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

November 19, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-Nov-19 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 19 November 2008 Mercredi 19 novembre 2008

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET MEASURES AND INTERIM

APPROPRIATION ACT, 2008 (NO. 2) /

LOI DE 2008 SUR

LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES

ET L'AFFECTATION ANTICIPÉE

DE CRÉDITS (NO 2)

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

SMALL BUSINESS

SMALL BUSINESS

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

FOREST INDUSTRY

SMALL BUSINESS

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

SMALL BUSINESS

CHILD CARE

MINING INDUSTRY

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE BOARD

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

SMALL BUSINESS

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

ART GALLERY OF ONTARIO

DEFERRED VOTES

BUDGET MEASURES AND INTERIM

APPROPRIATION ACT, 2008 (NO. 2) /

LOI DE 2008 SUR

LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES

ET L'AFFECTATION ANTICIPÉE

DE CRÉDITS (NO 2)

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SMALL BUSINESS

CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE

PULMONARY DISEASE

SAUGEEN TERRITORY AWARDS

OF RECOGNITION AND SUCCESS

SMALL BUSINESS

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

SMALL BUSINESS

LEGISLATIVE INTERNS

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS

YORKTOWN FAMILY SERVICES

HATE CRIMES

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CHRISTOPHER'S STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT

(SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY

AND ELECTRONIC

SEXUAL MATERIAL), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

DES LOIS EN CE QUI A TRAIT

À LA LOI CHRISTOPHER

(REGISTRE DES DÉLINQUANTS

SEXUELS ET DOCUMENTS

À CARACTÈRE SEXUEL

SOUS FORME ÉLECTRONIQUE)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

AMENDMENT ACT

(STANDING COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS FOR HEALTH CARE

AND EDUCATION), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

(COMITÉ PERMANENT

DES COMPTES PUBLICS

SUR LES SOINS DE SANTÉ

ET L'ÉDUCATION)

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

NATIONAL DAY OF REMEMBRANCE FOR ROAD CRASH VICTIMS

NATIONAL DAY OF REMEMBRANCE FOR ROAD CRASH VICTIMS

JOURNÉE NATIONALE DU SOUVENIR DES VICTIMES DE LA ROUTE

PETITIONS

WORKPLACE INSURANCE

HOSPITAL FUNDING

WORKPLACE INSURANCE

PROTECTION FOR MINERS

HOSPICES

WORKPLACE INSURANCE

CHILD CARE

PROFESSIONAL HOCKEY FRANCHISE

EMANCIPATION DAY

SECURITY LICENCE FEES

HOSPICES

WORKPLACE INSURANCE

WORKPLACE INSURANCE

OPPOSITION DAY

WORKPLACE INSURANCE

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

SMALL BUSINESS

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET MEASURES AND INTERIM

APPROPRIATION ACT, 2008 (NO. 2) /

LOI DE 2008 SUR

LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES

ET L'AFFECTATION ANTICIPÉE

DE CRÉDITS (NO 2)

Mr. Arthurs, on behalf of Mr. Duncan, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 114,

An Act respecting Budget measures, interim appropriations and other matters, to amend the Ottawa Congress Centre Act and to enact the Ontario Capital Growth Corporation Act, 2008 / Projet de loi 114, Loi concernant les mesures budgétaires, l'affectation anticipée de crédits et d'autres questions, modifiant la

Loi sur le Centre des congrès d'Ottawa et édictant la Loi de 2008 sur la Société ontarienne de financement de la croissance.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate? The member from Pickering–Scarborough East.

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: I want to just begin by saying it's my intention to divide my time with the Minister of Finance, as the expert in the area.

I'm pleased to rise on third reading of Bill 114 this morning, the fall economic statement. Clearly, this continues to be a time when it's important for us to focus our attention on the economy, on where this province is, and where it's going, along with the provinces across this country, with our neighbours to the south and the international economic situation we're all faced with.

We've been diligent in our efforts to ensure that the province of Ontario has a clear plan in the context of how we see the best means by which to serve this province in an economic fashion. We have a clear plan. We've articulated that on numerous occasions and we'll continue to do so. We seek good ideas. It doesn't necessarily mean that all of the ideas that are presented to us, whether it be in this Legislature or elsewhere, will fit within the context of the plan we have for this province, even as we adjust and make the plan work for us here in the province of Ontario.

Bill 114 was our opportunity in this session, during the fall of this year, to put before this Legislature a number of matters of interest to the province, and of fiscal interest to the province as well. Certainly, during second reading in particular, the debate was extensive from all sides of the House. We look forward to continuing that debate this morning.

We are as well, at the same time as we're wrapping up Bill 114 in the House, preparing for our budget, coming in the spring. I know the minister, as well as the Standing Committee on Finance, are in the process of either continuing or starting their tour, as such, to hear from people of Ontario about what it is that folks are looking for in the province, what their priorities are—and at the same time an opportunity for them to express to us whether they feel we continue to be on the right track, or whether they feel we should be shifting course a little bit in that regard.

So I know, as one of the members of the Standing Committee on Finance, I'm looking forward to that process, which for us actually begins as early as tomorrow morning at 8:45. That will be the first day of hearings held for the coming budget year.

We look forward to the standing committee being able to go through that process, being able to hear from individuals and organizations throughout the province and, at the same time, to report back in that process to this Legislature, so that the Minister of Finance will have that advice in addition to all the other advice that he will have presented to him in the preparation of a budget for the 2008-09 fiscal year.

I appreciate the opportunity to spend a couple of minutes this morning to begin the leadoff on Bill 114. As indicated, my intention, obviously, is to share this time allocated to us with the minister.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I want to begin by thanking my parliamentary assistant, Wayne Arthurs, for all the work he puts into the budget, into the fall statement, into carrying legislation, chairing SCFEA. He takes on an enormous workload, makes an enormous contribution and, like so many members of the Legislature, has enormous input into government policy and helps us as we deal with these very difficult circumstances.

As I said on October 22 when I delivered the fall statement and introduced this bill, it is not business as usual in Ontario. We have seen in the course of the last six weeks developments that I don't think any of us ever contemplated, certainly not in this fiscal year or, for that matter, in any fiscal year. Yesterday, the province of Alberta indicated that their projected surplus has gone from $8 billion to $2 billion in three months as a result of commodity prices.

Ontario has been experiencing enormous challenges in its manufacturing and forestry sectors for some time, and we have laid out a plan that is reinforced by this bill and, through a whole number of initiatives, that is designed to deal with the challenges in our economy today.

It's interesting to see how other governments are now talking about the things that we have been talking about for more than a year. To a very real extent, because of the challenges in the manufacturing sector that became evident some time ago, we have had to deal with this reality longer than others. Let's talk about our five-point plan and let's talk about what we're doing.

Infrastructure: It's interesting that the G20 leaders, meeting last week in Washington, all talked about the significance of infrastructure. That is why, last year, we invested $9.9 billion in new infrastructure, because the beauty of infrastructure is that it creates jobs in the short term and deals with economic productivity, our ability to compete in the world economy, in the long term. Just last week, I know members around the province had the opportunity to bring another $1.1 billion in money to our municipal partners to help them fix some of their infrastructure and, again, these projects are ready to go and will employ people at this very difficult time in our economy.

Innovation is absolutely essential. I've been watching, over the course of the last 24 to 48 hours, the discussion around the Detroit Three and the debate around support to keep those massive employers operating in the short term. It's interesting that the debate is turning around not just whether or not to help, but if there's help, what do we expect back from them? What we're talking about is innovation. What we're talking about is new product mandates that'll meet the market demands of the 21st century.

That's what we've been doing for some three years; first with AMIS, our automotive investment strategy, designing and helping those companies transition into the product mandates that people will demand in the 21st century. So those investments in research and innovation—that's the second component of our five-point plan. Again, we're seeing other governments starting to do what we've now been doing for some years.

We have talked about the need for partnership, the need to work together as a province, a country, to work with our municipal partners. Earlier this spring, I was pleased to assist my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs as we reached an historic agreement with our municipal partners to upload a range of services that were downloaded by the Conservative government. It was the Conservative government that passed down court security costs to municipalities. It was the Conservative government of Mr. Harris and Mr. Eves that downloaded more social welfare costs. It was the Conservative government of Mr.

Harris and Mr. Eves that downloaded a range of other costs and a net cost to municipalities that ranged somewhere between $1.5 billion and $3 billion. While they were doing that, they managed to run up a deficit of $5.5 billion.

We have reversed that. Between our taking office and the fulfillment of the agreements we've reached, we will have uploaded more than $3.8 billion in costs, which will help manage property tax bills for people across the province. Then, my Conservative friends opposite are voting against initiatives in this bill which will give seniors an enhanced property tax credit, right at the time when we need that kind of stimulative measure as we move forward.

One other thing has happened this week that I think is really instructive. Later today, my colleague the Minister of Economic Development, Mr. Bryant, will be leaving for Washington with Mr. Clement, the federal minister. Three weeks ago, the federal government did not want to partner with us in dealing with the auto sector. I congratulate the Prime Minister, I congratulate Minister Clement, for wanting to work with Ontario for an industry that is not only key to Ontario but key to all Canadians. That is a very positive development.

I remember last spring, or I should say—not even last spring—when I first revealed to the public, once we had numbers that solidified, saying that Ontario will have a deficit this year. We were derided by our Conservative friends opposite that a government running a deficit is a horrible thing.

Well, I listened very carefully to Prime Minister Harper and Minister Flaherty, and again I acknowledge what I think has been the right approach by the federal Conservatives, who now seem to get it, who now seem to realize that the challenges in our economy are real and present, and a deficit is actually—and I note the winner of the Nobel Prize in economics this year talked about the importance of deficits at a time like this, the importance of government spending.

We are going to continue to make the kinds of investments we've been making. Clearly, we have to manage that. We have to manage it going forward, but at least the accounting will be accurate, unlike the last Conservative budget that projected a balanced budget and actually had a $5.5-billion deficit built into it. We actually passed something called the Fiscal Transparency and Accountability Act as a result of that. The Conservatives voted against that enhanced accountability, and it's that act that requires us to report in a more meaningful way to the Legislative Assembly, number one, and, more importantly, to the people of Ontario.

There is a range of initiatives in here; we've taken steps. I want to congratulate my friend Mr. Prue, the New Democratic Party member who raised an issue about granny flats with us, and I want to take a moment to thank him for that. This bill deals with the issue that he raised in the House, and I congratulate him and thank him very much for bringing this issue to our attention—and I hope he won't vote against it.

