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

September 24, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Sep-24 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 24 September 2009 Jeudi 24 septembre 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BARRIE-INNISFIL BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA MODIFICATION

DES LIMITES TERRITORIALES

ENTRE BARRIE ET INNISFIL

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

MINISTER'S RECORD

TAXATION

SKILLS TRAINING

PUBLIC TRANSIT

ONTARIO LOTTERY AND

GAMING CORP.

PENSION PLANS

TAXATION

DRIVER EXAMINATION CENTRES

AIR QUALITY

DISASTER RELIEF

HOSPITAL SPENDING

SKILLS TRAINING

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PENSION PLANS

FAMILY HEALTH TEAMS

PORTUGUESE CANADIAN COMMUNITY

NATUROPATHIC MEDICINE

JEAN'S FLOWER SHOP

COMMUNITY USE OF SCHOOLS

WELLS STREET PUBLIC SCHOOL

GREEN POWER GENERATION

YOM KIPPUR

PETITIONS

AIR QUALITY

TAXATION

ROAD SAFETY

TAXATION

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

TAXATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

RURAL SMALL BUSINESS

TAXATION

SHARK FISHERY

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

(ENABLING MUNICIPALITIES TO

REQUIRE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING),

2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT DU TERRITOIRE

(INCLUSION DE LOGEMENTS

ABORDABLES PAR LES MUNICIPALITÉ

S) AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

TOBACCO TAX

REDUCTION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DE LA TAXE SUR LE TABAC

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

(ENABLING MUNICIPALITIES

TO REQUIRE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING),

2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'AMÉNAGEMENT DU TERRITOIRE

(INCLUSION DE LOGEMENTS

ABORDABLES PAR LES MUNICIPALITÉ

S) AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

TOBACCO TAX

REDUCTION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DE LA TAXE SUR LE TABAC

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PUBLIC SECTOR EXPENSES

REVIEW ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009

SUR L'EXAMEN DES DÉPENSES

DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BARRIE-INNISFIL BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA MODIFICATION

DES LIMITES TERRITORIALES

ENTRE BARRIE ET INNISFIL

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 23, 2009, on the motion for second reading of Bill 196,

An Act respecting the adjustment of the boundary between the City of Barrie and the Town of Innisfil / Projet de loi 196, Loi concernant la modification des limites territoriales entre la cité de Barrie et la ville d'Innisfil.

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

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I'm pleased to be able to rise today and make a few comments on Bill 196, the Barrie-Innisfil growth plan–I guess you could call it the boundary adjustment. However, it also has a huge effect on the strategic vision for growth in the county of Simcoe.

I understand from the legislation that there will be somewhere around 2,300 hectares of land taken from the town of Innisfil and put into the city limits of the city of Barrie, and I understand that it's to take effect as of January 1 of this year. That's my understanding.

It's good to see you in the chair, Mr. Speaker. I thought we had another Speaker there a minute ago. I didn't see you come in.

We have some very, very deep concerns with how this has gone about and particularly how it affects other areas. To begin with, this has been an ongoing dispute, as we know, for many, many years. There's no question that the city of Barrie is one of the fastest-growing communities in the province of Ontario, and it's not by accident. There's a six-lane highway to the city of Barrie. Obviously, we would expect growth to take place in areas where we have a good transportation system. Of course, we've got the GO train there now. Barrie is a very urban community and a very good city within the province of Ontario.

However, so is the town of Innisfil. The town of Innisfil has shown leadership over the years. It has been well administered, and it has been a good partner and a good neighbour of the city of Barrie as well.

The concerns that I have are that there is apparently a population—as we follow the intergovernmental action plan and the Simcoe county growth plan and these Places to Grow types of legislation and documentation we bring forward, I have a couple of concerns. By 2031, the total population of Barrie, Orillia and the county of Simcoe is projected to be somewhere around 666,000 or 700,000 people. I know there has been this ongoing dispute about the growth plan.

I was concerned about two things. One is the distribution of the population with other municipalities in the county of Simcoe. In particular, I'm thinking of two municipalities in my riding: the town of Penetanguishene and the town of Midland, which have basically been left out of any growth and are not included as a growth node in the strategic vision that Minister Watson works on, along with Minister Smitherman, on sort of a dual role as they try to develop it.

The second area I'm concerned about is this area of 2,400 hectares, which is a large sum of land, a large piece of property; however, I'm concerned about all the work that has been done on the Lake Simcoe protection plan, the Lake Simcoe Protection Act, the money that has been pumped in from the federal government, all the work that has been done by stakeholders. I am really concerned about how this 2,400 hectares of urban sprawl will impact our beautiful Lake Simcoe and what measures will be put in place so that we don't have a negative impact on the lake.

Because when you add 100,000 people or 125,000 people in 2,300 or 2,400 hectares—and that's likely where most of the population will go—there will likely be a negative impact, with sewage discharge and with stormwater management in particular.

I would really like, at some point, at committee hearings or even in debate in the House here, if we could get some response back from the ministry or from the minister himself indicating how they plan to protect Lake Simcoe from urban sprawl with the 2,400 hectares that have been basically taken into the city of Barrie.

The other concern I have—I mentioned it earlier—is a high level of concern with the strategic vision for growth in the county of Simcoe from a couple of the municipalities. I'm going to read some comments here, if I may, about some of the concerns they have.

This is a joint presentation between the town of Midland and the town of Penetanguishene, and they "are committed to working with the province and the county of Simcoe in achieving our shared goals and vision of protecting, growing and developing communities that enhance job creation and quality of life, offer our residents new employment opportunities in robust, healthy and sustainable communities while protecting the area's natural heritage system.

"The towns of Midland and Penetanguishene believe that it is in the best interests of the north Simcoe area, the broader Simcoe county area and the province of Ontario that an urban node recognizing Midland-Penetanguishene be designated in the proposed amendment to the growth plan for the greater Golden Horseshoe."

Basically, when you give most of the population growth to one area, in this case the city of Barrie, the little bit of growth that is allowed for Penetanguishene and Midland is almost negligible. So the requests from the towns of Penetanguishene and Midland are as follows:

"The towns of Midland and Penetanguishene have reviewed at length and in detail the province's proposed vision for the Simcoe area as contained in the discussion paper 'Simcoe Area: A Strategic Vision for Growth' (SASV) dated June 2009. The towns have also reviewed the province's proposed vision in the context of the principles contained in the growth plan, the Lake Simcoe Protection Act, and in the proposed county of Simcoe official plan and are of the opinion that changes are required to that vision in order to be consistent with the award-winning growth plan for the greater Golden Horseshoe and the province's objectives for the Simcoe area.

"The towns of Midland and Penetanguishene request two fundamental changes to the proposed amendment to the growth plan as set out in the SASV discussion paper. These changes are:

"1. That an urban node be identified for the north Simcoe area, encompassing the towns of Midland and Penetanguishene, to complete the conceptual urban structure for the Simcoe area as described on figure 1 to the discussion paper.

"2. That the province revise the population and employment allocations, as set out on tables 2 and 3 of the discussion paper, to recognize and plan for focused growth in the Midland-Penetanguishene Urban Node."

When I talk about the towns of Midland and Penetanguishene, I want to assure you that we're not talking about people who have mismanaged the environment or anything like that. The towns of Midland and Penetanguishene are both part of the Severn Sound Environmental Association, and I might point out that it was the first hot spot on the Great Lakes that was delisted as a hot spot by the International Joint Commission. So they are very, very careful about the concerns they have for the environment.

On top of that, there is a strong concern about the treatment of sewage, where the effluent is disposed back into our bodies of water. I can assure you that both the town of Midland and the town of Penetanguishene have state-of-the-art sewage systems and tertiary treatment that would allow continued growth and expansion of the systems as well.

In speaking to both mayors—Mayor Downer of the town of Midland and Mayor Dubeau of the town of Penetanguishene—they're asking us to seriously look at this joint urban node for Midland-Penetanguishene, because they feel they have been left out of the picture entirely and Barrie has basically got all the growth for Simcoe county. We can certainly understand Barrie having some growth—there's no question about that—if it's another 50,000 or 75,000 people.

But in this case it's way over 100,000 people in this 2,400 hectares of land, and places like Midland and Penetanguishene, where there is a lot of potential growth as well, are basically being left at almost no growth whatsoever. So we really want to zero in on that, and we'll continue to ask the minister questions on that.

I want to add a couple of other things about those communities. The towns of Midland and Penetanguishene provide a broad range of federal, provincial and county services:

"Midland-Penetanguishene is the main hub of federal, provincial and county services in the north Simcoe area and provides a wide range of public services to the broader Simcoe Area.

"The North Simcoe Hospital Alliance (NSHA), a single hospital operating two sites in Midland-Penetanguishene, is the third-largest hospital in the entire North Simcoe Muskoka LHIN area and provides a full range of medical services to the 47,000 permanent and over 40,000 part-time residents of this area. The NSHA, in addition to having 630 employees and being the 18th-largest employer in the Simcoe area, is a regional centre and an emerging centre for excellence in complex continuous care and rehabilitation."

The next thing is very important as well:

"The Mental Health Centre Penetanguishene (MHCP) is a fully accredited 312-bed psychiatric hospital which has operated as a psychiatric hospital since 1904 and was divested from the province of Ontario to a public hospital corporation on December 15, 2008. Providing psychiatric services to the broader Simcoe area, the MHCP released a request for qualifications … to design, build, finance and maintain a new, state-of-the-art mental health … facility that will be built on the hospital's existing site."

Those approvals have all been in place, and we will be moving forward on that in the foreseeable future with an expanded new facility on that particular site.

I could go into all the different urban services etc., that are on-site, but in

summary, I really want to have the province and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of Infrastructure Renewal revisit that node—or that potential node—in the growth plan. I think they'll be under some pressure from the municipalities in northwest Simcoe. I think it's only fair that growth be distributed somewhat equally in Simcoe county, as opposed to one area getting 75% or 80% of the growth, which will happen with the passage of the growth plan and the passage of this legislation.

As I said earlier, I understand the city of Barrie needs additional lands. They are built out in all their quadrants and they need to have additional lands. However, as I said earlier, have the environmental concerns been addressed properly at this stage or are we going to find out in some regulation down the road that they have not? I hope that as we move forward with this debate and we get into committee, we can ask a number of questions and we'll make sure that the protection of Lake Simcoe is paramount.

As I said earlier, there's been a lot of effort put in by scientists and by concerned citizens, by politicians of all stripes at all levels of government to put a special emphasis on Lake Simcoe and make it a model plan for all lakes that might want to address some concerns in the future.

As we move forward, and we do have—I think even the minister mentioned in his comments yesterday some of the concerns we have around Lake Simcoe, not only the urban sprawl and the 2,400 hectares that will be included in the city of Barrie and built upon in the future, but he also mentioned the Holland Marsh and the importance it has to Ontario, but at the same time how nutrients from the marsh can increase the phosphorus levels in Lake Simcoe and how we have to continue to address that as well if we want to move forward and improve the growth, improve the quality of water in Lake Simcoe, and improve the whole quality of life in central Ontario.

