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

October 28, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Oct-28 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 28 October 2009 Mercredi 28 octobre 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO LABOUR

MOBILITY ACT, 2009 /

LOI ONTARIENNE DE 2009

SUR LA MOBILITÉ

DE LA MAIN-D'Å'UVRE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

STANDING ORDERS

EMERGENCY EVACUATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

TAXATION

PRIVATE CAREER COLLEGES

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

WORKPLACE SAFETY

TAXATION

WASTE DISPOSAL

PENSION PLANS

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

DRIVER EXAMINATION CENTRES

MUNICIPAL FUNDING

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

NOTICE OF REASONED AMENDMENT

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHICKEN FARMERS

ELECTRIC TRAINS

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

TELEVISION INDUSTRY

INTERNATIONAL CREDIT UNION DAY

CANADIAN CLUB MOVEMENT

RENEWABLE ENERGY

GREEK COMMUNITY

CHICKEN FARMERS

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FIRE PROTECTION

AND PREVENTION

AMENDMENT ACT (FIRE SPRINKLER

RETROFITTING), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PRÉVENTION

ET LA PROTECTION CONTRE L'INCENDIE

(INSTALLATION RÉTROACTIVE

D'EXTINCTEURS AUTOMATIQUES)

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

PETITIONS

TAXATION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

CEMETERIES

PENSION PLANS

CEMETERIES

TAXATION

CEMETERIES

TAXATION

SOCIAL SERVICES FUNDING

SALES OF DOMESTIC

WINES AND BEERS

CEMETERIES

TAXATION

SALES OF DOMESTIC

WINES AND BEERS

OPPOSITION DAY

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

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

ONTARIO LABOUR

MOBILITY ACT, 2009 /

LOI ONTARIENNE DE 2009

SUR LA MOBILITÉ

DE LA MAIN-D'Å'UVRE

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 16, 2009, on the motion for second reading of Bill 175,

An Act to enhance labour mobility between Ontario and other Canadian provinces and territories / Projet de loi 175, Loi visant à accroître la mobilité de la main-d'oeuvre entre l'Ontario et les autres provinces et les territoires du Canada.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Further debate? The member for Trinity—Spadina.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Where are the Tories? I don't get it. Oh, there's one. It is really hard to do a lead at 9 o'clock in the morning—it really is. I do welcome the citizens of Ontario to this parliamentary channel. It's Wednesday morning, and it's bright and early, 9 o'clock. It's really hard.

I have to tell you I used to sing when I was a young man, and it's really hard to sing in the morning—it really is—because you need time to wake up, to open up the lungs, to talk to a lot of Liberals—to loosen up, right?—talk to Tories and just loosen up until you're able to have the lungs ready to debate and to feel comfortable and eloquent. So it's really hard. That's why I was hoping some bright, young Tory person would stand up and do 20 minutes and give me time to just reflect a little bit.

I've got a problem with this bill, I have to tell you—

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Oh, no.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I do. The member from Oakville and I had such a tight relationship when we were dealing with Bill 183, which is the college of trades. It seems to me that what we tried to do in that bill is almost undermined by this bill that we are about to be engaged in—the present bill that I'm talking about is Bill 175,

An Act to enhance labour mobility between Ontario and other Canadian provinces and territories. I want to try to explain why they seem to be in contradiction with each other, and I'll of course be happy to listen to a number of Liberals after I speak, to see what they have to say by way of their two minutes or 20 minutes or whatever time they commit to it.

The college of trades was intended to do many good things; that is, take what the government has been doing badly around apprenticeships and move it to a college of trades that we hope is going to do a better job of it. As I said yesterday in one of the debates, the Liberals have done a poor job of apprenticeship training.

We finally have a college of trades that we hope will not only speak well of the trades and promote them, but also create a "scope of practice for trades" and good regulation for the practice of trades, "develop, establish and maintain qualifications for membership in the college … issue certificates of qualification and statements of membership to members of the college, and renew, amend, suspend, cancel, revoke or reinstate those certificates … promote the practice of trades"—as I said—"establish apprenticeship programs and other training programs for trades, including training standards, curriculum standards and examinations … determine appropriate journeyperson to apprenticeship ratios for trades," which is an important debate that I know Conservatives are very keen on, and I'm eager to see what developments can come out of it.

I'm a big supporter of having good ratios of journeypersons to apprentices. It's about health and safety of workers and about the health and safety of the work that is done, which protects consumers. So I'm looking forward to that particular piece of work.

They will "address compliance issues in respect of matters within the jurisdiction of the college" and "work with other governments in Canada and the minister with respect to the interprovincial standards program for apprenticeship and with respect to qualifications required for trades." This is of particular interest to me, because this links to Bill 175, which is before us. I'll repeat that. It says: "To work with other governments in Canada and the minister with respect to the interprovincial standards program for apprenticeship and with respect to qualifications required for trades."

I'll get back to that in a few moments, but I want to say that what we're doing with this college is establishing rules for the trades, establishing what constitutes a qualification or a certificate in a particular trade. What it usually means is that you've got to go through a rigorous program to be able to be an apprentice in a particular trade, and it usually means you've got to be in that program for two, three or four years—in some cases, even five. And what it assures is quality of work at the end of it. Surely this is what all Canadians and all citizens of Ontario want.

I wasn't happy with the former Conservative government in terms of the way they broke up the original act into two parts. They created the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act and created as well the Apprenticeship and Certification Act, two separate acts. The reason they did that—good old Mike Harris. I just read an

article by Mike Harris on colleges and universities, and I thought, "Of all people to talk about colleges and universities." He ruined the university system, and he's talking about doing more with less and how great it was that he cut $400 million because it forced the universities to do a better job of it with less money. I thought, "Gee, the Toronto Star gave him a whole big article." I admit, he's a former Premier and so you've got to give him some space—I understand that—but I couldn't help thinking of good old Mike in the context of these trades and what he tried to do.

Mr. Mike Colle: Re-educate people. Re-education.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Re-education. His own re-education. I guess nobody else talks well of Mike, so presumably he's got to write his own articles. That's okay; I understand that. But he created the Apprenticeship and Certification Act, and what does that mean? It means that you break down the authentic trades that require two, three, four years of apprenticing, break them down into the various skill sets, so that if you have a whole trade that takes two, three or four years and then you create

an act, the Apprenticeship and Certification Act, that says anybody can be called a tradesperson even though they only have one component of what a trade is all about—we call them tradespeople. John, you know what I mean because you've been following this. We call them tradespeople. Pretty soon everybody's going to be a tradesman or a tradeswoman in a particular field, even though they only have some qualification in a particular trade.

So what the Conservatives have done through my good friend Mike Harris—continued by my good buddies the Liberals, because they kept this act, now folded into Bill 183—what it does is to diminish what a trade is. It worries me. But I have been persuaded into believing that Bill 183, the college of trades, may indeed solve that little problemo I have. I can only be hopeful, member from Oakville, because you're a tradesperson. I can only be hopeful. What can I say? You have to be.

Bill 183 is about creating standards for the trades. I give this little background as a way of stating my concern about Bill 175—and I'll tell you why. I want to say, before getting into the telling you why, that I'm not quite sure why we have Bill 175 before us. I really am not quite sure, because even though this bill represents the first instance of Ontario taking the step of giving statutory expression to an Agreement on Internal Trade—and it seems as if it's a reasonable thing to do—the question I've been asking myself in the last couple of days reading this act is, why do we need this bill? We know that an agreement on internal trade—

Mr. Mike Colle: I'll be back.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I'll see you soon, Mike—had been begun in 1994 by the then Liberal government, federally. It has continued to the present under the Conservative government. We know that Monsieur Harper has different kinds of interest in this whole matter, and I'm trying to find his quote because he speaks about why it is that we need to do this. As soon as I find it, I will read it into the record, and if I can't find it, we'll move on. I can't find it, but I will.

Interjection: Try to get organized, Rosie.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: It's a tough job; being a critic of many things is a tough job. I'll find it.

Oh, here he is. You see? It's a question of seconds. With the Speaker's indulgence, I'm able to find it on time. Here's what Monsieur Harper said. The labour mobility provisions of the AIT which Bill 175 seeks to implement reflect a certain ideological Conservative commitment, if not framework, by the Harper government, in our view, to reduce the role of government in regulating the economy.

And in its throne speech on November 19, the federal government committed to working with the provinces "to remove barriers to internal trade, investment and labour mobility by 2010." It all sounds reasonable because if there are barriers, you say to yourself, we should be removing them, shouldn't we? It makes sense. The Conservative election platform went further by stating that a Harper government "will work to eliminate barriers that restrict or impair trade, investment or labour mobility between provinces and territories by 2010....

We hope to see further progress, but are prepared to intervene by exercising federal authority if barriers to trade, investment and mobility remain by 2010."

Again, to the general public and to most people, it seems like a reasonable thing to do. He is prepared to intervene; he is prepared to exercise his constitutional authority, should barriers exist between provinces, to remove them. The fact of the matter is, he does have the constitutional authority to do this. So if there are barriers, we think he should remove them.

The fact of the matter is, there are no tariffs between provinces. As far as I know, there are no taxes that are levied on one province by another. So I say to myself, what problems have we had that we need to deal with? We know that only 20% of Canadian workers are employed in a regulated occupation or trade; for example, professional skilled technicians or people who work in the compulsory trades. We're talking about 20% of the people. We know there should be standards in these fields.

We don't want somebody who operates heavy equipment to be able to do something in another province if they're not adequately trained. We don't want paramedics to be running around helping people who are seriously ill if they're not adequately trained. We don't want accountants if they're not adequately trained; we don't want doctors or plumbers or electricians if they're not adequately trained. We just don't want that. We're talking about 20% of the professional and other trade occupations.

It's not like it's 80% or 90%, we've got serious trade barriers; we're talking about a small amount of trades and professions that we're dealing with. Where there have been concerns interprovincially, by and large, as far as I have been able to gather, we've been able to solve them.

We know there is a forum of labour market ministers that has been established since 1983 to talk about the various issues that might pop up from time to time from province to province. We know that there is a labour mobility coordinating group that reports on the progress of the implementation of the Agreement on Internal Trade. So where there have been issues, they have been dealt with.

The way they have been dealt with, at least in terms of mobility of trades, is with a program called the red seal program, which allows qualified tradespersons to practise their trades in any province or territory without having to write additional examinations. The red seal program is an example of how workers, or at least provinces, across Canada—with the exception of British Columbia, which has not bought in—that the red seal program applies to all trades across Canada.