The other thing—our friends in the Conservative Party want to give tax cuts to oil companies and big, profitable companies and are going to vote against a tax credit for innovative Ontario firms today. They want to vote against that. It's okay to subsidize Exxon, it's okay to subsidize all the big oil companies, but they want to cut corporate tax rates that won't benefit Ontario manufacturers—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Member for Cambridge, come to order. Member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, come to order.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: —which is absolutely scandalous and, I think, reflects the fact that the party is without—

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I don't think the minister is speaking to the point of this bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Well, I'm listening very carefully, and I'll draw his attention to that if I feel so.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: This bill deals with appropriate tax cuts, and we reject your wanting to give tax cuts to companies that don't do business—

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: You don't know anything about—

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I think what we see in the Conservative Party is a complete lack of leadership. One day they want to spend money; the next day they want to cut spending.

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: He's not talking to this bill; he's talking about the Conservative Party.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Number one, the member for Cambridge hasn't been recognized by the Chair. Number two, you should take your seat. Number three, I'll listen very carefully to the debate this morning and I'm sure that we'll all learn something from it.

Finance minister.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: This is very much about this. This is a budget bill. Perhaps the member hasn't read it. It is about budgetary policy, and what I'm saying is, we reject your ideas and your notions. They are rooted in a failed economic philosophy that has helped to put the entire world economy into the mess we are in today. You have said to cut health care spending by $3 billion. We reject that. They have called for general, across-the-board tax cuts for corporations that won't benefit the very companies that aren't making money. They will help the oil industry in Alberta, but they won't help the auto industry here in Ontario. We reject that philosophy.

We reject the deregulation attitude that has led to the collapse of banks around the world and is central to Mr. Tory's party's philosophy. We have seen that game play out in Ontario. It left us with a horrible deficit. It left us with undermined public services. We have a plan that is working in spite of the enormous challenges in our economy today.

This bill provides tax relief. This bill provides stimulus. This bill helps maintain jobs in a very turbulent world. This bill deals with issues; as I indicated, Mr. Prue's issues that were raised in this House. This bill invests in the people of Ontario; it maintains quality health care; it maintains education.

My friends in the Conservative Party will vote against infrastructure today. They will vote against the most innovative tax credit for small businesses around. I regret that they just haven't figured out what's going on in the world today.

As we move forward, as this bill passes today, as we partner with municipalities—and again I want to stress congratulations to the Harper government for working with us on the automotive sector, something that we've been calling for. I am personally pleased that Mr. Clement and Mr. Bryant are taking such an active role in trying to address a very real problem, recognizing that many of our citizens are concerned not only about their jobs but about the impact all of this will have, and making sure that if governments in the United States and Canada are able to come up with a package, it is fair to taxpayers as well as fair to those people who are so directly impacted by the industry.

We will keep investing in infrastructure. We will run a deficit this year.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Uh-oh.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Hudak should listen to Prime Minister Harper, and he should listen to his friend Mr. Flaherty. He should listen to people as divergent as Paul Krugman and George Bush. It's important that the provincial Conservatives and New Democrats get into the real world today—it has changed. Coming from a party that ran a $5.6-billion deficit in its last year, contributed—

Hon. James J. Bradley: A hidden deficit.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: A hidden deficit—we spoke about that a while ago. There's nothing hidden about what we're doing. We're being open and transparent with the people of Ontario. Let me reemphasize: We will continue to invest in infrastructure. We will continue to protect public services. We will continue to work to green and to update our environment. We will continue to work on innovation. We will continue to build partnerships, whether with the federal government or with our municipal partners. We've all got to work together now, more than ever. That is important.

We will continue to offer the kind of targeted tax relief that will actually help manufacturers. We eliminated the capital tax and made it retroactive for manufacturers and our Tory and New Democratic Party members opposite voted against that. It put cash into the hands of those very industries that are struggling. The cash flowed this past summer. It has helped keep people working. It has helped keep production going. It was a stimulus package in the hundreds of millions of dollars. That was in addition to this year's $3.9 billion in infrastructure.

Our five-point plan continues to be the right plan. We're hearing governments throughout the world, the G20, calling for spending on infrastructure. We're looking at partnerships. For the first time, the G20, the 20 largest economies in both the developed and developing world, are partnering, working together. That is absolutely essential.

Now the debate is around innovation and how do we transform our automotive sector to an industry that will survive and compete and thrive in the 21st century with appropriate product mix? We started that some three years ago. There are many challenges in the economy. This year will no doubt probably be the most difficult year that any of us have ever experienced in our lives. We have laid out a plan that we think is right. This bill provides tax relief. It provides spending stimulus. It preserves our ability to invest in innovation. It builds partnerships, as have been announced. We need this kind of package.

We need it today more than we ever needed it. I urge all members of this House to vote in favour of this package, to put aside partisan and ideological differences and recognize the importance of working together. We're pleased to be working with the federal Conservatives on the industrial strategy, on the industrial situation. We look forward to working with all Ontarians and all Canadians in this very, very important endeavour.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I think that the finance minister must have had a couple of different speechwriters there for 90% of his speech—a diatribe that was among the most partisan speeches in some time here in the Legislature, and then the second speechwriter comes on board for the conclusion and talks about reaching across the aisle and being non-partisan. I'm disappointed, I guess, in the tone that the finance minister decided to take on this bill—just when we thought we were seeing a more statesman-like finance minister in the vein of his predecessor, we saw the battled Dwight Duncan with his remarks today.

I won't dwell on it; it's simply reflective. I'd say my friend the Minister of Health—I know he wouldn't bring that kind of tone. He would probably be a little bit chagrined in his remarks with the nature of Bill 114's timeline. Let me give you an example. This bill was part of a rather sharp time allocation motion that ended debate when I think, only a handful of Liberals actually rose to speak on something that the finance minister boasts about as some sort of revolutionary piece of legislation. This bill was ordered referred to committee on November 4, 2008, and amendments were then due by noon of the 5th. Less than 24 hours after the bill was referred to committee amendments were due.

I do plan—and I apologize—to split my time with my good friend the very eloquent member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke

The amendments were due by noon on November 5. The deadline to speak to the committee to apply was 5 p.m. on the 5th and public hearings were limited to one day of deputations only in the morning of November 6. This is where it gets interesting.

People were making their presentations and offering improvements to the bill on November 6, but motions to amend the bill were due on November 5. So I guess we all needed to hop into Dwight Duncan's time machine to go back 24 hours in order to bring forward amendments that we heard the next day.

Mr. John Yakabuski: H.G. Duncan.

Mr. Tim Hudak: "H.G. Duncan," my friend says, with his masterful time machine.

That certainly was, sadly, disdainful of any kind of public input on this bill. Today, we are responding to the bill. We have one hour of debate split among the three parties, 20 minutes each, for a bill brought in the day that the Dalton McGuinty government returned to deficit financing in the province of Ontario, projecting at least a $500-million deficit.

Kevin Gaudet—I'll just read some excerpts from his presentation to the committee—was one of those who was on the ball and able to register to the committee with barely 24 hours of notice. Mr. Gaudet of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation said:

"With respect to Bill 114, although I'm pleased to be here, I must say that the process through which I've come to be here is a little bit disappointing and frustrating. It does provide, I would argue, an undue imposition on the public or organizations when the Legislature does put together such committees and deputations in such a short period of time. We're aware of the existence of the bill, but less than 24 hours' notice for individuals to come to committee is an onerous burden. A lot of people are either unaware or are incapable of making it.

"At the risk of being solely polemic and perhaps a bit philosophical, it's disappointing at a time when, two days ago, we saw important change in our sister country south of us, an opportunity where people reached across the aisle looking for hope and change. There's a concern that I have that this Legislature is becoming increasingly disdainful of the public, and this is an example of that."

Mr. Gaudet goes on to say, "The last time I was at committee was the health tax review. To call it a review—it's an abuse of the language to have called it a review. The deputations were, at best, heard, if not properly undertaken, and no changes occurred."

So Mr. Gaudet of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation would certainly take significant issue with the finance minister's conclusion to end partisanship and to get on board, when the government itself has shown—

Mr. John Yakabuski: That's why they brought in that time allocation motion—non-partisan, of course.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Exactly. The time allocation motion was anything but non-partisan.

So Mr. Gaudet is speaking, I think, for the general public here in refuting the minister's argument that this bill has been brought about in a non-partisan fashion.

I know my colleague Mr. Yakabuski wants to bring forward remarks on behalf of his constituents. He has thought heavily about the economy and the impact in his riding and in the province.

We do need to note that at the time when Bill 114 was brought into the Ontario Legislature, the minister had made an announcement, I think that very same day, that Ontario would be returning to deficit budgets. We would join Prince Edward Island as the only provinces in Confederation running deficits in 2008-09.

What's particularly alarming about this is that revenue to the Dalton McGuinty government has increased by some $28 billion, largely because of increased taxes on working families and seniors in our province, increased taxes on small businesses that are struggling to get by, and increased transfers from the federal government. That's about $6,100 per household in Ontario, $28 billion in increased revenue. Let's put that in perspective: $28 billion in increased revenue is greater than the combined total budgets of all the provinces in Atlantic Canada.

You total up Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and PEI's total budgets: $23 billion. The increase in revenue to the province of Ontario exceeds that by $5 billion, a $28-billion total. Another comparison: If you combine the entire budgets of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, they're lower than the total increased revenue to the province of Ontario.

What did Dalton McGuinty's government do? They blew that out the window. They frittered away this massive revenue increase.

Let me give you a few examples of some of that spending: $2.3 million spent by the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. on the opening gala at Caesars Windsor. No doubt, some members of the Liberal cabinet, decked out in their finery, some in tuxedoes, and staff and Liberal hangers-on probably had a good time at the opening of the Caesars Windsor casino—but $2.3 million in expenditure. And $8 million as a bit of a going-away gift to former finance minister Sorbara for a tourism study that I'm sure will include a lot of world travel. To his credit, he was the chair of two successful Liberal campaigns.

I know he's close to the Premier. But I think an $8-million expenditure on this when the tourism market is hurting will be at odds with what most people would see as a priority in spending on tourism. Then there's the $3.5 million spent by the Ministry of Education on hotel and conference facilities, $6 million to remove the "C" from the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp., $20 million to quietly give raises to appointees to government agencies and boards—I could go on and on.

I bet if you ask the average Ontario family, if you ask a senior in Grimsby or Binbrook if they have seen improvements for the additional $28 billion in revenue, they'd say, "Far from it." Worse still, under the McGuinty government's failed and outdated tax-and-spend policies, total debt has gone up in the province of Ontario to $172.3 billion. That's $13,000 in debt for every man, woman and child in Ontario; and total debt per household has increased under the McGuinty government by almost $9,000.

