiful province, implement their ideas and benefit the whole of humanity.

He mentioned many different things and he knows our government's not just taking this economic challenge lightly. We do it in many different steps. I mentioned yesterday the innovation fund—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you. Questions and comments?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I would like to congratulate the member for Beaches—East York, the future leader of the NDP. Oh, I'm premature on that, I suppose.

He made an excellent point, that in the first six, eight, or 10 years start-up companies don't pay any taxes. So a tax rebate for a company that does not pay taxes is redundant. It's the kind of legislation that this government loves to bring in, something that gives them a photo op, something that gives them some press on this type of thing, but that has absolutely no results. It's either a hoax that they brought in this legislation, or they haven't thought through the process, they haven't thought through the effect of this. It's been poorly thought out, like so much of the legislation that they've brought in.

Don Drummond , vice president of the TD Bank, put out his analysis of the Ontario economy last week. There are some excellent pieces in that publication that talk about the direction that this government could be going in, what it could be doing to help the industry and commerce of this province. We don't see any of those kinds of things coming through this government.

Another point that the member made was that the venture capital and the angel financing of these start-up companies is where most of the new high-tech developments come from. They don't come out of major university learning centres. They come from people's garages. They come from small organizations that have a good idea. That's where Microsoft came from, that's where Dell came from, that's where so many of the places came from. They are being excluded in this legislation in this piece of legislation.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Pat Hoy: I'm pleased to enter into this debate on Bill 100 once again. Our government has a five-point plan for the economy, and the opposition has often insinuated that they are not too sure what it is. This is part of it. It is part of our innovation strategy. It includes investing or creating an environment for innovation. The opposition often asks for tax cuts. Under this particular plan, a qualifying corporation would be exempt from Ontario corporate income tax and corporate minimum tax for the first 10 years—a fulsome 10 years. We are looking at new jobs and the next generation of jobs, and bringing those jobs here to Ontario. This is what the design of Bill 100 is all about.

We're talking about a new generation of ideas. We're looking for those innovators who will come to Ontario with fresh new ideas—totally new and unknown to any of us at the current point in time. What this bill would allow for is that the exemption would apply to corporations that commercialize intellectual property in priority areas, such as, but not limited to, the bio-economy, clean technologies, advanced health technologies, telecommunications, and computer and digital technologies.

Now, there's much to be said about this bill, but the intellectual property has to be developed in the course of study or employment at a qualified institute by one or more individuals. I don't see anything particularly wrong with that. It should not ever have been owned by another entity or one or more individuals other than the qualifying institute, including its students or employees—the qualifying corporation. What we have here is a total package of new and innovative ideas that we are seeking—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you. Questions and comments?

Ms. Laurie Scott: I'm pleased to comment on the speech delivered by the member from Beaches—East York about Bill 100, Ideas for the Future Act. I had the pleasure of sitting with the member from Beaches—East York in committee when we were asking the Minister of Research and Innovation some questions about the ministry.

One part, of course, was about what is now Bill 100, the Ideas for the Future Act: Who qualifies? How will it help? Have you got anybody who has applied, or when you go out—I believe we've been to San Diego—to the conventions out there? Is this something that people from all parts of the world are looking at and saying, "Hey, let's go to Ontario. This is going to be a break for us"? He seems to think—

Hon. George Smitherman: It's a piece of the puzzle.

Ms. Laurie Scott: It is?

It is certainly the headlines, the names of the bill—the minister does speak at length in committee, I have to say, in answering questions; he does have very long answers that are sometimes circuitous—but it is another photo op. The names are all good; the spin is good. What is actually going to be produced? What is the accountability? Is there going to be enough incentive?

Certainly, Ontario needs more solutions. We've had a rough economic patch. You can go on and on about the manufacturing sectors. There isn't enough venture capital out there.

Also, the member from Beaches—East York was very correct in speaking about qualifying institutions, and why is it so narrow? When qualifying institutions, you exclude intellectual property developed outside the universities, colleges, non-profits and hospitals. Why is that so? That is a question that I'm going to speak about at length later on, but I congratulate the member from Beaches—East York.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Response?

Mr. Michael Prue: I listened to my colleagues, and I thank all of them: the members from London—Fanshawe, Halton, Chatham—Kent—Essex, and Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock. I think they all listened intently, because they all actually spoke about things that I had tried to raise in the bill.

For the member from Chatham—Kent Essex, though: I have heard the five-point plan. We have heard almost nothing but the five-point plan from the government benches since this Legislature returned, but I'm not sure that the five-point plan is working.

Every day, when I open up the newspaper, I see plants shutting down. Every day, I read about towns like Goderich, Welland, Ottawa, Smiths Falls and everything else, and the loss of jobs in those locations. The member talked about how the great, grand attempt of this bill was to exempt new companies for a period of 10 years of taxes. I don't think he heard what I had to say, and I think perhaps he doesn't understand what the ministry is trying to say: that these companies, in most cases, don't pay taxes for the first 10 years of their involvement. They are start-up companies. They must, by the purpose of this legislation, be start-up companies; they can't be existing companies.

They are brand new ones who come out with an idea, who try to get the venture capital, who try to put the nub of an idea into a commercialized product, and in the overwhelming majority of cases pay no taxes for the first eight to 10 years of their development, and in some cases longer. There is very little tax incentive here for them, and that's the point that I was trying to make. If the government wants to incent them, it can't be through this process. It must be perhaps a process of grants or something else, but not in reducing taxes which they already don't pay.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate?

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: I will be sharing my time with the member from Thunder Bay—Atikokan.

I'm pleased to join the debate today as it relates to Bill 100. I am happy to support Bill 100. We have been hearing for months now about the challenges that our economy has been facing. Soaring energy costs and the rising Canadian dollar have placed unprecedented pressure on Ontario's economy. More recently, we have all watched events unfolding in the United States that have had negative impacts on Canadians, particularly those of us here in Ontario. We are facing some difficulties, no doubt, but I am proud to be a part of a government that is willing to take decisive action that will lead this province through the challenges that we face. That is what this bill is about.

If passed, Bill 100 will help attract individuals from all over the country to Ontario by providing a tax incentive to qualifying corporations to further the commercial strength of intellectual property. In short, this bill is about bringing innovative individuals from all over Canada to Ontario, which will strengthen our economy as we move forward.

I would like to take a moment to talk about an exciting company in my riding of Mississauga—Brampton South called 6N Silicon Inc. 6N Silicon has developed an exciting new method that uses silicon to turn the sun's energy into clean solar power. This process reduces the cost of the material and will help encourage the adoption and growth of solar power in Ontario.

The ideas behind 6N Silicon were first identified by Scott Nichol and were developed right here in Ontario. In short, this is exactly the type of idea and business that Bill 100 will help to attract in the future.

The Ontario government recently announced a major investment in 6N Silicon which will help them build a new manufacturing plant in Vaughan and will help create 84 new jobs for the people of Ontario.

As we move forward into the future, it is very important to ensure that Ontario is able to compete in a global economy. One way to do so is by finding new ways to help innovative companies thrive. We are proud of our investments in our training, colleges and universities, and I have no doubt that many innovative ideas are being developed in many of Ontario's colleges and universities even as I speak.

These ideas are what will create the jobs of the future, which is why it is so important that we do everything we can to ensure that these ideas emerge from the classrooms and are put into practice.

This is what Bill 100 is about. It provides a direct incentive to firms that undertake the challenges of commercializing intellectual property, and it will also give these types of companies a refund of all Ontario corporate income tax to reinvest in their businesses and ultimately to create jobs.

I am proud of the culture of innovation that exists in my riding of Mississauga—Brampton South. I have already mentioned 6N Silicon, but I have also met with representatives from 2Source and Amgen Canada, which are examples of companies that are playing leading roles in promoting research and development in my riding. These types of companies are creating well-paying jobs for my constituents and people throughout the province. This is why I am proud to be a part of a government that supports these types of innovators, particularly in these challenging economic times. This is also why I am proud to support Bill 100.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Thunder Bay—Atikokan.

Mr. Bill Mauro: Let me thank the member for Mississauga—Brampton South for sharing her time with me today, and offer a few comments Bill 100 at second reading.