They did this co-operatively, so they have found a solution from one province to another in dealing with the trades, in a way that every province has satisfactory qualifications to be able to get a job, no matter where you go, because the standards are the same. We know that there have been 26 complaints since 1996 around potential problems of barriers that might exist in one occupation from one province to another, but of the 26, 23 have been withdrawn, two complaints have been upheld and one is ongoing.

The point of the matter is that the majority of complaints around issues of occupational standards barriers—presumed barriers that might exist—have been dealt with across Canada, co-operatively, each working with the other. If the government has a problem, it can deal with it on a national level, but standards around occupations are a provincial responsibility and we have a constitutional right to be able to deal with those standards.

That's where the problem lies. The problem is that different provinces have different standards relating to the different occupations, trades and professions. Some standards may be high in one province and low in another. Some provinces love deregulation—i.e. Alberta, God bless them, and British Columbia, God bless them too—and other provinces have stricter kinds of regulations because we believe we should regulate for the protection of the consumer.

Where the problem lies, in my view, is in the federal government's commitment to international trade obligations. We believe those commitments connect, at least as it relates to these Harper Conservatives—and the previous Liberal government, to be sure—to the policies of deregulation and privatization that those agreements seem to entrench.

The real agenda, for me, in terms of what the federal government is doing by way of changes they are making to the Agreement on Internal Trade, is to make sure, when they go to whatever international conferences there are with other governments, that they are able to say to them that the free trade rules apply to Canada and by extension they apply to the provinces. In my view, it's a slow erosion of our provincial powers to be able to regulate.

This bill allows any person who is outside of the province of Ontario and governed by whatever regulatory or non-regulatory body, private or otherwise, to come into Ontario and practise their trade. That's what this bill does. And it puts the responsibility on the Ontario government to show and to prove—if that person does not get the job, the onus is on the provincial government to show that it's a problem for this province. It puts an incredible responsibility on every ministry of this government to do the research in other provinces and determine what their standards are.

It puts responsibilities on municipal governments to understand what the standards are in other provinces and to do research to see whether or not their standards are so inadequate that they have to make a case to say, "No, they don't qualify." It puts the responsibility on non-governmental bodies, meaning the different professions that exist—child care, social work, the Ontario Medical Association and all the other professions—it puts them in the position of having to do the research and assess the qualifications of those individuals and what standards those folks have gone through in the provinces.

Understand: We do not have a repository of information somewhere that says, "Here are the standards across Canada," and you can just flip a finger and say, "Oh, I see. In Nova Scotia, these are the standards around these trades and the medical profession; and in Alberta, these are the standards they have to deal with; and here are the private sector folks managing these trades or some profession, and this is the public sector that's managing it, and here is where they might have had some historical problems connected with it." There is no national repository.

The weight and responsibility for assessing the qualifications of an individual and assessing the various regulatory bodies that govern those individuals is not available to us. So you are on your own, as a provincial government—if a ministry is affected—or a non-governmental body or a municipal government, in terms of doing that work. How could they do that? The money and the time aren't there.

This bill imposes $5-million penalties if, for whatever reason, someone applies and you do not engage them or you do not comply. It imposes a tremendous penalty—five million bucks—on a non-governmental agency, or indeed a government. I have never seen something like it anywhere, and the Liberal government is quite happy to be able to help out with that. So understand: The onus is on the Ontario government to prove and show that the problem doesn't lie with another province whose standards are bad; it is left to you, the Ontario government, to prove that their standards are inadequate and that they shouldn't be hiring somebody. It's just the wrong way of doing things.

I'm quite frankly puzzled as to why the provincial government is doing this. I understand that, from a Canadian perspective, the whole notion of being able to say, "A Canadian is a Canadian, and a Canadian should be able to work wherever they want." I understand how facile that argument is and how easy it is to sell. The problem is that there are different standards, and standards are regulated by provinces. What we're doing is literally giving up on standards no matter where they are. What it means is that we are going to have to downgrade our standards. It's about going to a lower common denominator in terms of standards.

Is this the intent of the Liberal government? I don't know. My suspicion is the following: They're quite happy to comply with the federal government's rules around this issue; they don't see any difficulty. The majority of MPPs have not read this bill; the majority of them have not reflected on the possible consequences of this bill; and the majority of MPPs to my left and in front of me simply enjoy and assume that whatever they're doing is good for Canadians no matter where they are, and that's okay by them. The fact is, when you read this bill, you realize that there are problems. You realize that there are problems.

Section 9 obliges regulatory authorities to recognize and give effect to authorizing certificates issued in any other Canadian jurisdiction. This is the most important part of this bill, and it says:

"When applicant is certified by out-of-province regulatory authority

"9.

(1) This

section applies if an individual applying to an Ontario regulatory authority for certification in a regulated occupation is already certified in the same occupation by an out-of-province regulatory authority.

"Material additional training"

Additional training does not have to be required. It's not required. Additional training is not required:

"

(2) The Ontario regulatory authority shall not require, as a condition of certifying the individual in the regulated occupation, that the individual have, undertake, obtain or undergo any material additional training, experience, examinations or assessments."

There are some exceptions. They must respect the validity of the authorizations accorded by the regulatory officials in any other jurisdiction even when the occupational standards they apply are lower than those in Ontario.

"

(12) Every Ontario regulatory authority shall, to the extent possible and where practical,...

"(

b) take steps to reconcile differences between the occupational standards it has established for an occupation and occupational standards in effect with respect to the same occupation in the other provinces and territories of Canada that are parties to the Agreement on Internal Trade."

The question I put to my friend from Oakville: If we are about to create strong standards in the college of trades, and then we say, when someone comes from another province and has been trained in another province, that they can come here and get a job without having to go through additional training, and we in Ontario must take steps to reconcile differences—meaning make it so, make it happen; if there are differences in standards, it doesn't matter, you are forced to reconcile those differences, simply make it happen—you as a government will make it happen.

We just passed the college of trades that will have strong standards in Ontario as it relates to all of the trades that anybody can think of. But this bill says, "Not a problemo. If you come from another province and the standards are lower, it's okay; you've got to reconcile those differences." That is the obligation that this bill puts on this government, on municipal authorities and on non-governmental bodies. I've never seen anything like it; I have to tell you that.

So even though there are various exceptions and even though a tribunal of sorts will be set up to deal with some of these differences, we believe, based on past practices, that this bill, in the form in which it is written, will take precedence, will succeed in doing what the intent of this bill is all about. This bill overrides any other bill that we have before this place, or any bill that has been passed by this government now or in the past. This bill will override anything else.

Pat Dillon, business manager for the Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, has raised concerns that the new labour mobility regimes may undermine the red seal program which is working to facilitate labour mobility. In part, the problem arises from the fact, as I mentioned earlier, that British Columbia doesn't buy into the red seal program. According to Mr. Dillon, "There is no doubt in my mind that with what they have put in place, it allows for the lowering of standards, no matter how it is cut." That's Pat Dillon, who has supported this government over the many years and has concerns about the bill that you have put before us.

Indeed, the Ontario Federation of Labour has serious concerns about what you are doing with this bill. I think they will all stand shoulder to shoulder in opposing it, as I am expressing.

I know that the Federation of Medical Regulatory Authorities of Canada has concerns about this. They argue there will be little incentive for physicians to begin practising in areas of need because they will be able to move upon registration in any jurisdiction they want. So they are concerned about standards.

I believe in standards. The idea of standards is not to turn people away. The idea of standards is to make sure that those who have substandard levels acquire the knowledge and the experience they need to be able to do it well. I'm not talking about having to take years, necessarily, to come up to par; I'm talking about doing the adequate training, whatever it might take. The idea is not to shut people out; the idea is to provide the adequate training that is required to be able to achieve the standard that we believe in, that gives us the security and the protection that we, as consumers, need. I think that is what this is about.

This bill is going to put in place monitors. Imagine that. They're going to hire monitors—I believe loads of them—to make sure that the rules of this bill, the rules of the game, are complied with. Imagine: We're putting into place rules that we believe are going to erode standards in Ontario, and we're going to be hiring monitors whose role it is to make sure that provincial ministries, non-governmental bodies and municipal governments comply with the bill. How wonderful of this government to facilitate that particular role.

We don't know why you're doing this, we really don't. We don't believe that there is a problem here that needs to be fixed. We believe that you're looking for a solution that is already there. We believe that you are working very closely with the federal government in bringing down standards—which you will say is about bringing down barriers, but as far as I can tell, there are very few barriers that we have not solved. Based on what I've told you, of the 26 cases that have been in dispute, 23 have been withdrawn.

We are looking forward to debate, we are looking forward to hearings—I know you want them too—because we will be able to have details of this bill under scrutiny by those who come to speak about it. We will have more time to be able to see what this bill is all about—and what it's about, in my view, is deregulation and privatization of various programs that we provide in Ontario. We believe this is bad overall for Canadians and this is bad for Ontarians, and we look forward to that debate.

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

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It's a pleasure to join the debate this morning on the labour mobility code. All members here will know that if this bill is passed, the provisions in any other act, any other regulation, any other bylaw that's in existence and that are in conflict with the labour code, as it becomes proposed law, the act is going to override those provisions.

The act is going to apply to applications for certification made on or after the day the act comes into force or to any other application where a final decision has not been made yet. To ensure transparency in this case, the act is going to require that regulators publish on their websites all certification requirements that workers, already certified anywhere else in Canada, must meet in order to work right here in our province.

I think people understand the need for this now, in this day and age. People are moving around the country. They want the right to move around the country. Sometimes the work moves around the country; sometimes the people just choose to move themselves. To have an old-fashioned system where people must recertify themselves every time they cross a provincial boundary I don't think is anything we want to see in place anymore.

Mr. Marchese, the member for Trinity—Spadina, has pointed out some concerns he has with the bill. That's the object of the hearing process, to hear those concerns, to hear from the stakeholders, to have a fulsome discussion as to what changes should be made during that period when the bill is open to the public.

Since last summer, we've been working with provincial regulators and with industry stakeholders to discuss the changes that are proposed under the amended AIT, and we're going to try to help everybody to meet their new obligations. But I think in today's economy, the average Ontarian understands that this is a necessary move. It's a progressive move. If the member from Trinity—Spadina has suggestions as to how this could be made better, we're open to that.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Durham.

Mr. John O'Toole: The member for Trinity—Spadina always gets very enthusiastic and, to some extent, entertaining, and I understand his perspective of protectionism in some areas. I think what we need are the highest possible standards in the world. It's not wrong to presume that one province that's doing something in less time or even more efficiently—as long as it meets the highest safety and quality standards possible, then I suspect we should move forward and not assume the Luddite position.