So in times when revenue is coming in, flooding into the treasury, the Ministry of Finance and the McGuinty government chose to spend at such an alarming rate that it would make Bob Rae blush and have run up the debt by nearly $9,000 per family.

If you look at the increases in the health tax, electricity, new driver licence renewal charges, delisted health care services like eye exams and chiropractic care, cancelled tax reductions that were in play, for a typical family in the province of Ontario the cost is some $2,000 or more, even for some individuals, the increase in costs and expenses as a result of the McGuinty government's decisions in their time in office. Sadly, the failed tax-and-spend policies of the McGuinty government, the outdated philosophy, has now tragically reduced Ontario to have-not status.

For the first time in our history, Ontario is receiving equalization payments, the equivalent of welfare payments, the welfare rolls of Confederation. Instead of the Premier calling in his economic minister, saying, "Come hell or high water, I will not allow Ontario to remain a have-not province; we're going to grow our way out of this," it's almost like from the musical Oliver!. It's almost like, "Please, sir, may I have another?" with their hand out, continuing to ask for more money instead of trying to grow our economy and restore Ontario's strength as a leader and a job-creation engine in Confederation.

The finance minister improperly, and I think intentionally, mischaracterized our opposition to the bill. We reject the outdated tax-and-spend policies of the McGuinty government that have plunged us further into debt and have restored deficit financing in the province of Ontario, and for the first time in the history of this great country have made Ontario a recipient of equalization payments as a have-not province. They have no plan whatsoever to remedy that tragedy.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to the comments of my colleague from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I do appreciate the comments of my colleague from Niagara West—Glanbrook and also our critic for finance.

What's remarkable is that we are in a time, and the finance minister spoke about it, where the G20 had this conference recently. The issue that everybody is talking about, not just the First Ministers of those countries, but everywhere—you go on the street, and what are people talking about? They're talking about the economy.

But the reality in this chamber is that this government doesn't want to talk about the economy. In fact, they've stifled debate on Bill 114 so that the members of this Legislature cannot talk about the economy. We're down to another eight minutes and 18 seconds to talk about the economy because this government has stifled debate on this bill and brought in a time allocation motion. The newscasts of every evening are talking about the economy and how we might deal with it. But this government doesn't want to talk about it. They want to put their head in the sand and hope that the issue takes care of itself.

Our leader, John Tory, recently proposed some possible solutions that this government could look at, and one of them was getting control of its spending. My colleague Mr. Hudak talked about how this government has been awash in revenue for the last several years and mismanaged it, and now, when the revenue is about to drop, they don't know how to deal with it. And the first thing they are not doing that they should be doing is getting control of their own spending.

Randall Denley wrote in the Citizen this past weekend how other governments understand the reality of the economic situation and they're taking control of it. In your own home, if your revenues drop, if your income drops, you have no choice but to do something about your spending. It's happening all across the province, as people lose their jobs in McGuinty's Ontario. All across the province, people are realizing that they have to do something to deal with their own spending, because the revenue in their personal household is down.

The finance minister talks about our party being in favour of big tax cuts for big oil. How false is that? It's just unbelievable. What our party wants to see is tax cuts that will help all businesses in this province. How about the forestry business, which is in big trouble as a result of your regulatory regime and your tax policy? I asked the Minister of Natural Resources: How about some tax relief so that these companies can get some assistance with transporting their products further away because of the closure of mills under your policies? No go.

No help for the forestry industry, and this government talks about trying to assist. The minister said, "We're going to help to try to save jobs in this province." But every month, what happens? The job picture gets more gloomy.

Our party has asked for specific relief for small business, and what do small business and all other businesses in this province get? They get Bill 119, the WSIB bill, which is going to hammer more of them and quite likely put some of them right out of business. But this government continues to spend money on the things it wants to spend on: bigger government.

I want to read what Randall Denley had to say in his column in the Citizen this past weekend:

"Harper and his finance minister, Jim Flaherty, were hitting ... the right tone on the key points this week. Harper says he wants to be pragmatic in dealing with the economy.... In have-not Ontario, McGuinty is cheerleading for the auto sector while doing next to nothing to get his own government spending under control....

"In Ontario, McGuinty has made minuscule cuts in government spending and delayed some expenditures until next year.... It's not nearly enough. As Ontario Progressive Conservative leader John Tory pointed out this week, the provincial government is still conducting its own affairs as if it's business as usual. Despite already being in deficit, the government is looking for 154 new employees, half of them earning more than $80,000 a year. The government spends $92 million on travel and $1.2 million on administration...."

What John Tory proposed was "a public sector hiring freeze, a salary freeze for senior management, a 10-per-cent cut in administrative expenses and a reduction in government advertising. These should be self-evident actions for a government in deficit, but McGuinty hasn't taken them."

This is how the minister opened his address this morning: "Ontario is facing serious economic difficulties." In difficult times, what would be more prudent than to look at where expenses could be cut? But, no, they don't look at that. "Let's hire, bigger offices." How many more people are working in ministers' offices today than five years ago? Exploded—it has exploded. The number of people working in ministers' offices, the Premier's office, is at an all-time high, and this is at a time when the people of the province of Ontario are being faced with: "Are we going to keep our jobs?

Are we going to lose our homes? Are we going to be able to pay for the children's post-secondary education in McGuinty's Ontario?" But this government just keeps waltzing along and spending like drunken sailors. My apologies to sailors.

Mr. Tim Hudak: At least they spend their own money.

Mr. John Yakabuski: But at least they do spend their own money.

So how are we going to address this if the government refuses to change any of its behaviour? They're addicted, totally addicted to spending, but they won't get the help they need. When our party talks about sitting down and striking all-party committees to try to work towards solutions on these problems in a non-partisan way, we're scoffed at. We're scoffed at from the other side of the House. They think it's a big joke. "No, no," they say. "No, we've got all the answers."

Well, the people in the province of Ontario beg to differ. They're seeing the evidence of your answers. Just trudge along, doing business as usual, spending, spending, spending, not reining in waste in this government and, as my colleague Mr. Hudak said, a $28-billion increase in spending in five years—$28-billion spending, from $68 billion to $96 billion. That would be like an individual going from $68,000 to $96,000 in their own home. How many people are in a position to have done that? Very, very few in this province. But this government—and whose money do you think it is? It's not coming off trees. It's coming out of the people's pockets.

Now, when this province is in trouble, they're going to continue to try to take it out of the people's pockets. There soon will be nothing left in those pockets but lint. But this government doesn't want to change its behaviour. It's addicted to spending. It has to change that mindset.

We're not talking about shutting things down. There are good programs that need to be supported; we understand that. But the problem with this government is, it wants to buy every vote out there. It wants to buy every vote out there so that by the next election, they've somehow done something to buy each individual vote in the province. It's not going to work. You've got to behave yourselves.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Interesting discussion we just heard from the Conservative Party. It always amazes me: No matter when I've been in this House over the last 18 years, the debate is about the same. Everything is a tax cut, everything is reduction of services, and that's the way you're going to get the economy going.

I think Ontarians, North Americans and the world have come to the conclusion that government does have tools at its disposal and government has to use the instrument of government and its taxation powers in ways that are able to advance our causes within the economy. So I just—

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, I know. I know you're out of my camp now, Tim, but I just have to open with that.

What's incumbent upon us is that we have a debate here in the House today about how we deal with the problems that we're having in the economy.

The government's got quite a large bill here. There are some things—and I'm going to say it up front—there's some stuff in here that I support, that to me makes some sense. There are other ones that are completely in the wrong direction, and it puts you a bit at a loss in opposition. You wish sometimes that you'd be able to support a bill outright. But such is the government's choice in mixing everything together to make it rather difficult to take a position of supporting the government on their bill.

I just want to say there are things in here that I think are a step in the right direction. Is it the be-all and end-all to dealing with what's ailing our economy? Absolutely not. There are a lot of things that we're missing, and that's what I want to talk about. I don't want to spend my time criticizing the Liberal government. I think the public will decide that in the next election. I want to talk about what it is that we here in this Legislature should be doing in order to advance what's important for Ontarians.

There's one

section of this bill, and I think it was not a bad idea, and that's the amendment of

section 43.5 around the Corporations Tax Act. Yes, I'm a New Democrat, and I understand that taxation is an issue and an instrument that government has to use in order to assist the economy to rebound. What the government has done here is allow for the refundable tax credit to move from a $2-million to a $3-million threshold if they're going to be doing investments basically in research and development, moving into new technologies within their plants.

Not a bad thing, but is that really the only thing that needs to be done in order to assist the small business sector, and more importantly, entrepreneurs in this province, to leverage the kind of investment that they need to make in their companies in order to compete in the economy of tomorrow? Here's the problem: Ontario will never be able to compete with China, India or other countries when it comes to a low-wage economy. We all agree with that.

What do we do as a province in order to give our entrepreneurs and our businesses an edge so that they're able to move forward and build the economy of tomorrow? I think what you need to do, and I think most people in the House would agree with me, is to always be one or two inventions or one or two products ahead of everybody else. Ontario needs to be seen in the world as the economy that is on the cutting edge, that is developing the technologies and products of tomorrow that people want to buy.

If we're doing that, then everybody is trying to catch up to us, and it allows us to position our economy in a way of really adding value to what we do in this province and giving entrepreneurs the opportunity to make a few bucks and people an opportunity to get good jobs that pay a good wage in a meaningful career.

How do you do that? I think this bill does some of that, but it doesn't do the kinds of things that need to be done. For example, this amendment around the Corporations Tax Act: Is the $2-million to $3-million threshold enough? I say no. I've talked to a number of entrepreneurs over the last couple of months as I run around this province in this leadership contest. What I find is that a lot of people are saying, "The big difficulty that we're having is that we are a cutting-edge company.

We have some products that we're working on developing that we're bringing into the market, but we can't leverage the dollars to invest in the research and development necessary to move that product forward as far as development."

Here's the other kicker: Once they've done the research and development—if they're that lucky—how do you capitalize the change in the plant that needs to happen in order to accommodate the production of a new product? You go to the bank. The bank won't lend you money. Certainly the stock market—people are somewhat nervous to put money in the market, especially when it comes to investments like Canadian equities. They're having real difficulty trying to raise the dollars.

I think the corporation tax amendments in here are a step in the right direction, but I think we need to be a lot more aggressive. We need to understand that if we're going to assist the entrepreneurs of the province of Ontario, somebody who says, "I'm prepared to invest in research and development," should be supported to the full extent.