As others have mentioned today already, we talk on a regular basis and are proud on a regular basis to remind people in the province of Ontario about our five-point plan, and one of the planks in that plan is, of course, innovation. That's what we're discussing here today. That is in large part what Bill 100 is about.

For me personally, I can tell you on this front that I began to develop my personal interest in this issue some four years ago. Shortly after the election in 2003, I was appointed to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. One of the particular topics for review that year, as chosen by the Provincial Auditor, was a program that no longer exists in the province of Ontario. The program was the old Ontario Innovation Trust. I think it had somewhere in the order of magnitude of $700 million or $800 million on an annual basis put into that particular program. As I've mentioned, that was one of the programs that we reviewed at public accounts that year.

As we reviewed it at public accounts, I came to learn of the magnitude of the financial resource that was put into it on an annual basis, and I remember particularly one day when we were in committee reviewing this particular program and offering some questions and some comments on my observation that most, if not all, of the resource regularly, annually, on a 100% basis ended up being committed and spent in southern Ontario. I posed the question at committee to the clerk, other members and the Chair as to why it was that none of this money ever found its way out of, for the most part, the GTA. It did migrate somewhat out of the GTA, but was for the most

part centred here; as I've said, $700 million to $800 million on an annual basis.

I remember the comment very clearly that came back to me from one of the other members on the committee who, as it turns out, has become the federal finance minister.

He was a bit surprised by my question and he said, almost in a very disparaging way, "Well, because that's where the researchers are." My comment back to him was, "Well, you know, I think the researchers will follow the money." In other words, I was there advocating on behalf of my community, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, and other communities in the province of Ontario that we needed to find a way to spread some of this resource around, that we could use this resource to establish different economies in other parts of the province. That was about four years ago.

Then what happened very quickly and in short order is that we saw the Premier develop a new ministry called the Ministry of Research and Innovation. He seized upon that, I think, at a very—it was a very wise move. In fact, recognizing the importance of the establishment of this new ministry, the Premier appointed himself as the first minister of the Ministry of Research and Innovation. Now we have Minister Wilkinson at the helm. The money that used to land in the Ontario Innovation Trust found its way into the Ministry of Research and Innovation.

The reason I offer that background is that I think it's very important. My comments at public account four years earlier had now fortunately found themselves to almost have some life in terms of way our government was moving forward and looking at the use of that resource. As the member from Mississauga—Brampton South has just mentioned, I have some wonderful examples in my own riding of the success and what we can do to expand economies and to create new economies in other parts of the province.

So the focus and the criticism, as I've said, have been specifically on this bill and its innovative qualities. I've listened to what the member of the third party had to say and some of the shorter criticisms from the members of the second party, the official opposition, but our work on innovation is much broader than what is simply contained in this bill.

In my riding of Thunder Bay—Atikokan, I can quote for you quickly four or five tremendous examples. Number one: We developed the Atikokan Bio-Energy Research Centre. In the budget of 2006, I believe it was, the finance minister announced a commitment of $4 million. Speaker, I can tell you that already we are beginning to see the results, the potential for a lot of good to come to my communities as a result of that commitment of $4 million of resource.

A lot of that resource—at least half of that $4 million, if not more—is money that is being spent at Lakehead University in my riding, and also at Confederation College in my riding. I'm very fortunate to have both a university and a college in my riding. So there's an example of research money that formerly never would have found its way outside of the GTA now being spent in northern communities, creating jobs and being innovative in terms of the industries that it has to look at.

We've heard very recently that there is some potentially very positive news that can come out of the work that the Atikokan Bio-Energy Research Centre is doing, along with OPG, in terms of the potential for using biomass in our coal plants. It's a wonderful example of what we can do when we're innovative, when we broaden our scope and open our minds to the possibilities.

Genesis Genomics is a little company that was established about four years ago in Thunder Bay. A fellow I've known for a long time, Bob Thayer, an old high school football coach of mine, decided he was going to establish a biotech company in Thunder Bay when most people thought he had to be crazy, and he did it. I'm very proud that we supported, through programs in our government, the establishment of Genesis Genomics in Thunder Bay. It's a company that is developing precursor technology to identify cancers in people before they actually develop the cancer.

That little company in Thunder Bay is already commercializing product. They're doing it in Thunder Bay, and they did it with help from our government in terms of financial resource.

There is a paleo-DNA lab established in Thunder Bay that has received support from our government. That paleo-DNA lab received international recognition when they did the work at their lab in Thunder Bay to identify the last unidentified body from the Titanic. The person, I think, was buried in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia. That work was done in Thunder Bay.

These are two very large and successful enterprises occurring in Thunder Bay. Innovative work is happening in our community as a result of financial resource committed by our government to the establishment of these things in my neck of the woods.

The Molecular Medicine Research Centre, in partnership with Sunnybrook, out of Toronto: $15 million of financial resource from our government into the ridings of Thunder Bay—Atikokan and Thunder Bay—Superior North for the establishment of a molecular medicine research centre. When would that have happened before? What government would have considered doing that?

When we took the money from the Ontario Innovation Trust and took the control of $700 million or $800 million of resource away from that group and brought it into government under the Ministry of Research and Innovation, that's when we had the opportunity to start flowing some of that resource to other parts of the province. It's having very real and tangible results for my community.

The Molecular Medicine Research Centre has now become the Thunder Bay Regional Research Institute, still in partnership with Sunnybrook. Just last week, we had a wonderful announcement: They are beginning their work with what is the newest wave of diagnostic technology, called HIFU, high-intensity focused ultrasound.

We've just announced two machines in Thunder Bay—or one here and one in Sunnybrook; I'm not sure—with the announcement of 30 jobs in Thunder Bay associated with that development: high-tech, knowledge-based, growing-the-economy, diversifying-the-economy kinds of jobs that ridings like mine have needed and longed for, for a long time. We've always said this work can be done anywhere, and we're proving it can be done anywhere.

Those are four examples of what we've done on innovation.

In the budget of 2007, we announced CRIBE, an acronym for the Centre for Research and Innovation in the Bioeconomy: a $25-million commitment through the Ministry of Research and Innovation into my riding of Thunder Bay—Atikokan. I'm pleased to be sitting currently on a task force that is developing the terms of reference for that project. We are close to having that report finished. It will go to the Minister of Research and Innovation, and from that point we will move forward. A $25-million commitment. Huge. The potential there for job creation in Thunder Bay—Atikokan is enormous, and I'm very excited about that.

These are all examples of what we've done just in my riding, and I'm sure many of the other members around the room have similar examples that they could share with us if they had an opportunity to speak on this.

We've hired two research chairs in Thunder Bay and provided resource for 300 more graduate students at Lakehead University—just a tremendous amount of work going on in innovation.

As I said earlier, I have listened to a bit of the criticism from the Conservative side on this particular piece. It's interesting to listen. I, like many others, came into this place with a municipal council background. When we came in, in 2003, of the 103 of us I think 38 or so of us had a municipal background, and many of us, as first-timers in 2003, brought that municipal experience to this place. When we came in in 2003, what we also brought with us was a history of having a relationship, if you could call it that, with the Harris government.

Many of us ran as a result of that lack of a relationship, I should say, with the Harris government. We witnessed probably the biggest tax shift in the history of the province, if not the history of the country, when they downloaded incredible amounts of responsibility onto the back of the municipal residential property taxpayer.

What I want to mention is what they did, because the Conservatives like to remind you that they are the great tax fighters. I come from Thunder Bay—Atikokan. In 1997-98, many people will remember, there was this big change in responsibilities for the education tax and the province taking over some responsibilities. They left northern Ontario behind. They had fully five or six years to address the inequities that existed in the business education tax rate, which became their responsibility. There were huge inequities in that tax rate in northern Ontario relative to southern Ontario.

That wasn't their fault; that was the way it had evolved over years when the school boards had taxing authority. But when that changed and it came back under the auspices and authority of the Conservative government, they did nothing to level the playing field. So for the six or eight years that their government existed, they did not touch the business education tax rates. As such, businesses in northern Ontario were severely punished and taxed in a much heavier manner than similar businesses all across the rest of the province. Our government came in and fixed it.

Not only are we making the playing field level; we are accelerating the reductions on the business education tax side for northern Ontario businesses, to bring it more into line.