However, I want to put on the record something very important to an industry that's somewhat related to this idea of labour mobility. It's the AIT, the Agreement on Internal Trade provincially. I have a letter here that was written to the Premier, and this letter is signed by the Egg Farmers of Ontario, the Turkey Producers' Marketing Board, the Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg and Chick Commission, the chair of the Dairy Farmers of Ontario and the chair of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario. This was sent as well to the Minister of Agriculture, and it's on agriculture.

It says, "The five supply-managed commodities in Ontario have been a port in the storm during the economic turmoil that has crippled many industries in Ontario, including other agriculture commodities." We know how difficult agriculture is today. "Chicken, eggs, turkey and dairy are renewable resources, producing 'local' food that provides Ontario consumers with the highest-quality and safest food, period."

This is another case where trade itself—not just the idea that Mr. Marchese is pointing out; standards—is in some jeopardy. This is why they've pointed this out: "Premier, the five supply-managed boards in Ontario have greatly appreciated your ... support," and they want you to continue that support. Don't sign on to this agreement.

It's much like this decision between Quebec and Ontario. For years, labour mobility was only one way. This bill I don't think is going to solve the problems, and you may question its ability—

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

Mr. Mike Colle: I think the member from Trinity—Spadina raised a number of controversial and informative aspects of this bill.

I just want to mention one thing that drives a lot of ordinary Ontarians crazy. Take a doctor, for instance: If a doctor is practising in Alberta, and that doctor wants to come to Ontario to practise, in many cases that doctor would be required to go back to school in order to practise in Ontario. This is not a doctor from Bangladesh or a doctor from Zimbabwe; this is a doctor from Newfoundland or Prince Edward Island who has been practising for five, 10, 20, 30 or 40 years. Because of all the empires that each province has built up, it's impossible for not only doctors but a lot of highly skilled professionals to ply their trade in different provinces.

Do you know what that does? Many doctors who might want to come to Ontario or want to go to another province will go to the United States. It's easier for them to practise in the States; they get certified immediately if they go to the States.

There are bigger barriers. It's like our trade barriers between provinces. You try to get a bottle of beer from another province; you can't do it. Wine from other provinces, never mind people—there are so many archaic, nonsensical barriers between provincial governments that in essence treat Canadians like foreign citizens within their own country. This is a small attempt to try and remove some of these archaic barriers to mobility.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments? The member from Trinity—Spadina, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I appreciate the fact that we're going to have hearings. I appreciate the fact that the member from Oakville said that they would consult the stakeholders. I don't know who they are, but they consulted someone. In the hearings, we hope to be able to deal with some oversights, as we did with the college of trades, where we had a French representative from Collège Boréal who talked about making sure that we include the interests of our French-speaking community in Ontario. That's an oversight that I hope we can correct as we move on with bills. We should have reflected that in the bill.

I just wanted to mention that as we go on with these things, we have to remember we have a strong French-speaking community in this province and their needs need to be reflected in law.

I know that the members from Oakville, Eglinton—Lawrence and Durham talked about the idea of being old-fashioned and archaic and that we need to modernize. It's presented in nice language that makes me, as a critic, look as if I am, as the member from Durham said—what did he say?

Mr. John O'Toole: A Luddite.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: A Luddite, yes. Both parties have talked about that.

The member from Durham said two contradictory things. He said the New Democrats are being protectionist, and at the same time he said he wants high standards. Sorry, they don't go together. This bill is not about the highest standard; it's about the lowest standard. That's what this bill is about: It's about standards. If you are saying to me that across Canada we have the same standards, either I am wrong or you are all wrong. What we do need are standards we can all agree on, and this bill does not give us the kinds of standards, the high standards, we're looking for.

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

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I'm delighted to stand up in my place and enter the debate on a very important issue, the Ontario Labour Mobility Act, 2009. I listened to the parliamentary assistant speak a couple of days ago. I also listened to the member from the third party speak to this issue.

I think it's a very important issue, especially because in Ontario we are prospering in terms of building our infrastructure and our economy. We want more skilled workers to come and enter the professions.

As you know, in this province we try as much as possible to eliminate the barriers facing many different people who want to come to and live and work in this province. As you know, over the years every province has built some kind of criteria and jurisdictions. That's what prohibits many people from coming to this province and entering the workforce. I think it creates obstacles for many who want to come and work here, especially if they have certain qualifications.

Now qualifications have become very similar, and many people are going through the same kinds of colleges and facilities and getting the same education. Why don't we eliminate those barriers and allow them to come and help us build this beautiful province?

This act, if passed, will support full labour mobility and allow more professionals and skilled workers from across Canada to come and work in Ontario.

We're talking about the Asian societies, Asian communities. Many different jurisdictions in Ontario are facing challenges in terms of demographic establishment, demographic capacity, with people moving out or getting older, and people not able to work anymore. In our capacity in this province, we allow people to come and enjoy our privileges in this province. We learn from their skills, capacities and intellectual abilities.

I think it's important to create one nation. As you know, many different jurisdictions around the globe are trying to break the barriers between nations. Look at what happened with the European Union: They tried to work together, from nation to nation. Even though they have different cultural structures, languages, beliefs, philosophies, ideologies and political systems, they created the union to allow the people who live in that jurisdiction, that part of the globe, to work together, move smoothly from nation to nation and work in every country without any problem. They unified the structure, criteria and labour mobility between their countries because they think it's important for them.

In order to have a prosperous future and be able to tackle high-tech and technology and build their nations, they have to work together. They have to be specialized; they have to be specific in different jobs and different work. That is why they created the union: to break the barriers and allow people to cross from nation to nation and work without any problems, without any certification, without any issues. That's why people are talking about NAFTA, free trade and many different issues around the globe.

Many different jurisdictions and areas around the globe are trying to work together in order to remove the obstacles facing people travelling from one jurisdiction to another. That's why here in Canada, and especially in Ontario, we want to try to eliminate those barriers facing many different people, who are graduates from Saskatchewan or British Columbia or Quebec, to come work in Ontario.

I want to tell you something very important: We have sometimes faced in this province a lot of difficulties to recruit doctors, because if you are a doctor who graduated from Quebec, for a certain time, because of certain difficulties, you cannot practise in Ontario; you have to be qualified according to the system we have in Ontario in order to be able to practise here. Or if you're an electrician from a different province, you cannot use your certificate in Ontario.

So this step should be taken and it should be addressed because so many people have the ability and the skills, and have been educated very well. They can come and help us to maintain our prosperity in this province of Ontario, especially people who live in other provinces, who have the same or similar cultural understanding and language, and many of the same criteria. Why don't we eliminate those barriers? Why wouldn't we allow people to come and work and share their experience?

If this bill passes, it means every person who is certified in a different jurisdiction can come to this province of Ontario and work. I think it's the right thing to do to go forward toward a brighter future. If we don't eliminate those barriers between the provinces and Ontario, how can we eliminate the differences between us and neighbouring countries? I think it's a very important step to create flexibility and some kind of mobility between the people who live in this province.

I know some people don't agree with that; they like to surround Ontario with some kind of fence and not allow people to come, and create difficult barriers to protect, according to them, the workforce in this province of Ontario. It's not about protection, it's about enhancing our ability and how we can mix people together and how we can create some kind of system able to absorb all the skills and abilities that already exist in this nation.

I know we are all of us subject to the same immigration system and, as you know, many people from different parts of the globe want to immigrate to Canada. Most of the time, they come with a lot of skills, education and abilities, and they want to come and work in the province of Ontario. They sometimes come to Ontario and cannot utilize their potential, so they move to different jurisdictions. We found that in those different jurisdictions they give them more access to the professions and trades than this province has in the past.

That's why we came as a government and established a professionals and trade secretariat. We have a commissioner right now, Dr. Jean Augustine, to oversee the conduct of those trades and professionals who exist in the province of Ontario.

This bill, if passed, will give all the people who want to live in Ontario, who want to come from different provinces, an equal chance to apply for jobs. Especially in this province, we like to be united on many different fronts. We have the same policies, we have the same ability and the same future. If this bill passes, it will allow people from many different jurisdictions to come and be able to work in the province. For businesses, it will help to address the critical skills shortage and improve their competitiveness by allowing employers to recruit from larger talent pools.

I know some members of this House don't like the idea. They think it will infringe and break the monopoly of certain groups who like to be in control, who like to be the only people that exist in the province of Ontario. I think that's not good for the unity of the nation, it's not good for the future of this province. I think it's important to create some kind of greater pool so that the people of the province can draw from the talent and skill that already exists in this nation.

I think we are moving in the right direction, we're taking the right steps, and I want to congratulate the minister for coming up with this initiative, because I believe it's a great initiative to allow people to come into Ontario.

Many different times, especially in the jurisdictions close to Ontario, like Quebec—we had, in the past, so many different issues with people from Quebec who wanted to come to Ontario or Ontarians going to work in Quebec. Different jurisdictions wouldn't allow or recognize their certifications, and that's why we opened the door wide for the underground economy. If this bill passes, I guess we'll eliminate those issues, and everyone with certification will be able to open a business and work openly in the province of Ontario without forcing those people to work underground or work illegally.

We've tackled many different issues in the past in this province. As you know, many people, when they came and they had a certificate from a difference province, were being blocked from using that certificate, so we forced those people to work under the table or go into the underground economy. So this will give the ability to people to work openly and utilize their certificate. I think it's a very important step toward opening up the province of Ontario for many different talented people who want to come to this beautiful province.

Also, Ontario will benefit from opening up a large talent pool for many different companies that want to prosper, that want to expand their operations in this province.

I think it's an important step toward a brighter future, toward eliminating those barriers not just in the province of Ontario and within different cities and different jurisdictions, but also between many different provinces that want to work toward a brighter nation and a better future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to stand up and speak on this important issue. Hopefully many members of this House will stand up in their places and support this bill, because these are the things—I think it's the right way, the right bill, and is an important step toward breaking the barriers that we face in the future, in which all of us are looking forward to maintaining our ability to attract more skilled people to come work with us in the province and also to deal with the challenges we are facing not to depend totally on people who come from outside the nation, but to utilize the capacity and the potential and the skills which already exist in this nation.

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

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: I want to thank the member from London—Fanshawe for making his remarks. In fact, his riding is where my husband and I first lived when we were married 43 years ago, so I know the area very well.

I guess we are the first province to jump into this pool. We have introduced this legislation which essentially opens our borders to workers from other provinces to come into Ontario before all of the other provinces have opened their borders in order to allow Ontarians to work in other parts of Canada. I guess being first sometimes wins the race, and sometimes it's good to be second, third or fourth to understand where the wrinkles are and be able to modify whatever is happening so that we do the best we can for Ontarians.

