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

December 9, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Dec-09 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 9 December 2009 Mercredi 9 décembre 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO TAX PLAN FOR MORE JOBS

AND GROWTH ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE PLAN FISCAL

DE L'ONTARIO POUR ACCROÎTRE

L'EMPLOI ET LA CROISSANCE

ONTARIO LABOUR

MOBILITY ACT, 2009 /

LOI ONTARIENNE DE 2009

SUR LA MOBILITÉ

DE LA MAIN-D'OEUVRE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

COMMITTEE WITNESSES

VOTING

WEARING OF MITTENS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

TAXATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

DRIVER EXAMINATION CENTRES

GREEN POWER GENERATION

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

LANGUAGE TRAINING

TAXI OPERATORS

HYDRO RATES

FOREST INDUSTRY

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

SKILLS TRAINING

VISITORS

DEFERRED VOTES

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

VISITOR

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MATTHEW MORISON

KETTLEBY FAIR

SEASON'S GREETINGS

MOHIBUL ISLAM

AND SHAMIMA JESMIN

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

TIBET

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

THRESHOLD SCHOOL OF BUILDING

GENERAL MOTORS OF CANADA

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PENSION BENEFITS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RÉGIMES DE RETRAITE

SUSTAINABLE WATER AND WASTE WATER

SYSTEMS IMPROVEMENT

AND MAINTENANCE ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA VIABILITÉ

ET L'AMÉLIORATION DES RÉSEAUX

D'APPROVISIONNEMENT EN EAU

ET D'EAUX USÉES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

PENSION PLANS /

RÉGIMES DE RETRAITE

PETITIONS

TAXATION

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

PUBLIC TRANSIT

TAXATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

HOSPITAL SERVICES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

DRIVER LICENCES

DRIVER LICENCES

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH

AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT

(VIOLENCE AND HARASSMENT

IN THE WORKPLACE), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ

AU TRAVAIL (VIOLENCE ET

HARCÈLEMENT AU TRAVAIL)

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION

FOR FOREIGN NATIONALS ACT

(LIVE-IN CAREGIVERS

AND OTHERS), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR

LA PROTECTION DES ÉTRANGERS

DANS LE CADRE DE L'EMPLOI

(AIDES FAMILIAUX ET AUTRES)

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO TAX PLAN FOR MORE JOBS

AND GROWTH ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE PLAN FISCAL

DE L'ONTARIO POUR ACCROÎTRE

L'EMPLOI ET LA CROISSANCE

Mr. Duncan moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 218,

An Act to implement 2009 Budget measures and to enact, amend or repeal various Acts / Projet de loi 218, Loi mettant en oeuvre certaines mesures énoncées dans le Budget de 2009 et édictant, modifiant ou abrogeant diverses lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Pickering.

In the nine months since we introduced the budget, we have had some 40 hours of debate around all of the aspects of the budget. Of course, the most contentious and the most difficult part has been the tax reform package that the government brought forward. This package is designed to make Ontario more competitive, to give us a brighter future and to lower taxes for some 93% of Ontarians.

Since the budget was implemented, like all of my colleagues on this side of the House, I have had the opportunity to participate in a range of forums, a range of speaking opportunities, a range of question-and-answer sessions. I remember, I think it was the Saturday after I introduced the budget, I was at a local Canadian Tire and a retired schoolteacher who had been a supporter of mine came up to me and he wasn't too happy about the HST.

He was saying, "I'm going to have to pay for my haircuts now, and a variety of other things." It turns out that about 18% of the things that we currently buy are now going to be subject to the HST that weren't subject to the PST. We had a chance to talk, and I explained to him the fact that his property tax credit for seniors would be doubled, that his personal income taxes would be reduced, and he still wasn't certain. I'm sure to this day he still has questions.

I think that's part of our ongoing challenge: that is, to help people see what I call this package of reforms that will help Ontario's economy as we come out of the recent downturn, help us create jobs.

Interjections.

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan: There are a number of myths around the HST that have been, in my view, amply debunked by some of this province's and country's leading economists. The first one, of course, is that it's a tax grab. It's not; in fact, over the course of the first four years of implementation, the government will forgo some $3.4 billion in tax revenues resultant from this tax package. That's important for people to understand. They say, "How does that happen?" I'll tell you. It's outlined in the budget, and I would invite people to go online at the Ministry of Finance website to see this. There are billions of personal and business tax cuts.

As Roger Martin and others have pointed out, these tax cuts will make Ontario one of the most competitive jurisdictions, both on the corporate tax side and on the personal income tax side, which again will stimulate jobs and stimulate growth in the economy.

Jack Mintz, who is a professor at the University of Calgary, was called upon last year as the expert witness for the Conservative Party of Ontario at budget hearings. He was asked by the leader of the Conservative Party, "What is the single most important thing you could do, if you had one thing to do?" Mr. Mintz at that time said that in fact harmonizing the sales tax was what he would do.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The odd interjection, although out of order, is tolerated, but constant chatter isn't going to be. We're going to listen to the people who have something to say this morning in a very important debate.

Minister of Finance?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: As I indicated earlier, Mr. Mintz came out with a study late this year that indicates that this government's tax package will create some 591,000 net new jobs over the next 10 years. It will raise incomes and in fact–this goes to the second myth—lower prices overall. That was the experience in the Maritime provinces when they harmonized. That has been the experience across all of those provinces when harmonization occurred. So this package overall is a job creator. It will reduce prices. It will raise incomes. It's a much more efficient form of taxation. That's why so many leading economists have supported it.

I remember the day we introduced the budget, some nine months ago. I was particularly proud that groups as diverse as the Daily Bread Food Bank, the 25 in 5 coalition—a virtual "who's who" of the anti-poverty movement across the province—endorsed the budget. They endorsed raising the Ontario child benefit to $1,100 two years ahead of schedule. They supported the reduction of the tax bracket on the first $36,000 of income, an 18% cut overall, to make Ontario the lowest tax jurisdiction at that tax level.

It's that package that I think is why the experts have all chimed in and why we were able to move. It was with the assistance of the federal government that we were able to move. It was with the $4.3 billion that will help people transition to the new tax system. I think over time that's why virtually every finance minister I've spoken to says this is the one thing they would have done if they could do it all over again, because the evidence is overwhelming and compelling.

Immediately after the budget debate, of course, we had a debate on the budget motion itself, and we heard a lot of debate around the HST and other initiatives in the budget. I remind you that there were considerable other initiatives, including $32 billion in infrastructure spending over the next two years. That money is in the ground.

My caucus colleagues and I began to attend meetings. I remember one of the first I attended was with my colleague from St. Catharines with the St. Catharines Chamber of Commerce. We took questions and answered. Some of the questions were tough; a lot of people didn't see the whole package, and, again, we will continue to help people see that. We will continue to work with them.

I attended meetings in Thunder Bay with my colleague the Minister of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry, Mr. Gravelle. We spoke before some 200 or 300 people; again, questions—tough questions—about this. People have a right to ask those questions, and the government has an absolute responsibility to explain its policies and programs. Again, the myths around this have been debunked well by a number of economists and others.

I think it's time now to move forward. We've had some 40 hours of debate here in the House. I've lost track of all the sessions I've attended; I think more than 100. Just the other night, I met with representatives of the rural communities—turkey farmers, chicken farmers—all of them expressing their support for this. What they see are exemptions on the sales tax that they've been asking for, for many years, and they recognize, as do farmers across the country, that this type of policy—a harmonized, value-added tax—actually assists farmers, helps our farming community and helps their bottom line.

That's why we've been very, very pleased to have their support and endorsement on these measures. That is not to underestimate the challenge of explaining it to all Ontarians, and that is what we'll continue to do once this bill is passed.

The first tax cut will take effect on January 1, in some two and a half weeks. It will be a cut on income tax, which will be phased-in over a couple of years, followed this summer by corporate tax cuts. The $4.3 billion from the federal government is being used to help transition people to that. In June and December of next year and in June 2011, they will receive transitional payments to help them adjust to the new tax system.

We have spoken with experts and average citizens across the province. We have participated in debates in this House and in committee. We have heard from people—we have heard from a lot of people. I have personally met with a number of industry groups. I was very proud that we were able to work with the housing community to resolve a number of challenging issues they had, once this was introduced. We were able, as I said, to resolve a number of issues with them.

We continue to work on implementation of the tax. On July 1, the new sales tax system takes effect. Now that we're nine months into it, we've signed the agreement with the federal House, and I was just passed a note that the federal bill passed second reading in the House last night by a vote of 246 to 36, so we are ready to move. Doing nothing is not an option. The status quo is absolutely the wrong thing to do. This package will create jobs.

You know, when the Canadian vehicle manufacturers and exporters came out in favour of this, I was particularly pleased, because in my hometown we have been devastated, as have manufacturing towns everywhere. I must say that I've had criticism from my folks at home about this: wondering about it, why and what are the problems? I believe, to the core of my being, that this is absolutely the single, most important thing we can do to bring auto jobs back to this province.

I was reminded yesterday by my colleague from Peterborough that General Electric announced a $100-million investment in their plant, which will create jobs. I had a chance to meet with the president of General Electric Canada. She told me, and they've said publicly, that it was as a result of our tax package that they were able to bring that investment to Ontario. Telus and Bell Canada have done the same thing. This package is about jobs and it's about lower taxes overall for people, and I'm committed, as I know my colleagues are, to continuing to help people understand it as we move toward implementation.

I want to take a moment to thank all my colleagues: my parliamentary assistant, Mr. Arthurs, and a variety of others who, I think, have shown leadership and strength as we moved through the various stages of debate—some 40 hours plus in this House, committee hearings and public hearings across the province in a variety of forums.

It's time now to take a clear and well-defined position. It's no longer good enough to say something back in March and something different now. Let's get on the record. Let's see what plans people have. Let's see what others want to do to create jobs. Let's see a package that will produce this kind of results for Ontario over the next 10 years.

The significance of this tax package should not be lost on everybody watching. We have seen, over the years, growing competition from our sister provinces in Canada with respect to corporate taxes. I had a meeting again last night with a number of tax experts, and I was reminded again that one of the reasons we eliminated the capital tax is that capital moves very quickly. You can move it with the push of a button on a computer now. We could not continue along the path we were going without the fear of loss of more jobs.

So as difficult and as challenging as this is, it is absolutely the right thing to do. I applaud those Ontarians who have stood up, asked questions, opposed. This has been an important debate. It is an important issue. It talks to our future; it talks to our strengths; it talks to our challenges. We believe it's the right plan to get Ontario moving forward, to create jobs, to raise incomes, to raise capital investment, to help our manufacturers.