My time is running out here, but I do want to read one piece that was in today's Thunder Bay Source about—you could say that perhaps this is stretching it a bit on the innovation side, but not so much. This was in the Thunder Bay Source today: "Turbine Ready to Work at Terrace Bay Mill." As many will remember, this mill closed about three or four years ago. Our government, through our forestry programs—and we've brought a tremendous amount of resources to this sector. There are success stories in the forestry sector today even though, as we all know, there are incredible challenges. It reads like this:

"More than a year after its groundbreaking ceremony, a $45-million condensing steam turbine is ready to be fired up at the Terrace Bay pulp mill."

I should mention that there are about 400 people working in that mill today who wouldn't have been without this program.

"The turbine will generate enough power to make the mill self-sufficient in terms of electrical energy, which makes up a large portion of the company's manufacturing costs.

"Buchanan Forest Products vice-president Hartley Multamaki said the company is expected to realize millions of dollars a year in savings.

"Wood by-products will fire the turbine

"Terrace Bay Mayor Mike King said the start-up is great news for the community.

"The provincial government kicked in $22.5 million from the forest sector prosperity fund for this project.

"Hundreds of mill workers lost their jobs when Neenah Paper halted operations in 2006. Today, the facility is owned by Buchanan Forest Products and employs about 350 people," as it says here in the article.

That's an example of what we did on innovation through our forestry programs to incent forest sector companies that are still operating in Ontario to take on some responsibility, make long-term investments in their mills and in their communities, and we would help them to do that.

So I think we've got lots to be proud of on the innovation front beyond just the scope of the bill that we're here discussing today.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Peter Shurman: I'm pleased to rise and comment just briefly on what I've heard from the member for Thunder Bay—Atikokan and the member for Mississauga—Brampton South, and particularly with reference to the stories that we've heard from my colleague from Thunder Bay—Atikokan. We all have stories in our ridings about innovation and good work on the part of industry, and I don't quarrel with those at all. However, I also heard about what our government may or may not have done a million years ago. What matters is what's going on now and what's happened in the last five years. This is the watch of the McGuinty government.

So while the stories are interesting and while it is hard for me not to support—

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I believe the member for Thornhill is not in his seat while he's speaking.

Mr. Peter Shurman: That is correct.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you. I hadn't noticed that. Perhaps you'd like to move to your seat.

Mr. Peter Shurman: Mr. Speaker, with apologies, and to my colleague over here, I hadn't noticed I wasn't in my seat either.

However, to continue my point briefly, it's hard not to support a bill like this, and so I'm sure that we will. But wouldn't it be nice, given the state of the economy, on a very broad basis, and very particularly in Ontario, to see to it that in a bill like this we take a broader approach and not look at things like a 10-year tax exemption for a relative few number of companies and, rather, look at a larger number of companies.

I think that over time, and in discussion, if the members of the government are serious about addressing the needs of Ontario from an innovative perspective, they'll take some pointers from all parties and work co-operatively with us because this bill could be a very good bill if we bother to put the amendments in that are required to really see to the innovative abilities of Ontarians and the companies that we together operate, or could operate.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Michael Prue: I listened again intently to the two speakers, and just on the member from Thunder Bay—Atikokan: I listened and, yes, he was talking about new technologies and how they're being implemented in the riding of Thunder Bay—Atikokan, but I fail to see how they address the meat or the purpose of this bill. The companies that he mentioned are all existing companies, therefore they are not eligible under this bill. They're not eligible, and they are not developing technology, they are using technology. Somebody else developed the technology that they are now using.

I commend them for using new technology, as we all do. I commend the members of this House for using BlackBerries which five years ago they didn't use. I commend people across this nation for using technologies that weren't there but somebody developed them.

There was a show on TV last night on the CBC about the pulsing windshield washer and how the guy had developed that. You know, he developed that and now we all use it. But that's not what this bill is about. With the greatest of respect, the companies he talked about are not new, they're not eligible, they're not developing the technology and they have nothing to do whatsoever with this bill.

My colleague, the other speaker, mentioned the resource or the industry—and I forget the name of it at this point—in her own riding. It's "silicon something." With the greatest of respect to that one too, it is not a company that would be eligible for the funding. They're already up and operating and it's not going to happen for them either.

So with respect, I don't know what the examples are supposed to prove, but they don't prove that the members who spoke on this bill are speaking to the bill, and that's the problem I have with it.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Phil McNeely: Just having been in committee under estimates and having Minister Wilkinson go through what this government intends and what his program is for research and innovation in this province, I think it's a whole new cultural change. It hasn't happened all at once. It's something that was going on when the Premier was the Minister of Research and Innovation for the first year.

I was very pleased in estimates to hear this because one of the shortcomings in Ontario and in Canada is that we do great research, of course, but then the commercialization of that good research—where it becomes real jobs—is not occurring. That's the expensive part. People say, "That research is only maybe 5% of the problem. The big part of the cost and the big part of the risks are in that commercialization."

This new legislation, this act, proposes a 10-year exemption for new corporations and commercial intellectual property developed by qualified Canadian universities, Canadian colleges, Ontario Centres of Excellence, and other such research institutes. It's looking at those jobs that we haven't been getting. It's trying to incent the commercialization of our excellent research. This is going to really work in Ontario. These are the things we have to do, and I think that every community—Ottawa is a big high-tech area: We've got two great universities and the National Research Council. So we have to get together in teams. We're going to have to have businesses helping these institutions.

But to have a 10-year tax credit—any businessman likes that—is going to be a great incentive, and this is going to work for Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Ms. Laurie Scott: I'm pleased to comment on the comments from the members for Mississauga—Brampton South and Thunder Bay—Atikokan. I just want to share with everybody that the member from Thornhill is comfortable in whatever seat he's in on this side of the Legislature.

The member for Beaches—East York is correct. I'm sure we're all very proud of the innovations and the developments that have occurred in our ridings, and I've sat in estimates and heard the member for Mississauga—Brampton South speak proudly of the developments in her riding. But Bill 100 does not help them qualify. It does not apply to existing businesses or the merger of two existing businesses. It's no incentive for existing businesses to commercialize new intellectual property. It's not there.

You say this is a tax exemption. Really, you're going to have to fill out a lot of forms, a lot of paperwork, and then you get a rebate back on this bill. It's going to be, as my colleague for Beaches—East York mentioned, a lot of years before you get to this point. We're happy that it's a tax break, you could say, for the future, but again, to highlight the fact that it doesn't apply to existing businesses. There were no incentives for existing businesses mentioned by my colleagues across the way.

At least they're trying to get down the right path, the Liberal government, in giving some tax breaks, but I can't say that this is going to be the cornerstone or the landmark that the Liberal government is trying to portray. It's photo ops and good headlines, but really the proof will be in the pudding, and it's not an incentive we—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you. A response?

Mr. Bill Mauro: Again, I want to thank the member for Mississauga—Brampton South for sharing her time with me and also the members for Thornhill, Beaches—East York, Ottawa—Orléans, and Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

There have been many people here in the Legislature who have spoken specifically to this bill and what it is that we think it's going to help to accomplish here in the province of Ontario. We're very proud of the bill. We think it's absolutely a step in the right direction.

I'm happy to hear, as well, that it sounds like members of the official opposition and of the third party intend to fully support this bill. I think the fact that they're going to support it speaks to the fact that there is a lot of good in this bill. I guess I shouldn't presume that their entire caucuses are going to support the bill, but certainly those who were here in the chamber this morning have indicated that they will support the bill. I think that speaks fully to the fact that Bill 100, the Ideas for the Future Act, is in fact a good thing.

In my 15 minutes or so, I did think, though, it was very important that we remind the people of the province of Ontario that what our government has done on innovation is much broader than what is simply contained within Bill 100, the Ideas for the Future Act. In my remarks, I listed several examples of work that we have done in this particular sector that has significantly aided the community that I come from, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, and I'm very proud of those particular ideas.

This is a good bill. It apparently has the vote and support of all three parties as we go forward. I think that speaks in and of itself to the fact that this is a good piece of legislation, but I also do think that it's very important that the people of the province of Ontario understand that what we're doing on innovation in this province is much broader and already has been for years much broader than simply what is contained in this piece of legislation.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate?