Those are my comments for now. I look forward to any comments and questions afterwards and to the debate at committee level when we reach committee.

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

Mr. Paul Miller: I'd like to commend the member for his research and his concern about the environmental impact that it will have on Lake Simcoe. He has also passed on information which will be useful for groups opposed to this annexation.

I lived through this myself. When Hamilton amalgamated, I sat on Stoney Creek council. There was Dundas, Flamborough, Glanbrook and Stoney Creek. At that time, the people of that area were not too thrilled about being amalgamated. In spite of that, it went ahead anyway, to the chagrin of a lot of people.

When you are imposing these types of boundary changes on people, it affects people's lives directly—landowners. It also affects the amount of pollution control required to deal with the additional impact on the sewer systems in the area. I hope that the water treatment plant in the area is up to snuff on the ability to handle the growth and the volume of pollution that will come into that system and into the very fragile Lake Simcoe watershed. I'll have a lot more to say about this in the next few minutes.

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

Mr. Norm Miller: I'm pleased to add some comments to the speech from the member from Simcoe North on Bill 196,

An Act respecting the adjustment of the boundary between the City of Barrie and the Town of Innisfil. Certainly, we've seen time and time again how the member from Simcoe North is raising concerns that, one way or another, affect the riding of Simcoe North and the area generally. I know that on many occasions he's brought up the water quality in Lake Simcoe, and he noted that in his speech again today. Of course, he was fighting against the new landfill site. It looks like he's been successful in that fight against site 41.

Just last week in the Legislature he was raising questions to do with a business that's actually located within the town of Innisfil, and that's Georgian Downs. He was raising questions of the government to do with the number of race dates that seem to be continually being cut back over the last number of years and the tremendous negative effect that is having on agriculture and the people who are in the business of raising horses for racing. That is a tremendous business. In fact, this morning I just met with the Ontario Harness Horse Association, with Darryl MacArthur and Brian Tropea, who are here, I note, up in the gallery watching the proceedings this morning.

Certainly the member from Simcoe North is concerned about issues not just in Simcoe North but that affect us right across the province, and I thank him for his concerns. I note that the mayor of Innisfil was on the news last night, concerned about the 2,293 hectares they're going to lose to Barrie. I certainly support development where it makes sense in urban areas. I know the member has raised concerns about what happens with some of the other communities in Simcoe county. I'm sure he will want to see this go to committee so that those questions—

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

Seeing none, the honourable member for Simcoe North, you have two minutes for your response.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Thank you very much to both the member from Hamilton East and Parry Sound—Muskoka for their comments. I'm very pleased to take part. It's interesting to note as well that we have not only the debate here in the House on Bill 196 but we also have the minister coming, beginning next week, for 15 hours of debate at estimates. I know I have a series of questions on the Simcoe county growth plan for the ministry and some on this bill as well that I hope he can clarify.

I appreciate the comments, particularly from my colleague who mentioned the concerns about Lake Simcoe. In my particular case, I have 100 kilometres of shoreline on Lake Simcoe. Whether it's a cottage association or a municipality, the citizens of my riding are very, very concerned about the water quality. When you add another 100,000 people in 2,400 acres, they want to know what that impact will be, not some promise from a minister or some potential study. We want to know what that impact will be, because there is a huge stormwater management and sewage allocation that we'll have to be concerned about as we move forward with that.

I also want to thank him for bringing up the topic of harness horses and the Barrie Raceway and the fact that they are trying to close racing dates in Simcoe county, which is basically a rural riding—at least that is the way the province has perceived it to be—and many people work in agriculture in our community; many of them are in the harness horse business. To think we would expand the number of slot machines, double or triple the number of slot machines, and let them run seven days a week, 24 hours a day and at the same time eliminate the number of racing dates—that's absurd and it's irresponsible.

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

Mr. Paul Miller: The Barrie annexation is the last act of betrayal in a long list of McGuinty government reversals and secret deals in Simcoe county, all to the benefit of a handful of Liberal-friendly developers. This government is kidding itself if it thinks the public was consulted fairly about this act, the Simcoe growth plan or the Lake Simcoe protection plan. There are tens of millions of dollars of developer-driven lawsuits outstanding against the critics of development in Simcoe county—a situation this government not only seems to favour but allows to grow far beyond anything during the Harris years.

At one level, the bill before us seeks to resolve an ongoing dispute over a transferral of land from Innisfil to Barrie. The bill will transfer lands to Barrie from Innisfil as has been planned. On the surface, that's not a bad thing. The city of Barrie has shown greater commitment to sustainable growth than has Innisfil and has made significant investments in stormwater management, which has improved the health of Lake Simcoe's Kempenfelt Bay. The bill will also allow development of 2,300 hectares involved to go ahead, as it lifts the development moratorium on the lands.

Until now, the land has been designated for agricultural and resource extraction. Now it will be open to rezoning for employment and residential uses.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing assures us that, should the bill pass and the transfer of land go ahead, the land will be developed in a sustainable way according to the smart growth principles of the Places to Grow Act. He said in his statement on the bill that it is "a key part of the Ontario government's support for sustainable and managed growth in the Lake Simcoe area....

Resolving the long-standing Barrie-Innisfil boundary dispute would help us address the growth planning and environmental protection issue in this area." It will certainly promote growth, but where is the evidence that this bill will protect the environment? Will it be developed in a way that sustains the ecological integrity of the already-vulnerable Lake Simcoe watershed, its water quality and water habitats?

We all know that urban sprawl harms health and the environment in many ways. It increases smog, it hinders the development of vibrant communities, it eats up valuable farmland and green space, and it threatens watersheds and wildlife. The Liberal government publicly recognized the need to control urban sprawl when it passed the Greenbelt Act and the Places to Grow Act but somehow forgot to include Simcoe county, despite many pleas from environmentalists and farmers.

Places to Grow was supposed to encourage smart growth, revitalization of downtowns, public transportation options, healthy communities and the curbing of urban sprawl. Can we trust the McGuinty government's assurances that it will ensure that these 2,300 hectares will be developed in a way that protects the already-vulnerable Lake Simcoe watershed?

There are a number of reasons to hesitate before giving this government a blank cheque to go ahead with the transfer and development of the boundary lands. First, reputable environmental groups and the Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority indicate that annexed lands are developed according to current practices. About 60% of Lovers and Hewitts Creeks will be paved over, far above the 10% level recommended by Environment Canada; they're already exceeding the limits. Frankly, in the Hamilton Conservation Authority this wouldn't happen.

According to the Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority, this will increase phosphorus levels in Kempenfelt Bay, off Lake Simcoe. Kempenfelt Bay has been identified by the MNR as the most significant nursery zone in the lake, which would allow for a self-sustaining cold-water fishery. Increased phosphorus levels and decreased oxygen levels will threaten the survival of juvenile trout and whitefish and the viability of the whole Lake Simcoe fishery.

Likewise, instead of rushing forward with Bill 196, the Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority recommends that the proposed boundary adjustment contained in Bill 196 only be considered after it can be demonstrated that such growth is environmentally sustainable and does not further negatively affect the health and quality of Lake Simcoe and its watershed. The McGuinty government has failed, to date, to demonstrate that the proposed development on boundary lands will be benign in its impact. They have not demonstrated that.

In fact, the government is pushing through Bill 196 and allowing development to proceed on the annexed lands before key—key—studies on the impacts of the development of this land have been conducted—once again, the cart before the horse. You don't go ahead with negative environmental impacts on communities without the proper studies being done and completed before you annex property.

The conservation authority and Save Lake Simcoe campaign indicate that a range of studies need to be done to assess the impact of future growth: an assimilative capacity study to assess impacts on water quality, not due until the end of this year; a study to assess the impact of stream temperature associated with the boundary change and associated growth, not done; an evaluation of the impacts on water quality and erosion, pending.

The conservation authority concludes that it is extremely important that the appropriate studies and strategies be completed prior to the approval of Bill 196 to ensure that the proposed growth contained within the boundary adjustment is environmentally sustainable for Lake Simcoe and its watershed. The assimilation study of phosphorus impacts is not due until the end of the year—once again, the cart before the horse. A subwatershed study is not due until after that—could be a year and a half for that. But we're going ahead anyway; we're going to do it.

We're going to put it in there because it's politically polite, politically correct; it's a good thing to do for our voters.

Why is this McGuinty government rushing forward with a bill that allows further development when it doesn't know the full impact of the growth? It's ridiculous. You just don't do things like that when it could have a negative impact on the watershed and the people of the area. It is unwise and rash to push forward a bill that opens up more land for development when we don't know whether the watershed can support this development.

Moreover, if the McGuinty government is so committed to protecting the watershed, why is there nothing in the bill requiring developers to meet the highest possible green building standards, in terms of both building standards and water protection? Will these new houses be energy self-sustaining or energy-dependent? What proposals are in place to maximize the use of solar panels, solar thermal and geothermal heating? I don't see any of that.

Will stormwater and sewage be dumped into the lake, or will the existing technologies be required to dramatically reduce the amount of water taken from and dumped into Lake Simcoe? Will the facilities at Lake Simcoe be able to handle the increased volume that could happen in the next few years? Will these developments be built using green gravel, that is, using aggregate taken from the site, or will these roads and foundations be quarried from the Niagara Escarpment, a UNESCO biosphere reserve, or the greenbelt?

And if the McGuinty government is so committed to the ecological integrity of Lake Simcoe, why did it negotiate a secret deal committing the government to supporting the unprecedented 1,000-slip mega-marina at Big Bay Point? Why is this developer, Geranium Corp., the only one to be grandfathered under the Lake Simcoe Protection Act, despite pleas from virtually every public interest group and local organization about the negative impacts on the lake?

This is the same developer that is suing opponents of the Big Bay Point mega-marina for tens of millions of dollars—interesting. Premier McGuinty chooses to hide behind the privilege of the Legislature while citizens afraid of losing their homes to strategic lawsuits against public participation, known as SLAPPs, forfeit their right of free speech. They are simply too afraid to speak out about secret land deals in Dalton McGuinty's Ontario.

SLAPP suits are a phenomenon that developed not under the Harris government, but under the McGuinty government. The NDP introduced SLAPP suit protection legislation to protect the residents of Big Bay Point, Simcoe county and all of Ontario. The McGuinty government has done nothing in response, preferring to allow the silencing of critics of development over the troublesomeness of free speech and democracy.

If the McGuinty government is so committed to protecting the greenbelt, why did it not require Simcoe county and other municipalities to come up with a plan to grow the greenbelt at the same time it negotiated the plan to pave the watershed? Most of all, if the McGuinty government is so committed to containing urban sprawl and protecting farmland in southern Ontario, why did its political staff intervene in the form of not one, not two, but three extraordinary minister's zoning orders to override its Places to Grow plan—in other words, go over its own legislation because it didn't suit the situation?