Finally, a variety of other groups—for instance, the forestry sector—overwhelmingly endorsed this package as being the single most important thing we can do to help the forestry sector get back on its feet here in Ontario. So that's another reason we were glad to do this.

I'm going to yield the floor to my parliamentary assistant and thank him for his leadership both in the development of this policy and now in the implementation, and finally, as we move forward, for helping to educate Ontarians in a dispassionate, rational way about the importance of creating jobs, the importance of capital investment, the importance of a competitive economy. As I said when I introduced this package, when we get through this time, and we will, Ontario will be bigger, Ontario will be better, and Ontario will be stronger.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I'm honoured to lead the debate today on behalf of Tim Hudak and the official opposition. I will be sharing my time with our finance critic, the MPP from Parry Sound—Muskoka, Norm Miller.

It has been clear since the Liberals announced their intention to harmonize our sales tax with the federal GST and implement a $3-billion tax grab that the PC caucus would oppose it every step of the way. We promised Ontarians that we would fight the $3-billion Liberal tax grab on the middle class and seniors tooth and nail. We promised Ontarians that we would use every legislative tool at our disposal to fight their 8% tax hike. And we promised Ontarians that we would be their voice in the HST debate, because the official opposition knows they can't afford another McGuinty tax grab—not this time and not ever again.

I admit this fight with the Liberal majority was an uphill battle. The odds were stacked against us. The Liberals, of course, later today, will use their majority to ram this $3-billion tax grab through.

But I'm proud that every promise Tim Hudak and the PC caucus made, we were able to keep. The other side can't claim that victory. It's a moral one, and it's an important one. The PC caucus is proud to be the team who sided with soccer moms in Barrie, the retired police officers in Hamilton and those trying to make a living as hairstylists, massage therapists, and the tourism industry everywhere from Nepean to Niagara, Kingston to Kenora, and every village, city and town in between.

Benjamin Disraeli once said, "that all power is a trust; that we are accountable for its exercise; that from the people and for the people all springs, and all must exist." Sadly, this Liberal government has forgotten that, if they ever knew it.

Some may talk about antics, they may disparage stunts, and they may even dismiss this fight against the HST. For them I feel regret. In the years to come, our province is going to look back at this HST debate as more than just another law and as more than just another McGuinty tax grab. In fact, these were the moments that defined the Liberal government as out of touch. As much as they may claim victory on legislation today, it is they who will ultimately lose. In fact, I believe they have already lost.

Not only did they consistently shut down debate on the HST, but they limited public hearings for the people who wanted answers from their government—consistently. Over three dozen Ontarians who wanted to come to participate in committee were shut down. Almost 200 Ontarians who made written submissions in the very short period of time they were able to, were told that their voice didn't matter by the Liberal chair. Ultimately, it was the Liberal government who walked out and cancelled the one meeting where the opposition could make a difference in clause-by-clause.

We could have legitimately improved the bill and softened the harsh impact that the $3-billion McGuinty tax grab will have on Ontarians.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Order. Thank you.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: When the Liberals walked out of committee hearings, they hammered home their contempt of those in this chamber and of the public who dared to get in the way of their rush to whatever's left in our wallets.

But these moments also showcase the unity, the resolve and the determination of Tim Hudak and the PC caucus. We used every tool at our disposal, and as my colleague from Parry Sound—Muskoka points out, that even included a forklift, which was used to carry over 500,000 amendments that would have saved Ontario taxpayers from paying billions more. Everyone in the PC caucus can be proud leaving this chamber today knowing that they defended Ontario taxpayers by doing everything possible to stop this tax grab.

But above all, these moments brought forward the emotions of Ontarians, the likes of which I have not seen since being elected to this place just short of four years ago. How else can you explain the hundreds of thousands of Ontarians who signed petitions to oppose the 8% tax grab on home heating, haircuts, snow removal and Christmas trees? How else can you describe the hundreds of Ontarians who showed up at this chamber at Queen's Park to protest the $3-billion tax grab on families and the middle class?

And how else do you explain these comments from Barrie? "The biggest insult of all to we citizens has to be the additional 8% tax increase the provincial government is going to add on the debt retirement payments we now pay because of the former Ontario Hydro's $38-billion debt. This is tax on tax on tax.... Oh, boy!" That's from Jack Garner of Barrie.

From Brant: "It's going to be a negative impact on the majority of us. It's another thing that will make it difficult for seniors to stay independent in their homes." That's from Doris Post.

Doug Priest from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock says: "This province will be crippled if this unprecedented tax grab, cleverly disguised as the harmonized sales tax, comes into effect. It will mostly hurt retired people and people on ... fixed incomes."

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Huron—Bruce, come to order.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: William Sinclair of Oakville says, "The HST, by attacking the basic necessities of living, is unfair to students, working families and especially seniors. It should be amended to substantially lower the rate or be scrapped altogether."

From Peterborough: "I am so insulted and unforgiving of the HST proposal. Based on his comments in the article, it is my opinion that Mr. Leal needs to find a better day job and learn some accounting if he wants to know how a box is taxed. Or work on getting a conscience."

Clark and Jo-Ann Thompson of Timiskaming—Cochrane: "The new HST increases in items never taxed before will cause hardships on those on fixed incomes. Knowing northern Ontario problems, I would have hoped the northern members in the Liberal Party would have had more influence with the Premier."

When the Liberal government decided to shut down the voices that opposed them at committee, I received a letter from Mississauga. I'm going to read the whole thing:

"I watched with great interest, and with a growing sense of revulsion and disgust, at the way you were treated in committee on Thursday, December 3.... I viewed, via the Ontario Parliament network, the committee hearings, and I was particularly impressed with your no-nonsense, straight-to-business attitude.

"However, I found myself being actually embarrassed, when Bob Delaney (Acting Chair) deliberately spoke over you, a most discourteous action and one that Mrs. Albanese repeated later on in the committee's deliberations.

"I will be perfectly honest with you: I am not a supporter of the Conservative Party. However, the right of freedom of speech and conscience is fundamental to democracy, and any infringement, no matter how transient or minor, denigrates our society as a whole.

"I feel duty bound to offer my apologies to you for the rather rude treatment at the hands of Mr. Delaney. At this point, you are probably wondering why a complete stranger would take the time and trouble to compose and dispatch a letter apologizing for the ill-mannered conduct of somebody else.

"Well, in response, I have to admit that Bob Delaney is my MPP ... and quite frankly, I am ashamed of his conduct in committee. Not only did he demean you with his actions, he also demeaned himself and the political process as a whole.

"I took great interest in your attempts to extend the committee [sitting] time past the 6 p.m. cut-off, and was disappointed but not very surprised when the majority Liberals on the committee objected.

Interjection.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: That's from Mr. Wulf Hallifax.

The time for debate put forward by the Liberals today is too draconian to speak in more depth on the HST bill, but I'll leave you with one simple, yet profound, thought on liberty. John Stuart Mill, a British Liberal in 1859, said, "'The tyranny of the majority' is now generally included among the evils against which society requires to be on its guard."

I want to thank Ontarians—Mr. Wulf Hallifax and so many others who contacted official opposition offices—for joining us in the fight against the HST. I want to assure Ontarians that we in the opposition are going to continue to be on guard for them in the next two years, to hold this Liberal government accountable for the new $3 billion in revenues they will be taking in off the backs of seniors and the working middle class. You should be ashamed of yourselves, Liberal Party.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to address this issue. The reality of this tax is that it is going to hit the arts community quite hard. There was a promise made by this government a number of years ago to remove the provincial sales tax from tickets for live theatre. That promise was welcomed greatly by people in the cultural community, who understood the need to give that kind of support to the arts. That has been swept away. That support has been swept away.

When you talk to actors, musicians and others who are trying to make a living in the arts—and finding it extraordinarily difficult in this province and in this recession—you realize very quickly that for most of them, the HST is going to mean a reduction in their standard of living. The simple reality is that musicians who play at private functions already find they have difficulty collecting from people, because people don't have a lot of cash in their pockets.

They realize—and they are very clear and direct in their statements—that they will have to absorb this HST, that in fact they will not be able to pass that cost on to the public—to their customers and their clients—and will simply see a reduction in their incomes.

This bill, supposedly to help the people of this province, is going to result in a reduction in their standard of living. It's going to result in a reduction in the standard of living for a large number of artists and people who work on a freelance or self-employed basis. They realize they will not be able—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Could the conversations be taken outside? If I can hear them, I'm sure the member who has the floor can hear them.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Stop the clock, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I'll take care of things here in the chair; you understand that.

The member from Toronto—Danforth.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Thank you, Speaker.

If this government is committed to small business people, the self-employed, actors and musicians, then it will not move this tax forward. It will abandon this project and respect the need of people in this province to make a living and be able to afford the necessities of life.

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

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 218 ever so briefly, as the member for Pickering—Scarborough East will be finishing off for us and has done such a tremendous job on our behalf.

My city council has asked me to read its resolution, and while some have suggested that the resolution is somewhat politically motivated, I will read it. It was addressed to Yasir Naqvi, the Minister of Revenue, and I was afraid it might go astray. I am reading it on behalf of the city.

"Whereas the North Bay city council has previously approved a motion on September 21, 2009 requesting that the proposed provincial harmonized sales tax (HST) not create a new tax burden for Ontario citizens; and

"Whereas that motion further stated that items that previously had only one level of taxation (GST) on them not have the new PST levies added through harmonization; and

"Whereas the provincial government recently showed acknowledgment of the impact of an added tax burden through HST and took action to lessen that burden on November 12, 2009 by exempting coffee, newspapers, and some fast food meals from the new taxation;

"Be it therefore resolved that it is respectfully requested that the province continue to ensure no new tax burden for Ontario residents and move exempt all single taxation items (for example: gasoline, natural gas, and electricity) from any new levies under the proposed HST; and

"Be it further resolved that the province be urged to delay any implementation of the HST until full consultations are held across the province and not just on Bay Street in downtown Toronto; and

"Be it further resolved that the Hon. Monique Smith, MPP Nipissing be requested to read this motion into the Legislature's minutes; and

"Be it further resolved that a copy of this motion be forwarded to the Minister of Revenue; Minister of Finance; Premier of Ontario; leaders of the opposition parties; Hon. Monique Smith ... and to the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities."

I disagree with some of the notions that the city has put forward. I believe that the people of Ontario and the people of North Bay are looking quite forward to the tax cuts that they will receive on January 1, as 93% of Ontarians will be receiving a tax cut.