Ms. Laurie Scott: It's good to be here on this Thursday morning, October 2. I'm pleased to follow up on yesterday's leadoff from my colleague from Niagara West—Glanbrook, who is the lead on Bill 100, the so-called Ideas for the Future Act, 2008. I'm pleased to follow the leadoff of my colleague from Niagara West—Glanbrook yesterday on Bill 100, the so-called Ideas for the Future Act, 2008.

I mentioned earlier this morning in some of my comments that we had the Minister of Research and Innovation in estimates—I think we broke it up into three different times, but for a lot of hours of questions. We were probing him about the various directions that he feels Ontarians need to go. One of the areas we were questioning on in the committee was based around the topic that we're discussing today; this is part of it. When we first started estimates, this bill had not been introduced; although it was outlined in the budget in 2008, this actual bill didn't come in until last week.

The Minister of Research and Innovation had been spending a lot of time talking about the so-called tax exemption since becoming the minister. And as I say, he talks at length in estimates. Not only do the Liberal ministers spend so much time and taxpayers' money making such announcements and re-announcements, posing for all those photo ops that go on, now we see the Liberal ministers spend a lot of time and taxpayers' money making announcements on policies that they hadn't introduced until last week; yet this started in the budget back in the spring.

After the minister went on for a few minutes about tax exemptions, I asked the Minister of Research and Innovation, Minister Wilkinson, about how many applications his ministry had received for this program, hoping that he would be able to attract businesses under this so-called 10-year corporate income tax holiday. The response was maybe surprising, to say the least. The technical details of this bill will be in the fall budgetary bill, so they're really not available as of yet. Not surprisingly, this was another Liberal minister who feels it isn't subject to a measure of performance.

I quote the minister: "I don't see, really, where we are at this stage that we can show results." It sounds kind of familiar coming from the government side of the Legislature. This is how we measure; let's see our results. God forbid accountability and results be part and parcel of the Liberal policy over there.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Oh, Lordy.

Ms. Laurie Scott: See? Now I'm getting a response. I was just waiting for some more responses from the other side of the Legislature about headlines and photo ops. Just making sure you're awake over there. But photo ops and headlines aren't measures of success. It's about more than just ink and papers and websites.

Let me provide another example of what the Minister of Research and Innovation said. A program referred to as the Next Generation of Jobs Fund: We heard the minister go on about this right here in the Legislature, with stops along the tour of Ontario for photo ops and press releases. My colleagues in the Legislature on the Liberal benches over there will be surprised as well to hear that the number of jobs created under programs in the Next Generation of Jobs Fund is not a criterion for success.

So believe it or not, the number of jobs created is not an official criterion for programs under the Next Generation of Jobs Fund. "Jobs" is right here in the title: Next Generation of Jobs Fund. But job creation is not a criterion.

So you're applying, you go through the paperwork, and you say, "How many jobs are you going to create?" It's not a criterion. They don't really even ask that. So the government spends millions and millions of taxpayer dollars on programs under this fund, yet feels the very focus of what it's about—creation of jobs—just isn't something that bears the focus for them. As my colleague the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook said at the top of his remarks yesterday, this is a Liberal government that is "weighed down by ideology that says government bureaucrats and politicians are better at picking winners and losers than the markets or full-time, experienced investors."

So I think it's safe to say Ontarians should be concerned when, according to Bill 100, the Minister of Research and Innovation, who is the main guy—he's the guy who is going to basically pick the winners and the losers of those companies that come to him in the hopes of benefiting from the tax reductions offered. Ontarians should be concerned when the minister himself has indicated that other programs in his ministry, which are given titles to infer that they are creating jobs for the future, don't have job creation as the criterion for a measurement of success, which is shocking, but it leads me to another point I'd like to get on the record.

Obviously, a program such as would be formed through Bill 100 is going to require administration—significant administration. Administration requires staff, requires salaries, requires benefits, requires offices—it goes on and on. But it costs a lot of money for the taxpayers. We, on this side of the Legislature anyway, believe that taxpayers' money should be used prudently. This makes even more sense after hearing the loss of faith of the Premier this week when he delivered the obituary for manufacturing and jobs in this province.

You may recall that up until October of last year, the Ministry of Research and Innovation was housed by the Premier's office. The 2007-08 budget for the Ministry of Research and Innovation—let's not forget this wasn't a stand-alone ministry until just a number of months ago—shows salaries, wages and employee benefits at well over $10.8 million. Also of note is a 33% increase in employees over $100,000. When we asked in estimates, I believe there were 137 employees in the ministry. So that's just shy of $11 million. That's taxpayers' money; it doesn't come out of thin air. This appears to be—

Hon. George Smitherman: You're on that list.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I'm talking about the Ministry of Research and Innovation—a ministry budget that's growing immensely. I'm just connecting the dots of this bureaucratic paperwork and increased expenses that are going to occur with this bill.

I realize the Minister of Research and Innovation will tell us that the programs that fall under his perusal are a reallocation of resources from other ministries. So I wonder if the Premier—or one of his ministers, for that matter—would provide us with a breakdown of what programs were severed from other ministries to form this Ministry of Research and Innovation. It's pretty hard to follow all these trails.

We've talked about silos in ministries, and the Minister of Research and Innovation has said he wants more of a horizontal approach, but there have been cuts from other ministries, he says, to go into the Ministry of Research and Innovation. I just wondered if at some point we're going to be able to follow that trail and get that breakdown, and I wonder if the budgets for those particular programs are the same. Have they increased? Certainly, as I've commented, the overall ministry budget has increased significantly.

Let's also look at how Ontario's tax rate on new business investment compares to other Canadian provinces. We've said this for so long, and the present Liberal government doesn't seem to get it, but Ontario has the highest marginal effective tax rate on business investment not just in Canada, but in the developed world. It's astounding—the highest marginal effective tax rate on business in the developed world. A province that should be doing everything it can to encourage investment, a province that should be doing everything it can to tell would-be investors, "Come on over.

We've got a business climate and tax structure you need to feel good about in laying down your dollars and creating jobs," instead of doing those things, is telling people, "Hey, come on over because we're a Liberal government. We want your tax dollars. As a matter of fact, we want them so badly that we've got the highest marginal effective tax rate on business investment that you'll find anywhere in the developed world." I don't think that's a very good sales pitch. It's certainly not something to be proud of.

In Canada, we have an NDP government in Manitoba, a Conservative government in Alberta and a Liberal government in British Columbia, and all offer lower effective tax rates on investment. Roger Martin from the Rotman school of business is a man who folks across the way like to lean towards when in need of third party support, and this is what he said: "In Ontario, we still have one of the highest marginal tax burdens on business investment in the world."

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: In the world.

Ms. Laurie Scott: In the world.

Still, despite what is a clear message to make some important and much-needed changes, Ontario is governed by a political party that doesn't see the provincial tax structure as an important element and isn't sitting around the table saying, "We have to change our tax structure in Ontario to welcome more investment." Other provinces are getting it. We in Ontario are, unfortunately, not getting it.

That makes Bill 100 somewhat ill-designed and of little or no benefit to businesses because it's not creating that much of an incentive.

Just a couple of weeks ago, John Tory and the PC caucus hosted an economic round table to come up with ideas, and where did they go? They worked with the experts in business and industry on how to deal with today's financial and economic struggles. We did it. The Liberals across the way, they won't do it. They remain steadfast in thinking they know what's best. Out of the round table came a number of innovative thoughts, one of them being that we need incentives for business; that includes tax incentives. It means getting out of this overweighing taxing of businesses that create jobs, move the economy and make Ontario competitive.

So we've got a bill before us here, Bill 100, introduced by the Minister of Finance, that says it's a10-year corporate income tax holiday for commercialized intellectual property developed by research institutions to get technical. So let's see how another major third party group views this idea, not just us. The C.D. Howe Institute called it ill-designed. It said, "Tax holidays, also used in Quebec, are high-cost, low-impact policies, typically found in Third World countries and well proven to be ineffective." That is from the C.D. Howe Institute, not a really positive endorsement of this bill.

Jim Milway, executive director of the government-funded Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity, also criticized this government's decision to give a 10-year tax reduction to new businesses. He said that if the new technology becomes available, an existing business will have no particular incentive to develop it, even though an already successful firm might be able to do it faster and better than a start-up company could.