It caused the Places to Grow plan to allow big developers to pave over 1,800 acres along the Highway 400 corridor in Bradford West Gwillimbury—that's a mouthful.

Where is the staff report justifying this extraordinary backroom deal that disregards Places to Grow? How are Ontarians to trust a government that makes high and mighty statements about protecting land and ecosystems when it cuts secret deals with developers behind closed doors? Wow, that's interesting. How are Ontarians to trust a Premier who campaigned in 2003 against the Conservative government's secret zoning order to pave over Richmond Hill, and then, six years later, does exactly the same thing in Bradford?

The 2003 Liberal election platform, Growing Strong Communities, condemned the Eves government for its secretly approving "a plan to build 6,600 new homes on one of the most sensitive spots on the moraine in Richmond Hill." I guess that's calling the kettle black again: "You can't do it, but we can do it."

The Premier promised a higher standard of ethics and accountability, so how does the Premier justify secretly cutting a deal with developers and reversing its opposition to paving prime agricultural land in Bradford West Gwillimbury? Why do we find the Liberal backroom boy Gordon Ashworth giving advice to the Geranium Corp., the developer that has managed to negotiate not one, but two secret deals with the Premier?

Let me quote from the Toronto Star on December 5, 2007:

"The government has already signed off on one of the most controversial Simcoe county developments, a 1,600-unit time-share project on Lake Simcoe's Big Bay Point. Local ratepayers and environmentalists took the project to the Ontario Municipal Board and the decision is pending.

"Geranium Corp., the developer behind the Big Bay Point project"—and I might add the Bradford employment lands deal as well—"has signed up prominent Liberals to help make its case.

"One of them is Gordon Ashworth, a former senior aide to Premier David Peterson back in the 1980s and a key strategist in the current Liberal government's re-election campaign this fall."

Wow, that's quite a connection. Developers, the Premier, Mr. Ashworth: It all seems to work together; that's unusual. Of course Ashworth denies lobbying for Geranium: "I provide them with communications advice" only, he says. If you're providing communications advice, you're involved. You're not standing off on the side. You know exactly what's going on. He's not kidding anyone.

If these secret deals are such good planning, where are the staff reports justifying them to the people of Ontario? Where are the reports? If it's such great planning and ecologically friendly, give us some reports on these deals that went on. They haven't got any. How is one to trust a Premier who tells environmentalists in the 2007 election campaign that the Bradford 400-404 link is not part of their 25-year plan? Then, after that, he passes a special zoning order this year, which states that lands designated for employment purposes in BWG "will only develop in the event that construction has commenced on the Highway 400-404 link." Good question.

How can one trust a government that justifies a secret deal to allow development along the 400 to ostensibly keep a company from moving out of Ontario when the company itself, Toromont Industries, said it was never leaving in the first place? They were going to rezone this land to keep that company there. The company is not leaving; it didn't intend to leave. That's a little misleading. "Our company, Toromont Industries Ltd., has no intention of moving 2,500 jobs from Ontario. We have never threatened to do so or set conditions for the province to meet to avoid this non-existent threat." That was from the Toronto Star on March 18, 2009.

Based on the McGuinty government's record of backroom deals with developers, there's little reason to trust this government when it says the act is benign and that it will only allow the best kind of sustainable growth to go ahead. Again and again, the McGuinty government has failed to abide by and enforce the Places to Grow Act. I think that was just a front to make it look good.

They've violated it I don't know how many times, so the Places to Grow Act is kind of a joke, really—as mentioned, by secretly negotiating the minister's zoning orders to allow 1,800 acres of urban sprawl on prime farmland in Bradford West Gwillimbury, land that drains into the Holland Marsh; by allowing Innisfil council to convert almost 1,000 acres of rural and agricultural land into residential development; by allowing this 10-fold expansion of the hamlet of Bond Head from 500 residents to 4,500 residents; and by failing to address the population growth issues in the Lake Simcoe protection plan.

Whether the land in dispute on the border of Barrie and Innisfil becomes part of Barrie or not is obviously a concern to the parties involved, and it needs to be addressed fairly and openly. But the bigger issue, which is of concern to many Ontarians, is how development on this land and other valuable green space and agricultural lands in southern Ontario will proceed now and in the future. Time will tell whether development on these lands will be done in a sustainable way. The provincial government has a responsibility today to its citizens and generations to come to ensure that we protect the land upon which our health and the health of our environment depends.

The time for rampant, Wild West development has long passed. It is not at all clear that this bill will lead to smarter planning, and given that studies are still outstanding, the environmental impacts of this bill on Lake Simcoe and its watershed are also very unclear. We are glad to see that the government is releasing a discussion paper in tandem with the bill on the vision for growth in Simcoe county, but it bears repeating: Releasing the growth strategy for comment at the same time that the McGuinty government appeared at the OMB to support the Bradford bypass and more sprawl is a shallow and ridiculous move.

Let me quote Campaign Lake Simcoe's response last month to the government's Simcoe area vision for growth: "Campaign Lake Simcoe, which has advocated for the protection of Lake Simcoe watershed since 2005, is shocked"—shocked, Mr. Speaker—"that this government has put forth for consultation such a dismal 'vision' for an area of such great ecological, agricultural, recreational value. This 'consultation' is also one of the worst examples of a 'sprawl first, consult later' exercise we've ever seen" in our history.

"Although comments [were] due September 2, 2009, on this growth strategy, in early August the OMB approved a nearly 750-hectare employment area in Simcoe county, just north of the greenbelt, in the Bradford West Gwillimbury ... Highway 400 corridor. The OMB hearing was conducted in June 2009 and only after the McGuinty government reversed its opposition to the development by suddenly and without notice agreeing in April 2009 to issue three extraordinary 'minister's zoning orders' ... to ensure approval." I don't know—maybe for the developers; I'm not sure.

"The development so clearly contradicts the growth strategy that the OMB chair's decision is conditional on the delivery of rare and controversial MZOs. We agree with the Toronto Star's June 12, 2009, editorial: 'The province could have—and should have—held off on signing any deal regarding development on the [BWG] Highway 400 corridor until the full Simcoe plan had been subjected to public consultation.'"

We agree too. What's the rush? Why the special deal for this one developer? Strong government action is needed to shift development practices in southern Ontario in a direction conducive with environmental protection and healthy communities. Better enforcing the principles of the Places to Grow Act could be a good place to start.

Immediately protecting citizens from developer lawsuits—SLAPPs—and putting a stop to backroom land development deals with friends of the McGuinty government are absolutely necessary to truly protect our environment; to control excessive, unnecessary development; and to maintain the way of life our many smaller communities are used to.

I was a Stoney Creek councillor when the amalgamation of our many unique greater Hamilton area independent municipalities took place. It was an imposition at the time. It was not sought after by our communities, which cherished their small-town lifestyles. Even through the community held a referendum against it, it was still imposed on us. That was done by the Harris government, and the same thing is now being done by the McGuinty government, who criticized them at the time.

Other communities have been ravaged by imposed changes to lifestyles they specifically chose, and never get to be heard or to have their day in court.

When will the McGuinty Liberals finally take real steps to protect ever-more-fragile environments in this province?

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

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I'm pleased to listen to the comments. I know that you brought a lot of comments out yesterday that your colleague from Beaches—East York had mentioned as well. Those are of great concern to myself.

I had some meetings with individuals on the minister's zoning orders as well. It doesn't seem to be something that was properly consulted on, and suddenly it just appeared out of nowhere in the Bradford West Gwillimbury area. So there are definitely deep concerns with the general population down in that area.

But it goes right back to what I was talking about in my comments a little earlier, and that is the fact that we've got this vision of growth for Simcoe county. How are we going to distribute the population growth of an additional 240,000 or 250,000 people in Simcoe county over the next 20 years? Here we've got, it looks like, some preferential treatment being taken at one corner of the county—fast-tracking projects or fast-tracking development opportunities—whereas we have communities at the north end of the county that are ready to grow.

They have the sewage capacity; they have the professional capacity to look after growth in a very environmentally friendly manner, and yet they're almost being limited to no growth. It's almost pathetic what has happened to Midland and Penetanguishene. When you look at the data out of the growth plan, basically they've been left out of the growth plan, and they're part of Simcoe county. Barrie gets it all. It looks like Bradford West Gwillimbury is going to get a large portion of it.

As we move forward, there are a lot of questions. I'm sure you will recall that starting next week, the minister is to be at estimates for 15 hours, and I'm sure he will be able to answer all those questions you brought up today in debate and the questions I'm going to ask in debate in a very orderly manner and we'll have full answers to those questions.

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

Mr. Peter Kormos: Well, it was a delight and a pleasure to sit here and listen to the comments by my colleague Paul Miller, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. He has delivered a succinct and effective argument which demonstrates that this bill, this legislation, is indefensible and that it is the utilization of a sledgehammer rather than encouraging collaborative relationships between Innisfil and Barrie.

So I'm pleased with Mr. Miller's contribution. You might notice that he probably does more House duty than any other member of the NDP caucus. He loves it in here. He begs other people to give him this House duty because he wants to be on his feet addressing these issues. He's an enthusiastic debater, and sometimes we get frustrated with him because we want to be here too, but no, Miller just shoves us aside and says no, that he, Paul Miller, from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, is going to address this issue.

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

Seeing none, the honourable member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, you have up to two minutes for your response.

Mr. Paul Miller: I don't know what to say, Mr. Kormos. I don't know whether he is complimenting me or setting me up, I'm not sure, but he definitely puts the limelight on me. I don't know if that's good or bad sometimes. I appreciate his comments, and I'm sure they're heartfelt.

You know, this is almost like an instant replay for me. I saw this happen back when Dundas, Flamborough, Stoney Creek and Glanbrook were amalgamated by the city of Hamilton. The transition was tough. A lot of people were not happy with it. A lot of our resources from the outlying towns were gobbled up by the city of Hamilton, including our financial. We were in good shape, and we were hoping that the money that they took from our community would come back to our community, but it went elsewhere.

So we lost tens of millions of dollars from the city of Stoney Creek that was spent in other areas, not coming back to the taxpayers who actually paid for it. That was very, very disheartening, and I don't think the management of the resources that they exhumed from outlying areas was fairly proportioned. But that's an ongoing—it's still a sore spot with some of the people but, you know, time is a healer and we have to move on. That's the situation.

But you'd think after that lesson that the governments had faced, when people were so adamantly against amalgamation in more than one place in this province—I believe we live in a democracy, and I believe when you have a referendum, that sends a message to the government. I think ours was 78% or 81% against. We were just steamrolled, ignored, and the government of the day went ahead and did whatever they wanted. That's unfortunate.