I've spoken to small businesses in my community, who are quite excited about the fact that we are going to harmonize sales tax; it will help them. I believe that the tax cuts will make Ontario more competitive and will attract jobs, which is incredibly important to the city of North Bay.

I know that the Daily Bread Food Bank and many are supportive of our budget, and I believe that—

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Simcoe North will come to order.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: —the city of North Bay is looking forward to new jobs and new economic development. I will continue to work with them to ensure that, and I believe that Bill 218 is a very important step in that direction. Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Norm Miller: It's my pleasure to have an opportunity to speak to Bill 218, which, of course, is the bill that is bringing in the HST in the province of Ontario.

I'm speaking on behalf of tens of thousands of people who did not have a chance to speak for themselves in protest to the McGuinty government's harmonized tax plan. I'm speaking for seniors and middle-class families, who simply cannot afford to pay another 8% on hydro, home heating, oil, gasoline and a host of services. I'm speaking for small business owners, who understand that this tax will curb consumer spending and delay the economic recovery they desperately need. I'm speaking for the contractors, who know that this tax plan will fuel a growing underground economy.

I'm pleased to see that the member from Nipissing got on the record the resolution from the city of North Bay, which I have before me, because to this point, even though she had been asked to bring it to committee, she had not. So she did read it out. She didn't seem to read it with a lot of passion, though. In fact, it was speed-reading at its best. It is noteworthy that this resolution, which is number 2009-765, was unanimously passed by council at its regular meeting held on November 30. To this point, the member had said that she didn't have this resolution, didn't have time to deal with it. So I'm pleased to see that it's on the record now, but not much passion there.

I think it's also clear that the resolution—one of the points it stated was: "Be it further resolved that the province be urged to delay any implementation of the HST until full consultations are held across the province and not just on Bay Street in downtown Toronto. "

It's very clear that the government did not listen to that part of the resolution. In fact, the member from Nipissing, in her role as the House leader, brought in a time allocation motion which was quite draconian and which basically forced this through so that we had all of a day and a half of public hearings, with very, very little opportunity for people to even know about it. There was not any advertising to speak of about when these public hearings were going to occur. It was a matter of hours' notice. It's amazing that anybody even knew about them, and they showed up.

There were no public hearings outside of the city of Toronto here at Queen's Park, despite the opposition doing everything we could to try to get the government to have even one day of public hearings outside of Queen's Park. We would have loved to go to North Bay, for example, to let the people of Nipissing have their say, because I know the members of the opposition are hearing big time from thousands—thousands—of average people around the province who are concerned about what this bill is going to do and what this extra 8% is going to do to them.

Despite having no advertising for the public hearings and very little warning about them, we did hear from many people concerned about this new tax.

The government has said that this is going to create some 600,000 jobs over six years, I think it is. Can they believe it? We just heard from the Auditor General yesterday that they also said they saved $45 million with the buy-Ontario program, and it was in the budget document. Now we learn from the Auditor General that in fact, no, they didn't save $45 million; they saved far less than that. The bit they did save, they actually spent, so it was less than $1 million. So in fact, the budget document was incorrect.

If it's in the budget document saying that they saved $45 million when they really didn't, what can be believed as to their job claims? So far we've seen no evidence that any of their claims—I think the Premier has made claims about possibly creating a million jobs, if you add up all the various claims, the 50,000 for the Green Energy Act and other various job claims. What can you really believe?

We heard at committee from those who are going to be affected. Overwhelmingly, the people who did discover these public hearings at Queen's Park were voicing their concerns, and it was a wide variety of different groups. We heard from associations of children's camps around the province who came. There are lots of them in Parry Sound—Muskoka, and they came and spoke and said they're concerned that the 8% extra cost on fees will result in a 10% reduction in participation at children's camps. You'll have fewer kids getting exposed to camps and getting physical exercise etc.

Also, when we asked them what it's going to mean for employment, they expected 10% fewer jobs for young people around the province.

We heard from Curves, from fitness gyms, who are very concerned that it's going to have a negative impact on their business and on employment in their business, and go against the government's own objectives of trying to promote healthier lifestyles. We heard from bowling alleys that are concerned it's going to have a negative impact on their business. We heard from the real estate industry that it's going to have a negative effect on the purchase of new homes, the 8% on various fees to do with real estate transactions.

We heard from condo owners who are very concerned about the 8% on all the management fees. It's going to be a significant new cost for condo owners across the province. We heard from the golf course associations. Certainly, golf is a recreational activity, but it's also a really big business here in the province of Ontario that employs thousands and thousands of people. And guess what? This is going to have a huge negative impact on the golf course businesses across the province.

Everyone we're hearing from is telling us there are going to be fewer jobs, not more. So based on the government's record, can you really believe this latest claim that they made?

We heard from the investment industry—this is an area that I think is particularly bad—which says that the 8% on management fees for mutual funds is going to cost Ontario residents, they estimate, between $300 million and $500 million a year in extra tax on people trying to save for their retirement. They also pointed out that in Canada we are unique in the areas that have value-added taxes and that other jurisdictions either have a rebate or don't tax mutual funds. So this is unique in the way that it's being done here in Ontario, where people's retirement savings are going to be taxed, and it's going to make it much more difficult for them to raise the funds they need to be able to retire.

We heard from massage therapists who are concerned how it's going to negatively impact their work. They also had questions like: Why are physiotherapists exempt and massage therapists not? We heard from athletic therapists as well, concerned about how it's going to negatively affect their work and people being able to afford to get the therapy that they need.

We heard from individual seniors. One senior came before the committee; she looked at her income, looked at all the things that she would be paying for that she doesn't currently pay for, and from that calculation—she went through a detailed calculation—she pointed out that she will be paying some $2,461 in extra new tax that she isn't currently paying. She expressed concerns that this may mean that she won't be able to afford to stay in her home.

I know I've read into the record countless e-mails from constituents of Parry Sound—Muskoka with the same sorts of concerns. I've used the opportunity. I haven't heard any of the government members; I'm sure they must be getting the same e-mails, but surprisingly none of them have gotten on the record the concerns of their constituents.

Overwhelmingly, at the public hearings—the short, day-and-a-half public hearings—we heard people concerned about how this is going to affect them. Obviously the government has used time allocation; they've rammed this legislation through. They're not interested in listening to the people of this province. They're out of touch with the people of this province. I think, unfortunately, the great majority of the people of this province are going to discover on July 1, 2010, that the McGuinty tax grab is in fact that, when they go and fill up their car at the pumps and learn that gas is eight cents a litre more.

They'll know who they can blame: the McGuinty government for ramming this legislation through.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It's my pleasure to rise today and put on the record some really serious concerns that New Democrats have with the harmonized sales tax, not only in terms of what it will do to the people and the businesses of this province, but also the way in which this government behaved in the process of bringing this legislation forward. I say that because we all know that this government has rammed this legislation through as quickly as they possibly can and with as little debate as possible, notwithstanding the loose way that the finance minister dealt with the truth earlier on in his remarks.

The truth, in fact, is that there has been no 40 hours of debate in this Legislature on this bill. I don't know where he picked that number from—obviously from somewhere in the sky—because there has been less than 10 hours of debate on this bill in the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, and as a Speaker you would know that very well—less than 10 hours of debate on one of the most important pieces of legislation that are going to the people of this province.

I have to say, I think it's indicative of the way that the government has spun their message on this tax, the way they're spinning their last few remarks in third reading; pretending somehow that there were 40 hours of debate in this Legislature—shame on them. You can't even believe their estimate of how many hours the bill is being debated; how are you going to believe anything they say about the harmonized sales tax? That's what I'll be speaking about in just a few minutes.

There were a couple of hours of time put to this bill in committee, and that's something that I think we all acknowledge. But what was that? That was about 15 or 16 hours here in Toronto. They didn't go across the province. They didn't go to any of the communities where we get e-mails and letters from every single day. Over 200,000 people have contacted New Democrats to say, "We do not want this legislation in the province of Ontario.

Tell the government not to bring it forward." They would have wanted to tell the government themselves, but the government refused to take this most important legislation out to public hearings across the province so that the people of Ontario could tell them what they thought of this hare-brained plan. That's the decision the government made, and it's important to put on the record that their claims of consultation are just that: They are claims, and they don't hold water. It is not the case. There were no public hearings.

They might have had some fundraisers where they talked about it; they might have had some by-invitation-only meetings, the Liberal MPPs—they might have gone out to speak at a few chambers of commerce in the province of Ontario, but they did not hold public meetings on this legislation, and New Democrats say shame on the government for that. Shame on them.

Not only did they close down the debate, which is why we only have 20 minutes for each party today to speak to this particular legislation, and not only did they not take this legislation out to public hearings across the province, but right up until Monday night, Liberal members walked out of a committee meeting, refusing to undertake the process to have the clause-by-clause review of this bill take place.

Right up until Monday night they'd been avoiding all of the debate on this bill. Right up until Monday night their members actually walked out of a committee. Shame on them. They have an obligation. They have an obligation to the people of this province to make sure that the bills they bring forward are appropriately scrutinized and reviewed. But this bill, this odious bill—once again, the Liberal government didn't even want to stand up and do the work that needed to be done to get it through the proper processes in this Legislature.

So once again I have to say that New Democrats are—I would say "disappointed" is not strong enough language. We are disgusted with the way this government has behaved in terms of the harmonized sales tax. That's a bit of the process, just to clarify some of the misrepresentations, perhaps, that were brought forward by the finance minister in his remarks around what the process was or wasn't. But I think the more important thing is what we have been hearing from the people of this province as they've been calling us, writing to us and telling us about their worries and concerns.

First and foremost, this legislation is going to kick people when they're already down. The harmonized sales tax is going to financially hurt the people of this province. This government has become so arrogant and so out of touch with the people of Ontario that they don't even realize that people are losing their homes; people are losing their jobs and their pensions; people are suffering. They're struggling in this economy, and this government decides to bring in tax reform that's going to make life a heck of a lot—a hell of a lot—less affordable for people. Shame on them.

Shame on them for being so distant from the people that they don't even realize what this legislation is going to do to them, what this tax change is going to do.

That's not me saying it; that's every single one of those 200,000 people or more who have put the petitions into our campaign. It's people every single day, when we go back to our ridings, who say to us as MPPs—and I'm sure they're saying it to them too; the difference is that we listen and they don't—that they are very worried about the impact of this tax, that they're very concerned that it's going to kick them when they're already down.

What else is going to happen? The tax is going to be brought in at a time when we need to have people with a little bit more money in their pocket to spend in the economy, right? It's a counterstimulative tax: 8% more is going to mean that people are not going to spend as much, because they don't have as much to spend, with this tax added on to the price of so many new goods and services. It's a counterstimulative tax, at a time when we need that kind of stimulation in the economy for people spending money.