I make those comments to the members for Mississauga—Brampton South and Thunder Bay—Atikokan, who gave great examples in their ridings, but they're not going to qualify for this, which is what we're trying to tell the Liberal government. So you've got Jim Milway of the government-funded Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity—it's a government-funded institute, I want to say that again—saying that lowering overall taxes would be more effective and that it would do more for innovation.

This policy proposed by the Ministry of Finance is not allowing companies that are established to develop research and innovation, develop their companies—it's not doing anything for them. It doesn't allow support for a company that already exists to join ranks with a new company and provide support to get an innovative idea rolling. I wonder, in the criteria for successful applicants, if the number of jobs created has an influence? It certainly doesn't appear to have a basis for support, as I've mentioned, in other programs of the Ministry of Research and Innovation.

I know there are companies in my riding, existing companies—Armada Toolworks, for example, in Lindsay—that are trying to develop more innovation. They're looking to the government and saying, "What can you do to help us with research and innovation so that we don't have to move our jobs to Mexico? We want to stay here. We have a good workforce. We want to keep the jobs in Ontario," in this case, in Lindsay and the Kawartha Lakes area, but they're not going to qualify for this program. That's a tragedy. I continue to be concerned, as my caucus colleagues are over here. Why does the Liberal government feel the strong need to punish such businesses as Armada?

My motion last week to provide would-be apprentices with more job opportunities for employment, after their schooling, by lowering the ratio of journeymen to apprentices, was defeated by the members across the way. This would have been a huge benefit to businesses that can't afford to hire the three journeymen and offer jobs for apprentices. Again, where is the Minister of Small Business, which is a common question we keep asking. Where is he? Why is he not stomping his feet and saying, "What about my stakeholders, Mr. Premier? Why are you not working to represent them?"

As a caucus, we certainly support incentives for business. We support measures that reduce the tax burden, increase investment for businesses already here in Ontario, as well as businesses that are looking to invest in Ontario. We can't support policies that are ill-designed and serve special interests. I believe that's a strong difference between our party on this side and the government party across the way.

What does Bill 100 do to help our struggling agriculture sector? I've got some very forward-thinking, progressive farmers in my area in Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, people like Lloyd Wicks, who are willing to move to innovative techniques and systems, thinking totally outside the box. What is our multi-cultural market for them in Toronto, in the big cities as well as globally? This guy has got awards across the world in the dairy cattle sector. He's not going to qualify for things in Bill 100. He's a pre-existing business.

We've got our struggling auto sector who won't benefit from this bill. I have thousands of residents who are autoworkers in my area in Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock. It used to be probably the largest private employer in my area. I think I probably have more of them who are retired now, unfortunately, than are employed actively in the automotive sector. The south part of my riding is very close to Oshawa. They're not benefiting from this bill. As a matter of fact, I'm looking forward to participating in the debate. My colleague from Oshawa is introducing a private member's bill this afternoon which focuses on the auto manufacturing sector in Ontario.

I want to make the point that Bill 100 is only available to new businesses in the following government-identified priority areas, so the eligible commercialization businesses, which are advanced health technology, bioeconomy, telecommunications, computer or digital technologies production. We asked the Minister of Research and Innovation, when he was in estimates, about this narrow margin.

Again, this is from the Roger Martin testimony to the finance committee, pre-budget consultations, who said: " ... the high-tech sectors broadly speaking, represent less than 2% of the jobs in Ontario and only a slightly higher proportion of the wages or GDP contribution.... It is more innovative because it values, supports and expects innovation across the other 98% of the economy as well as the high-tech sector, and we don't."

That is saying this is really only applying to 2% of the jobs in Ontario. He said we've got to define and support innovation broadly. It's critical to upgrading our competitiveness, our innovation and policy, and Ontario can't characterize innovation so narrowly as it does. He's saying, support innovation across all sectors, not so narrowly focused. In Canada, innovations that made Masonite, Four Seasons, Couche-Tard, Gildan, Magna and McCain global leaders would not be counted as innovation.

Ontario needs to recognize all sorts of businesses and innovations across all sectors of the economy in order to be globally competitive. This 10-year Ontario income tax exemption for new corporations is too narrowly focused. We've talked before about what's wrong with—it was mentioned on the CBC—the gentleman that made the intermittent windshield wiper. I've mentioned some small businesses in my riding, some highly progressive thinkers, that are not going to qualify under Bill 100, and that's not fair. This is too narrowly focused. It's going to take years before you get any results.

Again, my colleague from Beaches—East York was correct in saying there's not enough venture capital out there—there is not. Access to capital for small firms and start-ups is increasingly difficult, we're finding. The Liberal government cancelled the labour-sponsored investment funds, and they provided no adequate replacement. We believe that there should be more fairness. There should be more possibilities of where this intellectual property comes from. We don't really have many details of how much this will cost the treasury, because I think the criteria are so narrowly focused. There's not going to be much room for many companies to apply.

I have to wrap up. My time is closing, and I'll look forward to closing comments and remarks from the opposition.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Michael Prue: Again I listened intently to what my colleague from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock had to say, and I think she hit most of the salient points: This bill will not help established companies, this bill will not help companies that seek to merge, and this bill will not help new start-up companies throughout the first 10 years of their existence, because most, if not all, of them pay little or no taxes in that period.

I listened to some of the jibes from my friends opposite while she was speaking, and the jibes are all about, "This is only one part of the plan," or "You're not talking about other initiatives that the government has taken."

Well, with respect, I think she talked about—and I defend her—the bill. If the government wants to talk about how good its other priorities are, I suggest they hold a news conference and talk about it. If the government members want to talk about how good this bill is, confine yourselves to what is contained within the body of the bill.

My friend from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock is correct in what she has had to state: that the bill will not do what many people are claiming is being done. The bill is narrowly confined; it has a budget of only $5 million this year and $7 million next year. The bill itself, although welcomed, I'm sure, and I'm sure my colleague will be supporting it as well, needs extensive work if it is to be one piece of the puzzle that my friends opposite have talked about in numerous jibes.

I commend her for what she had to say, and she is correct in her analysis.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on the Ideas for the Future Act.

I must say that when this concept of a tax holiday on commercialization of intellectual property was announced in the 2008 budget, that was probably one of the most exciting pieces for me that I saw in that budget, among many other things. In my riding of Ottawa Centre I've had the opportunity to speak about that particular item with researchers at Carleton University, which is in my riding, with lawyers who practise in intellectual property law, and with other companies which make up Silicon Valley North, which is how Ottawa is sometimes referred to.

There's a great sense of optimism and excitement about this kind of approach which we are introducing through this particular act. We all realize that we live in an extremely globalized economy, where the competition now is not within our own borders; the competition is not within companies in Canada. The competition is global. The competition is with companies from India, China, Brazil and South Africa. These types of out-of-box ideas are the ones our companies are looking for to have that step ahead, to ensure that we can compete globally and that we can commercialize those technologies which we can sell across this world and get these great tax advantages.

I'm very excited that the McGuinty government is introducing this act and that we are providing a tax holiday for our new companies which will be commercializing intellectual property that will be created in Canada. I look forward to voting in favour of this legislation.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments.

Mr. Peter Shurman: I'd like to first reassure the member from Ottawa Centre that I respond to my colleague from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock from my own seat.

Congratulations on an excellent presentation, first of all. I think it's rather interesting that when we deal with this bill, what we're looking at, as in so many cases here, is the Liberal government wanting to bring in a bill on innovation—and I congratulate them for that—but, as I've previously said, with limited support.

The problem is, it needs to be fleshed out more. It's almost as if the party governing Ontario these days likes to stick its toe in the water and say, "You know, that feels pretty good." My attitude is, "Well, come on in. Let's all take a swim together."

I have a long memory. I remember the halcyon days of Nortel, and I remember Mitel and I remember Corel, and certainly we all know the story of RIM. Some of that story continues and some of it doesn't.

In referring again to my friend from Ottawa Centre, he talks about Silicon Valley North. Indeed there is one, and there's another piece of it adjacent to my riding in Markham, where there's an awful lot of development. But most of this goes on as a result of private investment, of brave souls—and I've been one of those myself—who risk their own money, go out into the world and say, "I think I can do something." Ontarians have that ability. We have so many people and so many ideas. We have the labour force, and yet we turn on the news on a daily basis, and what have we been looking at for the past three days?

