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

May 17, 2011

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2011-May-17 (PDF)

L122A - Tue 17 May 2011 / Mar 17 mai 2011

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 17 May 2011 Mardi 17 mai 2011

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO FOREST TENURE MODERNIZATION ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LA MODERNISATION

DU RÉGIME DE TENURE FORESTIÈRE

EN ONTARIO

TIME ALLOCATION

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENERGY POLICIES

TAXATION

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

TAXATION

STOCK EXCHANGE

ENERGY POLICIES

ENERGY POLICIES

CORONER’S INQUEST

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

LONG-TERM CARE

RETIREMENT HOMES

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION

PHOTO IDENTIFICATION

MUNICIPALITIES

DEFERRED VOTES

TIME ALLOCATION

ONTARIO FOREST TENURE MODERNIZATION ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LA MODERNISATION

DU RÉGIME DE TENURE FORESTIÈRE

EN ONTARIO

WEARING OF SWEATER

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

KIDS’ FISHING DAY

RIDING OF HALIBURTON–KAWARTHA LAKES–BROCK

ANNE JARRETT

PUBLIC TRANSIT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

HOCKEY

COMMUNITY LIVING

RIDING OF NORTHUMBERLAND–QUINTE WEST

RENEWABLE ENERGY

COMMUNITY LIVING DAY /

JOURNÉE DE L’INTÉGRATION COMMUNAUTAIRE

ANNUAL REPORT, INFORMATION

AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

ANNUAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL ADVOCATE FOR CHILDREN

AND YOUTH

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ENSURING INTEGRITY IN ONTARIO

ELECTIONS ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 ASSURANT L’INTÉGRITÉ

DES ÉLECTIONS EN ONTARIO

EDUCATION AND MUNICIPAL

AMENDMENT ACT

(FILLING VACANCIES), 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L’ÉDUCATION

ET LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS

(SIÈGES VACANTS)

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

CO-OPERATIVES STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT

DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES COOPÉRATIVES DE LOGEMENT

SANS BUT LUCRATIF

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ELECTORAL REFORM /

RÉFORME ÉLECTORALE

JOURNÉE INTERNATIONALE

CONTRE L’HOMOPHOBIE /

INTERNATIONAL DAY AGAINST HOMOPHOBIA

NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK /

SEMAINE NATIONALE

DES TRAVAUX PUBLICS

INTERNATIONAL DAY AGAINST HOMOPHOBIA

NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK

ELECTORAL REFORM

ELECTORAL REFORM

INTERNATIONAL DAY AGAINST HOMOPHOBIA

PETITIONS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

ROAD SAFETY

PROTECTION FOR PEOPLE

WITH DISABILITIES

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

CELLULAR TOWERS

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

PHOTO IDENTIFICATION

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

ROAD SAFETY

WIND TURBINES

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

ROAD SAFETY

MATTHEWS HOUSE HOSPICE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SUPPORTING SMOKE-FREE ONTARIO

BY REDUCING CONTRABAND

TOBACCO ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 APPUYANT

LA STRATÉGIE ONTARIO SANS FUMÉE

PAR LA RÉDUCTION DU TABAC

DE CONTREBANDE

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA SANTÉ

ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

GASOLINE PRICES

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good morning. Please remain standing for the Lord’s Prayer, followed by the non-denominational prayer.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO FOREST TENURE MODERNIZATION ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LA MODERNISATION

DU RÉGIME DE TENURE FORESTIÈRE

EN ONTARIO

Mr. Gravelle moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 151,

An Act to enact the Ontario Forest Tenure Modernization Act, 2011 and to amend the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, 1994 / Projet de loi 151, Loi édictant la Loi de 2011 sur la modernisation du régime de tenure forestière en Ontario et modifiant la Loi de 1994 sur la durabilité des forêts de la Couronne.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I am truly honoured to be here today to begin debate on third reading of Bill 151, legislation that would enable us to modernize the system that governs how public forest resources are made available to private companies and who manages our crown forests; in other words, our forest tenure system.

This bill is crucial to the economic health of so many northern and rural communities across the province. A modernized forest tenure system would create more flexibility, it would allow us to respond to our fast-changing economic environment, and it would enable us to put our wood and the people of Ontario to work. This legislation would indeed enable us to achieve those goals.

The proposed legislation and commitment to modernization is an extremely strong sign of this government’s confidence in the future of forestry in Ontario. The value of our forests to the province and Ontarians is absolutely undeniable. With 85 billion trees, our forests represent 2% of the world’s total. And 80% of the 71 million hectares of forested land in Ontario is publicly owned. The government of Ontario oversees the management of all these crown forest lands.

Forestry is a key economic driver in the province, supporting almost 260 Ontario communities, and many of those communities are highly dependent on forestry jobs for their survival. And while the importance of the sector remains vital, there is also no denying the setbacks that we have seen in recent years. Mills have been closed or idled, and certainly jobs have been lost. Despite that, our commitment to the forestry sector remains extremely firm.

Since 2005, we have made available more than $1.1 billion to support the forestry sector through programs like the forest sector prosperity fund and the loan guarantee program, also the wood promotion program, the northern pulp and paper electricity transition program and, of course, its successor, the northern industrial electricity rate program and many more.

We want the forest sector to be able to adapt to change. We want it to thrive in the face of the challenges that they have. With that as our desire, the current tenure system, which prescribes how companies obtain crown wood in this province, also needs to change.