So it's absolutely wrongheaded in terms of bringing it forward at a time when we already have trouble with our economy. I'm sure the finance minister, although he's giggling over there, recognizes that.

Up until the government paid someone to bring forward a report that justifies their claims around jobs, it's very clear that every other expert in this province has said that the harmonization of taxes is something that slows the rate of job growth in the province of Ontario. This is not something that I've made up. The Ontario Chamber of Commerce has said very clearly that the harmonization of sales tax will reduce the rate of job growth in this province by some 40,000 jobs annually. That's not just me; that's the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, an organization that I don't necessarily tend to quote that often.

Who else says that? The CD Howe Institute, another organization that I very rarely quote, but they also have said that there are going to be some 38,000 to 40,000 fewer jobs created in this province as a result of harmonization.

I have to say very clearly that these two reports came out without interference and pay by the government. These were independent reports, unlike the report that the government paid for that all of a sudden is totally opposite from what these other reports say. It's playing a game with the facts when this finance minister gets up and says that somehow 600,000 jobs are going to be created.

I think everybody in this province realizes that this government likes to pay out of pocket for all kinds of contracts and all kinds of experts to say whatever their bidding is. Certainly, if you get paid for the report, you're going to put in it what the government paid for, which is something that is different from what every other expert has said so far, at a time when we are shedding jobs in this economy still, to this day.

We have to recognize that any policy that's going to reduce the rate of job growth in the province is absolutely the wrong thing to do.

The shame is that this government is once again ignoring those studies and ignoring that evidence and plowing ahead with something that not only is going to hurt people when they're down financially already, is not only going to reduce the amount of activity in the economy in terms of people spending, but it's also going to reduce the rate of job growth in this province. I say shame on them for that. Shame on them.

This tax is also an unfair tax, because it takes the tax burden off the corporate sector again—the same tired old policies that we have been dealing with for 10, 15, 20 years in this province. This Liberal government is once again giving the big corporations a big tax cut and foisting the responsibility for taxes onto the backs of consumers. That is absolutely wrong.

They like to pretend that somehow this is a progresssive tax move. It is absolutely regressive. Consumption taxes are not progressive taxes. Everybody agrees: Consumption taxes are not progressive.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I'd like to hear what the person on the floor is saying, and I'm sure you would, too.

Member?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Thank you, Speaker. I appreciate that.

The bottom line is that the government, this Liberal government—I'm kind of laughing, because you'd never guess that they're actually a Liberal government. They're more Conservative than Liberal.

Nonetheless, the bottom line is, this tax is absolutely regressive. It takes the burden for taxation, the responsibility for taxation, off the corporate sector and puts it onto consumers. That is a regressive tax. No matter how you paint it, it is a regressive tax.

This government likes to pretend that somehow this move is the new world order, when in fact it's the oldest trick in the book, and the trick is on the backs of the people of this province. They're the ones getting tricked.

I have to say, they're not being tricked, because they know very well that their government is doing the wrong thing. They know very well that their government is kicking them when they're down. Their government is happy to make life less affordable for them.

Who are those people? My colleague the member for Toronto—Danforth has already talked about the arts community. Small business: My colleague from the riding of Parkdale—High Park reminded me that 80% of small business is opposed to the harmonized sales tax. In fact, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business did a survey of their members and some 60% said they could see no benefit whatsoever, nothing of value at all, in the harmonization of sales taxes.

I go to places like St. Catharines and I get stopped at the farmers' market by people congratulating me on the fight and saying, "We have a small business, and we are not happy with this tax. We do not like what it's going to do. It's going to hurt our small business at a time when our business is already suffering." Talk to bed-and-breakfasts, B&Bs; they say the same thing. People in the tourism industry: They say the same thing. I have to say that small business unequivocally is opposed to this tax.

The Ontario Real Estate Association: They are unequivocally opposed to this tax. Why? Because they believe that the cost of resale housing is going to increase. The cost of the transactions around resale housing is going to increase by some $1,500, and that is because of an increase in the cost of everything from the legal fees to home inspections to moving costs and everything else. They know that this tax is the wrong thing to do for real estate. They have been very vocal in their opposition and we support them in their concerns.

Rents are going to go up as well, as we know. Condo fees are going to go up. People are struggling to keep roofs over their heads, they're struggling to make ends meet in this economy, and the most expensive part of their lives, often—their housing costs—are going to go up because of the harmonized sales tax. Maintenance fees are going to increase for condo owners and they're not happy about it, and I don't blame them.

We had a demonstration here not too long ago because the First Nations of this province are disgusted with the way they've been treated by this government. I had the pleasure of standing in the media studio with Ontario Regional Chief Angus Toulouse, with Grand Council Chief Patrick Madahbee, with Grand Chief Randall Phillips and with Grand Chief Stan Beardy. The four of them and myself stood in the media studio as they outlined their serious concern that this government has abrogated its responsibility to the First Nations of this province. Why?

Because they did not consult with them at all before bringing in the harmonized sales tax, before signing two memoranda with the federal government. This provincial government signed two memoranda with the federal government without having even a single conversation with the First Nations of Ontario.

This is an infringement on their aboriginal and treaty rights, and there is no doubt about it. It is an infringement on their aboriginal and treaty rights. I am not the one who is making that accusation. In fact, First Nations, the chiefs and the grand chiefs, were here. They came here to tell this government that they have abrogated their responsibility and to warn this government, frankly, that they are not going to stand for this kind of disrespect any more, and I don't blame them one bit.

This government likes to talk a good talk about a new relationship with First Nations, but when it comes to walking the walk, every single chief who was here—and there were many—told me that they feel the same way, and that is that this government has not been treating them with a respectful government-to-government dialogue. That is problematic and it's something this government needs to deal with.

We've been bringing all kinds of stories into this Legislature day after day. I have hundreds of them on my desk. I was hoping to read a couple of more into the record and I think I might just do that. I'm going to read this one because I think it's an important one. They're all important, though.

This is from Bev MacWilliams in Toronto, and she says this:

"Dear Premier,

"As a mid-sized company employing 50 plus employees, I would like to voice my displeasure with your government's idea of implementing the harmonized sales tax. During a time when it is hard enough to keep our businesses afloat and staff employed, why would you add another tax? Our company is in the service industry. Currently we charge GST on our product to our clients and no PST applies as it is a service. Your proposed tax would now add another 8% to the total package that we sell. I have three questions to ask you below:

"If you were one of the owners of the company, how would you deal with the additional 8% tax that you now have to add in? Oh, and let's also remember that much of your business that has confirmed after July 2010 has bought a package that did not include the additional 8% tax that it was exempt from before."

She goes on to explain in detail exactly how bad this tax is going to be for her business.

Deputant after deputant came to the committee the other day and told this government, "Do not implement this tax." They came from small business, they came from seniors' organizations, the municipal retirees of Ontario, CARP, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons—all of these organizations came and spoke against the tax, as did real estate associations, individuals one after the other, single parents, senior citizens, small business owners.

The harmonized sales tax is the wrong thing for the province of Ontario, it's the wrong thing for the people of Ontario, and this government should simply not vote for it.

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

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: Thank you, Speaker. I'm cognizant of the clock, but I do want to make a few comments.

I first want to comment, if I can, very briefly on the process that we have undertaken, and it's not a process that we're unfamiliar with. We've had first reading, second reading, we have had committee hearings, and now we're having third reading debate.

I would suggest to this House that the choices the government had to make in the context of finishing its business were precipitated by the actions of the official opposition. The stunts, as they've referred to them, such as banging on your desk, walking out on question period, ringing bells interminably for hours, having their members ejected not for days but potentially until October 2011, were clear actions that left the government no choice but to time-allocate this bill in the interest of completing its work.

The official opposition presented to the Legislative Assembly, at noon hour on Monday, 500,000—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Order. Member take his seat. We don't have far to go, so just behave yourselves.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: This is disgraceful.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): What did I just say? The member for Simcoe North, didn't I ask you to come to order? I would like you to do it for just a few minutes.

Member for Pickering—Scarborough East.

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: Some 500,000 amendments, and their desire was to have those amendments on a recorded vote. If we allowed two seconds for each amendment to be read into the record, let alone being voted on, a rough calculation would have taken us 24 hours a day for something like 10 days merely to read those amendments into the record. The opposition was filibustering and being obstructive.

I said, when I stood on second reading, when asked if members would stand and indicate whether or not they support the HST, or the value-added tax—I said it then, and I will say it now: This is the right thing to do for this province. It's the right thing to do in this country.

The federal government, as of last night, on second reading, by a vote of 246 to 36, approved second reading of this initiative. Federal members from parties across this country have signalled that this initiative is the right thing to do for Canadians, and we're doing the right thing for Ontarians.

With 50 seconds left, I want to reference a letter to Mr. Tim Hudak, the Leader of the Opposition, from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, dated October 21. The Ontario Chamber of Commerce said:

"As you are well aware, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce has been a strong proponent of a harmonized sales tax—as an integral part of a larger, comprehensive tax reform strategy—for a number of years.

"Since 2004, our chamber network of 160 local chambers of commerce and boards of trade, representing some 60,000 businesses of all sizes from all areas of the economy, have strongly endorsed this comprehensive tax reform."

This speaks to small business in the province of Ontario, and it's what we should be doing. We're doing the right—

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

Pursuant to the order of the House dated December 1, 2009, I am now required to put the question.

Mr. Duncan has moved third reading of Bill 218,

An Act to implement 2009 Budget measures and to enact, amend or repeal various Acts. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1003 to 1008.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): All those in favour, please stand one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): All those opposed, please stand one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 56; the nays are 29.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be named as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

ONTARIO LABOUR

MOBILITY ACT, 2009 /

LOI ONTARIENNE DE 2009

SUR LA MOBILITÉ

DE LA MAIN-D'OEUVRE

Ms. Smith, on behalf of Mr. Milloy, moved third reading of the following bill:

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 Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 30, 2009, I am now required to put the question. Ms. Smith has moved third reading of Bill 175,

An Act to enhance labour mobility between Ontario and other Canadian provinces and territories.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1014 to 1019.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): All those in favour, please stand one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): All those opposed, please stand one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 56; the nays are 28.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

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

The House recessed from 1022 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Rick Johnson: I have two guests; one has arrived so far. Mr. Paul Martin and M.J. Perry are in for meetings with me today, so I'd like to welcome them.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I'd like to introduce page Robyn Lin's aunt, who will be in the gallery today. Her name is Anne Chun. Welcome.