A delegation from the province of Saskatchewan, the Premier of Saskatchewan, looking to take jobs from Ontario and move them somewhere else.

We need a broader perspective, as my colleague from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock suggests. We need a broader perspective that doesn't simply give a 10-year tax exemption but injects money into the economy and makes energy and taxation more palatable for people who are prepared to invest their money, prepared to hire Ontario workers and prepared to go forward and say Ontario is and can remain number one.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments? Response?

Ms. Laurie Scott: I'm pleased to have the members from Beaches—East York, Ottawa Centre and Thornhill, in his proper seat, comment on the 20 minutes that I spoke about Bill 100.

I'm hoping the folks across the way have finally begun hearing the ongoing cries from the business sector for tax reductions. Certainly the principle of this legislation is appreciated to that end. We know that Premier McGuinty smiles at every proposal to increase taxes and increase government revenue, but this is certainly a new direction for him. Obviously I don't think you'll be surprised upon hearing that I feel that this piece of legislation needs to be reviewed at committee.

I know some of my colleagues from across the way were saying it's just a piece of the puzzle, but how much longer do you have to wait? We need to get the puzzle together. Ontario is suffering. We're behind the rest of Canada. I don't want to assume anything, but certainly a government bill will be supported by enough Liberal members in order to get to committee. There certainly need to be some changes on some of the points that I mentioned.

My colleague the member from Niagara West—Glanbrook, who's the co-critic on this piece of legislation, and I are looking for the government to expand on its narrow focus, as I mentioned in detail in my comments. It's a narrow focus that exists in Bill 100. It needs to have more incentives for the private sector to have a much broader potential.

Our province certainly does need incentives. Our people need incentives to stay here. As my colleague from Thornhill already pointed out, Saskatchewan is here poaching our great resources in Ontario of human potential and innovation, so we need to invest for people to stay here and to come to our province. It's our responsibility to encourage innovation that's open to the private sector as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Time for debate has ended.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

WEARING OF RIBBONS

Hon. Deborah Matthews: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to ask the House for unanimous consent for members to wear either the purple ribbon or the purple ribbon pin to mark October as national Child Abuse Prevention Month.

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

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would like to introduce some guests of our pages who are here today:

On behalf of page Asha Collins, her mother, Anjani Collins; her father, Geoff; her sister Tara and her grandmother Kay Permomand are in the west members' gallery. Welcome to Queen's Park today.

Page Lauren Chan's aunt Victoria will be joining us this afternoon in the members' gallery.

MEMBERS' DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I want to just take this opportunity to say I visited the Integrity Commissioner yesterday to sign my disclosure statement. I just want to remind members that disclosure statements were due yesterday, and if you have not completed your disclosure statement, the Integrity Commissioner would very much appreciate those being handed in as quickly as possible. Any staff members who are watching the proceedings, please remind your member and minister as well of the importance of doing so.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is for the Deputy Premier. It's in reference to the Saskatchewan Premier's presence at a Toronto job fair on Tuesday. In response to that, the Premier said that he would never discourage Ontarians from looking elsewhere in Canada for work. According to this week's report from Don Drummond of TD Bank, Ontario needs a bold new vision for its economy. But the Premier's response is, "Here's your hat; what's your hurry?" That's not a vision, that's a declaration of surrender. What's next? What can we expect next, Deputy Premier? Changing Ontario's slogan to "Don't let the door hit you in the rear on the way out?"

Hon. George Smitherman: It's rather unfortunate that on a daily basis in this Legislature, the people of Ontario watching see of the opposition party here at Queen's Park a really sad sack attitude as it relates to the province of Ontario. It doesn't reflect well on the ambitions that Ontarians have for their selves, for their families and for our province overall. It doesn't reflect well on the facts either that unemployment rate in the province of Ontario is lower than when we took office, or that Ontario has created 60% of all the jobs in this country since January of this year.

Yes, there are challenging times in the Ontario economy, and the people of Ontario know that we are a government that's willing to continue to work with them, to invest with them and in their communities, to build their strengths and the infrastructure that's necessary to sustain the economy. We'll continue to make these investments, reflecting the ambitions of the people of the province of Ontario, and not be drawn into the negativity of the opposition.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Premier McGuinty is the Joe Btfsplk of the Ontario Legislature, and I'll explain that later.

According to the latest Stats Canada figures, Ontario is still recording a net out-migration of residents, particularly to Alberta, soon to be replaced by Saskatchewan. No doubt, a contributing factor is your government's failure or unwillingness to recognize and acknowledge the failings of your economic policies and take action. Instead, three years ago it was just a little bit of contraction; this year the Premier says, "This too shall pass." Now he's telling Ontarians, "If you want to go out west to do business, to find a job, I'm not going to try to convince you to stay."

Minister, that's the attitude of someone who's not up to the job. You have the advice of a range of economic experts on what you can do to minimize the damage to our economy. When will you act on that advice?

Hon. George Smitherman: We see from the Leader of the Opposition a remount of the mantra that he used when he was part of the Harris government, but it does not reflect well on the ambitions that the people of the province of Ontario have.

Of course, in Saskatchewan, where there are some opportunities that relate to resources which are in very high demand, the Premier would recognize, as an individual from a family, that for individual reasons they may need to pursue some of the opportunities that are there. But this does not speak to the fundamental confidence that we have about the capacity of Ontario and Ontarians to build an economy together for the future. We are struggling through some challenges, particularly in some sectors, and that's why we're making timely and important investments in the strategies that can lead Ontario forward.

We have struggled through challenging times before, and we will make progress in the circumstances by working together and making the investments in Ontario's people, in Ontario's infrastructure, to be able to build the economy of the future.

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: If the Deputy Premier wants to be honest with Ontarians, he'll admit that their five-point plan is a sham, a hollow shell and a failure. Their fallback is to blame others and to ignore measures that experts say could minimize the damage and protect our future; and to then send the Premier out to suggest that the answer for hundreds of thousands of Ontarians who have lost their jobs under his watch is that they might have better luck out west. It's a give-up attitude that Ontarians don't expect, or want, from their government or their Premier.

The record number of plant closings in this once-great province is draining the lifeblood out of our small towns. Minister, when is your government going to stop treating the great people and small towns of this province like some old dog you'd rather euthanize than try to keep alive?

Hon. George Smitherman: I think the gentleman who bears the name "Mad Dog" has stretched just a little far as he reaches to drag Ontarians down—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just ask the member to—let's be conscious of personal attacks on one another. Deputy Premier.

Hon. George Smitherman: I note that one should never carry on with the level of language that was offered by the honourable member, which reflects his lack of spirit and his lack of recognition for the resiliency and the capacity of the people of Ontario to work together and find their way through difficult economic challenges. This is not the first time that we've faced that, and nobody should question the government's commitment nor the resiliency nor the mindset and spirit of the people of Ontario in this regard.

Our five-point plan has seen us cut taxes, make huge investments in infrastructure, give support for innovation, partnering with business and investing in the skills of the people of the province of Ontario, in whom we have complete confidence.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I remind the government that it was their Premier who said that parts of Ontario's economy were not coming back, and here are some of the names on the tombstone—

Interjections.

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

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Here are some of the names on the tombstone of your failed economic policies and fatalistic attitudes: London, St. Thomas, Kitchener, Guelph, Windsor and now Goderich. These were once-mighty manufacturing towns, and they were laid to waste under your solution of a one-way ticket to Saskatchewan.

You said that certain sectors were not coming back. Is this your eulogy for Ontario's economy?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: There is no doubt that too many families are struggling, too many communities have been hit by an international crisis in the manufacturing sector. I would remind the member that in spite of these challenges, employment growth is up 1.7%. There are 51,000 net new jobs this year. I remind the member that he voted against refunding the capital tax to manufacturers a year ago. Why did you do that? They needed cash and we got it into their hands.