In other words, if the person has research and development costs of $500,000 or research and development costs of $10 million, we as a province should be saying, "Okay, we understand that, and we are going to give you a tax credit in order to write that off against your corporate tax if you happen to be making any profit. If you're not, we advance it as a credit on your taxes," so that they can offset some of the cost of doing the research and development.

I was talking to somebody—I think it was up in London. They were a small entrepreneur making equipment that monitors pipe construction and how pipes are deployed within industry, making sure that they're to the standard that they need to be for the utilization that they're in. He was just talking about one example. He's developing this new technology that would allow him to position his company in the market with a product that everybody would need, and nobody else has got. The cost of the R&D on that thing, he was telling me, is anywhere from $5 million to $7 million.

Will this amendment that the government has under the Corporations Tax Act help? Of course it will, because it will allow him to write off not $2 million, but $3 million. But the actual cost is $7 million. What this gentleman is telling me is, "Allow me to make those investments in R&D. I don't mind paying taxes. I understand as an entrepreneur that a society is basically measured by how we treat each other, and for that to happen, I as a corporate citizen have to pay my fair share of taxes.

All I'm asking for is that at the front end, you assist me so that I can position myself to make money so I can pay those taxes." His argument was that we need to have a refundable tax credit similar to what my leader, Howard Hampton, has been talking about for some time, which allows you to basically draw down cash by way of the tax system to be able to invest in research and development. I think that's the key: You tie it to research and development.

The second

part is capitalization. What do you do once you've invented the new product that everybody wants, and now you have to invest in your plant in order to be able to bring it into production? There lies the other problem: the capitalization issue. Many entrepreneurs are really cash-strapped. They're basically running on very small margins—some of them are losing money, unfortunately—and they don't have the money to make the investment to produce that new product that will be sold in tomorrow's economy. They need to find ways of being able to capitalize themselves.

One of the things that I've been thinking about for some time, in discussion with people, is that we should, and I propose this as a New Democrat, have a system where we backstop loans; that the provincial government says—and in partnership with the federal government would be even better, but it doesn't mean to say we can't do it if the feds don't jump onside—in a case of bringing new products online, that if an entrepreneur wants to invest the money in their plant to sell that new product, we will allow them to go to a commercial lender, because we don't need to be administering this as a government, and the commercial lender does the due diligence on the loan.

And if the loan makes some sense and there's a business plan for this to happen that makes sense and balances out at the end, and if the entrepreneur is able to show that he or she is bringing forward some cash to that investment, the province secures part of that loan in order to give the banks some comfort in being able to advance the money to the entrepreneur.

I'm just going to take a round number. Let's say this investment is $5 million. The entrepreneur, if he or she mortgages his or her house and goes out and gets some local investments in the community, is lucky to raise maybe a million bucks. Where do you get the other $4 million? The person goes to the banks in Canada and the banks say, "Oh, we're not doing this; we have very restricted lending policies nowadays."

Why don't we, as a province, say, "We're prepared to backstop some of these loans" so that we'll give the banks some security in the sense that we're prepared to assume a 20%, 25% or 30% share of the liability on the loan? If the plant is being built somewhere in an economically depressed part of the province, we should increase that percentage so that we don't allow all of the development to happen around the 401, because one of the issues we now have is that the infilling of industry around the 401 is making it unsustainable from an infrastructure perspective.

We can adopt a policy that says that if the person wants to invest in Sarnia, Kingston, Sudbury, Timmins or wherever it might be, rather than a 25% security on loan, we'll give the person 35% as an incentive to go there.

There are things that I think could have been done in this bill that weren't done. Quite frankly, the government should have taken the time to listen to what the opposition was saying, but more importantly to what the public was saying, in order to help drive our economy into the next century.

I'm wondering if my colleague wants time on this.

Mr. Paul Miller: No, I'm okay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: You're okay? All right, because you're our industry and trade critic, and I know you're very interested in this issue.

So from that perspective, I think the corporate tax changes are okay, but they're not anywhere near what they need to be in order to assist the economy.

As I've travelled around the province—it's an interesting process to run in a leadership campaign, because you get an opportunity to talk to lots of people, not only within your party, but out in Ontario around issues that you're interested in. One of the things that has been coming up more and more as I talk to small business people is, they say, "You know, Gilles, I'm a hard-working person. I've got a small business; I employ a couple of people. My wife and I are working 12- and 14-hours days, and we want to pay our taxes and we want to be good citizens, but I'm tired of the government coming into my business and auditing me four or five times a year for different things."

I was in Ottawa the other day. I was meeting with a small business person, and the person said to me, "You know, at the beginning of the last summer, the WSIB people came into my company"—it was a construction firm—"and basically audited me for workers' compensation to make sure I did the proper remittance." He said, "I don't have a problem. I understand I have to be audited, but as soon as the WSIB people were gone, the federal government was coming in, and they were auditing me on another matter.

Now I just got notification that they're going to come in and they're going to audit me for my health tax remittance. For God's sake, why doesn't the government just hire specialized people who basically do auditing and can do the audit once and look at all of it, rather than disrupting the small business person and having them open their books and having somebody there to assist the auditors three, four, five times a year to do what essentially are auditing processes?"

I don't pretend to understand how practical this is.

I haven't looked into it in any detail, but it seems to me it's a reasonable thing that we should be looking at and asking, "Is there any way of amalgamating auditing services for the province of Ontario and possibly the federal government to one audit process?" That we randomly select people whom we think need to be audited, as we do now, or if there's an indication there may be a WSIB problem or a HST problem or whatever it might be—when the auditors go in, they should look at the amalgamated expenditures and revenues of that company and say, "All right, now we're going to report on the overall," so that you don't have a disruption in the small business sector four or five time within a year, sometimes, with various auditors coming in.

It seemed to me that that was a pretty reasonable proposal and something that we could have been looking at in this committee in order to, first of all, avoid having the small business person be sidetracked by these audits, but also for us as a government to do more things efficiently. We are really hard-pressed when it comes to having the amount of staff that we need within government to provide some of the services that we do.

We might be able to do some reshifting of staff by eliminating the need to have a whole bunch of people in the auditing sections, to amalgamate them under one organization and then redeploy staff into areas that would be of more use for us as Ontarians and as a government.

The other thing that we could have been looking at, and this is something that seems to me to be a bit of a no-brainer, is the situation in the retail sector. One of the really big problems is the collection and remittance of both PST and GST. The rules are sometimes complicated as to what products get charged GST and what products get charged PST. The small business person tries as best they can to figure it out and they hopefully program their cash registers to get it right, but far too often there are problems because tax codes change and the person trying to collect the tax sometimes gets it wrong.

The other problem is that there's a fairly large, onerous responsibility on the small business sector to do, first, the collection of the PST and GST, account for what was collected, deposit it in an account, and then write a cheque every month or every three months, depending on your situation, over to the provincial government for the remittance of PST and GST. Once you've remitted, you then get audited, and far too often, auditors come in—basically the same stories I was talking about before—and find something that's wrong.

The small business person now is scrambling because they owe money that they didn't think they owed, and it creates all kinds of hardship on that particular small business.

Why not have an automatic remittance system? It seems to me that in this province today, we have the ability to develop technology that allows the automatic collection of PST and GST through the cash register, so that we as a province put into the software that there's a 7% tax on a chocolate bar, a whatever per cent tax on a pair of jeans, or whatever. When you put that all into the software, then as I go in, as a consumer, and make my purchase, the tax is automatically collected from me.

The money from the cash register is then accounted back to the government account, so that there's an automatic collection in real time of the taxes being paid by consumers. At the end of the day, there's a report to the small business retailer that says, "Here are your total sales for the day. Here is the breakdown of PST and GST that was collected. Thank you very much; you've now paid your bill." It seems to me that it's just a simpler way of doing it, because then we're able to be in control, as a province, of what items are taxed at what rate.

There's no error as far as collection, and we get our money right away.

One of the big problems that we have in the PST system—and I think most members who have been here for a while have gotten calls from small business people who are dealing with PST—is sometimes we spend far more money in collection than we get back in remittance when it comes to PST and GST, because sometimes the small business person, and I don't want to say this derogatorily, lacks the sophistication of how to manage the books when it comes to the collection. Sometimes things are done improperly and it causes all kinds of problems for the small business person, and then they owe a big whacking tax bill to the province or the federal government for PST and GST, and it puts them in peril.

We've spent a lot of money trying to do the collection of monies that were paid on goods that were purchased, and it seems to me that there's a simple way of dealing with that, and that is to have an automatic collection system tied to the cash register. You should make it voluntary, I think, at first. You should say that those who want to opt in have an opportunity to do so. The government can subsidize the software and the hardware needed in order to do this collection.

I think that as more small businesses were to get into that, they would say, "Heck, it's saving me time from having to collect PST and GST, it's saving me time having to do with how we collect the money and how we account for it and how we pay for it, so now I can spend my time doing what I do best within my small business, and that is running the business that I have."

So I think there are a lot of things that this government could be doing that they're not doing in this particular area.

The last one I want to stop on is the hydro electricity rates. My leader, Howard Hampton, and others in the New Democratic Party have been calling on this government to have an industrial hydro rate. It just astounds me that the Liberal government is stonewalling on this particular issue. I remember Dalton McGuinty and I remember Dwight Duncan when they were in opposition to the Conservatives, when the Conservatives started the deregulation and the privatization of our electricity system.

They were apoplectic, they were in orbit, they were opposed to what the Tories were doing, and said that if they were elected government they were going to reverse the harm that was done. They haven't reversed the harm. Quite frankly, they've done a worse job of it than the Tories would have done and they've accelerated the deregulation and part-privatization of the system. The result has been that electricity rates across this province have skyrocketed, and for many industries where electricity is a large part of doing business it's a huge problem.

If you're in the manufacturing or the resource sector, you probably need to have a lot of electricity to operate your plant, and one of the real advantages Ontario had for many years is that we developed a public electricity system that says, "We will produce electricity and we will sell it at cost to industry and consumers." Why? It will allow investment to flow into Ontario because electricity costs are a big part of doing business. If we can give an advantage to people investing in Ontario by way of saving money when it comes to energy, we can make those investments and have those investments in Ontario in a much more important way.

That was the decision made over 100 years ago and it served Ontario well. Pulp and paper mills sprung up across northern Ontario and southern Ontario. Why? Because we had a good electricity rate as compared to other jurisdictions. Much in the way of the industry that we see has been developed in southern Ontario in regard to the automotive sector and others in the manufacturing sector was set up partly because they were able to get electricity at a much cheaper rate.

I say to this government: You should heed the advice that you're getting, not only from us as New Democrats, but from industry and communities that say electricity is one of the key components to cost and that we need to basically have an industrial hydro rate.