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

Seeing none, Mr. Watson has moved second reading of Bill 196,

An Act respecting the adjustment of the boundary between the City of Barrie and the Town of Innisfil Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Shall the bill be ordered—

Interjections: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): All those in favour of the bill being—

Hon. Brad Duguid: Shall the bill be read a third time? Is that what you're saying, Mr. Speaker? I'd ask that the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice Policy.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Agreed that the bill be referred? So ordered.

Orders of the day.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I'd ask for a recess until question period.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Agreed. This House stands in recess until 10:30 a.m.

The House recessed from 0950 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. David Zimmer: It's with great pride that I would like to introduce the mother of Willowdale page Hafiz Kanji: Nevin Kanji, who is here. Welcome to the Legislature. I know you're very proud of your son.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It's an absolute pleasure to welcome some visitors from Spain: Angela Aisa and Natalie Monforte. They are from the Institute of Secular Missionaries in Spain. As well, Shannon Hogan from OECTA and Pam Bond are here. Welcome to Queen's Park, ladies.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of page Samaa Bandi and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, we'd like to welcome Parvez Bandi to the public gallery today.

On behalf of page Jacquelyn McLaurin and the Minister of Culture, we would like to welcome her father, Don McLaurin, and her mother, Joanne McLaurin, to the galleries today.

On behalf of the member from Kitchener—Conestoga, we would like to welcome, in the east members' gallery, Brian O'Heron, Cathy Brothers, Joe Brothers and Andrew Wilding from the Catholic family counselling service.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question to the Acting Premier: Yesterday, the Premier said he couldn't answer even the most basic questions about locking in the HST tax hike for five years. Deputy leader, are you kidding me? Why is the Premier saying that he hasn't even read the HST deal that your government signed?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In fact, the Premier is well familiar with the details in the agreement. When the federal government asked for those provisions, it was because they are providing $4.3 billion to Ontario. Mr. Flaherty and I signed the agreement, and it's been online since budget day.

It speaks to the importance of harmonizing taxes, and it speaks particularly to the fact that one of the real challenges and advantages of this is that there will be a single tax collection agency instead of two now, and that will be the Canada Revenue Agency. So the rate can be amended by 2012, the tax itself can be disposed of by 2015, or a party could rip up the agreement if they wanted to. Our position is this: It's the right—

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

Hon. David Caplan: That's why it's on a website.

Interjection: It's buried on the website.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: It's buried deep on the website, buried deep in the Minister of Finance's budget documents. No, it's quite the opposite. We have a Premier who's taking a leadership role in ensuring that this economy comes out of the downturn it's in, and when it does, we're going to grow bigger, we're going to grow faster and we're going to grow stronger.

Speaking of buried information, I had the chance last night to look at Jim Flaherty's second economic update from June 2009, and here's what the federal Conservative finance minister says: "Harmonization of Ontario's sales tax with the goods and services tax under the harmonized sales tax framework will ... reduce taxes on businesses, ensuring that they can thrive and generate jobs for Canadians." I'm with Mr. Flaherty. At least he's consistent. At least he's clear—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Ontario taxpayers just cannot believe that the Premier of the province of Ontario has not read the four-page HST deal that he has signed. It just isn't credible. The Premier was asked basic questions about locking in and he hove them off to the finance minister; he couldn't answer simple questions. I say to the minister, there are restaurant menus that are longer than this agreement. So did the Premier sign this deal to bring in a massive tax grab on Ontario families? Did he read it or did he not?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: It's interesting how the Leader of the Opposition hasn't asked this question before today. I wonder if he has read the agreement. I applaud any journalist and anyone who looks deep and asks tough and difficult questions. What we can't applaud is somebody who says, "I agree there's little sense in allowing two separate governments to apply two separate taxes and policies and collect two separate groups of sales tax—"

Interjection: Who said that?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Tim Hudak, September 23, 2009.

Premier McGuinty is making the tough decisions, working with Ontarians to help grow this economy, to produce jobs, to lower business costs and ensure that our children and grandchildren have a better future. I stand behind that, this government stands behind it, and the people of Ontario will stand behind our Premier.

TAXATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: It's sad that Dalton McGuinty could turn ideas introducing red tape into a massive tax grab on the backs of middle-class families and seniors. It's going to hurt families, it's going to kill jobs and move Ontario even further backwards than Dalton McGuinty has already done.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd just ask the minister to withdraw the comment. Stop the clock.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Continue.

Mr. Tim Hudak: The Premier should know that right there on top of page two of his agreement it says that Ontario agrees to remain a party to the Canada-Ontario HST deal for a period of at least five years following imposition.

Clearly, the Premier must have known there was a poison pill in this deal all along. People with car loans can say how long they're making payments. The Premier just doesn't want to answer to the facts about the bad deal he signed. Why should taxpayers believe anything this guy says about this—

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I want to remind the member opposite that in fact this is a tax-cut package. It is a tax-cut package for low-income Ontarians. It will reduce the cost of doing business in Ontario. I just—

Interjection.

Hon. Gerry Phillips: They don't want to hear that, I guess.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: They don't want to hear it. And it's hard for anybody to hear what we're saying over the sucking and blowing we're getting from that side of the House on this issue—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Renfrew.

Mr. John Yakabuski: He can't make up his mind.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Renfrew, I can accept some occasional heckling across the floor, but with the constant heckling, it gets a little difficult to hear the honourable member.

Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I agree with the Toronto-Dominion report that was released this week that says the harmonized sales tax "should help spur business investment, employment and income growth. Businesses may emerge from the recession lean, but the tax policy will ensure they are ready to compete."

That means they'll create jobs. That means they will employ more Ontarians. That means we'll get out of the downturn faster. This government has a plan; that leader and his party have no plan.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I think, as you know, in the finance minister's own budget documents it shows that this is a $2.5-billion tax grab on the backs of Ontario families and seniors. They know what this is: another greedy Dalton McGuinty tax grab.

As the minister knows, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business is very concerned also about the tax remittance scheme and the bureaucratic confusion that your HST tax grab to going to cost. Small businesses will no longer receive the remittance for collecting your tax, making tough times even harder. So, to the minister: Why is the Premier saying Ontario's small businesses are behind the HST when in fact, they are not?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: There's a list. I'm going to ask my colleague the Minister of Revenue to review with my colleague some of the groups that are supporting this initiative.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I'm delighted to say—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I guess, just like the Premier couldn't answer basic questions about the deal he signed, the finance minister can't answer basic questions about the Canadian Federation of Independent Business's concerns. We know that this is not a new issue for this Premier, the Premier who said he wouldn't impose taxes and brought in the biggest tax hike in the history of the province of Ontario. This sales tax grab is the exact same story. In 1999, Premier McGuinty said, "All of the information I have received tells me harmonization of the two taxes would lead to a net increase of taxes in the province of Ontario"—Dalton McGuinty's exact quote.

The only reason Ontarians are facing this greedy sales tax grab today is because Dalton McGuinty signed this deal with a five-year poison pill. How is it possible that the Premier can say that he has no details about this deal when it's his fingerprints all over this greedy tax grab?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: What we can say with certainty and clarity is that 93% of Ontarians will receive a personal tax cut. We will cut our lowest-income tax bracket by 17%, making it the lowest in Canada. Some 90,000 low-income Ontarians will no longer have to pay personal income tax. We're providing a permanent $260 sales tax credit for every low- and middle-income adult, child and family in Ontario.

We are clear in our position. We affirm our position and are supported by the chamber of commerce and a range of other groups that came out just this week as a part of a new group that's going to advocate the importance of this, joining Mr. Flaherty and joining the federal Conservatives. The only question that hasn't been answered is, "What is your position?" One day you're going to get rid of it; the next day you're not; then you're going to cut the rate.

Ontarians demand more from their government, from their political parties. This party is taking a stand. We're leading to get this economy rolling again, get it moving and growing faster. That man, that leader and his party—

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

TAXATION

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Day after day, the government justifies the HST by pointing to the contribution it will make to job growth. But according to a report by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, the HST is a job killer. In fact, the chamber finds that the HST will mean up to 40,000 fewer Ontario jobs each and every year. The chamber says that the HST will kill jobs, but the government says otherwise. Who is telling the truth in this scenario?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Somebody isn't.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: And it's sitting over there.

I would invite you to speak to the chamber of commerce and their president, who just joined the coalition this week to advocate that this tax is important to create jobs. You can take things—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Hamilton East.

Mr. Paul Miller: No jobs—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The same reminder that I gave to another honourable member, I will also give that reminder to the member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I remind him that, in addition to Mr. Crispino's comments this week and the work of the Ontario chamber in promoting this, TD this week said that this initiative "in turn should help spur business investment, employment and income growth."

I'll remind him what Jayson Myers, president of Edson Packaging and chairman of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters of Ontario, says: "Create jobs for the future." That's what this policy will do. They're telling the truth; I question others.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Michael Prue: The minister can say anything he wants about other groups, but the minister cannot refute the chamber's claim that the HST will kill up to 40,000 new jobs every year. Yet the Premier, his ministers, backbenchers and government websites continue to proclaim, I think disingenuously, that the HST will create jobs, a claim that is completely undermined by the facts. Why won't the minister tell Ontarians the plain and simple truth: that the HST itself is a job killer?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The HST is not a job killer; it creates jobs. The chamber itself had acknowledged that, both through their president and others. My colleague opposite is simply twisting numbers out of context. That's been verified to us.

That party is still advocating an increase in the provincial sales tax. They haven't renounced that policy yet. I'll remind him that we have a letter signed by the leader of that party at the time asking if we would raise the PST by 1%. I wonder if that is still the policy of that party. I wonder if they could clarify that for us.

We've laid out a plan that will create jobs, improve investment and help get this economy back on its feet.

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

Mr. Michael Prue: The government knows the HST is a job killer but insists on spinning a yarn to Ontarians about their new policy. The chamber report noting that the HST will kill up to 40,000 jobs is quite specific. They say that every year the HST will kill 2,300 manufacturing jobs, each year the HST will kill 2,600 jobs in the accommodation and food service industry, and they say 1,100 fewer construction jobs will be created.

If the minister disagrees with the chamber, will the minister table his own numbers to prove his own position, that this will create jobs, or does he have other numbers that confirm what the chamber is saying?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The member conveniently ignores two facts. One, there are very substantial tax cuts that are accruing to businesses in addition to the harmonized sales tax. Again, the leader of that member's party, according to the chamber, of course took the paragraph in it out of context. The report explicitly states that the level of employment does not decline as a result of tax reform. Why wouldn't you give all the details from that report? Why wouldn't you disclose that, I say to the member? I will stand up and openly defend the policies of this government.

Frankly, the NDP are being disingenuous in misquoting and taking out of context the very good work and hard work done by thousands of members of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce.

MINISTER'S RECORD

Mr. Peter Kormos: To the Minister of Health: This minister has his fingerprints all over scandals at eHealth, OLG and the London Health Sciences Centre. Why does everything this minister touches turn to scandal?