I know that this doesn't affect the province of Quebec because negotiations are still underway with that province in order for this kind of legislation to take effect there. However, the main concern that is being raised by stakeholders is about the level of qualification, the standards that are being applied across the country. What an out-of-province applicant may have in the way of qualifications may not measure up to what Ontarians have and what we require here.

The College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists has already expressed a concern. Their concern is that without examining the academic qualifications or being able to ask for any retesting, they can't measure whether or not the standards meet those standards here in Ontario.

I think we need to look at that in committee and listen to our stakeholders when they come before us.

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

Mr. Paul Miller: I do have a small amount of knowledge on this, considering I was in the trades for over 30 years. I fail to see the relationship that the member from London—Fanshawe says between immigration and trades and crafts. What it is about is quality workmanship and craftsmanship. It's about safety standards. It's about uniformity. If this country wants to attract tradespeople from other countries, then they should make uniform standards throughout the country. In other words, are there some trades that are red-flagged?

In my trade, ironworking and welding, you have to have qualifications throughout the country. Certain standards have to be met. If you want to have everybody on the same page, then you're going to have all the trades qualified throughout the country. It doesn't matter if you're a drywaller—all these people are involved in construction. They're involved in things that people have to walk under and walk on, and also, they have to last. What you need is uniform quality tradespeople throughout the country, a standard for the whole country, not a different one in Saskatchewan, not a different one in British Columbia.

Yes, you're going to have problems if people come from other provinces if they're not qualified. I, for one, wouldn't want to walk on a bridge in Ontario if I knew some guys from BC had about half their tickets, who welded it up. I personally would not want to drive over that bridge. I'd want to know that these guys can go anywhere in the world and work—internationally—and that's the way it should be.

What they aren't talking about are the problems that will be created by people coming in who are not qualified. They're going to be arguing with the people who are qualified in the local unions and locals of that city. They haven't even discussed the problems that are going to be there.

They've got a long way to go on this bill, and it certainly doesn't cut it.

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

Mr. Mike Colle: Eglinton—Lawrence.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Oakville stood at the same time. The member for Oakville.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I'm sure we'll both end up speaking.

I do want to correct the member from Burlington. We're actually the third jurisdiction that is entering this process. The province of Manitoba has already passed legislation that would allow this to happen, and the province of British Columbia is in the process of doing that.

In my remarks, based on the comments of the member from London—Fanshawe, I did want to talk about the importance of the red seal program. Make no mistake about it: This government supports the red seal program. We think it's a model for labour mobility and it's a model for those common interprovincial standards that we all want to see in the trades throughout the country, especially in the skilled trades and professions. This commitment to the red seal program is explicit in the proposed bill before you.

We've gone out of our way to make sure that the red seal program is elevated to the level that it should be because we think that endorsement provides tradespersons a competitive hiring advantage, it's respected by industry and it's also respected by employers and by the employees themselves. We want the red seal program that's in existence today to remain strong—it's a vehicle for labour mobility—but we also want it to remain as the Canadian standard of excellence for training and certification in the skilled trades.

Why we're doing this is because we want to strengthen the economy during a challenging time by removing the barriers that don't currently allow for the free passage of people who want to work anywhere in this country. At the same time, we're implementing the highest standards possible to ensure that if somebody is certified in another province and that certification is going to be accepted within our province, we're assured that that standard is of the highest quality it possibly can be.

So if it's passed, we're going to support full labour mobility. We're simply going to make it easier for Canadians to work to the highest standards anywhere in this country.

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

Mr. John O'Toole: The member for London—Fanshawe makes a very good point. I suspect even the parliamentary assistant, who just spoke—I would probably agree with what they're saying.

Just a specific case: I have an optician in my riding who has been with the college. He's very highly regarded in the profession. I believe his name is Ali Khan. He was saying that in some jurisdictions in Canada they have a very shortened program for opticians,

whereas in Ontario it is a much longer program. The suggestion here is, for the economic value of this, that they could hire someone in Ontario who has maybe trained for four months in BC to work for less money at Costco or LensCrafters or some other larger type of business that's interested in the payroll issues. What is really important here is both the economics and the standards. What fundamentally is the most important is the safety and the standards for the people of Ontario.

I want to objectively say that often, because you have gone to school for a long time for a specific thing, it does not mean you're better trained than someone coming from another jurisdiction in Canada. I think the passing of qualifying tests or some kind of standards might be more the issue, and I think the safety of the consumer is critical here, especially in medical issues, but more importantly in any issue that could affect our common safety.

At the same time, we must be flexible, but the standards can't be lowered. Some people may want to take a degree in four years, and some may want to do it on a fast track—two years—but take the same number of lecture hours. So let's make sure we don't lower the standards in the interest of having the best possible economic value of the skilled trades or professions in Ontario. We need to be competitive in a global economy.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member from London—Fanshawe has up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I want to thank the member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, the member from Burlington, the member from Oakville and the member from Durham for speaking and commenting on my speech.

As I mentioned at the beginning, we are asking people to come to Canada from different parts of the globe. We accept engineers, professors, doctors and nurses and we invite them to come and help us build this province, and at the same time we create barriers between Ontario and Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba and Newfoundland. So I think we are looking for skilled people to come with certain standards, and I know we in this province respect the criteria, the standards. We want all the people who have high skills to come and work with us in Ontario.

With respect to the standards and safety that every member spoke about, I think safety and standards are important to us. I think when the bill goes to committee they're going to create some kind of criteria to make sure that all the people from different jurisdictions have the same standards we have in Ontario.

When we talk about different jurisdictions, the member from Oakville, the PA for the minister, mentioned that we in Ontario are the third jurisdiction to do this. I think it's important for all of us in this province to recognize other qualifications from different provinces, as we live in the same nation, and that we've started to create barriers among us. I mentioned how Europe tried to eliminate the barriers between nations, despite cultures, languages, religions, ideologies and philosophies.

We're trying in North America to create NAFTA, or some kind of agreement between us, the United States and Mexico, and also eliminate all these barriers. In the meantime, we have barriers within the nation that I think are difficult, and that's a shame.

So I thank and applaud the minister for coming up with a proposal to eliminate those barriers within our nation and allow people with high skills to come and enjoy our prosperity and help us build this beautiful province. Again, I'm looking forward to everyone in the House supporting this bill, because it's good for the future of this province.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): This House will recess until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1009 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It's a pleasure to introduce some guests in the gallery today on behalf of myself and my colleague from Beaches—East York, Michael Prue.

Today on the front lawn of Parliament, there will be a rally against the HST. The rally coordinator and host, Jim Garchinski, is here today and in the audience. He is accompanied by Terry Sullivan, Paul Bailey, Bill Harford, Richard Metcalfe and Don MacLeod. Today they will be joined on the front lawn of the Legislature by Kevin Gaudet, Pauline Aunger, Peter Coleman, Linda Pinizzotto, Bill McLean, Russ Rak, John Campbell and Vic Dybenko, as well as the leader of the official opposition, Tim Hudak, who just walked in, and the leader of the third party, Andrea Horwath. We're looking forward to seeing all Ontarians on the front lawn of the Legislature today.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I would like to introduce some guests from the town of Ponoka, Alberta: Robyn McKelvie, Nicole Hoffman and Nathan Hoffman, in the public gallery.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I would like to introduce a couple of guests and friends from Collingwood who are seated in the members' east gallery: Bev and Peter Baxter from Collingwood.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: We will shortly be joined by the principal and students from As-Sadiq Islamic School in York region. It is the Toronto area's largest Islamic school.

Hon. John Milloy: I'd like to welcome to the Legislature today the family of page Emma Johnson. We have Angela, William and Andrew Johnson from the great riding of Kitchener Centre with us here today.

Mr. Bob Delaney: In the members' east gallery, I'd like to introduce a personal friend and a very talented web developer, Paul McKenzie.

Mr. Mario Sergio: In the House, I'm proud to have page Rushabh Shah, and I hope that he will enjoy his time here at Queen's Park and that the time will serve him well. I'd like to welcome him here as he serves all the members of the House.

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I would like to welcome William Birch, from the riding of Scarborough—Guildwood, to the House today.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I have the pleasure to introduce to the members a seven-person delegation from the People's Republic of China. They're here from the Ministry of Labour and the delegation is being led by Mr. Bing Han, who is the deputy minister. Let's welcome them warmly.

Hon. John Gerretsen: I would like to introduce a group of students from Queen's University who will be in the gallery shortly. Annually, Christina Blizzard, one of our esteemed columnists who cover us here at Queen's Park, arranges for students to be here for a day so that they can see the democratic process in action. I'd like to welcome them.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I'm delighted today to welcome members from the Chicken Farmers of Ontario, who are here. They will be meeting with members of the Legislative Assembly. They are also very generously hosting a reception later on today, and all members of the assembly are welcome. We're delighted that they're here.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I'd just like to welcome all of the other people who are here today, because it took a little bit of time to get our leader in his seat. Thank you.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the member from Richmond Hell—Richmond Hill—and page Shaan Ali Jessa—

Interjections: Withdraw! Withdraw!

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The Speaker withdraws his unparliamentary comment.

On behalf of the member from Richmond Hill and page Shaan Ali Jessa, we would like to welcome Fatima Jessa, Dilshad Jessa and Hussein Jessa to the members' west gallery. Welcome to Queen's Park.

Seated in the Speaker's gallery, from my riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London, I would like to welcome Ray Galloway, Jeannie Sisco and Glenna Gerry. Welcome to Queen's Park.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, in response to my questions, the Premier indicated that the McKinsey report is online and can be found online. All the Googling in the world will not find you the McKinsey report online, so I'm wondering whether the Premier is prepared to correct the record or withdraw that comment.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): That's not a point of order, but I trust the Premier will address your issue.

STANDING ORDERS

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: On the point of order raised yesterday, for the clarification of the Speaker and the table: My point of order related to a significant public funding announcement made by the government yesterday outside of this chamber, which has become a rather frequent practice of this government. I cited a number of standing orders, and, at the very least, I believe the continued practice by this government violates the spirit, if nothing less, of those standing orders.

EMERGENCY EVACUATION

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Yesterday we had an evacuation drill here at the assembly. Drills such as these are intended to test the processes in place to evacuate the building in case of fire or other emergency. They give us an opportunity to evaluate the processes and at the same time allow for the occupants of the building to understand the proper procedures for exiting the building.