You may not want to believe Howard Hampton, you may not want to believe the New Democrats, but why don't you try the chamber of commerce? For example, the Northeastern Ontario Chamber of Commerce adopted that position as an official policy and are saying, "We are calling on the provincial government to have an industrial hydro rate" for the people that they represent, because they understand that it is one of the key cost factors for many of the businesses in northeastern Ontario. They are saying that we need to have an industrial hydro rate.

The government then says, "Oh, well, that means to say that the consumer will have to pay more as an individual because they will have to offset." Absolutely not—and rubbish. For years we had a public utilities system in Ontario that basically provided electricity at cost, not only to industry, but to the consumer, and ours were amongst the cheapest hydro rates in North America.

Since the Liberals have come to power, electricity rates been raised, not only for industry but also for consumers. So it's not a question of robbing from Peter to pay Paul, it's a question of providing an industrial strategy, an electricity strategy that says, "We will produce electricity at cost as one of the key economic factors in helping to develop a strong economy."

With that, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the vote on this legislation.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 3, 2008, I am now required to put the question.

Mr. Arthurs has moved third reading of Bill 114,

An Act respecting Budget measures, interim appropriations and other matters, to amend the Ottawa Congress Centre Act and to enact the Ontario Capital Growth Corporation Act, 2008. 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.

This vote will be deferred until after question period this morning.

Third reading vote deferred.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Orders of the day? A point of order? No?

There being no further business, this House is recessed until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1004 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I'd like to introduce, in the east members' gallery, Mr. Tim Armstrong from the great riding of Oak Ridges—Markham, father of page Amanda.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I want to introduce, in the west gallery, Jordy Smyth, paramedic and member of CUPE 416.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I want to take the opportunity to introduce some students from OUSA, the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance, who are present with us in the members' gallery.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr. Robert Bailey: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Bill 119, which you are ramming through this House, will require small business owners in the construction industry to pay WSIB premiums for themselves and their office staff, even though they may never set foot on a construction site. Can you explain to this House how this is going to improve workers' safety?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I say to my good friend: I would hope that he would understand the value of fairness and a balanced playing field when it comes to business. I would hope that he would understand the value of safety when it comes to our workers. I want to ask the member—I don't know if he has spoken to the leader of his party, because here's what the leader of his party had to say to the—

Interjection: What's that guy's name?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: That guy's name is John Tory and here's what he had to say to the Interior Systems Contractors Association of Ontario just this past spring. He said he understood the need to be able to bring forward mandatory coverage within the construction sector. So they've written him back just recently, and they say, "I am very disappointed in you, John. You released, for you flip-flopping and changing your decision, a reversal of a position that you brought forward"—

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

Mr. Robert Bailey: Well, Minister, I'm not going to ask questions of people that aren't here today; I'm asking this question of you. Why don't you just admit that this bill has nothing to do with workers' safety? It's a tax grab, plain and simple, and so many small business owners who have joined us in this gallery today—they're here to tell you that this new tax is going to put them out of business and their employees out of a job. Minister, can you tell these hard-working job creators, the backbone of Ontario's economy, why you have silenced them by limiting debate and refusing to hear them at committee?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Again, if passed, this legislation would help level the playing field in the construction industry and will be good for construction employers and employees.

Now let me get back to your leader. Here's what they had to say to your leader: "You have now completely reversed this position," Mr. Tory, "which is unacceptable. Our members feel that you have neglected to fully honour your commitment and they are questioning their support" or any support "of your party. It is our fear that your objectivity has been clouded"—clouded—by different stakeholders.

"We are encouraged by the minister's announcements on Bill 119 and I think this will help our 10,000 construction workers."

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

Mr. Robert Bailey: Minister, these small businesspeople that are here today are not the only ones who object to this new $11,000 tax grab by you and your ministry. This list also includes Mark Marmer of Signature Electric in Don Valley East, Christine Crewe of G&C Roofing in Brant, the Greater Barrie Chamber of Commerce and the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. These business owners want you to know that they already have insurance, more than adequate, that costs less and provides far more coverage than the WSIB. So Minister, if you're going to require them to have insurance, why don't you give them a choice?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I say to the member opposite, I don't know who's speaking for that party. You hear one thing in the spring from Mr. Tory; now you hear another thing from the member from Sarnia—Lambton.

The member from Sarnia—Lambton has been reading some letters and comments into the record here. I would like to read him one from one of his constituents. Let's look at what Doug Chalmers, the director of Aluma Systems has to say. Well, Doug says, "Congratulations! Absolutely brilliant. This will make Ontario a safer workplace and improve the quality of life for all of us."

Maybe this member is unaware that we've had many tragic stories of construction workers who are not insured and find themselves dealing with a lot of hardship. We want to make sure that they are taken care of, that they're safe and that we level—

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

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is to the Premier, and it's on the same issue, Bill 119.

Premier, in June this year, you said, "Listen, why would you raise taxes in a time of economic challenges? Is there anybody that supports that? Not even the NDP support that." Now, five short months later, at a time of widespread uncertainty about the economy and where it's headed over the next few years, hundreds of thousands of jobs already lost and many more in jeopardy, your government, through Bill 119, is imposing up to a $11,000 tax on small businesses.

Why in the world, in this environment, would you, as Premier, given your own words in June, allow this bill to go forward?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this. The spirit that informs this bill is one of fairness and safety for our workers, and we also want to be fair, given the economic context. That's why we have delayed costs until 2012. My friend is not suggesting, I am sure, that somehow the global economic crisis will continue to prevail until 2012. We are confident that the economy will be much stronger by then. That's why we have taken the prudent measure to ensure that costs don't arise until four years from now.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Well, the bottom line is that the Premier's words and $1.50 might buy you a cup of coffee. That's a reality.

This new tax can't be justified on any common sense grounds, and as a result, the government has cut off debate and limited public hearings. In the Ontario Chamber of Commerce's response to this new tax, they state, "At a time when Ontario's economy is in turmoil, an added expense can, without a doubt, impact an employer's ability to continue to operate." That's what they're talking about with respect to this new tax. The chamber, the CFIB and hundreds of small businesses have warned you of the dangers of this legislation, yet you continue down this road. What's the real reason you're doing this? What's really behind this? Let's hear about it.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, this is about making sure Ontario workers have the protection they need if they get injured on the job. It's about bringing more fairness into the sector as a whole.

I think it's worthwhile listening to the words of the president of the Council of Ontario Construction Associations, Mr. Ian Cunningham, who said, "This is a timely issue, as the construction industry is actively seeking to proactively improve workplace safety across the industry and address the often thorny issue of coverage for independent operators."

I think it speaks to fairness; it speaks to safety for our workers. And we've taken the economic circumstances clearly into account by ensuring they don't kick in until four years from now, in 2012.

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: The sad and, in many respects, disturbing reality is that there is no justifiable, or in our view, legitimate reason for this bill. Perhaps the truth can be found with the list of witnesses the government has chosen to hear from on this bill: the Ontario Pipe Trades Council, who donated $400,000 to Working Families; the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council—a fellow by the name of Pat Dillon, their manager and a principal of Working Families; the council's director of government regulations, who doubled as a CFO for Working Families.

Premier, why do these unions take priority over the hundreds of thousands of small businesses who are the backbone of this province's economy? Why are you doing this?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: When we received complaints as a result of retroactively cutting capital taxes for Ontario businesses, when we received complaints for doing something which was pretty well without precedent, I don't recall the leader of the official opposition standing up and saying, "This is unfair to the labour community, and if there's any money available, you ought to be putting it into the labour sector."

What we're trying to do is to be fair here. What we're trying to do is to be fair to all people working in the industry, we're trying to be fair to all employers working in the industry, and we're trying to be fair given our economic circumstances. That's why we have delayed implementation, from a financial perspective, until 2012. I think that is fair. Just as we were fair when we retroactively cut capital taxes for business, we also think it's fair—

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

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Howard Hampton: A question to the Premier: Just a couple of years ago, the McGuinty government said that its auto sector strategy was going to guarantee the jobs of General Motors workers across Ontario. Since that time, we've witnessed the loss of thousands of jobs at General Motors. Today, the Premier is saying, "I think there is something else we need to grab hold of here. I think we're going to end up with a smaller auto sector in the province of Ontario. I think we're going to end up with fewer jobs than we have at present in the province of Ontario" in the auto sector.

Premier, your government, the McGuinty government, has had five years to reposition the auto sector in this province and ensure sustainable jobs. I want to ask this: What have you been doing over the last five years? You've had lots to say, but now we see fewer and fewer jobs and the risk of losing thousands more.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My colleague knows of some of our genuine successes in a very troubled time for the global auto sector. He knows that we turned 500 million public dollars into leveraging $7 billion worth of new investment. We have created or secured thousands of jobs. He's also very much aware, I know, of the global economic crisis, which is having an influence on us, and I think he's also aware of the fact that there is an excess of capacity in the North American market, particularly when comes to the Big Three. We learned in the newspaper yesterday that if we shut down all of the Ontario production alone, there would still be excess capacity in the North American market.

That's why we're at the table working with the federal government, and with the Americans now, to ensure that we are not disadvantaged as a result of the continuing restructuring.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: The McGuinty government wants to talk as if somehow what's happening here is a surprise. The fact of the matter is that this has been a continuing issue for five years. Just a couple of years ago, the McGuinty government was patting itself on the back and saying, "Oh, we're moving ahead, and this is going to guarantee jobs" and you were shovelling hundreds of millions of dollars out the door to auto companies.

My question is this: While the McGuinty government was shovelling that money out the door, why didn't you insist that products like more energy-efficient cars would be produced in Ontario's plants? Why didn't you insist on some job guarantees in return for the hundreds of millions of dollars that the McGuinty government shovelled out the door?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm trying to figure out where the leader of the NDP stands on this, because some days he's telling us that we should avoid any kind of financial association with the Ontario auto sector. He talks about shovelling money out the door in support of our auto sector, in support of those 400,000 Ontario jobs, in support of those 12 Ontario communities, in support of an industry that benefits the nation as a whole—he refers to that as "shovelling."

We are going to continue to work hard and well with the federal government, with the Ontario auto sector, with the CAW. We're going to work as hard and as well as we can with the Americans now to ensure that as this restructuring continues, we are not disadvantaged here. We want to build a strong foundation that shows great promise for the future. I am confident that we will get this right and that those 400,000 working in this industry—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: Premier, I'm concerned about your track record. I'm concerned that companies like General Motors have got close to $200 million and there was no guarantee of more energy-efficient cars or trucks in Ontario; that the General Motors half-ton plant is being closed and moved to Mexico. I'm concerned that this is a government that has boasted over and over again that it has a strategy for the auto sector and all we're seeing is the loss of thousands of jobs.