Hon. David Caplan: I disagree with the member opposite. If you look, the Ombudsman of this House pointed out and commended me for the quick action taken to deal with insider wins at OLG. In fact, it has been the quick action I have taken to call in the Auditor General and have him get to the bottom of these matters.

I wonder why the member does not have confidence in the Auditor General of the province of Ontario. I know that he will be issuing his report in a few short weeks. It will be subject for review by members of the public accounts committee. I have full confidence in the independent officer of this Legislature to be able to lay the facts upon the table and make recommendations about ways that we can ensure value for taxpayer dollars.

That's what members on this side of the House have done, will do and will continue to do as we work forward to deliver better—

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

Mr. Peter Kormos: Insider wins at OLG; untendered contracts at eHealth; questionable spending practices again at OLG; an untendered electronic health contract at a London hospital: This minister has experience with games of chance. What are the odds that growing scandals under his watch are merely a coincidence, or are they an example of his gross incompetence?

Hon. David Caplan: I disagree with the editorial comments of my friend opposite. He's entitled to his opinion, but he's not entitled to his own facts, and the facts are quite different from what the member presents. In fact, Ontarians expect that their tax dollars be properly invested in good government policies and services, and that's what this government has done.

The member laughs, but we've hired 10,000 nurses in the province of Ontario. The member opposite from Welland was part of a government that fired 3,600 nurses. The member opposite would have to acknowledge that we have hired 1,700 additional doctors in the province of Ontario. The member opposite was a member of a government that cut medical school spaces, creating a doctor shortage in the province of Ontario.

Of course, I do acknowledge that they have nothing on the official opposition, who closed 2,800 hospitals and fired 9,600 nurses in the province of Ontario. But that's why we have spent so much time investing in our health care—

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

Mr. Peter Kormos: This minister huffs and puffs and beats his chest, but the trail of evidence is clear. As the scandals mount, when is he going to realize that he's just not up to the job?

Hon. David Caplan: My friend opposite can issue childish taunts. I know he was previously supposed to be in charge of bringing public auto insurance into this province. Of course, I know he was fired from cabinet for his failed efforts, and that's regrettable.

I stand behind the record of achievement, that we have seen in this province, of increased investment, expansion of services, and finally an aging-at-home program in this province. Those are real measures which have brought improvement and progress to our health care system. Surely the member opposite has more to offer than this childish nonsense approach that he has brought.

I challenge the member to tell me what his ideas are to improve health care in Ontario. So far, in the six years that I've been on this side of the House, I have not heard anything. I'm not—

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

TAXATION

Mrs. Julia Munro: My question is for the Acting Premier. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business is Canada's largest advocate for small and medium-sized businesses. These aren't CEOs earning seven-figure salaries. They are the mainstream businesses that are the lifeblood of communities throughout Ontario. The CFIB today released a survey telling us that small business believes that the McGuinty government "dropped the ball" in imposing the HST. Why is the Premier saying that businesses are in favour of his HST scheme, when they aren't?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Revenue.

Hon. John Wilkinson: We want to thank the CFIB for their report today, because what it shows is that small business needs to understand, and we have to do a much better job of explaining to them, our tax reform package. I understand why they have concerns, but when they find out that we are cutting the small business tax rate by some 18% and that we're eliminating the small-business surtax, they'll be saying, "Oh, that's the other side of the story." So it is important on this side of the House not to tell just half a story but the whole story.

That's why we're going to work closely with the CFIB, to make sure that their members get the information they need so that when we implement the largest tax reform package in some 40 years, their members will have the information they need so that they can continue to serve their consumers.

When they learn about our tax reforms in regard to personal income tax, they'll see the support we've received that allows us, working together with the federal government, to support consumer spending next year, in a year of transitions, a year—

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

Mrs. Julia Munro: Again for the Acting Premier. Let me quote from the CFIB survey of small businesses: "At a time when consumers have seen their savings wither away, additional taxes on some goods and most services are another reason to stop them from opening their wallets."

Why is Premier McGuinty saying that these business people are clamouring for this tax when the exact opposite is true?

Hon. John Wilkinson: That's exactly why we were able to reach a historic agreement with the federal government to provide some $4.3 billion for that first transitional year. We understand that it is a year of transition, that the tax cuts people will receive and that businesses will receive and the fact that the market over time, as TD has said, will reprice some 85% of those savings to be passed on to consumers within the first year—that in that first transitional year we need to use that money from the federal government for what it's intended: to support consumers.

That's why individuals—single tax filers who have an income of less than $80,000—will receive some $300 dollars tax-free by way of three cheques, and families with a combined income of less than $160,000 will receive some $1,000 tax-free. A thousand dollars is 8% on $12,500 worth of purchases. That's on top of the permanent tax cuts that people will receive. Some 93% of Ontarians—

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

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Rosario Marchese: To the Acting Premier: Yesterday, when I asked your Minister of Training to explain the capping of the Second Careers program in Hamilton, he said the following: "What the honourable member is saying is wrong. We have not closed the doors on Second Career."

For your information, on September 14, the Ministry's Hamilton office sent an e-mail to all the Second Careers brokers in Hamilton stating the following: "We are at capacity for September and so we will not be able to accept any more client files seeking September starts."

Either Minister Milloy does not know what his ministry is doing or he is turning a blind eye to this cruel and insensitive treatment of unemployed men and women. Which is it?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I ask the member, which is it? You voted against the program. You voted against it, and then, when we set it up, you complained and you said it wasn't successful. Let me talk about my colleague—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just would ask the honourable member from Renfrew to withdraw his comment.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Withdraw.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: My colleague the minister implemented a program that was designed to serve 20,000 people over three years. We're at 17,000, and we've provided 5,000 additional spaces to serve 25,000. We are going to review it now to make sure we're getting it right, to make sure we're serving people, to make sure we're hitting the right people who need the service. This program has been an overwhelming success. I'm glad we did it. I only wish the member opposite would have voted for it and supported the program early on when we were setting it up instead of constantly, constantly saying it wouldn't work.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: This Second Career has been a mess for two years—two long years. It's not just that your government capped the number of applications. What he did was worse. Applying for Second Careers is not easy. It's a demanding and time-consuming process. It's emotionally exhausting. These people did everything that was asked of them, and then your ministry shut the door on them. You can't change the rules in the middle of the game. There is a level of incompetence here that is unacceptable. When is someone going to take charge of this ministry and deliver the program that these men and women need?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We are delivering the program, and we've been overwhelmed by the response. Because of that, we've increased the funding to provide 25,000 spaces instead of 20,000 spaces. I don't think it's a mess at all. I think our colleges are doing a wonderful job. I was just at my own college in Windsor, and the work they're doing with the CAW has been enormously helpful on this program. Getting their workers in training is one of the most significant things I've seen in terms of helping those people, particularly older workers, get retraining and new careers.

This program is not a mess; it's an overwhelming success. We just put another 5,000 spaces. We are looking at it hard to make sure we get it right so we can build on that success and help the unemployed get back to work in a bigger and better and stronger Ontario economy.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mrs. Laura Albanese: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. As you are aware, the Minister of the Environment is now in the process of reviewing the environmental projects report for the Georgetown South service expansion and the Union-Pearson air-rail link submitted by Metrolinx and will make his decision soon. In the meantime, however, some of my constituents in York South—Weston have expressed their concern regarding the planned GO station facility in Weston. Specifically, they worry that once the Eglinton LRT is established, the Weston GO station will be shut down.

Can the minister assure us that the planned GO station facility in Weston will not close down once the Eglinton LRT is established?

Hon. James J. Bradley: To ensure that the public was heard in the Georgetown South service expansion and the air-rail link project, Metrolinx held more than 30 community open houses, met with numerous community groups and held online consultations through the environmental assessment process. More than 3,000 people participated by asking questions of or leaving comments with the project's technical team.

Metrolinx heard a message that was loud and clear from that MPP for York South—Weston and from members of her community: that a stop at Weston is absolutely crucial. I'm pleased to confirm once again that such a stop is a direct result of the concerns heard by people living in the Weston community and the advocacy of the MPP on their behalf. There is no plan in place to close down this stop once the Eglinton LRT—

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

Mrs. Laura Albanese: The community will be reassured by that.

I have met with a number of constituents on this matter. My office has been receiving many e-mails, phone calls and correspondence asking about the Georgetown South service expansion and the air-rail link project. One of the concerns that has been mentioned to me is that the project report submitted by Metrolinx does not go into detail regarding increased service for the constituents of York South—Weston. Some of my constituents worry that they will not benefit from the increased all-day GO service.

Can the minister assure the residents of York South—Weston that they too will benefit from all-day GO service?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to talk about Metrolinx's plan for the Georgetown South corridor and the air-rail link. GO trains in the Georgetown South corridor are currently operating at capacity, and with the cost of congestion to the greater Toronto area estimated at about $6 billion a year in delays and lost economic opportunities, creating all-day GO service along the Georgetown corridor will get people out of their single-occupant cars and onto public transit. This includes those living in York South—Weston.

With a stop at Weston, they too will benefit from increased all-day GO service. In fact, the expansion will take 18 million car trips off our roads in the first year alone, 2015, and when the new line is mature, it will take 52 million car trips a year off our roads, and therefore ensure that we're making a benefit for the environmental situation—

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

ONTARIO LOTTERY AND

GAMING CORP.

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is for the finance minister. Last week, you said you couldn't answer questions about how much money the McGuinty Liberals blew on the Windsor Energy Centre because of all the lawsuits and police investigations. That ended up not being accurate because, after a week of searching your briefs, you did release some information.

Now that a precedent has been set, will the minister explain why a casino owns a power plant?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: What I said last week was in response to a question around a specific lawsuit. The member asked legitimate questions about whether or not the information was available, and it was, in public accounts. The member has access to that. I welcome those kinds of questions. I think they're legitimate. They're the same kinds of questions I think all of us need to be asking.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Shurman: It sounds to me like the finance minister lost yesterday's briefing book and he's back to the one he was using last week. It just isn't credible for this minister to pick and choose the days that a lawsuit prevents him from answering questions of public interest.

If the casino doesn't own the energy centre project, then who or what is the Casino Windsor that issued the request for proposal?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Again, there is a lawsuit that disputes the ownership. The member is accurate about that. It's been filed by the contractor that developed it, so it is difficult to comment on that.

But what I will refer the member to again, as I did yesterday, is public accounts 2007-08, pages 2-99 and 2-98. The details are there as to the position of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. at the time. It outlines that it was not in fact a part of the casino expansion project itself. As I say, OLG is defending a lawsuit on the specifics of the ownership question. I don't want to comment on that, but I would refer the member to those pages in public accounts again.

PENSION PLANS

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Acting Premier. It has been 10 long months since the government's Arthurs pension commission delivered its final report to the government. One of its key recommendations was to increase the monthly pension benefits guarantee by the pension benefits guarantee fund to $2,500 a month.