Mr. John O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce your brother and your mother and welcome them here today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I can trump that after.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I'd like to introduce the students of T.L. Kennedy school, who are with us here today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I think you should point out that T.L. Kennedy's grandson is sitting here. He's the member from Halton.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I ask all members to welcome both Len Crispino from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and Karen Renkema from the Ontario Road Builders' Association, who are visiting us in the Legislature today.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I know that all members of the Legislature will join me in a very warm welcome to the members of the Salvation Army who are joining us here.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I just want to echo the Minister of Health's comments and actually name the members who are here from the Salvation Army. Please welcome Captain Brenda Murray, Captain John Murray, Colonel Floyd Tidd, Colonel Lee Graves and Colonel Ray Molton. Welcome to Queen's Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the member from Niagara Falls and page Alana Fansolato, we'd like to welcome her father, Wayne, to the members' gallery today.

Seated in the Speaker's gallery, I'd like to welcome my mother, Joan Peters, my brother, Joe, and a family friend from St. Thomas, Carole Watson. Welcome all.

Mr. Frank Klees: On behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus, I too want to welcome the members of the Salvation Army here and to also express our appreciation for the good work that the Salvation Army does throughout the year but especially at this time of year through the kettle drive. We encourage people across the province to support the kettle drive this year.

COMMITTEE WITNESSES

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On Thursday, November 19, the member for Oshawa raised a point of order with respect to the authority of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to summon witnesses. To the extent that his point of order touched on specific proceedings of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, I will say that it is not the place of the Speaker to become involved.

The committee, like every committee of the House, has the ability to regulate its own affairs. Where it needs the guidance or intervention of the House, or when there is a problem it cannot solve itself, the proper course is for the committee to make a report to the House setting out the matter at issue in the committee. This not having occurred, I can only assume that within the scope of its authority, the committee has been successfully dealing with its own affairs to the satisfaction of its members.

To answer the member's direct and specific question, though, I can confirm that committees do have the authority to summon witnesses of their choosing. Standing order 110(

b) states that "except when the House otherwise orders, each committee shall have the power to send for persons, papers and things."

This is a power delegated from the House which retains the authority to compel attendance or production. There are therefore some practical and contextual limitations on a committee's authority, but in general, committees may invite any witness they consider to be in a position to offer testimony that will be helpful to the committee in its inquiries.

I thank the honourable member for his point of order.

VOTING

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On December 2, 2009, the member for Carleton—Mississippi Mills, Mr. Sterling, rose on a point of order concerning his inability to vote from his assigned seat during recorded divisions held on December 1. The House will recall that the member had not been able to vote from his assigned seat because a named member had refused to withdraw from the chamber on November 30. That member, along with another named member, had been suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of the session when the Sergeant-at-Arms indicated that force was necessary to compel obedience.

However, those suspended members were still in the chamber on December 1, and one of them was occupying the seat assigned to the member for Carleton—Mississippi Mills during a recorded division on the motion for second reading of Bill 175 and during other divisions that morning.

Members will recall that in the immediate aftermath of the first division, I responded to points of order and points of privilege on what had happened. Later, in response to the concerns that certain members of the official opposition would be unable to vote from their assigned seats because the suspended members were occupying them, I indicated to the member for Carleton—Mississippi Mills that he could assume the unoccupied seat of another member. I made similar accommodation with respect to the member from Simcoe—Grey, Mr. Wilson, whose seat was being occupied by another suspended member.

The member for Carleton—Mississippi Mills now asks why I ignored standing orders 20 and 28 in making this accommodation. Standing order 20 requires members to "remain in their places and refrain from interrupting the Speaker" in certain situations and to not interrupt the member who has floor. Standing order 28 deals with the procedure for taking divisions; in particular, standing order 28(

a) states it requires "five members standing in their places" to force a division after a voice vote, and standing order 28(

c) states that a member wishing to vote "shall rise and record his or her vote."

Let me say first that neither standing order 20 nor standing order 28 specifically indicate that a member wishing to vote in a division must do so from an assigned seat, and so I did not ignore any standing order when I acted as I did. Nevertheless, as members well know, it is our settled practice that members wishing to vote in a division do so from their assigned seats. Speakers of this House have long upheld the practice that members must vote from their assigned places in the chamber, and so have I.

In point of fact, though, seating assignments of all members in the assembly are ultimately made by the Speaker. In practice, of course, the Speaker assigns blocks of seats, then generally acquiesces in the recommendations of the various recognized parties on their seating wishes for their individual members. But as I said, ultimately it is the Speaker's decision, as demonstrated by the fact that the Speaker takes full responsibility for assigning the seats of any independent members.

That being the case, when I indicated that the member from Carleton—Mississippi Mills could vote from another seat, I was in effect assigning him that seat, if only temporarily.

Additionally, though, one has to look at the issue in the context of the nature and the extent of the disorder that erupted last Monday. It cannot but have been apparent to any observer in the chamber at the time of the naming of the member of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound that he was acting in concert with a plan understood by his caucus and participated in by the caucus as a collective. Indeed, the member for Carleton—Mississippi Mills is one of several members who put themselves between the named member and the Sergeant-at-Arms, preventing the removal of the named member from the Legislative chamber.

As business carried on and the House entered into a recorded vote on second reading of Bill 175, the member for Carleton—Mississippi Mills was seated in a place other than his assigned seat. The member did not at that point complain either that he wished to vote but he might not be able to occupy because another member was in his seat or that the member occupying the seat refused to leave when asked to do so. The confusion that ensued and the basis of the complaint now made by the member for Carleton—Mississippi Mills was, to a significant extent, by his own making, and as I said at the time, "you cannot contrive a breach of your own privileges."

In a subsequent vote, however, the member for Carleton—Mississippi Mills and the member for Simcoe—Grey were again both prevented from being in their seats because they were occupied by two previously named members. At this time, the members did draw the situation to my attention before the roll call commenced. It was at this point that I made the accommodation I referred to previously.

I regret that my approach inconvenienced the members who sought to vote in their regular seats, but I hope they can appreciate that shortly after the consequences of mischief being perpetrated by the suspended members became clear to everyone in the House, I was able to ensure members wishing to vote were able to do so. I stand by my approach in dealing with the issue.

In looking into how other Speakers have handled challenging situations in this chamber, I came across Speaker Stockwell's ruling at page 538 of the Journals for April 6, 1997. This is what Speaker Stockwell said:

"I believe that a modern definition of Speaker requires that decisions are taken which are also in the best interests of the institution of Parliament. On occasion, in particular when faced with extraordinary circumstances, Speakers may have to intervene in a way which seeks to enable the parliamentary process to accomplish the business at hand....

"In this House, Speaker Warner, quoting Speaker Fraser, said on May 27, 1991, that the Speaker does have a latitude to act in exceptional instances."

I agree with Speaker Stockwell's statement. The statement was made in 1997 in the course of the longest voting process in the history of this assembly. A few months later, the House adopted standing order changes that strengthened the hand of the Speaker and of the House in dealing with disorder and progress of assembly business. Those changes appear to have been informed by a desire by the House to ensure that disorder does not trump the democratic rights of members.

I've already provided my thoughts to the House on the events of last week, and I will repeat one part of those comments: "Respect is a mutual obligation. There are boundaries to which members must also adhere and standards of conduct that must be upheld. This is not about the Chair's discretion or the opinion of an individual Speaker.

It is about failing to show due deference to this institution and the traditions of civil debate; it is about failing to show due deference to the privileges of fellow members of this Parliament, including members from all parties; and importantly, it's about failing to display an image of parliamentary conduct that the public would rightly regard as appropriate."

In closing, I thank the member for Carleton—Mississippi Mills for raising his point of order. His concerns do not raise a matter of order, but they have given me the opportunity to reflect on the events of last week and how such events might be dealt with in the future.

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: When this particular matter took place, I declared very clearly to you and to the table—in fact, the table called my name and recognized my vote and then withdrew my right to vote when I was seated at another bench. Your ruling today has indicated that you do have the power to recognize my vote, but you chose not to.

I refer you to sections 87, 49, and 18 of the Constitution Act of our country. The Constitution guarantees me the right to vote in this Legislature, and you and the Legislature have denied me that opportunity. I call into question the passing of that motion on Bill 175 and the subsequent process that has taken place with regard to Bill 175.

Mr. Speaker, you leave me no other alternative but to seek legal counsel on this particular matter to determine whether Bill 175 has legally passed this legislative process. I have been denied and my constituents have been denied my vote in this place on that particular bill, when I clearly expressed to you and to the clerks' table that I wanted to vote on behalf of my constituents.

I would add that the member for Simcoe—Grey, Mr. Wilson, also wanted to vote on that occasion and was denied the opportunity. As well, there were about 10 or 12 other members of my caucus who were standing in their place at that time and wanted to vote on that particular motion. They were denied that opportunity, as you ignored them standing in their place and voting.

In my view, all of these members, including myself and the member for Simcoe—Grey, were denied the right to represent their constituents as guaranteed in the Constitution Act of Canada. The standing orders don't matter with regard to those particular rights. The Legislative Assembly Act does not matter with regard to those rights. It is the Constitution of our country which guarantees members of our Parliament, the House of Commons and each Legislature the right to represent their people in their Legislature or the House of Commons. Mr. Speaker, you do not have the right, nor do the standing orders have the right, nor does the Legislative Assembly have the right, to deny that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I want to thank the honourable member for his point of privilege and his comments. If the honourable member believes that he has been denied his constitutional right, I would encourage him to pursue the course that he has indicated to the House that he is going to choose to do.

WEARING OF MITTENS

Hon. Monique M. Smith: And now for something completely different: I believe we have unanimous consent for all members to wear Olympic mittens in the House this morning to show support for the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games in Vancouver in 2010. We're very excited to be welcoming the torch this Friday in Hawkesbury.

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

I would seek the co-operation of our broadcast services to take a wide-angle view, and I'd ask all members to stand up and give a wave in support of our Olympic athletes. Wave to any one of the cameras. I'm sure they're helping us. Go, Canada, go.

Interjections: Go, Canada.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I thank the honourable members for their participation. I would just like to take this opportunity to thank the member from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Jean-Marc Lalonde. Unfortunately we couldn't participate in another adventure that Mr. Lalonde would have liked to do. I didn't realize that in 1988 he actually stole the Olympic flame and—

Interjections: Borrowed, borrowed.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Pardon me, borrowed the Olympic flame. The Canadian Olympic committee caught wind of that and remembered that from 21 years ago. They were very concerned that the honourable member may try and borrow the flame again.