Given your track record over the last five years, why should Ontario workers in the auto sector have any confidence in the McGuinty government now?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm going to be meeting with the leader of the CAW shortly. I had the opportunity to meet with representatives of our auto sector, the Detroit Three, and Honda and Toyota. I've had an opportunity to talk to the Prime Minister about this. Ministers Bryant and Clement are in Detroit, and shortly they'll be going on to Washington.

I'll put our record as a government up against any American state. You should ask them what they think of Ontario and the fact that we remain, now, for five years running, the number one producer of vehicles in North America. Ask them what they think about us landing $7 billion worth of new investment in the last five years. I'll put our record up against anybody else's.

What's at stake right now is the future of the sector. There are some important questions yet to be answered in this regard. We will keep working hard and well with all concerned. We will build a solid foundation that shows great promise for the future of the auto industry in the province of Ontario.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr. Howard Hampton: What Ontario workers have seen is that as the McGuinty government continues to talk, thousands more workers lose their jobs.

To the Premier: It's not just the auto sector that's in serious trouble. Four years ago, five years ago, the forest sector came here to Queen's Park and said to the McGuinty government, "Your electricity policy is going to drive thousands of forest sector jobs out of this province." The McGuinty government said, "You don't know what you're talking about." Well, here we are now, and Ontario has virtually the highest industrial hydro rates in Canada and, no surprise, thousands of forest sector jobs have been lost.

Premier, here's your track record: You preside over the loss of thousands of jobs in the forest sector; now you preside over the loss of thousands of jobs in the auto sector. Why should any worker in either of those sectors have any confidence in anything that the McGuinty government says or promises?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, it's hard to keep up with the leader of the NDP in terms of his shifting views on these kinds of issues. One of the things that he is talking about now is that we should be subsidizing electricity prices, but this is what he has said in the past: "Industrial energy price subsidization can be attractive in theory, but tricky in practice.... I think it far better to work with industry to lower its energy costs through greater efficiency, not through a scheme of subsidized rates." He put that in his book Public Power. He was right at that time.

That's the kind of policy that we have adopted. That's the kind of thing that we'll continue to do, working hand in hand with the forestry sector in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: A thoughtful industrial hydro rate has nothing to do with subsidization. A thoughtful industrial hydro rate has everything to do with valuing good manufacturing jobs.

Let me give you an example of what's happening. This is the example, again, from Dryden, Ontario, one of the most modern paper mills in all of Canada. It's had over $3 billion of new investment in the last 15 years, but the mill is now shut down. Meanwhile, the company that shut it down is going to operate 10 uncoated free-sheet paper mills of the same kind in the United States. How could that happen, Premier? No mill in Ontario providing uncoated, free-sheet paper, which is photocopy paper, but 10 of them continue to operate in the United States. How could that happen, Premier? What's the explanation of the McGuinty government?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: Thank you very much to the member for the question. Without doubt, we've been giving $146 million in electricity rebates to the major paper and pulp companies in Ontario. The reason for that was to help them deal with pulp, because it's an expensive product to produce.

If you read what they are saying when these companies are closing down for long, short or permanent periods of time—and they are doing it in Newfoundland, they are doing it in BC, they are doing it in Quebec—electricity isn't the issue. They do not have a market for their products.

They are speaking about inventory, they're talking about liquidity, and they're dealing with a worldwide crisis in the forestry sector. The challenges we face here in Ontario are being faced right across the world in terms of dealing with the forestry sector. There isn't the market for the products. They're going through the transition. They know they have to deal—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: I think the minister, again, demonstrates what planet the McGuinty government isn't on.

The fact of the matter is, world newsprint consumption is going up, but newsprint mills in Ontario are shutting down. The fact of the matter is, there are 10 mills producing photocopy paper in the United States now, all owned by Domtar, and they don't operate one mill in Ontario. The fact of the matter is, no paper machines have been shut down in Manitoba, no pulp machines have been shut down, but more than 10 machines have been shut down in northwestern Ontario.

I say again, why should any forest sector worker have any confidence in what the McGuinty government says when your track record is destroying literally thousands of jobs, month after month, mainly across northern Ontario? Why should anyone have any confidence in what you say or promise now?

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: We have flowed over $407 million to the forestry sector to help them deal with challenges that they're facing. Whether it's the uptake of the roads for primary roads for logging, whether it's putting through additional prosperity fund grants for added value marketing or for new—

Mr. Howard Hampton: While mills shut down.

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: Excuse me—or for new saws for mills. The fact of the matter is that if the member would do a little better research, he would actually find out that since the Olympics ended in Beijing, the worldwide paper total has gone down—not up, but down.

So what we're doing is working with the forestry companies, not the rhetoric that you hear from across the floor, sitting down and talking about how we move two years, three years from now into a viable, sustainable industry.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr. Norm Miller: I'm pleased to have representatives of the Muskoka Builders' Association—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Question?

Mr. Norm Miller: It's to the Minister of Labour, Speaker.

I'm pleased to have representatives of the Muskoka Builders' Association in the public gallery today. Their president, David Nodwell, wrote to you about Bill 119,

An Act to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. He's here today so you can answer his question for a change.

Mr. Nodwell writes, "We are deeply concerned with the extension of mandatory WSIB coverage to partners, executive officers and owners. Currently key company personnel carry private insurance." He goes on to say, "... are owners really likely ever to make a claim when doing so would raise the premiums they would have to pay for their company." He's also very concerned about the speed that this bill is moving through the legislative process.

Minister, if you're not going to implement this bill for three years, why won't you allow the committee to travel the province and hear the concerns of construction businesses like those behind me in the gallery today?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I, too, welcome the Muskoka builders and thank them for being here and for their consultation on this very important piece of legislation.

For 15 years, this piece of proposed legislation has been debated. The last consultation process took place in 2006.

We often forget why we're doing this, but we're doing it for those construction workers. We want to make sure that they are safe in the workplace. We've seen too many serious injuries. We've seen fatalities. We want to make sure that they are insured, that their families are taken care of and that there is fairness, but also, during these consultations, as well as now in committee, we are always open to strengthening the legislation to make sure that we get it right so that we can close the loopholes of misclassification of workers.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Norm Miller: Minister, small business people take pride in doing business the right way. As a construction-related association, they place health and safety as a top priority. The underground economy is a concern to them and they would welcome changes that address this issue, but this bill doesn't.

Minister, about a third of the members of the Muskoka Builders' Association took a day off work to come down here. They are obviously very concerned about your bill. They are asking you to take the time to get this bill done the right way. They are very concerned about the lack of specifics in your bill, so maybe you could actually answer President Nodwell's question, which is, "What specific mechanisms exist in this legislation that will reveal underground operators?" And he is here today.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: What I can tell the member, the Muskoka builders and all construction workers is that this proposed piece of legislation will close those loopholes. It will not allow people to misclassify workers. It will make sure that companies don't under-report the number of employees that they have and that they all pay their premiums, because we want to have a fair, level playing field.

Let me read you a story of somebody who was hurt on the job site, a fatality. One example comes to mind, a construction worker who left behind a spouse and children. He died from a fall, but he did not have optional WSIB insurance. That means his spouse and children were not entitled to lump sum benefits, reimbursement for burial expenses—they wouldn't receive those from the WSIB during that very difficult time. This will address that. The spouse and young children also have not received the—

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

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. The 10 highest salaries for university presidents range from $311,000 to $504,000 a year. The top 10 payouts when they leave range from $360,000 to $1.3 million, and these numbers do not include the allowances for residence, cars, and clubs.

When students are struggling with rising tuition and crippling debt, how does the minister justify these kinds of salaries and payouts to university presidents?

Hon. John Milloy: I'm pleased to answer a question about student assistance and support for students. I feel the member's question may have been prompted by the presence of the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance here today, who are joined by the college student association. I had a very productive meeting with them yesterday.

The McGuinty government is very proud of what we've done in terms of student assistance. With the introduction of the Reaching Higher plan, $1.5 billion of it was earmarked specifically for student assistance. We've doubled our investments in student aid since 2003-04. We're helping 150,000 students per year with financial assistance. We've tripled the number of grants available to students. Right now, one in four students—approximately 120,000—receive non-repayable grants, and we've increased OSAP maximums by 27%—

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

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I know the minister has a Ph.D. and he would have understood my question. He didn't answer my question. These salaries are just not right. The Premier makes $200,000 a year, and he gets beaten up here every day answering our questions.

Tuition is going through the roof, we don't have enough full-time professors, our class sizes are just too high, and your government just hands out tax dollars to universities and lets them do whatever they want with them. Universities are not autonomous; they are public institutions and they answer to you.

When will your ministry do its job and impose limits on these contracts that are being given to university administrators?

Hon. John Milloy: The issue at hand is making sure that post-secondary education is affordable for Ontario students. Since we've come to power, we've significantly increased per-student funding to both college and university students. Colleges have seen a 43% increase, universities a 25% increase.

Let me continue with some more statistics for the member. Recently, we introduced a $27-million distance grant which will benefit 24,000 students, assisting with transportation costs for students in remote and rural areas. We've limited students' annual repayable debt to $7,000 through the Ontario student opportunity grant.

Mr. Speaker, I will put our record up against theirs any day. Let me remind him of theirs. They cut student aid by nearly 50%. They cut funding to post-secondary education. They promised to eliminate tuition, then freeze it. Instead, they increased tuition fees by—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. The Member from Algoma—Manitoulin.

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I have a question for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. I know that this government has been working hard to increase access to health care. Today, 630,000 more Ontarians have access to a family doctor than did in 2003. But there are still Ontarians left without access to a family health care provider.

I know the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care recently travelled to northern Ontario, a region where there is significant demand for family doctors. While he was there, he announced the expansion of an innovative program which is currently providing Ontarians increased access to care. Can the minister tell the House how he is helping unattached patients in northern Ontario get the health care that they need?

Hon. David Caplan: I'd like to thank the member from Algoma—Manitoulin for his advocacy in this area, and I'm proud to tell the House that we have issued a call for proposals for three new nurse-practitioner-led clinics in the Sault Ste. Marie and Erie St. Clair local health integration networks, and in the North West Local Health Integration Network. Nurse-practitioner-led clinics are an innovative way to improve access to high-quality care. Nurse practitioners are able to treat common illnesses and injuries, and they can write prescriptions and order lab tests and X-rays, among other things.

Through collaboration with physicians and other health care partners, these new clinics will focus on chronic disease management and prevention, as well as health promotion.