I would ask the member opposite to say to the federal finance minister, "Don't talk Ontario down." It's unacceptable, and you shouldn't talk Ontario down. We are going to get through these challenging times, and we'll be stronger and better. What we don't need is that kind of nonsense from the Conservative Party. The challenge is here; it's real. We're addressing it—

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

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Again, I would remind the Minister of Finance that it was his Premier, your Premier, the Premier of the province, who said that this province is finished, this province has parts of our economy which are not coming back: That's what your Premier said.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just ask the government members to tone it down a little bit.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: The fact is that there are many actions this government could and should take to chart a new area for Ontario, particularly for southwestern Ontario. First and foremost, a change of attitude: Show people that you care, and give them a reason to stay in this province, to stay in Ontario. Don't get on the bus for Saskatchewan.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: This government has made investments to attract manufacturers; you voted against it. We enhanced education funding to help retrain workers; you voted against it. We have invested $9.9 billion in infrastructure. The cranes are up and down the highways. They are creating jobs, investment in this community; you voted against every single dollar.

We have talked up this province. We have acknowledged the challenge. We have acknowledged the issues. We have stood behind our families. You and your party, your Prime Minister, say that the fundamentals are there. They are in some sectors. You and your party have ignored Ontario.

The Premier of Ontario has stood strong and firm behind this province. It's the federal Conservatives that sell Ontario out, tell people not to invest here and say things like, "The glory days are over." They're not—

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

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: It's absolutely amazing, this government; there's always someone else to blame for their problems. They're absolutely consistent that every problem that comes along is not of their making, it is of somebody else's making. As John Tory told the Ontario economic summit, the people of this province do not accept the Premier's fatalistic attitude that Ontario is a helpless victim.

Don Drummond, this week in the TD Bank report, said, "Tax reductions need to feature" much "more prominently in the" Ontario "vision than they have in recent years." The Canadian Federation of Independent Business is telling you to reduce the apprenticeship regulations. Every family in Ontario is curbing spending. Why aren't you? Why are you acting like the coroner rather than the doctor? Why are you letting the economy die on the table?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: You know, the member, a question ago, said Ontario is laid to waste. We don't agree with you, sir. We completely disagree with you. The only thing laid to waste is the idea that tax cuts and deregulation are the answer to the challenges in our economy. And I would remind you, if you read Mr. Drummond's report, he advocates a nine-point approach which is almost identical, I would say, with respect, to our five-point plan: Invest in skills, lower business costs, invest in innovation, build partnerships, and Mr.

Drummond identified, for the first time, that the figure is $11.3 billion that goes out of Ontario to the rest of the country. If we had that money back, we could respond even more than we have. We need a federal partner. We need an opposition that will stand up for Ontario. Work with us, because the people of Ontario are going to get through this. Their government is going to see them through it—

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

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, in the March budget the government announced, with great fanfare, that the salvation of the Ontario economy would be a new second-career program. Seven months later, the minister admits that a grand total of 1,100 Ontarians have enrolled in the program. With less than 0.5% of recently laid-off Ontarians being served, when will the minister admit that the flagship program of your economic recovery plan has been a complete failure?

Hon. John Milloy: I want to thank the member for the question. I think members on all sides of the House are concerned when we hear about layoffs, but I know that the member would never want to leave the impression to this Legislature and to the public that second career represents the only opportunity for laid-off workers. In fact through the Employment Ontario network, our province deals with 900,000 people every year. Through the action centre, which is specifically set up to target laid-off workers, we've helped 53,000 people.

There are a variety of training programs which are available in this province. Over the summer months we've seen 3,000 people access training, 1,100 specifically for the long-term training which is offered by second career. Second career is a new program which offers long-term training, and when you look at those 1,100 stories, we're seeing a positive impact in the lives of Ontarians who have been laid off.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It's nice to see the minister stand up and admit that only 1,100 unemployed workers are taking advantage of this program. It's not just the opposition that is sounding the alarm about Ontario's economic standing. Earlier referenced, Tuesday's Toronto Dominion report paints a grim picture of the future of Ontario's economy and a provincial government that has no idea of how to turn things around. Why won't the minister stand in his place and admit that the second-career program, along with the entire Liberal economic strategy, is a failure?

Hon. John Milloy: As I have pointed out, Employment Ontario deals with 900,000 clients every year. Action centres, which are specifically set up to deal with laid-off workers, dealt last year alone with 53,000 individuals. Over the summer months, the types of training opportunities that are offered in this province have seen 3,000 people come forward, 1,100 specifically for the type of long-term training under second career.

Let me give some examples. I met over the summer with Jason, laid off from the automotive manufacturing sector in the London area. He's begun a culinary management program at Fleming College and talked to me already about the job opportunities he has coming forward. Let me tell you about Jeff Statham, a 38-year-old father of two. He was laid off after working 18 years in the automotive industry, and after hearing about Second Career, has begun a program in law and security at Durham College. Let me tell you about Courtney, a 27-year-old single mother laid off from her—

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It's very simple. When the numbers are against you, you go to anecdotes. The simple reality is that in manufacturing communities all over this province, the jobs aren't there to be trained for. When will the minister stop putting his head in the sand and admit that this flagship program is a failure?

Hon. John Milloy: As we've said since the beginning of this program, we're going to work with front-line workers to ensure that it is as effective as possible and make any changes that are needed. But how dare he stand up here and talk about individual stories and dismiss them as anecdotes? He's dismissing Courtney, a 27-year-old single mother laid off from her telemarketing job. Second Career is providing her support for tuition and instructional costs, books and living expenses to gain the skills she needs to become a recreation leader in a hospital or health care setting. That is her dream. That is not simply an anecdote.

Let me tell you about Robert, a 45-year-old who was laid off from his job as a general labourer at a small powder and painting company in London. He has been accepted to complete his training as a certified welder. I am proud of that individual. That is not some anecdote to be dismissed by the opposition.

DENTAL CARE

Mr. Peter Tabuns: A question to the Minister of Health: The most prevalent chronic disease for Ontario children is tooth decay, and the reason for that is hundreds of thousands of low-income children live in families who can't afford basic dental care. A year ago, your government promised to spend $135 million to improve access to dental care for low-income Ontarians. Today, low-income people, many with serious dental illnesses, are still waiting for the money. Not a single penny has flowed. When will the government finally live up to its promise and implement the new program?

Hon. David Caplan: I'm very proud of the fact that in our last budget, the finance minister provided the funding to be able to provide a dental plan for low-income Ontarians. In fact, we are working with our public health units around the province on the implementation of this plan.

Speaker, I would note, because you would be interested, and I'm sure all members of the House, that this member voted against that plan. He opposed this government moving ahead on a dental care program for low-income Ontarians. That's quite shocking. The member seeks to lead his party. I would suggest he take the opportunity to work with us in a constructive fashion to be able to help and support some of the most low-income and vulnerable Ontarians. I know Ontarians expect a lot of great work, and working, especially with my colleague, the Minister of Children and Youth Services, we are putting together a comprehensive—

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It's always interesting when you hear an empty answer. It's an indication that things are not happening. As you know, now is not the time to renege on a dental program. As the recession deepens, more and more people are in need of this kind of care.

Will you, Minister, assure Ontarians that the $135 million committed for the dental program, including the $45 million for this fiscal year, will flow on schedule?

Hon. David Caplan: Unfortunately, the member wrote his supplementary question without listening to the answer to the first question, when in fact I indicated quite clearly that the money was allocated in the budget. We are working with our public health units to design and implement a program that will meet the needs of low-income Ontarians, as we had spoken to them about this time last year during the election campaign. In fact, that work is well under way. It is work that has been the subject of the cabinet committee on poverty reduction, I note chaired very ably by my colleague, the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

This government certainly takes investments in health care, education and the economy at our highest priority, but work on climate change and poverty reduction is its equal. I can tell you, Speaker, the kind of determination and the kind of collaboration which has been a hallmark of this government are going into the implementation of this plan. I'll offer to the member—

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: That's the second time you had an opportunity to say that the money will flow this year, and you haven't made that commitment. You have not made that commitment. You continue to talk about talking with partners. You ignore the situation that people in Ontario are facing. Will you at least make the commitment that by January 1 of this coming year, money will flow and people will actually be getting the treatment they need? Will you make that commitment?

Hon. David Caplan: in fact, now the member's going to have to read Hansard to see that the answer was affirmative in both the answer and in the supplementary.

On March 18, 2008, the Premier announced the government will be developing a plan to provide dental service to low-income Ontarians and invest $135 million over three years, starting in 2008-09. The press release at the time indicated, "The government will work with public health units, community health centres, dentists and dental hygienists to deliver prevention and treatment services for low-income Ontarians, especially children."