I would just say as well that because of the inclement weather, we are going to take a photograph on the grand staircase. As well, the Olympic torch is going to be here at the Legislature on December 18 at 6 a.m. Any members who are around, please come and wish our athletes all the best.

The member of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell on a point of order.

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: I would just like to say that the flame will be arriving at the eastern gateway to Ontario, in Hawkesbury, on Friday at 11 o'clock.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Nepean on a point of order.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I'm very proud to say the flame will be arriving in the nation's capital, the city of Ottawa, at 10:16 on Saturday morning, and I'll be there with hopefully all of the Ottawa members.

Oh, no clapping for Ottawa?

Applause.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question for the Acting Premier: After six years in office, Dalton McGuinty's government has grown arrogant and increasingly out of touch with Ontario's hard-working families. Let's take a look at the economic record as this session comes to a close: $65 billion in new debt; a record deficit, which means we're spending $2 million more every hour than we take in in revenue, even including your greedy HST tax grab; bond companies have lowered our credit rating; and a net loss of 100,000 jobs in one year alone.

Minister, did you think Ontario families wouldn't notice? Why do you think you can get away with this dismal performance?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I think Ontarians recognize that the world has gone through a tremendous dislocation and downturn in the last year. Whether you're looking at the United States, whether you're looking at Great Britain, whether you're looking at our sister provinces, there has been an enormous upheaval; there has been a devastating loss of jobs in many communities. That's why this government moved forward with a plan to create 600,000 jobs. That's why we took the steps we have taken over the course of the last year.

It is our view and it is the view of many economists that growth will be slow over the next year but that we will be back to growth, and that makes it still more important for all of us in government and opposition to say what they would do to help get Ontario through this terribly difficult time. We're going to continue to work with Ontario families and communities to create jobs and—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: The minister knows full well that your economic performance is the worst in Canada and you've turned Ontario into a have-not province, receiving welfare payments from the federal government for the first time in our history. Minister, do you really think you can get away with this?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We, as a province, are putting in place the steps to help us get through this extremely difficult time in Ontario's history—indeed, in North America's history. I see yesterday that the American government announced the need for still more stimulus.

There is no question that this has been a downturn unlike anything we've seen since the Great Depression. Far too many people have lost their jobs; far too many families are struggling. This government has chosen a path and laid out a plan to create some 600,000 jobs. There is more work to do. Ontario, in our view, is the best province in the greatest country in the world. We are coming through this. We're laying out a plan to help get through it, and when we are, this province will be bigger, it will be better and it will be stronger.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I'm proud of our province, Minister, but you have laid our province low. You have cost us 300,000 well-paying manufacturing jobs, and you abandoned northern Ontario years ago. Did you really think Ontario families would not notice? What makes you think you can get away with this performance?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I think Ontarians see through that phony rhetoric. I think they know that we have seen an enormous upheaval in the world economy. I think they understand. If you look at the notes in the budget, you'll see how we have done relative to comparable jurisdictions. There is no question that far too many people have lost their jobs, not just in Ontario but around North America. This party and Premier McGuinty have laid out a plan.

That member and his party are about stunts, they're about rhetoric, they're about disorder in the House—no plan, no future. And when they do talk about things, they imply cutting benefits for injured workers, they imply closing schools, they imply taking money from municipalities, just like they did from 1995 till they lost office in 2003.

We have a plan. It's about jobs—

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

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Deputy Premier: After six years in office, the rot of mismanagement and abuse has set in deep right across Dalton McGuinty's government. What have we seen since the summer of scandal? A billion-dollar eHealth boondoggle that saw Liberal-friendly consultants get rich and Ontario families get ripped off. We saw another billion dollars in wasted funds from welfare abuse, fraud and overpayments. We saw sweetheart deals for Liberal friends and insiders like Jason Grier, Karli Farrow, Don Guy and your favourite, the Courtyard Group. And whenever they got in trouble, they blamed the bureaucrats and threw Liberal friends a lifeline.

I ask the minister: Do you not think Ontario families notice? What makes you think you can get away with this?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Well, as we wrap up this session, we've laid out a plan to create 600,000 jobs. They've done nothing. Tax cuts for all Ontario families will come into place on January 1. That member and his party voted against it.

Premier McGuinty, through dint of effort, brought the Pan Am Games to Toronto. Student achievement legislation, putting students first, has been brought forward by my colleague the Minister of Education. HealthForceOntario is expanding the scope of practice of pharmacists and others. These are important moves forward. My colleague the Minister of the Environment is in Copenhagen today. We've brought forward cap-and-trade legislation.

The only thing I remember from that party this session is a couple of renegade members seizing control of the once great Conservative Party of Ontario.

This is a record of achievement, one we will stand on and one that the people of Ontario—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Do you know what, Minister? We don't believe you, and Ontario families don't believe you anymore. You said sole-sourced contracts would stop, but they didn't. You had one rule for Liberal friends and one rule for everyone else. Minister, do you really think you can get away with this?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: It is important for all members of this Legislature and all the parties to say what they would do to help those Ontarians who have lost their jobs, to help communities come through this downturn, to help create new jobs and new investment. It's not enough to occupy desks in the Legislature and force the closure of debate. It's not enough to rant and rave and not even attend committee sessions when you're supposed to.

This government has laid out a plan. It is a challenging plan, but I am confident, and the Premier is confident. Ontarians always rise to the challenge, and when we get through this, because of our plans, and more importantly, because of the hard work of Ontarians, we will have a more competitive economy, more jobs, better incomes, better health care and better education. That's what this government and that's what this party are about.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: No wonder this has been called Canada's worst government. We have seen a culture of entitlement set in deep right across that government, ministry by ministry. Ontario families see a government, too distracted by scandal after scandal, that has lost sight of the basics, a government more interested in securing sweetheart deals for its Liberal friends than fighting for hard-working Ontario families across this province.

I ask the minister: Can taxpayers reach any other conclusion than that this is a government that is out of gas, out of ideas and dramatically out of touch with hard-working Ontario families?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: You know, the Leader of the Opposition likes to quote—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The Leader of the Opposition likes to quote a journalist who also believes in privatized health care. Is that your view as well? He likes to quote a journalist who believes in privatizing education. Is that your agenda? He likes to quote an economist who doesn't believe global warming is real. Is that your agenda as well? The Leader of the Opposition has no plan. He has no idea where to take this province.

Premier McGuinty has laid out a plan, a principle-based plan, that will improve incomes, improve job growth and help rebuild this province as we come out of the worst global downturn in many years. Premier McGuinty has laid out the plan. Mr. Hudak and his renegade band who seized the Legislature offer no ideas, no hope, no future. They're about the past. They're about privatization of health care and education. We fundamentally disagree with them, and I believe—

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

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. Over the past month, the McGuinty Liberals have arrogantly used their majority to silence the voices of people in Windsor, Kenora, Kingston, London, Moose Factory and Fort Erie. This morning, the McGuinty Liberals rammed through their 8% sales tax on gasoline and home heating.

My question is this: Why did the McGuinty Liberals ignore Ontarians, the vast majority of whom are against this tax?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In the nine months since this government brought forward the HST legislation, we have had more than 40 hours of debate in this chamber. We have had committee hearings on the bill. In fact, the opposition parties couldn't even fill all their slots in that committee. We have conducted hundreds of public sessions and hundreds of other meetings. Indeed, we've made significant changes to the policy as a result of representations from a whole variety of groups. The housing industry is one, and I think probably the largest example of that.

This is what is most important: to create jobs in Ontario, some 600,000 jobs. This party, this government, is about creating jobs. It's about building a better future. We reject the status quo. We reject the NDP's "just pretend that nothing's wrong." We're taking steps to build a brighter future for Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What's wrong is a government that doesn't listen to the people who put them here. That's what is wrong. The McGuinty Liberals have pulled out all the stops to muzzle the concerns of Ontario families. I think everybody around this chamber would agree.

In a desperate effort to ram this unfair tax scheme through the Legislature, this government refused public hearings in Thunder Bay, London, Sudbury, Windsor and elsewhere. This government limited debate and pulled stunts in committee.

The question is this: Is ruthless arrogance what Ontario families should expect from their government over the next two years?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, she's wrong, and the leader of the third party just doesn't get it.

We have had hearings across this province—meetings, public sessions, question and answers, media sessions. The fact that she's here today asking questions is another indication that indeed this government is available, it's accountable and it is present.

I noticed that the president of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce was here today, and a number of other supporters. Why are you ignoring those 60,000 small businesses? Why are you ignoring Hugh Mackenzie? Why won't you listen to your own economist, who has advised you clearly and unequivocally about the benefits of this policy? Why are you voting against low-income Ontarians who are looking for a hand up, who need our assistance in these difficult times? Why are you ignoring the unemployed, I say to the leader of the third party? Why are you ignoring unemployed forest workers? Why are you ignoring the manufacturing sector? No plan, no future—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: As I said in my remarks earlier today, the Ontario Real Estate Association, chiefs of all of the First Nations of this province, hundreds of thousands of people across the province who have signed our petition—these are the people we are listening to. Unlike the Liberals and the Conservatives in Ottawa, New Democrats are on the side of the people in the real world, where an 8% tax on gas and home heating makes life less affordable, where making daily basics more expensive during a deep recession is actually a bad idea, and where a new 8% tax dampens consumer confidence and kills jobs. That's the real world. That's who we're listening to.

Across the country, in fact, politicians are backing away from this unfair scheme. Has the government grown so arrogant that they are ready to ignore three quarters of the population, who are saying no to the HST?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: You know, there was a time when the NDP stood on principle; now it's "Never Done Pandering." You know what? We have had all kinds of deputations in support of this from prominent New Democrats, whether you're talking about Buzz Hargrove or Hugh Mackenzie or Jim Stanford or others. Their own Fair Tax Commission recommended this policy.

Sir, these are difficult times and these are challenging decisions. Governments have to stand up for jobs. This party is standing up for the unemployed auto worker in Windsor; it's standing up for the unemployed forestry worker in Thunder Bay; it is standing up for the unemployed person in eastern Ontario. It's about jobs; it's about better incomes and a brighter future.

This government, this party, has a plan. That leader and her party have no plan. We're strong and we're going to be stronger when we're through all of this.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Acting Premier. In July 2008 the Acting Premier said, "We all share an important responsibility to conserve energy, which is why our government is helping people make choices that will benefit their health and the environment while saving people money." But under his unfair tax scheme, the sales tax exemption on energy-efficient appliances and bicycles will end. Why is this government making life more expensive for people who choose to do the environmentally responsible thing?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The leader of the third party and her party really shouldn't be talking about energy conservation. They voted against removing the price cap, against the advice of your environment critic, who was very passionate about that before he got here. They voted against smart meters and putting them into Ontario homes. You voted against that. You stood against that. They continue to not want to deal with the challenging problems ahead.