It's a model that's already working incredibly well in Sudbury, the home of Canada's first nurse-practitioner-led clinic. Already, the Sudbury clinic is providing primary care to nearly 2,000 Ontarians who otherwise wouldn't have access to family care. This is an innovative model. It is something that I'm very proud of—

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

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I'm glad to hear that the Sudbury clinic has increased access to health care for Ontarians in need. Still, I'm hoping that the Minister of Health will be able to elaborate further on the effectiveness of nurse-practitioner-led clinics. Some say that these clinics reduce the likelihood of further investment in the province's family health teams. I ask the Minister of Health to address these concerns. How can he be sure that nurse-practitioner-led clinics are effectively delivering health care to Ontarians?

Hon. David Caplan: That is an excellent question. First of all, I would like to say that I'm extremely proud of what our first nurse-practitioner-led clinic has accomplished in Sudbury. I know that members from the Sudbury area share that view. Moving forward, we will evaluate the clinics' performance to find the best practices and identify ways that we can improve the model. But I'm sure of this: Nurse practitioners deliver high-quality care and effective quality care for Ontarians. They are an integral part of our vision for the health care of Ontarians.

Our plan is not a choice between two models of care. We are committed to creating another 50 family health teams, which will bring our total to over 200 teams. This plan complements our commitment to opening a total of 25 nurse practitioner clinics right across the province of Ontario. Both initiatives are part of our family-health-care-for-all strategy, a strategy that aims to improve—

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

SMALL BUSINESS

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Over the past two committee days, as a result of you shutting down public debate on Bill 119, we heard from a small number of groups. Over half of them were union representatives, each of which has made significant donations to the Ontario Liberal Party, and the Laborers' International Union of North America—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would just caution the member on where she may be going with this question and remind her of standing order 23(i).

Ms. Laurie Scott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Laborers' International Union of North America was invited by you to speak to the committee, a union that supports the Working Families Coalition. Minister, can you tell the people in the gallery today why the Ontario Liberal Party's website is advertising a $3,000-per-table event hosted at this union's main hall in Hamilton on December 2?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I say to the member—maybe she has not heard me here in this House—that this proposed piece of legislation is about fairness, levelling the playing field, and the safety of our construction workers.

I know that your leader—I hope you can find him—got it right at one point this past spring when he said and he understood—and let me read you something from some comments from an association, what they said about John Tory: "I understand that he insists that a level playing field should be created throughout the bidding process, and that any unfair advantage to the underground economy should be eliminated."

I would hope that the member would speak with John Tory so she can get an understanding of why it's important to bring forward this proposed legislation.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Minister, you can't duck and dodge. Construction workers are already covered by WSIB, so there's no valid reason for this bill.

The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, which you invited to present at committee, refers to itself as a special-interest group that strongly supports Working Families Coalition. Another invitee of yours, the Ontario Pipe Trades Council, in their presentation, referred to non-union construction businesses as "unscrupulous" and non-union apprenticeships as "so-called apprentices."

Minister, do you agree with the Ontario Pipe Trades Council, which gave Working Families Coalition $400,000 in 2007? Do you think that non-union small businesses are unscrupulous, and do you think that non-union apprentices should be referred to as "so-called"? Because, certainly, one of your generous friends thinks so.

Interjections.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: What I believe is that we should take care of those hard-working men and women in construction—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd just ask the members to allow the minister to answer the question. I'm asking difficulty hearing his answer.

Minister?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: As I said, we should make sure that those men and women in the construction industry are taken care of, that their safety is taken care of.

Your leader assured the construction industry in the spring of 2007 that he understood that the WSIB reform was essential to the health of the construction industry.

What I can tell you is the McGuinty government, through ReNew Ontario, is investing $30-billion-plus in infrastructure. The people who build that infrastructure are those men and women. We want to make sure that the businesses are on a level playing field and those men and women—

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

CHILD CARE

Mr. Paul Miller: To the Minister of Community and Social Services. Government members have accused me of fearmongering, whistle-blowing, and using grandparents raising their grandkids as a political football, having you believe that I fabricated the eligibility changes to the temporary care assistance program. The fact is that grandparents came to me for help, and I brought their concerns forward. If this is being a whistle-blower, I'm proud to be one.

I will ask this minister once again: Will she come clean to all the members of this House that she's cutting off temporary care assistance to grandparents who are raising their grandkids?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I think that it's important to reiterate what temporary care assistance is. Temporary care assistance is a program that is offered to provide financial support to non-parental caregivers who are temporarily caring for a child that they have no legal obligation to support. This could be grandparents, aunts and uncles, neighbours, friends, for example, caring for a child that the parents are not able to care for because they're being hospitalized—for different reasons; they could be subjected to domestic violence and drug addiction. This program is offered to support those people.

This government is very pleased to be supportive, and every year we increase the budget. When we came into power, the budget was reduced by the previous government. We increased it from $8 million to $12 million, and we will—

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

Mr. Paul Miller: Yesterday, the minister stood up in this House and said: "The people who are looking after children who are in need today will continue to receive the support that this government is offering." I'll let the House be the judge of this statement.

We have word today, Minister, that Brant county grandparents are the next to be completely cut off from temporary care assistance. Brant's director in charge of temp care met with grandparents last week in her area and informed them that not one of them meet the minister's new eligibility criteria and they will be cut off in the new year. Both the minister and the PA have said that grandparents should expect no changes to their assistance. Tell us how many more grandparents raising their grandkids should expect to ring in the new year cut off?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: It's very unfortunate that this member is telling—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: It is very unfortunate that this member is telling grandparents that they're going to lose their temporary care assistance. This is not true. Those people who are eligible today will be—

Mr. Paul Miller: Resign.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just remind, and I've reminded the honourable member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek on a number of occasions, about personal comments directed at individuals. I just ask you to be cautious of your comments.

Minister?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: It's very unfortunate. I will repeat it in this House: The grandparents that are eligible today will be eligible tomorrow. This member brought grandparents to my parliamentary assistant's office and you know what, Mr. Speaker? None of them have been cut off. He's scaring the grandparents off and it's very unfortunate. This program has been in place for 30 years and will continue to be in place.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: My question is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. I know that modernizing Ontario's Mining Act has been a priority for this government. Minister, I understand that since formally launching this process in July, you have held a number of public and stakeholder consultations as well as a series of workshops with First Nations and organizations, and meetings with tribal councils. These consultations and workshops were originally to wrap up on October 15, with legislation being introduced in December this year.

However, last week, your ministry announced the second extension in the dialogue process. Minister, please tell the House why it is important to extend the deadline for a second time, how it will affect the industry, and if the government will be able to keep its commitment of having new Mining Act rules in place in 2009.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thank you to the member for Huron—Bruce for the question. Of course, the member is the MPP for North America's largest salt mine, so thank you very much for your great support.

After ongoing concerns were expressed by First Nations communities and their leadership, my ministry, along with the significant involvement of my colleague, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, was able to come to an agreement with our First Nations partners to extend the consultation period to January 15, 2009. We believe this extension will allow First Nations communities more time to discuss, consider and provide input on their position regarding changes to the Mining Act.

We believe this extra time is extremely important in order to achieve effective and appropriate legislation. During this time, as well, we will continue our outreach with industry and we will welcome additional input from them and other stakeholders. This extension will not affect our overall time line, though. We still plan to introduce legislation in the spring session of the Legislature and we still propose that the new rules—

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

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: Thank you, Minister, for elaborating to the House on the extension of the consultation process of the Mining Act review. Minister, I know that over the past several years our government has been working very hard to continually improve relationships and our engagement with aboriginal people. Your ministry has done so by responding to First Nations' concerns over consultation time lines about this review. Could you please, Minister, elaborate on how First Nations and organizations across Ontario have responded to the extension of the consultation process of the Mining Act review?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: To the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I'm pleased to stand in front of you today to say that we listened, we respected and we responded. I think it may be safe to say that in previous governments of all stripes, when issues like these were raised by First Nations, they probably would not have been taken so seriously. We believe in this new relationship, and we've demonstrated that by respecting the concerns expressed by the First Nations.

I don't expect unanimity with the 133 chiefs across Ontario, but I believe that this gesture of goodwill and government-to-government respect will help lead us to a position on the Mining Act that can be acceptable to the First Nations, the government of Ontario and the mining industry.

We have found the responses from the First Nations leadership to be supportive. I want to thank Regional Chief Angus Toulouse and Grand Chiefs Beaucage, Kelly and Phillips for their efforts and leadership. I'll do my best to ensure that their voices are heard both in this process and throughout the government of Ontario.

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE BOARD

Mr. Ted Arnott: I have a simple and direct question for the Minister of Labour: What is the current value of the unfunded liability at the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: The member may be aware, or not, that the WSIB is an arm's-length agency of the Ministry of Labour. They are the fourth-largest insurance company in all of North America. They do have a large fund, and they do have an unfunded liability. They do have a plan to reduce that liability, although all of us in this House know with our own—my own personal RRSPs have gone down 20-odd per cent; there are many different funds. The WSIB works diligently on reducing that unfunded liability. They have a financial committee in place that works on it, and I know that they will continue to be diligent about their work on that plan to reduce that unfunded liability.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Arnott: I'm shocked to learn that the Minister of Labour does not know what the level of unfunded liability is in the province of Ontario.

Employers and workers know that an unfunded liability at the WSIB means the board does not have enough money set aside to pay its future obligations. It means higher premiums down the road or reduced benefits for injured workers, or both.

This government is circumventing normal debate, trampling on democracy, ramming Bill 119 through this House, bringing in a new job-killing tax on small business, sending the wrong signal in a time of economic crisis. At the same time, they're playing a shell game with the board's investment portfolio at a time when the stock market has lost 30% of its value this year alone. It all adds up to irresponsible financial management that is unsustainable.

When will the minister acknowledge the concerns of small business, withdraw Bill 119, and table a credible long-term plan to pay down the unfunded liability at the WSIB?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: First, I'll speak to the WSIB as an agency of the Ministry of Labour. The WSIB has been around since 1914, almost 100 years. They have a legacy of protecting workers, but also working with employers. The WSIB meets both with employers and employees to decide on their premiums, to make sure that it is done in a balanced way, to make sure that there is stability—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I warn the member from Renfrew that his comments have been a little loud, and it's very difficult—please consider that as a warning.

Minister?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: —and to make sure that there is fair and reasonable compensation for injured workers and financial stability for employers. That's what they do.

We believe that workers should have that safeguard of WSIB coverage. We will continue to work with them to make sure that they address any financial—

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

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Will the minister explain to this House why he is allowing the erosion of resources for services to children with complex disabilities in Sarnia—Lambton?