That's exactly as I have described. I'd be willing to work with the member opposite. It seems as though he has some preconceived notions, as he's indicated in his question and supplementary. But any Ontarian who would like to work with this government to alleviate the crushing poverty that—

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

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: My question is for the Minister of Government Services. This year, Oshawa celebrates the 100th anniversary of the McLaughlin Buick. It all started with a $50,000 interest-free loan by the city of Oshawa to Sam McLaughlin to locate his business, now General Motors, in Oshawa. We've seen the benefits for over 100 years, whether it's the contributions to the health sector, education, scouting, youth development, let alone the jobs that it's created over that 100 years. It was through that outside-the-box thinking that Oshawa, Ontario and Canada have benefited because of Oshawa's vision.

Minister, we've seen some investment, but the jobs are still leaving in the thousands. What is your ministry doing to think outside the box to keep the auto and manufacturing sectors in Ontario?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Good question.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: It is a good question, and I want to begin by thanking the member for Oshawa for talking up Ontario, not talking down Ontario.

Our government's auto strategy is to create and protect jobs all across Ontario. Without it, the issues facing the industry would have been much, much worse than we're seeing now. In fact, in Ontario today, we're the number one producer, thank goodness, of cars and auto parts in North America. That's something to be very proud of, and I know it's something the member opposite is proud of.

The government is telling automotive companies from around the world that Ontario is the best place to build automobiles and auto parts, and we're putting our money where our mouth is. We've brokered $500 million of investment to create over $8 billion of auto sector investment in this province, and we're proud of that.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: This afternoon, I have a bill that's a bit of an opening for outside-the-box thinking. It essentially formalizes the unwritten policy by the province for the procurement of government vehicles, but adds a new component where renting and leasing vehicles would also require that those individuals, paid for by the taxpayer, would then have to seek that same process. The hope is twofold: one, to expose those individuals to Made in Ontario, as well as hoping that the rental and leasing companies would expand their fleet of Made in Ontario products.

Should this bill pass today—and I'm getting some sense that there is some support from all sides—we have some concerns. We want to make sure that it comes before committee so that the auto sector and the manufacturing sector can come forward and present their ability to say how they see that outside-the-box thinking can aid their sectors and move Ontario to the forefront in those sectors once again.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Again to the member, I really do appreciate the thrust of your question. I think it's a helpful thrust. I want to say that our government has arrangements with major auto manufacturers in Ontario to supply approximately 1,500 new vehicles each year for the government's fleet. In April and May 2008 alone, the government purchased over 500 new vehicles from Ontario-based production facilities. For the 2008 model year, 71.5% of all vehicles purchased were manufactured right here in Ontario. This is up from roughly 66% the previous year. So we'll move ahead.

I know all members of the House will want to give some serious reflective thought to the member opposite's private member's bill—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you, Minister. The member from Nickel Belt.

LABORATORY SERVICES

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. Since 1997, the hospitals in Huntsville and Bracebridge have been part of a pilot project of 12 community-based lab programs as an alternative to sending this work to private labs. Your ministry conducted the laboratory pilot project review. The review clearly shows that the pilot projects are a success and should be continued and expanded. In light of that, how can the minister justify his decision to cut funding for the community-based program from Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare, sending nine laboratory technologists to the unemployment line?

Hon. David Caplan: It's unfortunate the member would make that kind of an allegation, which is simply not the case. These, in fact, are through the local health integration networks, decisions that are made to provide hospital services and health care services in the district that they serve. In fact, I can tell you that medical laboratories are quite important. I just had the occasion to be at the former Branson site, which is a sharing arrangement between three particular hospitals in Scarborough, North York and East York, a shared medical laboratory service which will serve literally hundreds of thousands of patients with test results.

I want to reiterate that it's unfortunate the member has characterized things in this way, because that is simply not the case.

M me France Gélinas: Those services are being cut. The LHINs have nothing to do with it and this minister has everything to do with it. For nine years, the community-based lab program received no funding increase whatsoever, but the private lab received a 28% increase. Lab work done in the hospital costs $22 to the taxpayer. When done in the private sector it's $33 to the taxpayer. Hospitals in small communities need the critical mass of tests and qualified technologists to maintain best practices and offer 24/7 coverage.

Physicians prefer to have the tests done in the hospital so the results are readily available. Boards, executives of hospitals, unions, patients, physicians and providers all agree that this minister's decision is indefensible. Will the minister agree to an immediate moratorium on the closing of the community-based labs pilot project?

Hon. David Caplan: The lab project was undertaken in 1997. In 2007, a review was undertaken by an independent outside consulting firm to assess the service delivery model and what was in the best interest of patients in the area. Upon the consultation and the review by the ministry, by the Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare hospital and by Gamma-Dynacare medical laboratories, they together determined that the best option to maintain local service was to accept the review's recommendation to adopt the same model of community laboratory services used right across Ontario.

That's why the ministry is working closely with the community lab provider, the Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare hospital in the North Simcoe Muskoka Local Health Integration Network, in the transition planning process to ensure that all residents of the pilot communities of Bracebridge, Huntsville—

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

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My question is for the Minister of Government Services. We have heard a lot of criticism about Ontario's public service from members of the Progressive Conservative Party and their leader, John Tory. The member from Leeds—Grenville has said that this government is bloating the bureaucracy. John Tory said that some of our public servants are simply "breathing each other's exhaust and sitting around, analyzing each other's papers."

With criticism like that coming from our colleagues, it can be difficult to encourage some of my constituents from Ottawa Centre to gain employment with the Ontario public service. Since he is responsible for this issue, can the minister offer some positive encouragement for my constituents so we can continue to attract the best and brightest to the public service?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I want to thank the member opposite for his question and say today that I'm thrilled to share with the House that the Ontario public service has recently been selected as one of Canada's top 100 employers. This is a prestigious award that has been presented for the past eight years by Mediacorp Canada and recognizes those private and public sector organizations across the country that have the best-in-class employment services. More than 2,000 employers were considered.

I'm extremely proud to say this is the first time in the history of this nation that any public service anywhere in this country has been named to this list. This is an important award that puts us in a unique position to be an employer of choice, a great place—

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

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I'm very pleased to hear that the Ontario public service is getting such great recognition for its employment practices. Every public servant should be very proud of this award.

But while I'm happy to hear that the Ontario public service is one of Canada's best employers, I still hear criticism from the opposition about its effectiveness. When speaking about some members of the public service, PC leader John Tory has said that "there hasn't been enough attention paid to looking at whether those people are really making a productive contribution to the effective delivery of public services."

Minister, Ontario's public service may be one of the best employers, but does it in fact effectively deliver public services to Ontarians?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: It does. I'm pleased to say that the Ontario public service—

Interjections.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: —it may come as a surprise to some members opposite—is arguably the most efficient, professional and cost-effective public service, not just in Canada, but in the entire world.

Since 2003, the McGuinty government has committed to reinvesting in critical public services that were, in many cases, decimated by the party opposite. Many of these employees deliver key services to Ontarians. They make sure our food and water are healthy, that our streets are safer, that our natural environment is protected. They prepare our students for success and they also work to reduce hospital wait times. We all rely on public servants for their advice, professionalism and expertise.

I'm proud of our Ontario public service. It is the best public service in the world and we should take time today to—

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

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mr. Norm Miller: I have a question for the Minister of Small Business and Consumer Services. Last Thursday, you voted against a private member's resolution to change the apprenticeship ratios in Ontario from three journeymen to one apprentice to, like most other provinces in Canada, one journeyman to one apprentice.

Can you explain why you want to limit opportunity for our young people to learn a trade and for our small businesses to develop skilled workers?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. John Milloy: Again, I appreciate the interest on all sides of the House in apprenticeships and the need for more skilled trades in our province.

I'm very proud of our government's record. Since we've taken office, there are 50,000 more apprentices learning a trade than when we came to office.

The member opposite, we've had a number of discussions about ratios. He's aware that ratios are set—we look to the industry for their best advice. I think he's also aware of the very thoughtful work that was done by Mr. Tim Armstrong, a noted labour expert. What Mr. Armstrong recommended was that there were a number of reforms that needed to be brought to the apprenticeship system, and he suggested that we put forward a college of trades, something we're undertaking right now, putting the groundwork together for potential legislation to come before this Legislature. This college of trades would strengthen our apprenticeship system. We'll