I am pleased to report that yesterday's drill was successful and that the building was evacuated in under 12 minutes. To those members who co-operated, I thank you. To those who did not, I know that we will be able to count on your co-operation the next time we engage in this important exercise.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question for the Premier: Yesterday, the Premier still refused to say when he would bring forward a plan to deal with his massive record-busting deficit that is going to break the backs of Ontario taxpayers. Every day the Premier retreats into his thinking place, Ontario families are on the hook for an additional $2.8 million each and every hour of the day in increased debt.

So let me ask the Premier a different way: Will the Premier table a plan before he takes off on his Christmas vacation?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We're always, of course—

Interjection: Where are you going for Christmas?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm just staying home.

I'm always open to suggestions from the honourable member as to any specific approach that he might bring. What I am aware of is that the member would eliminate the Ontario health premium. That would add another $3 billion to the deficit. I don't think that would be a prudent approach.

We are going to take a little bit of time. Notwithstanding the member's haste and imprudence, we're going to take a bit of time. We're going to work both internally inside of government and externally and engage Ontarians. We have made it clear that we have three priorities: health care, education and strengthening our economy. If my honourable colleague has any specific suggestions, we would welcome those.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Yesterday, when pressed by the media for a plan, the Premier said, "The other shoe will drop, I guess, eventually." While he stands around staring at his loafers, Ontario families are on the hook for an additional $13,500 in Dalton McGuinty debt.

I sense that we know what Premier McGuinty's real plan is. Pensioners at Queen's Park today know it too. They know that your greedy sales tax grab is going to be used to fuel more runaway spending and sweetheart deals for Liberal friends.

When will the Premier table a plan to end his sweetheart deals and give Ontario families a tax break, not another tax hike?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We know that my colleague's approach is to cut more taxes. How he's going to pay for that, I'm not sure, but at least that is clear. We put in place a plan that is clear—and I think there's a broad level of support for it—of the things that we need to do at this point in time. We continue to invest in infrastructure; that creates jobs in the short term, and it enhances our economic productivity in the long term.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: He's against that, too.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My colleague is against that. We provided significant support to the auto sector to put it on a sound footing. We think that's the appropriate thing to do; my honourable colleague is against that. We're investing heavily in retraining opportunities for families that have been, through no fault of their own, dislocated because of the economic recession. We're helping them; my colleague is against that. That is part of our plan. We continue to pursue that part of our plan and, in due course, we'll also be talking about the best ways to address our deficit.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, retired police officers, retired firefighters, municipal workers and others are gathering on the lawn at Queen's Park today to protest your greedy Dalton sales tax grab. On CFRB this morning, Sandy from Mississauga said she can't afford her car payments as it is. She knows things will get worse when your massive sales tax hits home. It'll cost her more to put gas in her car. It'll cost her more for heat for her home. Even her Tim Hortons double-double in the morning is going to get whacked by Dalton McGuinty. We always suspected this was a $3-billion greedy tax grab. Now we know for sure.

I ask the Premier: Why does your deficit plan include only more taxes on the backs of retirees and Ontario families?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I am appreciative of the opportunity so I can clear a few things up. Number one, my colleague knows that, in fact, the harmonized sales tax will cost the Ontario treasury dollars. He knows that. Secondly, he also knows, but he's not prepared to acknowledge this, that accompanying the harmonized sales tax is a reduction in personal income tax.

One of the things that I have learned through my opportunities to chat with retirees and grandparents is that together they are asking a very important question of all of us: What do we need to do to ensure that we can strengthen this economy so that it generates more jobs not just for ourselves and our children but for our grandchildren? I know the harmonized sales tax is not an easy thing to do. It is not designed to enhance our popularity and have people acclaim us province-wide. It's designed to do what we need to do, which is to strengthen this—

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

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: Premier, have you called in the police to investigate the bid-rigging and price-fixing that took place in your billion-dollar eHealth boondoggle?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We've had a number of opportunities to speak to this together, on this particular issue, and my honourable colleague continues to expand, enhance, enlarge and exaggerate. Fortunately, we have the voice—the calm voice—of an independent officer of the Legislature, the Provincial Auditor, who looked at these very specific issues. He made some very specific findings. I would encourage my friend to accept those findings and understand that the matter has been thoroughly reviewed. I accept that, and I would urge him to do the same.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I guess I will take that as a no, that this Premier has no intention of calling in the police or getting to the bottom of his billion-dollar eHealth boondoggle. But we saw a different Premier a few years ago. On November 3, 2005, when talking about Paul Martin calling in the RCMP to investigate Justice Gomery's findings in the sponsorship scandal, the Premier said, "Prime Minister Martin has moved very quickly and very aggressively on it." Yet in his own scandal, involving 10 times the money and Liberal-friendly health IT consultants getting rich, we see a very different Premier entirely.

I ask the Premier again: Why hasn't he called in the police to investigate this scandal where we saw Liberal-friendly consultants get fat and rich and Ontario families get nothing in return?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm not sure there was any basis in fact to be found in the assertions which form part of my honourable colleague's question. He is nothing if not fanciful, and I congratulate him in that particular respect.

I want to remind all of us of what the auditor said. He made a few findings. One of those was, he said, "We saw no evidence of fraud or criminal activity here." My friend constantly refers to insiders somehow gaining advantage here. The auditor also said, "We were aware of the allegations that 'party politics' may have entered into the awarding of contracts ... but we saw no evidence of this during our work."

I would strongly encourage my friend to review the auditor's report once again and to accept wholeheartedly and without—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back then, the Premier said Paul Martin acted very quickly. I guess in comparison, even Mr. Dithers looks decisive next to Dalton McGuinty.

Two years deep in second-term rot, the Premier still refuses to call a public inquiry. This afternoon, this House will debate an Ontario PC motion to call a full public inquiry. Ontario families want to know who tried to block the Auditor General from his investigation, Ontario families want to know who benefited from the price-rigging and the bid-fixing, and Ontario families want to know why you're going to hit them with a massive new sales tax hike instead of trying to get some of their money back from the Liberal-friendly consultants.

Premier, will you finally do the right thing, stand in your place and support a full public inquiry?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: One of the responsibilities that we all have in this House is to interpret and give expression to the public interest. I think what the public interest demands here is that we accept the auditor's report in full. I think it demands that we work together to move forward and continue to make more progress when it comes to putting in place an electronic health record that will benefit all Ontarians.

The fact of the matter is—again, my colleague is not prepared to acknowledge this—we have built a strong foundation. We have in place an important part of the foundation on which to build this electronic health record: 80,000 Ontarians are now in a pilot project for ePrescribing and four million Ontarians have electronic medical records. All Ontario hospitals have gone filmless; they're now using digital diagnostic scans.

These are the kinds of things that we have established as a success. There's more to be done, and I think that's what Ontarians want us to do.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, the Premier told Ontario families they "can't have everything" and that he wants a discussion on fiscal restraint. Does he believe Ontario can afford to move ahead with massive corporate tax giveaways, or is that not up for discussion?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think we had the opportunity to speak about this here just yesterday; my answer is the same.

What my colleague is talking about is the budget. In that budget, we did a number of things. In addition to ensuring that our corporations were competitive in a globalized economy, we moved to reduce personal income taxes. We also accelerated the Ontario child benefit to help needy families meet expenses for their children. We also invested significantly in new retraining opportunities for people who have lost their jobs because of the global recession.

By the way, it's a budget that has been endorsed by poverty groups and food banks in Ontario in addition to business groups. We think it has struck the right balance.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontario families are waiting for the other shoe to drop, and they see it's going to come crashing down on them. The Premier brags about his tax reform, that it's going to cost the treasury billions of dollars. It will also cost Ontario consumers billions of dollars in higher taxes on gasoline, on hydro and on home heating.

If the Premier is sincere, when will he put his unfair tax scheme up for discussion?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It's up for discussion every day in this House, in businesses and at the breakfast tables of families. I think it's a very important discussion for us to have. To come back to something I said earlier, I think the single most important question that we are charged with answering together is, what do we need to do in order to strengthen our economy? It's different from the question of what we want to do. What do we need to do to build a stronger economy not just for ourselves but for our children and grandchildren?

What do we need to do to ensure that we've got the continuing capacity to support our colleges, our universities, our schools, our hospitals, our doctors, our nurses, our police and our firefighters? The foundation for all of that is a strong economy. We're absolutely convinced we've got to move forward with the HST to maintain that fiscal capacity, that economic capacity to enjoy our quality of life and good-quality public services.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier is claiming that he's asking Ontarians for advice, but we all know his mind is already made up. We're already seeing it. Local hospitals are closing, waits for long-term care are growing, people are being told they have to pay more, but corporate taxes and consulting contracts are not up for discussion. That shoe is not going to drop in Dalton McGuinty's Ontario.

How can this Premier call this a discussion when everyone knows his mind is already made up?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know that we can get a little carried away in here sometimes—it's human nature—but there are no hospitals being closed and I would ask my colleague to acknowledge that. We continue to invest more and more, year over year, in health care. In fact, we're building hospitals and expanding existing hospitals.

But there is an important issue to be made here over and over again. I would ask my colleagues on all sides of the House to accept that we have to make some difficult decisions. We find ourselves at a point in time in our history when we're running a significant deficit, for all the right reasons. We're investing heavily in infrastructure, we're investing heavily in retraining programs, and we're helping people who are on social assistance and needy families through the Ontario child benefit. We're doing those things for the right reasons.

But we are going to have to, together, now make some difficult decisions about those things where we may not be able to invest as quickly as we had originally anticipated and those things we may have to stop doing in order to put in place a plan to eliminate our deficit.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Again to the Premier, and it's a very simple and straightforward question: Exactly how many jobs will this harmonized sales tax create?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I can't say exactly how many it is going to create, but what I can say is that there is a very strong consensus that has been there for a long, long time. It's there in the IMF; it's in the OECD. For example, if you want to become a member state of the European Union, you cannot do so unless you first have in place a harmonized sales tax or a value-added tax. There are 130 countries that are already there. We need to give our businesses, and especially—

Interjections.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I have obviously distracted them, Speaker. I apologize for that.

It's the single most important thing for us to do, and that's why we're going to move ahead.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I'm surprised the Premier didn't just tell me it was on a website and I could look it up online, like he did yesterday with the phantom McKinsey report. But I'm not surprised that the Premier doesn't have a number, because none exists. The consensus of the experts is that the HST is actually a job killer. A report by the C.D. Howe Institute says the HST will drive up the unemployment rate in this province.

Can the Premier cite a single study that shows the HST will increase employment levels in this province?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know that with respect to the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, my friend has been gently chided and corrected when it comes to her misinterpretation of the report that they put out, and I think the C.D. Howe may be interested in doing the same kind of thing.