When will this government introduce legislation to implement this key Arthurs recommendation, along with the many other important recommendations contained in his report?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: First of all, there are 144 recommendations in the Arthurs report. I've indicated publicly that this will require, I believe, two pieces of legislation. The first piece will be introduced this fall; the second piece will likely be next spring.

The government will act or not act on recommendations. The member's right: Mr. Arthurs does recommend raising the PBGF guarantee. Mr. Arthurs also recommends that premiums increase for both employers and employees. So this is a complicated issue that we have to look at seriously.

We've taken the recommendations. We've gotten responses from both labour and management across Ontario. We will bring forward legislation. That legislation will be subject to further discussion at that time. So the member can expect, I think, one piece of legislation this fall and another piece next spring.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: The minister so far has refused to increase the monthly benefits guarantee fund to $2,500. As we speak, the pensions of tens of thousands of hard-working Ontarians are hanging in the balance. Pensions are in danger at Ford, Nortel and many other smaller companies across this province. The minister knows that if this government rejects the Arthurs recommendation to increase the monthly guarantee to $2,500, he is rejecting the heart and soul of the Arthurs report.

I will ask the question again: When will this government table legislation to increase the monthly pension guarantee to $2,500 as recommended by Mr. Arthurs?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: One of Mr. Arthurs's other recommendations was to do an actuarial study of the PBGF itself. We are doing that; it is under way. The important question for those thousands of people and their pensions—and, by the way, there are tens of millions more who don't have a pension—is, how do we fix this?

I'll remind the member that successive governments of all political stripes did not properly fund this. I believe this is the type of issue that we have to approach very seriously and diligently. I would caution against a broad sweep about all kinds of pensions. There have been significant improvements in a number of pension plans and significant negotiations going on on some others. But, indeed, we have to look at these issues, and this Legislature has to honestly confront the difficult questions around the pension benefits guarantee fund.

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

TAXATION

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: My question is to the Minister of Revenue. Minister, my constituents are saying that they're only hearing half the story on the HST. While some people are out scaremongering, focusing on coffee and doughnuts, the facts are being ignored. For instance, TD Bank released a report last week outlining the effect the HST will have on Ontario's economy. It states that harmonization will increase Ontario's competitiveness, saying the HST "should help spur business investment, employment and income growth."

Minister, who's telling the truth here, those who are telling only half the story or the economists at the Toronto Dominion Bank?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank my colleague for the question. I can assure you that, on this side of the House, our job is to tell the entire story—not half a story, but the entire story, the whole story.

We welcome the report by TD Economics about this. What they commented is that they believe, as many do, that this is going to be of benefit to our economy. What we need in this province is jobs in the 21st century. We're not going to be able to do that with a 20th-century tax system. That's why, on this side of the House, we are convinced that we need to reform our tax system so that we can have jobs in the 21st century. All members should believe, in my opinion, that that is a noble goal and something that we need to aspire to.

What other studies, including the TD report, have shown is that history is very clear in other jurisdictions, including in the Atlantic provinces, that investments in machinery and equipment went up and that prices actually went down. They went down because, under the package, you are eliminating a whole hidden layer of tax—

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

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: The TD report also estimates that there will be a 0.7% increase in the consumer price index in Ontario. This will not be "as much as some may fear and will not have an enduring effect on the inflation rate." The report states that in Ontario's extremely competitive economy, business would pass through the majority of their savings to consumers. The report notes that about 80% of the expected total cost savings to businesses will be passed along immediately in the first year the HST comes into effect. And TD estimates that pre-tax prices in Ontario will fall by almost 1%.

Minister, what does all of this mean for people who are looking for work in Ontario and also for consumers in Ontario?

Hon. John Wilkinson: Consumers and people know that we need the private sector to rebound in this province. Despite the fact that we're faced with the largest economic downturn around the world in some 80 years, what we need is the private sector to engage.

Our tax reform is designed to spur on that confidence. Small business confidence, as a matter of fact, has risen in this province since the introduction of Minister Duncan's budget last spring.

The most important thing that people should know is that for those of us like the member who come from business, if you don't have the right price, you can't sell anything. Because prices are going down, because costs for businesses are going down, those who understand this will price accordingly. As a result, they will gain market share and those companies will thrive. Those who feel that somehow they can hang on to this, I think, are going to be treated poorly by the market.

That's why this package is designed to ensure that small businesses understand the new tax regime that's coming in and how that's going to spur on investment, as it has around the world.

DRIVER EXAMINATION CENTRES

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and it relates to a very disturbing report that two employees of Ontario DriveTest centres have been arrested for fraud relating to the creation of fraudulent identification.

The minister will know that in the 2005 auditor's report, the issue of security risks in DriveTest centres was raised. I quote the report: "The driver examination service provider was not complying with ministry security requirements when hiring staff who have access to confidential driver records, and the ministry had not developed adequate policies and procedures to deal with prospective and existing employees with criminal records."

My question to the minister: In light of the revelation that these fraudulent activities are taking place, can the minister advise us what specific steps the ministry took in response to the auditor's—

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: Well, it's a very good question that the member asks. He was Minister of Transportation, so he knows some of the major challenges that are faced there.

First of all, the police have been very assiduous in carrying out their responsibilities. The Ministry of Transportation staff have been working very closely with the police service to ensure that a proper investigation takes place. As you know, there is a screening of those employees. I guess we'd love to think that employees anywhere who provide services to people in this province or this country are all going to be honest. Unfortunately, there appear to be instances where that is not the case. The ministry has worked hard, along with Serco, to ensure that those who are hired by that particular company are screened appropriately.

Unfortunately, there are circumstances where people decide to break the law, and that is why we—

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

Mr. Frank Klees: Detective Constable Michael Kelly said, "We have just touched the tip of the iceberg. This case goes a long way back and spreads quite wide." The Auditor General made very specific reference in his 2005 report to say, "We noted instances where staff had criminal records yet no action was taken, and, in 25% of the new-hire files we reviewed, the required criminal check had not been done."

Can the minister confirm for us that there are no staff employed at DriveTest centres with criminal records—that they have, in fact, done that research? And can the minister confirm that they now have the procedures and policies in place that will ensure that people with criminal records are not hired by DriveTest centres?

Hon. James J. Bradley: A thorough canvass is done of those who are part of that company that your government established a number of years ago, that it brought into effect. I think you put some rules in place at that particular time, and those rules have been adhered to as closely as possible.

What I can tell the member—and he was supportive of this and I appreciate that—is that we are implementing photo comparison technology, which is a proven technology that will help combat driver's licence fraud and address the identity issues that are there. That's going to be a major step forward to prevent the fraud that has alleged to have taken place. The member would know, as the Attorney General would caution me, that I cannot speak specifically to this particular case, but I can assure him that ministry officials are working very carefully with police services to ensure that we are working hard to make sure that there is not this kind of fraud taking place on a widespread—

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

AIR QUALITY

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. This Saturday, thousands of supporters in the Ontario Clean Train Coalition will be marching against this government's plan to run over 400 dirty diesel trains through our communities. The Clean Train Coalition is making a simple demand: clean electric transit that will protect the health of residents as well as the health of the environment. Why won't this government immediately electrify these trains instead of imposing health and environmental costs on all Ontarians?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I think, first of all, the member would be well aware that by taking thousands upon thousands of vehicles off the road, vehicles that are causing much pollution in our province, that was a major step forward in clearing up the air. That is the purpose of public transit: to take many of those vehicle trips off the road to clear the air.

The member would know as well that Metrolinx is conducting a study on electrification. They are not ignoring it; they're conducting a study on electrification. They've put together a team of people, including advocates from the area and top medical and technical people, to frame the parameters of that study, because it's not a matter of "if electrification"; they want to be involved in electrification and they want to do it appropriately. I think this committee will come up with some excellent recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Actually, the diesel trains will produce more pollution than the cars they're replacing, and studies have shown that.

This government continues to deny the environmental and health concerns that diesel trains pose. Indeed, in a recent statement, the Metrolinx chair misinterpreted Toronto's medical officer of health. In his revised statement, Dr. McKeown said that he remains "concerned about the air quality impacts and increased health risks predicted for the immediately adjacent communities as a result of the proposed diesel expansion."

The question, Minister, is not about trains; it's about electric versus diesel. Hundreds of residents and thousands of Ontarians will be protesting. That is the feedback that Metrolinx has received. Why do you continue to ignore all of these constituents?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I just explained to the member that Metrolinx is not ignoring them. In fact, they have undertaken a study. They didn't simply pick people from outside the area; they picked people who reside in the area, those who have been advocates. They picked people of medical prominence and people of highly scientific and technical prominence to be on the committee for electrification, looking at the parameters of that electrification study.

I cannot agree with the member when she talks about how what is being proposed is not as damaging as all those vehicles. I have to tell her that there are millions of millions of vehicles—and your critic in the environment knows this to be the case—millions of vehicle rides will be taken off the roads as a result. That will improve the air tremendously. So the member is not being accurate in her assertions.

DISASTER RELIEF

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Minister, as you know, on August 20, a tornado touched down in neighbouring Grey county, leaving property damage and tragedy behind. A state of emergency was declared. Homes and businesses were devastated. Families were displaced from their homes as the damage was so severe, in some cases, that it needed significant rebuilding and repairs. A number of communities were hit by tornadoes that day, and all of the affected communities have undergone massive clean-up efforts in the aftermath.

Everyone in the affected community has been working very hard to rebuild what they have lost. Not only local officials but businesses and community people have come together to help their friends and neighbours.

I would ask the minister, how did Emergency Management Ontario provide support to the—

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

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I think I speak for everyone in the House when we offer our condolences to the family and friends of the young boy who was killed in the tornado. Obviously our thoughts are with those who experienced the force of nature with those very, very violent storms.

Emergency Management Ontario's 24-hour provincial emergency operations centre monitors evolving situations across Ontario. In the case of these storms, EMO field officers were deployed within hours to Vaughan, West Grey and the Town of Blue Mountains. The Ministries of Natural Resources, Municipal Affairs and Housing, Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and the OPP all provided assistance to help them get through this particular devastating occurrence. And I want to—

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

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: While many communities and individuals do their best to cope with natural disasters, they are a strain, certainly, on the municipal budgets, and often overwhelm the ability of local officials. As well, those who cannot afford insurance are left to cope with severe property damage and loss, with minimal ability to cover these costs themselves.

This summer, a number of Ontario communities were faced with natural disasters that stretched municipal budgets and tested the strength of their communities. Last spring, many of our communities coped with rivers overflowing as the ice and snow of the winter melted way, causing flooding and damages to homes and public spaces.