This tax plan that we've put forward will not only increase investment in energy efficiency; it will help the overall economy produce jobs. The member voted against the Green Energy Act.

This week, the Premier is selling more than $200 million worth of contracts in India with our green technology, to help those countries. This province has led the way in energy conservation in spite of her objections and we will continue to do that, creating jobs in the process.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I guess the finance minister forgot to read the Environmental Commissioner's report yesterday, which was a scathing condemnation of your lack of action on greenhouse gas emissions in this province.

More affordable green appliances and bicycles are not the silver bullet, for sure, in the fight against climate change, but they absolutely help. The Acting Premier is not the only one on record in support of these exemptions. The Premier, in fact, mused that he might make the exemptions permanent. He said, "We should ... as a society, begin to say that these are the kinds of things we want to encourage you to buy on an ongoing basis, and they would always be the subject of preferential treatment when it comes to taxes."

My question is this: Has the Acting Premier spent a little too much time around Mr. Flaherty to forget about the importance of actual action on climate change?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The tax package we put together will encourage investment in new technologies. It will encourage investment in a variety of fields. The Green Energy Act will not only encourage investments; it will create jobs overall.

Ontario is a leader. The Premier received yet another award, the other evening, from the solar power industry on behalf of this government.

I say to the member opposite that indeed difficult decisions have to be made to create jobs and to spur the growth in the green industries. We have taken those steps. We're moving forward on a variety of fronts, and I don't believe that any government has a better record on the green economy than this one. Our Green Energy Act will create investment, create jobs, and make this a better place to live for all Ontarians.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The arrogance of this government is absolutely breathtaking. The Premier promises to make it easier to make environmental choices and then he quietly raises the taxes back up again. It's the same story we've seen all week: stifling debate, shutting down hearings and ignoring the public. Has this government grown so arrogant that they think they can fool the people who sent them here?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I was pleased earlier this fall when Canadian Solar moved its headquarters to Kitchener, where it currently makes solar modules at plants in China—it moved them here. Why? Because of Ontario's commitment to green energy. By the way, that is 500 new direct jobs in Ontario. You voted against the act that would make that happen.

There are, no doubt, going to be difficult choices ahead as we come out of this downturn in the economy. No one should underestimate this government's commitment to green energy. That member and her party voted against the Green Energy Act. They spoke against our historic transit investments. They don't like our cap-and-trade legislation. While I admit there's much to do, this government, the McGuinty government, is committed to taking those steps to make this a better and healthier place to live.

TAXATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Acting Premier: After six years, the arrogant Dalton McGuinty government would rather listen to elite insiders and Liberal friends than hard-working Ontario families who live outside the Queen's Park bubble. Let's look at their record when it comes to this HST tax grab. During the campaign, you said you wouldn't increase taxes, but now you bring in a massive sales tax grab. It is a greedy tax hike on everything from gas for your car, heat for your home, and everyday services.

They held no consultations outside of Toronto with Ontario families unless they first made a contribution to a Liberal riding association, and now you want to lock us into a bad deal until 2015, with a $4.3-billion poison pill to get out of it.

I ask the minister: With your greedy HST tax grab, do you really think that you're going to get away with it?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. The member from Davenport. The member from Renfrew.

Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: When Len Crispino, the chair of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, said, "It's a very bold step ... it's smart for the time ... because it's going to take the shackles off business," we agreed with him. I wouldn't insult the intelligence of people who support this initiative, because there are many of them. When Michael Oliphant of the Daily Bread Food Bank said, "The sales tax credit is a sensible, forward-looking way to deal with the single sales tax, and could become an important long-term piece of the economic security puzzle for the poor people in the future," we agreed with him. When Gail Nyberg of the Daily Bread Food Bank said the same thing, we agreed with her.

This is no doubt a contentious issue. We have had the opportunity to hear from hundreds of Ontarians. We're moving forward with a plan to create jobs and to make this province bigger, better and stronger in the future.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Now, Minister Gerretsen is saying that you're looking at toll roads, too. Well, Minister, Ontario families have noticed. They're not going to let you get away with this performance. They see a tired, arrogant, out-of-touch Dalton McGuinty government that cares more about Liberal insiders than hard-working Ontario families. And they know that you're ramming through this greedy HST tax grab to fuel more of your billion-dollar boondoggles and shower your Liberal friends.

Ontario families are tired of paying more to get less and they're tired of your greedy tax grab adding more to the burden. You're not going to get away with this. Ontario families are seeing through it. They know they cannot afford this government, and they want to see change that starts at the top.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: You know, I think Ontarians are actually looking for some clarity from the Leader of the Opposition. I'd just like to take him through a few quotes that have occurred over the last few months. This is a quote: "To be clear, I believe that there's little sense in allowing two separate governments to apply two separate sets of taxes and policies and collect two separate groups of sales tax." That was Tim Hudak on April 23 of this year. Then listen to this: "There's no doubt that some—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock.

Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Here's another quote: "There's no doubt that some businesses, particularly the manufacturing side, will be happy because you take away the tax on business inputs like machinery and such, and obviously we want to see our business sector succeed." That's Tim Hudak.

Another quote: "No one can argue with wanting a more simplified tax process. I think we all support that." That's Frank Klees. And then, "I think, in theory, our party is supportive of harmonization."

Hon. Gerry Phillips: Who was that?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Bob Runciman. That party flips, flops and has no plan and no future. This party is about jobs—

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

DRIVER EXAMINATION CENTRES

Mr. Peter Tabuns: The question is for the Minister of Transportation. As of February 23, 2010, the government will be in a position to extend the DriveTest contract with Serco for two years and give notice that it can enter into negotiations for another 10-year contract. Contracting out driver testing to Serco has been a disaster from day one and has led directly to the labour conflict that has inconvenienced hundreds of thousands of Ontarians. Will the minister stand and make a commitment that there will be no renewal and no extension of the contract with Serco?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I don't think the member, as a member of the New Democratic Party, would want me to say anything at this point in time that would interfere in the collective bargaining process, because I know the great reverence that the NDP has for the collective bargaining process, despite the fact that when in power, the New Democratic Party government tore up every public sector collective agreement in the province and forced significant changes upon labour and employees in the province at that time. But I know that today the New Democratic Party would not want me to say anything in the House that would jeopardize the collective bargaining process.

When the Conservative government established Serco and privatized that portion of the Ministry of Transportation, they believed, probably, that they were doing the right thing.

I will be interested in your supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Well, I have to say that the minister is very good at putting red herrings on the table.

When we talked about the 407 toll road, he said "Oh, can't do anything. The contract is signed for 99 years, ironclad. I can't do anything to protect the people of Ontario." Well, he has the option now. In February of this coming year, he will be able to make sure that there's no extension and no renewal. Is he actually going to take on that company and restore public ownership of driver testing in this province?

Hon. James J. Bradley: As the member would be aware—because I know he has researched this thoroughly—the contract extends from 2003 to 2013. To abrogate the contract in the middle of the contract would cost the taxpayers of Ontario millions upon millions of dollars. I know that rather than have those go to legal fees, you would want to ensure that it would go to appropriate programs to assist the people of Ontario.

This government was not responsible—some of the people interjecting are responsible—for establishing this particular contract. Our ministry and our government evaluates all contracts that are there. We evaluate how they're operating, and we make a decision at the appropriate time, taking into consideration all of the factors that are brought to our attention by anybody and everybody in the province.

GREEN POWER GENERATION

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast: My question is for the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure. Recently, Canadian Solar Inc., a Kitchener-based solar module developer, announced that it's planning to establish a 200-megawatt module manufacturing facility in Ontario. As we already heard from the Minister of Finance, the new facility is expected to create 500 new direct manufacturing jobs in Ontario, and this is tremendously important for my community and my riding.

On Friday, I'm meeting with Mr. Shawn Qu, the president and CEO of Canadian Solar Inc., who's here this week from China along with Mr. Milfred Hammerbacher, the president of Canadian Solar Solutions, which is the subsidiary of Canadian Solar Inc. It's going to be my pleasure to pass on the answer to this question: Minister, what are we doing to encourage business investment in Ontario? More importantly, what are we doing to retain these businesses?

Hon. Gerry Phillips: This question relates to an earlier one. I just say to the member from Kitchener—Conestoga and to the public that our Green Energy Act is unique in North America. It's regarded as leading-edge in terms of attracting new, renewable, clean energy. We are going to see a very substantial number of new solar, wind and hydro projects. That's going to be good for the environment, but a by-product will be a manufacturing business in Ontario that can supply that green energy. So you should be saying to your visitors, "Welcome to Ontario."

Our Green Energy Act, with a very good what we call feed-in tariff—in other words, a guaranteed price for solar—is the sort of leading-edge legislation that will attract and keep an industry like the solar company that you're going to be seeing here in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast: These investments truly are reassuring. They indicate that our plan to create a green economy and green jobs is working. This is good news for my constituents of Kitchener—Conestoga.

A number of people in my riding have expressed interest in the feed-in tariff program, especially around small wind and solar projects. Minister, I understand the application process for the feed-in tariff program opened in October. When will applicants hear if their projects have received a green light? This information will be helpful to me when I meet with Mr. Qu and Mr. Hammerbacher of Canadian Solar on Friday.

Minister, could you tell me please, how soon will these projects begin?

Hon. Gerry Phillips: Many members of the Legislature are probably quite interested in this, including my colleague from Toronto—Danforth. The first group of them—it closed on November 30. An organization called the Ontario Power Authority has responsibility for evaluating these and determining which ones are shovel-ready and whatnot.

I just say to all of us that the response was very good, I think better than most expected. I must say the Ontario Power Authority is reviewing these now. It is, I think, their hope that sometime next week they will be able to give us, the public, an update on the response and an indication to all of us when those projects will be heading into the ground. The Green Energy Act is leading-edge. This will be good—

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

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. The Auditor General's report raised serious concerns about the ministry's ability to inspect our bridge infrastructure. On April 6 of this year, the minister was made aware in a meeting of serious safety concerns related to the deteriorating condition of a series of culverts underneath the TransCanada Highway just west of the city of Sudbury. On April 15, a letter signed by Gerrard Mulhern, professional engineer, was delivered to the minister in follow-up to that meeting, urging the minister to engage an independent, professional engineer to visually inspect these culverts.

The letter clearly states: "Most of the culverts are at risk of immediate structural failure. This would subsequently result in a deadly failure of the pavement overhead."