The reason that 130 other countries and four other provinces have moved ahead with a harmonized sales tax, the reason that no subsequent government has ever undone the introduction of the HST, is because it works. It does give an added benefit to our businesses, but especially our manufacturers, who had been up against it even long before this recession had its impact here in Ontario.

This is all about ensuring that our businesses can compete in a globalized economy. It's about ensuring that our products can be introduced into the global economy at a competitive price level. When we're more competitive here, then we can expand our businesses, we can retain existing employees and we can hire still more Ontarians. Fundamentally, that's what this is all about: ensuring we have a strong economy that can continue to hire more and more Ontarians.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Ontario Chamber of Commerce, in fact, reiterated my comments that this is a tax that's not going to create jobs, that it's going to reduce the rate of job creation in this province.

Ontario has already lost 200,000 jobs this year, and people are struggling right now in this economy. What Ontarians are trying to figure out is why, in the middle of a devastating recession, the Premier signed a secret deal with Stephen Harper that makes life less affordable for people and that experts say will kill up to 40,000 jobs a year? Can he tell them that?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: There's no doubt that we could not have done this without the support and co-operation of the federal government. I think there's no doubt as well that if this were an easy thing to do, other provincial governments would have done it.

We have come to a point in our history, I would argue, where we cannot escape this reality. My friends argue for maintenance of the status quo. They don't believe the world has changed; we do believe it has changed. I think Ontarians understand that and I think they know that we need to do certain things that are different. Some of those things may not be easy, but they want to know what we need to do to make our economy stronger so that it can sustain good jobs and good public services.

We are absolutely convinced, on the basis of all the information that's there for everybody to see, that we've got to move forward with the harmonized sales tax as the foundation for a stronger economy, good jobs and good public services.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr. Norm Miller: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Until media scrums yesterday, Minister Duncan didn't have much to say about the Casino Niagara deal or Bob Lopinski's success fee. Minister Duncan said that timelines gave him no option but to defy the Premier's ban on untendered contracts for this Casino Niagara lease. But if the only option was to proceed with another untendered contract, why did the landlord hire the same lobbyist who did the Maid of the Mist deal? In fact, if it was the only option, why hire a Liberal lobbyist at all?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I can't comment on why that individual or organization would hire anybody, for that matter, but I can tell you that Charles Harnick and Don Cousens, two former Tory members, are part of that firm. I would remind my colleague opposite that, in fact, the government that he was part of renegotiated precisely the same—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I remind my colleague opposite that the government he was part of renegotiated the same lease. Those negotiations are under way right now.

What I'm particularly proud of is that the member for Niagara Falls and the Premier of Ontario committed to keeping two casinos open in Niagara Falls. I'm also proud that we're investing in a convention centre for Niagara Falls, because that will help that economy get through.

I'd remind my colleague opposite that your colleague in the back row suggested that maybe we should close casinos, which I don't think is the appropriate response at this time. I'm sure my friend the Leader of the Opposition would want to stand up for Niagara Falls—

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

Mr. Norm Miller: This has nothing to do with closing casinos; it's about them changing their rules. Apparently, someone thought this lease needed to be tendered. The Toronto Sun reports that there is "a 53-page draft RFP for the lease, on OLG stationery." But the McGuinty Liberals chose to do a rich, sole-source contract with a client of the Premier's former political adviser.

This is another untendered deal, after you promised they'd stop. It was the Premier who set the bar. His former staffer is the registered lobbyist.

Was it Minister Duncan or Minister Smitherman who blocked the tendering process so a Liberal-friendly lobbyist could collect his success fee?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I apologize, but what my colleague opposite neglected to tell the House and the people of Ontario is that in the contract they signed, they put a renewal clause in the contract. You put that in there, and I think your government did it because they understood that you simply cannot up and move a casino outside of—and that, by the way, is a normal process. So in fact, the renewal clause was put into the agreement by the previous government. That lease is under negotiation now, as I understand it, between the owner of the facility and the OLG.

We did follow the rule that you put into the contract to allow us to renew the lease if that were deemed by the OLG to be the appropriate decision.

TAXATION

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is for the Premier. Today, a broad coalition of Ontarians who know that the HST will hurt seniors and retirees very hard are here at Queen's Park. These folks are not from chambers of commerce; they are hard-working, taxpaying people who are fed up. They know the HST will raise their cost of living, from condo fees to utilities to coffee at Tim's, sports and recreation fees and even their investment portfolios. Municipal retirees, police pensioners, retired firefighters and the Police Retirees of Ontario aren't fooled by this government's one-time bribe of $300.

They know they will end up paying more for less. When will this government do something right for Ontario and end this egregious and unfair tax grab?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Revenue.

Hon. John Wilkinson: When I heard the member ask the question, there was one salient fact that he missed: We are permanently cutting income taxes on January 1 for 93% of Ontarians, and there is no group of Ontarians who will receive more benefits than our seniors. It is the way that we can honour the contributions that our seniors have made. So we've ensured that these permanent income tax cuts are being applied on January 1. I didn't hear that in your question.

We know that in the first year it will be a year of transition, and that's why we have secured a historic agreement with the federal government to ensure that there is sufficient support for our consumers, particularly our seniors, in that first year.

We've embarked on this tax reform—something we haven't done in this province in over 40 years—because we recognize that the world has changed. It is important for us to understand that change and figure out how we can have an even—

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

Mr. Michael Prue: I don't think any of the people here today are going to accept that answer. I certainly don't.

It's not just the groups that I referred to in the first part of the question who are angered by this tax grab; it's also our Ontario realtors and potential homebuyers. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to meet with the chair of government relations for the Ontario Real Estate Association, Barb Sukkau. She reminded me that the real estate market plummeted for two years as a result of the GST. Now this government wants to increase taxes on homebuyers by adding on 8% to real estate fees. OREA predicts that this tax grab will have a devastating effect on what is presently a solid real estate market.

My question: Why is this government hell-bent on putting the brakes on a thriving real estate market and putting the livelihoods of many real estate professionals at risk?

Hon. John Wilkinson: A precondition for a thriving real estate market is people working. What we have to do is work hard to get people back to work by understanding that reality.

I say, as someone who has been in business for over 20 years before I came to this place, it is important that we are permanently reducing the costs for businesses in the province of Ontario. When we look at the report from TD Economics, a third party, a distinguished economist says that some 80% of those savings will be passed through to consumers in the first year. So we are permanently reducing the cost of business in the province.

We know that it'll be very important for us to support the consumer in the first year, but we also know that those permanent tax cuts, not only for people but also for business, are what we need in this economy so that we can go back to generating high-quality jobs in the 21st century. Again, what we need is a vibrant economy, one that is adding wealth, and we are taking the necessary steps to—

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

PRIVATE CAREER COLLEGES

Mr. Mike Colle: To the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities: Minister, a lot of hard-working constituents in my riding have been complaining about these private career colleges, the ones that pretend to give a degree or certificate in some area of expertise, but when they get this certificate or degree, they find out it's worthless. They charge them exorbitant fees. They're basically con artists.

What are you doing as minister to shut down these fraudulent, rip-off private career colleges which are abusing the good name of the good colleges? What are you doing, Mr. Minister? Let me know.

Hon. John Milloy: At the outset, I want to recognize the fact that the vast majority of private career colleges in the province of Ontario provide a valuable service in terms of education and training. But, as the honourable member points out, there are bad actors, and I'm very pleased to announce to the Legislature that, beginning November 1, 2009, Ontario will levy fines on private career colleges that offer unapproved programs and fail to comply with the Private Career Colleges Act. Penalties will range from $250 to $1,000 for a first offence and can escalate, with repeat offences, to a maximum of $250,000.

Fines can be levied for a range of offences, including misleading advertising, operating an unregistered private career college and offering a program that has—

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

Hon. John Milloy: The key is really making sure that prospective students are armed with the information they need about the private career college that they're interested in pursuing, and I'm pleased to announce that we'll be launching a student-awareness campaign that will give students better information before choosing a private career college. We're working with many of our education partners, including high schools, settlement offices and our Employment Ontario network, in an effort to reach out to students to help them understand what a private career college is and what they should be looking for before enrolling.

In addition, we are appointing new provincial offences officers in the private career colleges enforcement and compliance unit. This will lessen the time it takes to pursue legal action against an illegal PCC.

We take the protection of our students very seriously, and through the measures that we've outlined today, we're going to make sure that they're receiving the education that they're paying for and that we can eradicate some of the bad actors that unfortunately exist out there.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Since the summer of scandal began, the McGuinty Liberals have been distracted by a billion-dollar eHealth scandal, an expense scandal at OLG, the WSIB and a brewing scandal over off-the-book construction of an energy centre in your riding. At the time the OLG and eHealth scandals came to light, you and the Premier hastily assembled press conferences to announce legislation to fix the culture of entitlement in the McGuinty government.

Is it true that, four weeks ago, on your watch, at the same time Bill 201 was being debated, OLG sole-sourced an untendered deal to H.H. Angus for the management of the Windsor Energy Centre?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Again, the energy centre, as the member correctly noted, was constructed at Casino Windsor. It is now the subject of civil action. As the member knows, there was an injunction—

Interjections.

Hon. Gerry Phillips: They don't want to hear it.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: They just don't want to hear the answer.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I can't hear him.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Well, I can't hear him either.

Mr. John Yakabuski: He's not saying anything.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: An injunction was sought. OLG took possession of the energy centre itself. They had, in fact, engaged the services of the company noted to go in and continue to run the energy centre in order to keep the facility supplied with power, as I understand it.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Shurman: I'll take that as a yes.

The energy centre is linked to expansion of the Windsor casino and convention centre, which is playing host to the Ontario Liberal convention this weekend. Perhaps among his Liberal friends, Minister Duncan won't have to answer questions about his complete defiance of the Premier's edict against sole-source contracts, but he should be ready to answer them in this place. The sole-source deal to operate the energy centre pays H.H. Angus $15,000 per day. That's $6 million per year. Minister, do you consider the practice of handing a sole-source untendered contract to Angus to be fair play, hypocritical, or just business as usual for the McGuinty Liberals?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I will ask the honourable member to withdraw an unparliamentary—

Mr. Peter Shurman: Withdraw.

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan: A temporary arrangement was entered into in order to facilitate keeping the lights on.

With respect to the significance of building a convention centre and hotel facility in order to allow that casino to compete against large casinos across the river that have had enormous investments, absolutely we're doing that, sir. Are we supporting the tourism industry in Ontario? Absolutely, we're supporting the tourism industry in Ontario. When one looks at the revenue that that facility has produced over the last 15 years for Ontario, it becomes clear that it was a wise decision taken by the government of the day to construct it, the NDP government.