I understand that the province has a fund called the Ontario disaster relief assistance program. For the benefit of all members of the House, could the minister please update the House on the request that he has received on the recent—

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I'd like to refer this to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Jim Watson: The provincial disaster assessment teams were deployed within 24 hours to the affected communities. I want to thank the honourable member and the Premier for touring the site, as well as members Jim Wilson, John Yakabuski and Bill Murdoch for their on-the-ground support of those particular communities. I also want to commend the mayors, councils and staff of the communities of West Grey, Mayor Kevin Eccles; the Town of the Blue Mountains, Mayor Ellen Anderson; the municipality of Grey Highlands, Mayor Brian Mullin; and Mayor Mary Campbell of McNab/Braeside.

Last week, I signed the appropriate documents to declare a disaster area for those four municipalities, and ministry staff are moving quickly to help those municipalities set up their disaster relief committees. ODRAP provides funding when damages are so extensive that they exceed the financial resources of the affected individuals, the municipality and the community at large. Council resolutions are required, which were—

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

HOSPITAL SPENDING

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Acting Premier. Yesterday, I asked the Premier a question regarding the untendered contracts that were let by the London Health Sciences Centre. The Premier pushed responsibility away from his government and from his Minister of Health, and called the issue a matter of local governance.

Well, $3.3 million in untendered contracts were let, yielding paycheques for some of $1,500 a day. And now that the situation has been uncovered, the priority for the London Health Sciences Centre seems to be to locate the whistle-blower.

Acting Premier, I would ask: Should this be the focus of the London Health Sciences Centre's efforts?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. David Caplan: Ontarians expect their government, their agencies and their institutions to use public funds prudently, and so do I. In this particular case, the rules were broken. They were caught by an internal audit and the hospital has cancelled the contract. That was the focus of the administration in London. They have done the appropriate thing: They have investigated the matter and have taken quick action to cover it.

Our government is about openness and transparency. That's why we made a number of changes around here. It was this government that expanded the role of the Auditor General. It's interesting to note that members opposite, when they were on this side of the House, refused to do so, and when they were in opposition, opposed these measures.

We've opened up our hospitals, our schools, our—

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I would say that I can agree with one thing the minister said, and the rest of it not so much. I would agree that this is at some point local, but it also raises very significant, serious questions that should be of concern to this government. The granting of these untendered contracts had been going on for some five years, and it wasn't until a whistle-blower came forward only a few months ago that these events were brought to light. How could this happen? This is serious.

Furthermore, the fact of this contract being cancelled is something that we all know doesn't come without financial repercussions. You can't just snap your fingers and cancel a contract without something else adverse happening.

I would say to the Acting Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, that you simply cannot take a hands-off approach and walk away from this mess. Ontarians want to know, what are this government and the Minister of Health going to do about this situation?

Hon. David Caplan: I think we've gone from the ridiculous to the sublime. The member is now suggesting that the contracts should not be cancelled, that the contracts that were entered into improperly should somehow continue. I don't know how the member opposite can make that kind of claim. I think it was because of the action of internal auditing and the process and control that exist within the hospital that these matters were brought to light and in fact were dealt with.

That's the approach this government has taken. In fact, expenses for OPS senior management, cabinet ministers, political staff and senior executives in Ontario's 22 largest agencies will be posted online no later than April 1. There is no more sole sourcing of consulting contracts. We want to ensure that we have the greatest value for dollars that taxpayers would expect.

We are setting a higher standard for everyone: for the Ontario public service—

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

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Acting Premier. One of my constituents is in the gallery today and has sought my help in securing his assessment approval from the Ontario skills development program. He has missed the start date for a training program for which he is eminently suited because the skills development program stated that they, and I quote them, "did not anticipate the number of applicants." His employment insurance runs out in two weeks and he has yet to be assessed. This has taken more than two months.

Can the minister tell us how the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities is expected to clear the backlog and get Ontarians, like my constituents who qualify, quickly into training programs they so desperately need?

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): If you wouldn't mind just taking your seat, please. Thank you.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To my colleague opposite and to the gentleman in the gallery: I appreciate your raising this issue. I'm obviously not familiar with the specific circumstances and will undertake, after question period today, to follow up.

I would say that yes, there are challenges. We are trying to serve an enormous number of people in an appropriate fashion across a variety of training programs. Unfortunately, sometimes things don't go as smoothly as we would like. I will follow up on the specific case. Thank you for raising it with me, and I'll look forward, sir, to seeing you after question period.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: Thank you very much, to the Acting Premier, for making that commitment, because the Acting Premier knows full well that a very large backlog exists. He stated so in this House today. He also knows that when employment insurance runs out, the only alternative that my constituent and thousands of others have is going on social assistance.

My question, and I don't know whether the Acting Premier can answer it because perhaps it does belong to the minister: Why is this minister prepared to allow thousands of Ontarians who want to work and be trained for good jobs to languish on yet another waiting list because he doesn't have the wherewithal to clear this backlog and get on with the job that's supposed to be done, getting people back to work?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Obviously we want to get people who are eligible into these programs as quickly as possible. I undertake, in this instance, to follow up with that gentleman.

Also, the member is right from the broader public policy perspective, and we've had some success. I'd remind him, as I did earlier in question period, about Second Career, for instance. When we started out, my friend opposite was criticizing us because not enough people were in the program. Now we have what I would call an enormous challenge, and we're going to provide services for 5,000 additional people.

The administration of these programs is difficult, sometimes complicated, but I do undertake to work with the member on this specific case, and hopefully we can help this gentleman resolve the situation.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. David Zimmer: My question is for the Minister of Government Services. Last week, I read an opinion piece in the Toronto Star, and the piece commented on the rather low priority of staff diversity in the federal civil service. Minister, one of the areas that you're responsible for is the diversity office here in Ontario. What is the provincial government doing to ensure that our provincial civil service indeed reflects the diversity of Ontario?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I want to thank the member from Willowdale for asking this question. I think this is a very important question.

Our government absolutely recognizes the importance of diversity in the Ontario public service. We have taken a lot of initiatives to make sure that our public service is inclusive and reflective and that all of our policies are equitable for the diverse population that we have in this province. I'm really pleased to say that for the last two consecutive years, in 2008 and 2009, the Ontario public service has actually won the award for Canada's Best Diversity Employers.

I'm also pleased to inform you that we have set up the diversity office in my ministry, the Ministry of Government Services, and we have—

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

Mr. David Zimmer: My riding of Willowdale is a diverse and vibrant riding, with many, many nationalities and new Canadians: Iranians, Chinese, Koreans—our newcomers to the province. I know that many of the newcomers in this province who are residents in Willowdale are particularly interested to know if there are any programs or special opportunities within the OPS for newcomers.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I fully recognize that when newcomers come to this country, especially when they settle in the province of Ontario, we want to make sure that we can help them in any way we can, especially the professionals who come to this country.

We actually have a couple of very good programs, and I would like to talk to you about one, which is the internship program. This is a program that our government started in 2006. Under that, we provide experience to newcomers for about six months with the Ontario public service so that they can get the experience and the skills to be successful in finding jobs, either inside the public service or outside. This program has been very, very successful: 81% of the participants have indicated that they are very satisfied with this program.

This is one example I can talk about that has really helped our new immigrants to get settled. It's important for them, but it's also important for our province to make sure—

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

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Hon. Monique M. Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Yesterday in this House, the member for Oxford and the member for Burlington raised points of order about questions on the order papers that were still outstanding. I just wanted to be clear: There was a problem with the order papers. In fact, the Ministry of Education had responded to the one question that was outstanding. The Minister of Agriculture had responded in an interim fashion to the questions that were outstanding and is working diligently to respond in a timely manner to those questions.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The time for question period having ended, this House stands recessed until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1133 to 1300.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PENSION PLANS

Mr. Jim Wilson: I rise to urge the government to act quickly to resolve an issue that concerns thousands of public sector workers in Ontario, including a number of paramedics from Simcoe county.

As members will know from my private member's resolution debated on June 4, due to past divestments of provincial services, thousands of Ontarians have a split pension problem that will severely affect their retirement income.

In my riding, paramedic services were divested from the province to the county of Simcoe in the 1990s. At that time, paramedics were led to believe that nothing would change regarding their salaries, employment benefits or years of service. Although their pension plan changed from the hospitals of Ontario pension plan or the OPSEU pension trust to OMERS, there was to be no negative effect on their pension entitlements.

After the divestment, they discovered that they would receive two pension cheques when they retired, one for service with the government of Ontario and one for service with the county. The amounts that each of them will receive from their two pensions will not recognize their years of continuous service and will therefore cause them to receive a significantly reduced pension through no fault of their own.

The government's own expert commission on pensions recommended a prompt resolution to this specific problem, and so far the McGuinty government has been very slow to act. In fact, each time I've raised this through petitions and letters, it's been unclear what the government's position is on this matter.

Today in the House, the Minister of Finance said he would be bringing forward legislation to address the recommendations of the Expert Commission on Pensions, and I want to make sure he includes a solution that corrects the problems for paramedics in Simcoe county.

FAMILY HEALTH TEAMS

Mr. Jeff Leal: Since 2005, Peterborough has been fortunate to have five family health teams. They run expertly under the direction of Dr. Don Harterre and Mr. Bill Casey. Their team, working with local physicians, pharmacists, nurse practitioners, dietitians and others, has created one of the most efficient systems for delivering health care in the province of Ontario.

In a report released last spring entitled Teams in Action: Primary Health Care Teams for Canadians, the Health Council of Canada recognized publicly the good work being performed by Peterborough's primary health care network. They were quoted as saying, "The Peterborough family health team model is an ideal way to deliver team-based health care services in Ontario."

Since 2006, more than 18,000 previously orphaned residents of my riding now have access to primary health care services because they've been affiliated with a family health team. Peterborough was chosen by Mr. John Abbott, CEO of the Health Council of Canada, from a short list supplied by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care because "their program impacted a large proportion of the population and they have well documented results."

Family health teams work. They utilize progressive services such as pharmacists prescribing drug reviews for newly hospitalized patients and the anticoagulation program for patients on blood-thinning medication.

I'd like to extend my congratulations to everyone in Peterborough working within the family health teams. This truly is a job well done and a remarkable development.

PORTUGUESE CANADIAN COMMUNITY

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: I am proud to rise today to speak about my friends in the Cambridge and North Dumfries Portuguese community who are celebrating their arrival in Canada at the Portuguese Club of Cambridge on Saturday evening, September 26, 2009.

Together with my friend José Dias, I will present certificates to 24 immigrants who are celebrating 40 years in Canada and another 75 who are celebrating 50 years in our great community, province and country. These certificates recognize their hard work, determination and contributions to our community.

I am proud to say that the Portuguese community represents almost 15% of the population of Cambridge and North Dumfries. This celebration of their arrival in Canada is organized by Mr. Dias with the assistance of the club president, my friend Marina Cunha. The celebration commences with traditional Portuguese cuisine, followed by the presentation of certificates.

The Portuguese community in Cambridge and North Dumfries contributes to the rich history and culture that makes my riding the best community in Ontario to call home.