To date, the minister has not responded to the letter. Will the minister agree today to order an independent investigation of these culverts?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I want to tell the member that the Ministry of Transportation does those kinds of inspections which he has described at this time. I also met with the people the member met with, and that's most appropriate as a critic in the field of transportation, and for me as minister. These people I met with were from the cement association. They believe that concrete should be used in all of these, and that's the business they happen to be in. They truly believe, in their heart of hearts, that the proposals they have are most beneficial.

If you had talked to the people who are in the steel industry, who make steel culverts, they would make the case that what they provide is most appropriate. However, in answer to the member's question, we are always prepared to look carefully at all of these structures to ensure that indeed they meet the safety requirements of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: I am so surprised at the minister's response. This is not about lobbying for concrete or steel. It's about lobbying for safety.

A teenager died in the city of Greater Sudbury in May 2006 after she drove her car into a crater created after a steel culvert collapsed. An engineering report into the failure of that culvert by an independent consultant identified many of the same problems that currently exist with Highway 17 culverts that are being brought to the minister's attention.

I ask the minister this question: In light of these safety concerns, and if the question is simply to order an independent investigation of those culverts to ensure their integrity, why does the minister not agree to order that independent investigation and ensure the safety of motorists on that TransCanada Highway?

Hon. James J. Bradley: First of all, I hope the—and he wasn't, I'm sure. The member was mischaracterizing my response as a lobbying effort. I simply wanted to point out that the people I had met with were the same people he did, and they're people from the concrete association who genuinely believe in their heart of hearts that their product is better than those who would be in the steel industry, who believe that their product is better.

We engaged a structural engineering expert to perform an independent assessment of the ministry's bridge inspections, standards and practices, you'll notice from the auditor's report. I know, having been a Minister of Transportation, the member would have faith in the fact that members of the Ministry of Transportation are always concerned first and foremost about safety and are, on an ongoing basis, conducting appropriate inspections without necessarily having independent people there, but we don't object—

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

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Minister of Tourism. Why has the minister quietly reappointed seven directors to the Niagara Parks Commission when the government-appointed KPMG review called for sweeping changes to the membership of that commission?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I want to thank the member for his question. Yes, we did—I wouldn't say that we quietly reappointed—reappoint a number of commissioners for a one-year term in order to give us the flexibility to review the recommendations that were made in the report that we commissioned and we requested. We've given these people an opportunity to remain on the board for a year so we have the flexibility to look at the recommendations and see how we implement those recommendations around governance and board composition.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: The KPMG report found an unusually high number of allegations of conflict of interest at the Niagara Parks Commission. It said the commissioners are treated "as if they are royalty" by employees and that "certain commissioners" have become involved in employee-related matters "which were clearly outside of their role." The public has lost confidence in the Niagara Parks Commission.

Will this minister immediately rescind these appointments and start a public process for appointing new board members to the Niagara Parks Commission?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: The ministry requested these two documents that the member is referring to and this was in line with recommendations that were made by the Integrity Commissioner.

The reports noted that the agency's procurement policies and leasing practises are generally consistent with best practices. The ministry has provided the Niagara Parks Commission with the relevant findings and recommendations and we're working through with them how we can implement those findings and recommendations. Of course, the recommendations around governance and board structure are far-reaching and we want to look at them seriously. That's why we've given ourselves the opportunity, with the one-year appointments—these members are normally appointed for three years.

We've appointed them for one year so that we have the time to implement the recommendations. We didn't want the Niagara Parks Commission to not be able to function with too few members on the board, so therefore it was important that we do these reappointments at this time as we look toward the future and improving the governance at the Niagara Parks Commission.

LANGUAGE TRAINING

Mr. Reza Moridi: This week communities across Ontario are celebrating ESL Week. Language training has helped individuals integrate better into schools, colleges, universities, businesses and everyday living. Whether it is providing a better medium to learn or providing folks with the language skills they require to better express health concerns to their family doctors, language training is a must. Students and adults should be able to focus on the future without any barriers holding them back. This includes language.

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to thank the honourable member from Richmond Hill for the question, and he's right: This week is ESL Week. As well, this week is a time to celebrate and also a time to say thank you to certain sector groups. I want to say thank you to the school boards, instructors and ESL students across Ontario for their participation in ESL training. Better language skills will lead to better communication, better learning, better education and better living in general for newcomers.

Our government understands that students and adult learners need support in order to succeed. We need to ensure that they have all the right tools to move forward. We know that when these students grow, their families grow. And when Ontario families grow, Ontario will grow.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

I agree that the time for action is now. What will the minister do to ensure that the circumstances of these individuals take a turn in the right direction?

We know that language training puts newcomers on the path to becoming more engaged in the social, political and economic life of Ontario. We are here to support newcomers, and we are here to help newcomers realize their goals.

TAXI OPERATORS

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

On December 13, 2007, the city of Toronto passed a bylaw that would allow taxi cabs that drop a fare at the Toronto airport to also pick up passengers from the airport without any additional fee or penalty. Before the ink was even dry on this bylaw, the McGuinty Liberals arbitrarily changed the regulations without any consultation. This is becoming a trend in this House. This means taxi drivers wishing to pick up passengers at Toronto Pearson airport after dropping off a fare have to pay a $10 fee. Taxi drivers are losing $100 to $200 weekly, but the same penalties were not imposed on limo drivers.

I ask the minister, is he going to reverse his decision that penalizes taxi drivers and create a level playing field?

Hon. Jim Watson: This question was asked in the House by the NDP several weeks ago, and I have the same answer I had delivered at that point. This is exactly maintaining the status quo that was in effect when her party sat on this side of the House. Nothing has changed.

What we're trying to do is to ensure that consumers have the right to have a cab or a sedan service at Toronto's international airport. So the matter has not changed. We did intervene. We took away the authority from the city of Toronto to do what it wanted to do because we wanted to maintain the status quo that would be fair to both cab owners and limousine owners in the greater Toronto area.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: There's nothing fair about the status quo. Taxi drivers get penalized $10 a fare just to pick up a fare at the airport. Limo drivers get taxed nothing to pick up a fare in Toronto and go back to the airport. When the minister was questioned, he said it makes "common sense" to implement these regulations because of environmental and consumer choice reasons.

What is so distasteful to me was that these decisions were made without any consultation. Is it because limousine drivers contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars to the McGuinty Liberal Party coffers?

I ask the minister: Will he make the right decision today by agreeing to reverse the changes to the City of Toronto Act, or will he continue to be unfair and penalize taxi drivers?

Hon. Jim Watson: It's a little rich hearing from the Conservative Party about lack of consultation with the municipal sector. Where was the consultation with the forced amalgamations imposed by the Conservative Party? Where was the consultation when all the downloading took place?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock.

Minister?

Hon. Jim Watson: There was absolutely no consultation and no respect shown to the municipal sector by the previous government.

Just a quick constitutional lesson for the honourable member for Burlington: The responsibility for the licensing of limousines is done by the federal government, because airports are a federal responsibility. I'd ask the honourable member: If she'd like a briefing on municipal affairs and housing matters, please come over to 777 Bay. We'd be delighted to bring her up to speed on both the Constitution and responsibility—

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

HYDRO RATES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. Northern Ontario has a jobs crisis. The latest blow to the region: news that 700 good-paying jobs will be lost when Xstrata closes its Timmins copper and zinc smelting operation. To add insult to injury, the operations will be transferred to Quebec.

There is only one reason that these operations are moving to Quebec: affordable hydro. When will the McGuinty government finally listen to industry, to labour and to northern Ontario mayors and confront the high hydro rates that are driving jobs out of the north?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure.

Hon. Gerry Phillips: Just for the public and maybe for members of the Legislature, in terms of electricity prices for industry over the last five years, it has essentially been unchanged. That is a fact for industry. We are very competitive with our neighbours to the south.

We will always have a challenge in dealing with Quebec. Quebec is able to use long-established hydroelectric power that does give them somewhat of a competitive edge. What is the province of Ontario doing? As I say, for the last five years, industrial rates—all in, everything in—essentially have stayed the same. Our electricity has, as I say, held relatively constant for that period of time.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The loss of 700 good-paying jobs is devastating news to a community that has already seen numerous job losses. Government doesn't seem to even—it doesn't faze them, the kind of devastation that this job loss means for that community. And the tragedy of it all is that it could have been prevented if this government had heeded the words and the call of New Democrats, of labour, of Ontario's northern mayors and from industry itself. Everybody knows that the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario has been calling on this government to deal with the high hydro rates.

We need an affordable hydro rate for energy-intensive employers in this province. It's the bottom line. How many more jobs like the ones at Xstrata are going to have to leave Ontario before this government takes some action and makes sure those jobs are kept here instead of shipped out to Quebec?

Hon. Gerry Phillips: I am obviously extremely concerned about the decision they made. But again, I would say to the member that prices over the last five years are unchanged, and we are working hand-in-glove with major industry, investing in energy-efficient processes for them. And Xstrata had that opportunity as well.

I would just say—and I actually read Mr. Hampton's book where he said, "I'm against special rates for industry." I actually read the book. I kind of actually took him at his word in his book, but I think he's changed his mind now.

Again, I would say that electricity rates are unchanged over five years. All of us regret very much the decision Xstrata has made, but we will continue to work with our industries to find ways to help them conserve electricity. The Ontario Power Authority is working hand-in-glove with our—

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

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr. David Ramsay: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry in regards to the forestry sector. As the minister knows well, we've been really struggling in northern Ontario with the forest industry: 260 of our towns are very directly dependent upon this industry for our livelihood, yet many people in my riding of Timiskaming—Cochrane, and in towns right across northern Ontario, far too often have heard of mills closing down, both sawmills and pulp mills. This industry is worth $19 billion to this economy and it's very important for the province of Ontario. I'd like to ask the minister what he's been doing to help our struggling forest industry.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I want to thank the member for all the hard work that he's done and the great advice that he's provided me, certainly being raised in Thunder Bay and representing that community since 1995.

I'm acutely aware of the vital role that forestry plays in northern Ontario. That's one of the reasons why we're so excited that a couple of weeks ago, we announced the launch of a provincial wood supply competition—11 million cubic metres of wood being put up for competition. Basically, we recognize that this is our opportunity to put Ontario's wood to work, and we are taking bold steps to create jobs. Ultimately, we'll generate well for Ontario by moving forward in this process. By putting our wood to work as quickly as possible, I think this competition will absolutely help to make that move forward.

We're doing this in tandem with our review of the forest tenure and pricing system as well. We felt we couldn't wait to have the results of that. But again, I appreciate the support the northern caucus gave me to move forward with the wood co