It was a wise decision of the government of the day to expand the facility and make sure that it operated. And we took the proper decisions—

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

WORKPLACE SAFETY

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Minister, in early 2008, the Toronto Star exposed the complete—complete—disconnect between the WSIB experience rating program and health and safety. The WSIB was awarding large rebates to employers who had been prosecuted or convicted for occupational fatalities. The Star series made it clear that the experience rating program actually rewards companies for under-reporting workplace injuries.

The McGuinty government has the authority to put a stop to this program immediately. Why won't this government put an end to the seriously flawed experience rating program immediately?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I'd like to thank the member for the question. The member is well aware that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board did place a moratorium on any employer that has had a workplace fatality; those employers do not qualify today for a rebate. The member is also aware that the WSIB has retained a third party to review the program and to offer suggested revisions. The report was released publicly. It's assisting the chair with his discussions, conversations with stakeholders.

The member opposite, I believe, would approve of initiatives that help reduce workplace injuries and death in the workplace. That is what the experience rating program does. The WSIB is working hard to ensure that we give incentives to employers to keep their workplaces safe.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: That is not what the experience rating program does, and you know it. For years, the NDP, injured workers and the labour movement have called for an end to the perverse incentives that employers receive under the WSIB experience rating program. In 2008, the WSIB hired the firm of Morneau Sobeco to review the experience rating program, which confirmed that employers not reporting workplace injuries is common in order to get a WSIB experience rating rebate. In fact, from 1998 to 2007, refunds to employers exceeded surcharges by $800 million.

It's time to put an end to this disgraceful program. Will this government finally do the right thing and kill the WSIB experience rating program immediately?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: It is very unfortunate that this member dismisses the fact that workplace safety incentive programs result in lower workplace injuries and death. The McGuinty government from day one has been committed to making our workplaces safer in Ontario. Since 2004, we have lowered the rate of lost-time injury by over 25% across Ontario. That's been done through enforcement personnel, targeted blitzes and safety incentives. Working with employers, employees and labour, we have made great progress—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just would remind the honourable member from Hamilton East that he just asked a question and I would encourage him to listen to the answer.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I say to the member opposite, if the member opposite has some helpful suggestions, I would encourage the member to contact the chair of the WSIB. I spoke with the chair yesterday. He'd be more than open to discuss these very important matters.

TAXATION

Mr. Mario Sergio: My question is for the Minister of Revenue. Minister, seniors are concerned about how the HST will affect them. We are hearing this concern from the seniors gathered here at Queen's Park today.

Minister, my riding of York West has perhaps one of the largest seniors' populations in Ontario, with the majority of them living at the threshold of minimum wage. A few may be above that, but many others are making barely over $20,000 a year.

They have been hearing much about the HST. Some people are trying to misrepresent the facts, saying seniors are getting one-time cheques but paying a permanent increase in tax rates. That is the last thing seniors want to hear.

Through you to the minister, Speaker, I would like to ask, for the benefit of all Ontario seniors, can you shed some light on what the HST will mean for them, especially as we are getting closer to the date of implementation?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank my friend for the question and reiterate the fact that we are permanently cutting income taxes for some 93% of Ontarians. As a matter of fact, some 90,000 Ontarians will no longer pay provincial income tax to the province of Ontario.

I want to say particularly to seniors who are challenged with low income that we are going to be there for them. Many seniors today receive the GST rebate from the federal government. That's some $240. If a senior is receiving that, I can assure them that that will be increased by an additional $260 a year and that that increase is permanent. That is the thing that people need to remember.

Beyond that, we're also increasing the property and sales tax credits some $420 million for seniors. We're more than doubling the senior property tax credit from $250 to $500. That provides some $1 billion worth of tax relief for seniors over the next few years. All of those measures are permanent—

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

Mr. Mario Sergio: It sounds very encouraging for seniors, as they would welcome any additional help. Many seniors rely on Canada Pension and old age security as their only source of income.

Minister, we should support seniors who want the dignity of living in their own homes. On top of the day-to-day expenses of maintaining their homes, seniors living on a fixed income are concerned that the prices of the things they need are going to increase. For example, food under $4 is now going to be subject to an 8% increase. Therefore, it would help to know what seniors are required to do in order to receive their income tax cuts and rebates.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I would say to seniors that it's very important for them to file their 2009 tax return. Because of that 2009 tax return, we're going to be able, starting next year, to provide transitional cheques. We know that many seniors don't file their income tax until the end of the year and we know that these permanent tax cuts may take some time to work their way through the economy. That's why we've reached a historic agreement with the federal government to provide in that first year, in the year of transition, tax-free cheques.

It requires a person to file their income tax return, because for a single, including a senior, who makes less than $80,000 a year—and that's the vast majority of seniors—they will receive some $300 tax-free by way of three cheques.

For a senior couple, if their income combined is less than $160,000—and that is the vast majority of senior couples—they will receive some $1,000 tax-free by way of cheques in that first year. Then, of course, they'll be able to file their income tax returns and qualify for exactly the tax—

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

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Toby Barrett: A question to the Minister of the Environment: Minister, last week, under cover of the $24.7-billion deficit, you announced that the cost of business will be getting even more expensive: You're demanding that business and industry pay 100% of blue box fees. You refuse to be a 100% payer of programs run by municipalities; how can you justify imposing 100% of costs on business? They can't even access the recycled aluminum or steel.

So, Minister, in the midst of a recession, when your government has overseen the loss of 330,000 manufacturing jobs, why would you add yet another tax on business in Ontario?

Hon. John Gerretsen: First of all, the member is totally mischaracterizing what we're actually doing. We are moving to extended producer responsibility with respect to the disposal of waste. We're doing that with respect to the blue box program. And I must say that municipalities are totally supportive of this. We simply believe that the producers have to take responsibility for the waste they generate, particularly at the end of the life cycle of any products that are out there. That same principle is being adopted with respect to municipal hazardous waste, tire recycling and the electronic waste that is produced in the province of Ontario.

I can tell you, from meeting with many business groups, they are onside; they believe that we're heading the right way. It's not only a good environmental policy, it's also a good economic policy for Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Toby Barrett: Well, it's a policy that's going to kill jobs, I can tell you that. When economic conditions deteriorate, truly it's the optimism and resilience of small business that get us through the tough times. Small businesses create jobs, and the saving grace for many of these small businesses is the threshold that exempts those with under $2 million in sales from paying blue box fees.

This is my question: Are you now planning to tax them into closing up shop for good?

Hon. John Gerretsen: First of all, we're not increaseing anybody's taxes. All of these funds are going to the appropriate stewardship council funds. And he couldn't be more wrong: There are great businesses being started in Ontario that are taking advantage of the economic opportunities that this—we're talking about GEEP, which does great electronic recycling in the Barrie area. Sims in the Mississauga area is doing exactly the same thing. We're talking about tire recycling that is being done by organizations like Perth Recycling in the Stratford area.

There are companies that are being set up all across this province that are taking advantage of the great economic opportunities that these environmental policies that we're implementing lend to them. They are employing the people of Ontario. It's not only a good economic instrument but it's a great environmental initiative as well.

PENSION PLANS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. Nortel is restructuring under the creditors' act. Its $3-billion pension shortfall will mean a cut of 30% or more to the benefits of its 20,000 employees.

Earlier this week, Quebec announced that it would safeguard the pensions of Nortel employees in that province by taking over the remaining pension assets. The Quebec and US governments have responded to the Nortel pension crisis and have extended a helping hand to Nortel employees living within their jurisdictions. My question is, why isn't this government doing the same thing for those workers?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The member opposite mischaracterizes what Quebec did. They are not topping up the pension. What the government of Quebec is doing is exactly what we would do in the same circumstances: They're agreeing to manage whatever funds would be left in that pension, should it be wound up. It would not be appropriate to characterize it as doing anything different than Ontario is doing.

I should also remind the member that the United States' equivalent of the pension benefits guarantee fund is under water, and there's a view that it cannot sustain the pressures that it is faced with.

This is an enormous challenge, and we are committed to continuing to work to bring about reform, not only to pensions but to the entire post-retirement income system. I think the member ought to be careful how she characterizes what Quebec is doing because Ontario already does that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The minister needs to be careful how he characterizes the question that is asked to him. It has been almost a year since the Arthurs report was delivered to this minister. It recommended an increase to the monthly benefit that the pension benefits guarantee fund provides, to the tune of about $2,500 monthly. That $2,500 monthly guarantee would go a long way towards safeguarding the pensions not just of Nortel workers but of thousands of other Ontario workers whose pensions currently are hanging in the balance.

Why is this government leaving Nortel employees out in the cold by refusing to table legislation to increase the monthly benefit guaranteed by the pension benefits guarantee fund to $2,500, as was very clearly recommended in the Arthurs report?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I take it, then, that the member is endorsing all the Arthurs recommendations and would call on a massive increase in what employees have to contribute in order to fund the PBGF. I'd urge her great caution and to read all the recommendations in the context of the other ones.

I'd also recommend that she recognize that we are in fact doing what Professor Arthurs has recommended. We have engaged an actuarial study to see what it would take to make the pension benefits guarantee fund solvent. Government after government of all political stripes in this province over the last 20 years has refused to deal with that fundamental challenge. In fact, one government specifically exempted certain big companies as being too big to fail.

I think it's disingenuous to take one recommendation out of Arthurs and not look at all of them, and I think it's also disingenuous to suggest that Quebec is doing anything differently than Ontario is already. We will continue to work with those pensioners and those communities facing this—

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

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, yesterday, as part of the good government bill, changes to the Municipal Elections Act were announced. I believe many of these changes are certainly overdue and will provide for a more fair and transparent process during our municipal elections.

During the debate, the member for Beaches—East York stated that the change in date for municipal elections will mean that, every seven elections, the election day will fall on Halloween. Turnout during elections is slow as it is. To have an election fall on such an important date for families with young children will make it even harder. Why did you make this change and is there anything that can be done to bring about a change?

Hon. Jim Watson: I heard the assertion made by the honourable member, and I asked our ministry staff to look into it. I'd encourage the member from the NDP to go to a bank and get one of those free calendars, because it is mathematically impossible for October 31 to fall on the fourth Monday in October. So that clarifies that point.

We're making this change to increase turnout and to make it safer for those campaigning because daylight savings time will take place after the fourth Monday in October. It's also very beneficial for our senior citizens, some of whom go to warmer climates in November and December. We want to make sure that our seniors have an ample opportunity to vote in municipal elections. It's also safer. We heard from a number of groups, including some women candidates, who wanted to campaign in better climates, more daylight. The change is a good thing to increase voter turnout and we encourage all members of the House to vote for this piece of legislation.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: Thank you, Minister. That is good news. I'm also pleased that young families won't be negatively impacted by this change, as Halloween is coming up this week and it is important to the kids.