Hon. David Caplan: I don't believe that the premise of the question is correct. In fact, we're seeing an increase in resources in our health care system—over $11 billion, a 37% increase. If the member has some information to share, I think she should perhaps correct her record and not create the impression that there has been an erosion of resources but rather, under this government, there has been a significant increase in resources.

This has been one of the achievements of this government, that we have been able to whittle down a $5.5-billion deficit that was hidden, that was left behind by the previous government. But because of recent economic—

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: On a point of order—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The honourable member from Nepean—Carleton knows that we generally are not raising points of order in question period.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I ask the honourable member to withdraw the comment she just made.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, the minister should know that last night, parents in Sarnia—Lambton met to object to the government's cut-throat bidding process that caused the CCAC's decision to eliminate speech and occupational therapy and physiotherapy services, provided by Pathways Health Centre for Children, for kids with disabilities. This means a difficult transition for those children and breaks their continuity of care, the familiarity and quality of services that they have been receiving through Pathways, some of them since they were born. Pathways is being forced, in the meanwhile, to terminate staff at a time when waiting lists for these kinds of services are growing longer and longer.

Rather than shirking responsibility, will the minister respond to the parents' concerns and move to fund and protect the Pathways program in Sarnia—Lambton?

Hon. David Caplan: Unfortunately, the member presents false and inaccurate information. I understand that the community—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): It goes both ways within this House. Stop the clock for a moment, please.

It's one thing to be making a comment. But to start to impute motives one way or the other—it's not helpful for trying to maintain decorum in this House. I just ask all members to be a little conscious of the language that they use, because you can see how it causes disruption within this chamber.

I would hope that members would have listened to all the speeches yesterday in Ottawa about trying to bring decorum. We've been doing very well but today we just seem to be losing it a bit.

Minister?

Hon. David Caplan: I understand that the community care access centre has selected a new service provider—which was providing subcontracted services for Pathways—and that the transfer of providers will take place by early December; that there will be—and I want to be categorical—no break in service for the children, and they will most likely maintain the same speech pathologist.

We are going to continue to support Pathways Health Centre for Children in their role as a children's treatment centre to provide kids with the support that they need. We are working diligently to provide greater access to services for special-needs children and youth and reduce wait times for those services.

Unlike what the member has indicated earlier, these are the real facts: that we have increased funding for CCACs by—

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

SMALL BUSINESS

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Minister, will you release the impact cost analysis that should have been prepared before you introduced Bill 119, and make public what these changes will mean to the thousands of small businesses across Ontario?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: What I can tell the member is, what this will mean is that we will safeguard thousands of construction workers who today do not have insurance coverage. What I can tell the member is that the revenue leakage to the WSIB that is happening will be curtailed. What I can tell the member is that those good players, the good businesses that are paying their premiums, will have a level playing field. That's what we're working toward.

I don't know if the member understands that, but we are fighting for fairness here, to make sure that we level the playing field and to make sure that we safeguard those hard-working construction workers.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I don't know if the minister understands this. My question was, "Are you going to release the impact cost analysis that should have been done before you introduced Bill 119?" Bolton Electric, in Dufferin—Caledon, has done that impact cost analysis, and in their case they are looking at a $4,600 increase in their WSIB premiums. Bolton Electric has 12 employees, and they've been doing all of the right things to protect those employees. The time and money Bolton Electric invests yearly in staff safety has proven that their proactive approach has reduced lost-time accidents substantially. By forcing them to insure under WSIB, you are directly affecting their competitiveness.

Minister, I ask again, are you prepared to direct your ministry to prepare and release the impact cost analysis so that you can understand how this change affects small business in Ontario?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I'm glad that the company mentioned is investing in their employees and in health and safety. This is what this is all about: making sure that companies do bring those safeguards to their employees and making sure that we level the playing field. For too long, there have been organizations, businesses out there, misclassifying their workers and putting their workers in precarious situations. I've spoken to one of the cases in the letters that I got where there was a fatality of a construction worker and he was not insured, and what happened to that family—where they did not get any benefits.

We want to make sure that those families do get benefits. We want to make sure that those workers, if they do get injured with that company and all construction companies in Ontario, are insured and that we safeguard those employees.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. Yesterday, we heard from the lawyer for a Scarborough man found not criminally responsible for killing his family because he suffered from schizophrenia. It's believed this tragedy could have been prevented if Ontario had better mental health care programs available in the community. Why does the minister continue to treat community mental health as the poor cousin of health care?

Hon. David Caplan: To the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Thank you for the question. I really don't know what the adequacy of the mental health provisions are, but I know that, in this particular instance, the member opposite had asked for an inquest. I would suggest to both parties that they would certainly look to advise the family of the opportunities open to them to deal with the local coroner and ask that local coroner to make a decision. Then, if they're not satisfied, I would encourage the members to advise the individuals concerned that they could appeal to the regional coroner and have him or her make that decision, and if they're not satisfied with that, then obviously they can appeal to the chief coroner.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. I know I said it in French, but usually he understands.

I want to know why we continue to treat mental health as a poor cousin. Here's what the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario, which is with us today, has to say: "The number of people with mental disorders in the justice system is increasing at the rate of about 10% a year." According to the Canadian Mental Health Association, Ontario spends less per capita than any other province, and despite increases over the last four years, mental health spending has declined and represents only 3% of the health care spending of this province.

I ask again, to the Minister of Health, when will this minister truly support community mental health programs so that terrible tragedies like those experienced by the Chau family can be averted in the future?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: To the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. David Caplan: I think it's important to put this in a little bit of context. New Democrats, when in power, cut mental health funding by $23 million in 1992. They cut mental health funding again in 1994 and 1995 by an additional $42 million. The Conservative Party had no base increase for community mental health services in eight years.

I want to contrast that with this side of the House. We've had $270 million in new funding that has expanded services to over 200,000 Ontarians and hired 1,100 new mental health workers. So if there is a comparison between the commitments for mental health between the various parties and the actions that have been taken, I am happy to compare the record of this party and this government to the New Democrats and to the Conservatives any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

ART GALLERY OF ONTARIO

Mr. David Zimmer: My question is for the Minister of Culture. After a year of renovations, the Art Gallery of Ontario reopened its doors to the public this past weekend. Admission was free for the weekend. The reopening was covered extensively by the media, including the foreign media, most particularly a really rave review by the New York Times.

I have to say the new AGO is stunning. More than 3,500 donors and various levels of government contributed to the renewal of this cultural icon and, truly, the newly transformed AGO does not disappoint.

Minister, what was Ontario's role in the renewal of this cultural icon?

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: I'm delighted to respond to my honourable colleague. Last Friday, I was fortunate indeed to participate at the reopening of the Ontario art gallery. Frank Gehry's magnificent architectural treasure will engage, captivate and inspire Ontarians and tourists for generations to come. It is a jewel that links the historic buildings, the marvellous modern addition, the streetscape and the neighbourhood where Gehry grew up.

The wisdom of this government is mind-boggling in investing $39 million in the Ontario art gallery's restoration and reconstruction. May I say that our international reputation has gone right off the charts. It will bring countless international visitors to this city, celebrating the renaissance that is Toronto and that is the hub to this wonderful province.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The time for question period has ended.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The clock was below zero.

DEFERRED VOTES

BUDGET MEASURES AND INTERIM

APPROPRIATION ACT, 2008 (NO. 2) /

LOI DE 2008 SUR

LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES

ET L'AFFECTATION ANTICIPÉE

DE CRÉDITS (NO 2)

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 114,

An Act respecting Budget measures, interim appropriations and other matters, to amend the Ottawa Congress Centre Act and to enact the Ontario Capital Growth Corporation Act, 2008 / Projet de loi 114, Loi concernant les mesures budgétaires, l'affectation anticipée de crédits et d'autres questions, modifiant la

Loi sur le Centre des congrès d'Ottawa et édictant la Loi de 2008 sur la Société ontarienne de financement de la croissance.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Call in the members. This will be a 10-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1133 to 1143.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): All those in favour will rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): All those opposed?

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 59; the nays are 30.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I declare the motion carried.

Third reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters):

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

This House stands recessed until 3 p.m.

The House recessed from 1146 to 1500.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SMALL BUSINESS

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: I rise today on behalf of my constituents whose voices this government have ignored, and whose businesses are in jeopardy if and when Bill 119 becomes law.

The McGuinty government's WSIB legislation is a slap in the face to construction industry owners who are already looking after the health and safety of their employees. It is an insult to insinuate that the small and medium-sized firms are not safeguarding the well-being of their employees. Their employees are an investment in their company, and they're doing just that.

Thanks to the regressive apprenticeship policies of this McGuinty government, they need to keep their skilled tradespeople healthy and happy, and they do.

The construction companies are asking you, Premier, to back out. They are already struggling to keep their heads above water between your excessive corporate taxes and health taxes.

Premier, you have hidden your head in the sand for too long instead of dealing with our sagging economic situation. Now we are in a recession and our small businesses will be exceptionally hard hit. With all that going on, you pick this time, Mr. Premier, to kick these businesses while they're down.

I'm sure there's no correlation between the unions that pushed you to bring Bill 119 forward and the Liberal fundraisers being held in union halls, but perception is reality. So then why now, and why are you in such a hurry?

CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE

PULMONARY DISEASE

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: Today I rise in the House on World Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Day—COPD.

Today at 4 p.m. on the legislative grounds, the Ontario Lung Association will be joining patients who suffer from COPD. These patients have walked, cycled, jogged and rowed thousands of kilometres to reach Queen's Park in celebrating COPD Day. They come from every riding to connect with MPPs, to tell us how important it is for the government to support the Ontario lung health framework that supports COPD programs and services across the province.

COPD is a term referring to two lung diseases: chronic bronchitis and emphysema. COPD is the fourth leading cause of death in Canada, expected to be the third in about 10 years. About 500,000 Ontarians have COPD, and there is no cure. We know, though, that pulmonary rehabilitation works.

Even though the lung association does incredible work, awareness about COPD still remains low. The celebration today brings to the forefront the importance of understanding this chronic disease, the need for greater diagnosis, education and management as well as the benefit of pulmonary rehabilitation. I encourage members to make their way to the front of the Legislature to welcome these sufferers and to listen to their stories.

SAUGEEN TERRITORY AWARDS

OF RECOGNITION AND SUCCESS

Mr. Bill Murdoch: Today I would like to congratulate my constituents who were winners at the 2008 Saugeen Territory Awards of Recognition and Success.

The STARS awards were held on October 29 in Arthur, and were presented by the Saugeen Economic Development Corp. and Industry Canada, in conjunction with local chambers of commerce and business associations.

The Falls Inn, owned by Meg and Dwayne Hallman of Walters Falls, was the winner of the