NATUROPATHIC MEDICINE

Mr. Michael Prue: I rise today to talk about the Ontario Association of Naturopathic Doctors, who are having a reception as I speak. I had planned on speaking about something else, but I was so impressed, over the last hour, with the men and women who were there advocating on behalf of their cause that I thought I would change what I was going to say today, and I have.

They are here to seek changes to the Naturopathy Act, which will come into effect in the year 2011, and they are here to talk about the need to change some of the powers under the regulations in order to give full scope and practice to naturopathic medicine. We need to recognize that they are providing primary medicine and that they are primary medicine care providers. They offer alternative medicine for those who are seeking alternatives to traditional medicine. They are completely community-based, and they offer a holistic approach that many people are looking for, so that you know that what you ingest will eventually have an effect on your health.

There is a real opportunity, I think, for Ontario to embrace what they're asking for in these times of doctor shortages, rising costs of medicine and hospital wait times. It is an opportunity to explore an avenue that many people wish to explore. I invite people to go down and visit them if they have the opportunity in the next half-hour. They are holding a large seminar and get-together in Toronto later this year, on November 13, at the Toronto Congress Centre, and all are invited.

JEAN'S FLOWER SHOP

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: On September 9, I had the opportunity to visit Jean's Flower Shop, in my riding of Hamilton Mountain. This family-run shop has been in business for over 45 years. Since the day they opened their doors, they have done more than just sell flowers; they've also shown great generosity to the community.

On the day of my visit, the flower shop was celebrating their annual Good Neighbour Day. Every person who came in received a dozen free roses. They were asked to keep one for themselves and give the remaining 11 flowers to somebody. Jean's Flower Shop ended up giving out 12,000 free roses to the community. On that day, they also collected non-perishable food items for our local food bank, Neighbour to Neighbour. Jean's Flower Shop showed such great generosity to our community while creating an atmosphere of goodwill. It's gestures like this that make Hamilton truly a fantastic place to live.

I'd like to thank Bill and Edith Dalton, Debbie and Derek Thomson, and the entire staff of Jean's Flower Shop. I'm so proud to call them my neighbours.

COMMUNITY USE OF SCHOOLS

Mrs. Laura Albanese: It is with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to speak about a very important initiative that is helping the youth of York South—Weston gain better access to a number of after-school programs. Starting this month, nine schools in York South—Weston, both Catholic and public, will give not-for-profit groups free access to schools after hours. Offering school space at no cost will help not-for-profit groups provide affordable or free activities, such as sports, art and recreation programs, for children and adolescents. This is part of the community use of schools program.

Just a few weeks ago, I had the privilege of joining the Minister of Education for this important announcement at York Humber High School. We were also joined by students from the local Boys and Girls Club and enjoyed a playful game of dodge ball too. I saw their appreciation for the program.

The program is well received by local trustees, such as Mr. Chris Tonks, who also attended the Minister of Education's announcement.

Schools are at the heart of our communities, and making school space available after hours will help bring communities together and keep young people active and safe. For the community of York South—Weston, this is already a big step forward.

WELLS STREET PUBLIC SCHOOL

Mr. Frank Klees: I'm pleased to bring to the attention of the House a very important local issue in the town of Aurora. It relates to a historic building that is also a school, the Wells Street public school. Notwithstanding the government's contention that they're investing multi-billions of dollars in infrastructure, it seems to me that one of the areas of investment that has been lost on this government is the investment in our school buildings, and particularly buildings that are of a historic nature and value.

In the case of the Wells Street public school, it's situated in the heart of the town. Essentially, it is really a community centre. The school board is seriously contemplating shutting the school down. The people in my community, in the town of Aurora, are very concerned about that and have asked me to appeal to the Minister of Education to ensure that this historic building—and that Wells Street public school as an active school within our community—is not shut down; that it's allowed to continue as an active school.

I would ask the Minister of Education to intervene to ensure the appropriate funding is available to sustain that building as an active school in our community.

GREEN POWER GENERATION

Mr. Khalil Ramal: We all recognize that climate change is one of the most pressing challenges of the 21st century. It's not bound by borders nor economic conditions.

The government recognizes that creating a cleaner and greener Ontario is crucial to our sustainability. We are working tirelessly to reduce our dependency on energy from harmful sources and increasing the province's usage of renewable energy. This will clean our air, combat climate change and stimulate the economy.

The government's Green Energy Act understands the urgency in making Ontario a leader in green energy production. It will create 50,000 jobs, build on our investments in green technology and establish Ontario as a leader in renewable energy. The feed-in tariff program established under the Green Energy Act will allow everyone to be a part of Ontario's green energy future. At least 25% of wind projects and 50% of solar projects will be produced right here in Ontario. This will ensure that Ontario is a world leader in green technology.

The Green Energy Act empowers us to work together so we can all do what is necessary to tackle climate change and make Ontario emerge as a green leader. And I want to thank the minister who has taken the lead in this regard.

YOM KIPPUR

Mr. David Zimmer: The Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur begins this Sunday evening at sundown. Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, is the holiest day of the year in the Jewish religion. The process of personal reflection and introspection begins on Rosh Hashanah and culminates on Yom Kippur, a 25-hour fast where Jews across the province and around the world gather in prayer at synagogue. Yom Kippur presents an opportunity for the Jewish community to repent any transgressions they may have committed against God and their fellow human beings over the past year. The process of atonement involves reconciling with the person you may have wronged and making those wrongs right.

I know that all members of the House will join me in wishing the Jewish community in Ontario an easy fast and a meaningful Yom Kippur.

PETITIONS

AIR QUALITY

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) conducted 22 months of ambient air monitoring and determined that the Clarkson, Mississauga, airshed study area was taxed for respirable particulate matter (PM2.5); and

"Whereas the average annual PM2.5 concentrations measured in the Clarkson airshed were among the highest found when compared to data obtained from the ministry's air quality index monitoring stations; and

"Whereas the interim 24-hour ministry ambient air quality criterion for PM10 was exceeded on several occasions; and

"Whereas the study found that emissions of acrolein and acrylonitrile exceeded provincial limits; and

"Whereas concentrations of toluene, xylene, styrene, ethyl benzene, trichloroethene and acrolein were higher than those at the 12 Environment Canada national air pollution surveillance stations in Ontario, including those located in Toronto (4), Brampton, Windsor, Hamilton, Sarnia, Kingston, Ottawa, Kitchener and London; and

"Whereas annual average 24-hour nitrogen dioxide concentrations were found to be among the highest when compared to provincial air quality index stations in the greater Toronto and Hamilton areas; and

"Whereas the MOE stated that industrial emissions may contribute as much as 25% of the PM2.5 concentrations in the Clarkson airshed study area; and

"Whereas the MOE stated that it would focus on achieving reductions of the target pollutants from the 57 identified emitters that currently operate in the area; and

"Whereas the Ontario Power Authority is accepting proposals from companies for the operation of a gas-fired power plant in the Clarkson airshed study area that would see a new, very significant source of additional pollution into an airshed already determined as stressed by the MOE;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That no contract be awarded by the Ontario Power Authority for the operation of any gas-fired power plant that would impact the East Oakville environment and the Clarkson airshed study area."

I agree with this and will sign it and send it on to the desk.

TAXATION

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I have a petition here signed by, I believe, the greatest number of residents of Oxford county of any petition that I've had the opportunity to present in this Legislature, and it is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas residents of Oxford do not want Dalton McGuinty's new sales tax, which will raise the cost of goods and services we use every day; and

"Whereas the McGuinty Liberals' new sales tax of 13% will cause everyone to pay more for gasoline for their cars, heat, telephone, cable and Internet services for their homes, and will be applied to home sales over $500,000; and

"Whereas the McGuinty Liberals' new sales tax of 13% will cause everyone to pay more for meals under $4, haircuts, funeral services, gym memberships, newspapers, and lawyer and accountant fees; and

"Whereas the McGuinty Liberals' new sales tax grab will affect everyone in the province: seniors, students, families, farmers and low-income Ontarians;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the McGuinty Liberal government not increase taxes for Ontario families."

I affix my signature to this petition, as I agree with it.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I have a petition signed by hundreds of people from the province of Ontario and other provinces.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there currently exists an inequity in penalties under the Highway Traffic Act whereby a driver causing death or grievous harm to another due to unsafe turn or other act may only see a maximum $500 fine and such is an inadequate penalty,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to pass into law the Highway Traffic Act amendment, as proposed by the Bikers Rights Organization, which calls for stiffer penalties for drivers involved in fatal accidents where their error caused fatality."

This is signed, as I said, by hundreds of people from across the province.

TAXATION

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: I have a petition provided to me by Evgeniy Papkov, Keith Church of Prudential Grand Valley Realty and Conestoga Insurance Brokers Ltd.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty said he wouldn't raise taxes in the 2003 election, but in 2004 he brought in the health tax, the biggest tax hike in Ontario's history, and still cuts health care services and nurses; and

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty will increase taxes again on Canada Day 2010, with his 13% combined GST, at a time when families and businesses can least afford it; and

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty's new 13% combined GST will increase the cost of goods and services that families and businesses buy every day, such as: coffee, gas at the pumps, home heating oil and electricity, postage stamps, haircuts, dry cleaning, home renovations, veterinarian care, arena ice and soccer field rentals, Internet fees, theatre admissions, funerals, courier fees, fast food sold for over $4, bus fares, golf green fees, gym fees, snowplowing, bicycles, taxi fares, train fares, domestic air travel, accountant services and real estate commissions;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the Dalton McGuinty government wake up to Ontario's current economic reality and stop raising taxes, once and for all, on Ontario's hard-working families and businesses."

As I agree with the petition, I affix my name thereto.

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Mr. Joe Dickson: I'm pleased to present a petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas current changes to ServiceOntario will expand and improve access to licensing, registration, health card renewal and other services, it will also close effective and service-oriented local businesses and cost us local jobs, such as the licence office that the Donald family has owned and operated in Whitby and Durham region for over 50 years; and

"Whereas we recognize the quality of service provided by the Donald family to be rated above the 100% efficiency level, including extended hours;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the Donald family be maintained as a licence bureau of the highest quality in the region of Durham."

I have affixed my signature to the petition, and I have attached to it a number of other separate presentations from people such as Gus Brown motors, Whitby Honda, Nurse Chevrolet, Chrysler Dodge in Whitby, and even the solicitor of Durham region, Brian Roy. I am pleased to submit that, if I have a page to accept it.

TAXATION

Mr. Norm Miller: I've received a number of petitions from Severn Bridge, Gravenhurst and Bracebridge to do with the McGuinty sales tax. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the McGuinty government is planning to merge the 8% provincial sales tax and the 5% federal sales tax; and

"Whereas the new 13% harmonized sales tax will be applied to products not previously subject to provincial sales tax such as gasoline, ho