There have been numerous stories and reports on changes that are needed to make our municipal elections more transparent and more fair. Many complain that incumbents have an unfair advantage over potential opponents and there are ever-present concerns about the influence that financial contributions can have. I was also struck to learn that proper identification was not required and of numerous problems with the compiling of the voters lists.

Minister, what other changes are being made to the Municipal Elections Act?

Hon. Jim Watson: The practice at the ministry is that after every municipal election our staff conduct a review in consultation with AMO, the association of clerks and treasurers, Elections Ontario and MPAC.

These changes will make for a more transparent, efficient and effective process, and we look forward to all members supporting this legislation in this House.

DRIVER EXAMINATION CENTRES

Mr. Frank Klees: To the Minister of Transportation: My question is in follow-up to a question I put on Monday regarding the DriveTest strike that's now in its 10th week. Jobs are being lost; lives are being disrupted.

I have an e-mail, which is one of many, from a DriveTest employee. They want to get back to work as well, and I want to read from that e-mail: "We have an offer that our union refuses to let us vote on until Serco deems it to be a 'final offer.' The Ministry of Labour mediator has issued his second 'cooling-off period' (the first one lasted a month and a half) which is also frustrating."

I asked the minister on Monday why he will not ask his colleague the Minister of Labour to direct that offer to be put to the employees so that this strike can be dealt with.

Hon. James J. Bradley: In fact, I'll allow him to ask the Minister of Labour himself.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I thank the member for the question, and I thank the Minister of Transportation and the Ministry of Labour officials as we continue to work with the parties and urge them to come to the table to resolve their differences. We highly respect the collective bargaining agreement process. The member is quite right when he speaks about our mediators; we have some of the best mediators in the world. And we have one of the best labour relations records in the world; 97% of all collective agreements are done without work stoppage.

There are some agreements that are challenging, there are bumps in the road, and I ask the parties to come to the table, roll up their sleeves, work together and—

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

Mr. Frank Klees: The sleeves are rolled up and we're seeing no results. What I'm saying is that the Minister of Transportation has a responsibility to ensure that these services are delivered to Ontarians. Serco has a responsibility contractually to deliver them. For the last 10 weeks, that hasn't been happening. The Minister of Labour has the ability under legislation, under

section 41—just so that he can check it out himself—of the Labour Relations Act, to force a vote; that is his responsibility. His mediator is not successful. Employees at Serco want to have the vote. They want to get back to work, and people across this province want and need those services. Why will the minister not assume his responsibility and ensure that that vote takes place?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: As I said, there are at times disputes that may be difficult. That is why the Ministry of Labour has conciliators and mediators to be there to assist those parties to resolve those differences. I understand, as the Minister of Transportation and many in our communities understand, the difficulties that this imposes on those who want to get a driver's licence and those who need to renew their driver's licence. So we continue to work with the parties, to encourage them to come to the table to resolve those differences.

As I have said, we have a tremendous record in labour relations in this province. I want to commend those who are at the table, who are working hard, who are making concessions and finding that common ground to get a collective agreement done.

MUNICIPAL FUNDING

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, you'll know that the Ontario municipal partnership fund is a very important component of the funding that the province provides the municipalities. And you'll also know—and if you don't know, I'm telling you now—that there are a whole bunch of municipalities that are being told that the one-time funding that they've been getting for the last four or five years is going to be cut in this budget year.

Interjections.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: No, no—one-time funding that has been funded for the last five years, and if members paid attention to municipal funding, they would know that.

My question to you is: Will you continue the one-time funding, as we have for the last four years?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I thank the member for the question. He's absolutely right about the amount of money this government has transferred to municipalities since taking office. I'd like to review some of them. Under the provincial-municipal review, by 2018, we will have increased operating support to municipalities by $2.7 billion or 250%. We are uploading Ontario Works benefits, saving municipalities $425 million by 2018. In addition, we're uploading court costs, saving municipalities $125 million. I should add that this is in addition to the increased operating supports that we've provided municipalities, up $1.1 billion between taking office and today.

This government has, I think, the best track record in dealing with our municipal partners. We—

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: We'll soon find out later on this year. The fact that you don't want to answer the question, "Will you, yes or no, renew the funding?," and instead talk about everything else tells me and tells municipalities that you're contemplating it. For many municipalities across Ontario, and in my riding in particular, if one-time funding is taken away, they're going to have to put the padlock on the municipal offices because they will not be able to afford to pay for such services as police, social services and others because it's a huge part of their budgets.

I ask you once again: Yes or no; will the government continue one-time funding in the next fiscal year?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I remind the member opposite that Timmins, which I know is very familiar to him, will receive $14 million in OMPF funding for 2009.

I'd really like to know why the member and his NDP friends voted against the Investing in Ontario Act—$1 billion in transfers to municipalities. Maybe we'd like to know why the NDP voted against uploading public health. They voted against gas tax funding for transit. They voted against increased funding for the arts through municipalities. They voted against our infrastructure for roads and bridges funding. That party is a sorry excuse for a party when it comes to municipal support.

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I have a point of order which I've expressed in this House in the past. This House has a long tradition, and quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, when you reviewed my point of order in the past, you concurred with my findings.

Earlier in the House today the member from Eglinton—Lawrence asked the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities a question whereby his first response appeared to give an announcement, with a new date starting on the first of the coming month, of a new program that would take place. I would suggest that announcements of this nature, if it was an announcement, would be far more properly found in ministerial statements. I would ask for your review and reporting back to the House on the point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): It is a point of order, and I thank the honourable member for the point of order. It's actually one of the reasons why it is helpful that the tone be kept down in the chamber because there are times when the Speaker himself finds it's difficult to hear questions or answers. I will commit to reviewing the Hansard and will report back to the House.

NOTICE OF REASONED AMENDMENT

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Pursuant to standing order 71(b), the House leader of the official opposition has filed notice of his intention to file a reasoned amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 212,

An Act to promote good government by amending or repealing certain Acts and by enacting two new Acts. The bill may therefore not be called during orders of the day today.

There being no further business, this House stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1140 to 1500.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: It is my pleasure to welcome some of the members of the executive of the Greek Community of Toronto, who will be celebrating their 100th anniversary. They're just coming in right now. It's Mr. Costas Menegakis, Gail Menegakis, Crist Geronikolos, Eleni Tsikritsis, Yannis Kakagiannis, Vlasis Economou and Bessie Anagnostopoulos. Welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd like to welcome in the Speaker's gallery a good friend of mine, Mr. Vane Chute. Vane is here representing the Tillsonburg real estate board. He's also a former reeve of Bayham township and a former warden of the county of Elgin. Welcome to Queen's Park, Vane.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHICKEN FARMERS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I'm pleased to rise today to recognize the Chicken Farmers of Ontario, who are here today at Queen's Park. I want to thank them for coming to share their concerns and let us know the state of their industry. I'm pleased to hear that they are doing very well.

Ontario chicken farmers make a huge contribution to the province. They employ 5,000 people directly and thousands more indirectly through transportation and foodservices.

Ontario families depend on our chicken farmers to produce high-quality, safe and healthy chicken—and they deliver. The nearly 1,100 chicken farmers in Ontario produce 330 million kilograms of chickens annually. I want to particularly recognize the 87 chicken farmers who are located in the great riding of Oxford who produce 35 million kilos of chicken.

We recognize the importance of the orderly marketing system known as supply management to ensure continued success for the chicken industry. On behalf of the PC caucus and our leader, Tim Hudak, I want to assure the Chicken Farmers of Ontario that they have our continued support for protecting supply management.

Later today, the chicken farmers will be meeting with our leader, Tim Hudak, and I to update us on the results of their strategic planning process and the exciting new initiative they are launching here at Queen's Park today. I'm looking forward to that meeting and I encourage all members, if they haven't already done so, to take some time today to meet with the chicken farmers or to attend their reception this evening down in the legislative dining room to hear the great things they are doing to help build their industry.

ELECTRIC TRAINS

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I want to invite anyone who is listening to come to a meeting. It's going to be held tomorrow night, October 29, from 7 to 9 p.m. at the Arraymusic Studio, 60 Atlantic Avenue, suite 218. It's about clean electric trains.

We have two guest speakers who are going to talk about why electric over diesel. They are Mike Sullivan, who is the chair of the Weston Community Coalition and a member of the Clean Train Coalition; we also have Dr. Regenstreif, a resident of Trinity—Spadina, who is a retired architect, urbanist and consultant in energy management. He has written extensively on railway electrification in Canada and Europe.

The purpose of the meeting is to try to persuade the government, more than anyone else—because I suspect the people who are going to come tomorrow night want clean electric trains. This government has a love affair with diesel; we don't understand why. But it's a love affair, an obsession with dirty diesel that nobody really wants. What many of the people want is a commitment from this government to do it right from the beginning. Don't spend on tier 4 diesel trains that are not going to be available for five years and are going to be very expensive. Spend on the right clean train electricity today and do it right.

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

Mr. Bill Mauro: Yesterday, I had an opportunity to be in Thunder Bay for a fantastic announcement. I was there with Michael Power, the CEO of the Thunder Bay Regional Research Institute; Keith Jobbitt, the chair; Cameron Piron, the president and CEO of Sentinelle imaging; Steve Demmings from the CEDC in Thunder Bay; and Mayor Peterson to announce a fantastic partnership between the parent company, Sentinelle, and Thunder Bay Regional Research Institute in Thunder Bay.

Sentinelle will be spinning off a company to be called Tornado Medical Systems. They're a medical imaging company. This particular company, it's anticipated, is going to provide, according to Cameron Piron, the president and CEO, 50 jobs in this particular field by April 2010. Mr. Piron went on to say to the group in attendance that it's his full anticipation that by 2012 he expects there to be 300 jobs associated with this particular company.

I link this back to something that we did three or four years ago, when the Premier took what was then the Ontario Innovation Trust and spun it into the Ministry of Research and Innovation, creating for the first time in the province of Ontario a ministry dedicated to research and innovation, seeing the importance of it, and appointing himself the minister of this particular ministry. Through that ministry, three or four years ago, we were able to secure investment of about $15 million in what was then called the Molecular Medicine Research Centre, which has now become Thunder Bay Regional Research Institute.

It is through that investment, along with investment that came later from the federal government and an investment from the city of Thunder Bay, that MMRC was established. Three or four years later we continue to see the benefit of tha