Although our current forest tenure system has changed over the years, one of its basic tenets—that, in exchange for a long-term wood supply, primary wood-using mills owned by private companies have responsibility for and strong influence over the management of Ontario’s public forest control—has not been revised for many decades. In good times, when the mills were profitable, the old system worked well enough, I believe. But the economic recession has had a significant impact on Ontario’s forestry sector and on northern Ontario’s economy.

In a letter to me, and copied to the standing committee, one forestry company said recently that, “The current model of embedded business interests and competitors is costly, disruptive, combative and unsustainable,” from a business perspective. When mills were idled or closed, it meant that no one was using the wood, with limited opportunities for new entrants. You can be sure there were new entrants who were asking for wood and who were keenly interested in investing in northern Ontario. The fact is, the current system just doesn’t meet our needs any longer.

By modernizing the system that makes crown forest resources available to the industry, our goal is to protect and create jobs, attract new investment and make Ontario more competitive, while ensuring that Ontario’s forests continue to be managed sustainably. Bill 151 enables us to do this. It is a chance to make the allocation of Ontario’s wood more responsive to market demands, to move toward a more competitive market system and to certainly create new opportunities for entrepreneurs.

Bill 151 would allow the province to move forward with two new governance models developed in collaboration with industry, stakeholders and aboriginal communities. One of them is called local forest management corporations, and the second governance model we’re calling the enhanced shareholder sustainable forest licences. Both models would make it easier for new entrants to participate and for aboriginal and local communities to be involved in and benefit from the sector. Certainly that was a message we heard consistently from our extensive consultations.

While there clearly continue to be debates over the mechanics of the change, I think I feel comfortable saying that there is a strong consensus on the need for responsible and measured change.

We’ve had years of dialogue across the north. By the way, we’ve made substantial modifications to our original plan based on the discussions and consultations we’ve had, and we’ve worked closely with industry to accommodate its concerns.

For example, to address concerns about the benefits of the local forest management corporations, we’ve amended the bill to limit it to two pilot LFMCs for the first five years and to require that there is a review of those first two LFMCs and other tenure arrangements before establishing more. It’s a very important amendment we brought forward on the basis of concerns expressed by industry in particular.

To address concerns—and there were concerns expressed—that the government’s commitment to move toward the enhanced shareholder sustainable forest licence model was not visible in Bill 151, we have put forward amendments to the bill to allow for the cancellation of various wood supply instruments for the purpose of establishing an enhanced shareholder SFL. In direct response to concerns raised by the forest industry and various communities, we have made other amendments on the timber licence cancellation provisions to provide greater certainly around its application and use. Again, we are keen to work closely with industry to help us move forward together.

In terms of that particular measure, and to be quite specific, we’ve deleted a provision that would have allowed the government to develop further grounds for timber licence cancellation through a regulation. We’ve also improved the wording for cancellation in circumstances of wood hoarding, following input from a forest industry working group and others. Again, one of our goals is to see that wood hoarding is not a reality in the future. May I say, we’ve also added a very important right: One of our amendments is a right of representation in that provision.

I think I need to say at this point—perhaps it’s a bit harsh, but I think it’s true: It probably wouldn’t matter to some how we amended the bill. A significant number, I think, probably felt they wanted to stay with the status quo. It was a system that worked well for them and left them in a position to control that wood. It’s also fair to say that it’s not surprising, and perhaps it’s even understandable, that some do fear change. Some are seeking more delay, and some are certainly very aggressive in arguing further interests. That’s fair game, but we feel strongly that this was a measure that we needed to move forward on.

I guess it’s also worth saying that our government could have sat back; we could have done nothing while the forest sector continued its decline. Instead, we made the determination that the status quo was not an option, as we felt that the forest sector was simply not going to improve on its own under the present system. So our government stood up and we took the bold step to modernize Ontario’s forest tenure system—again, very careful to do it in a balanced and measured way, with an extraordinary level of consultation with industry, with communities and with their aboriginal leadership.

From my perspective, to not support this legislation is to not support the people of northern Ontario. To not support this legislation is to stifle growth in the forestry sector.

The reality is, we committed to proceeding with this transformation a couple of years ago, and we are fulfilling that commitment. We have a very strong responsibility to the people of Ontario. This is a crown resource. It is the people’s resource.

Despite what you may have heard, I can assure you that there is indeed significant industry support for this bill. It was made clear that by putting in the needed amendments, many industry leaders can and do indeed support this legislation. We have heard from both individuals and companies that recognize that change is necessary. They agree with the need for that change and they do support this legislation.

Certainly, there is a lot of work left to do to further develop the details and the implementation plans before a new tenure system could be put in place. We recognize that. This is a significant change, and it will take time. It’s important for me to say that it is very much our intention and our plan to work with industry, to continue to work with industry, to continue to work with municipalities and other stakeholders and our aboriginal communities to ensure that this happens.

Working together, this new tenure modernization bill and, may I say, the provincial wood supply competitive process would support new investment in the forestry sector while creating and sustaining jobs across the province. In fact, the wood supply competition was created in the interim, in the short term, to put wood and people back to work. We have seen that, during our very tough economic times, in essence about half of our wood supply was not being used. Through the wood supply competition to date, we have been able to announce that more than 3.4 million cubic metres of wood per year will be put to use.

Businesses are creating and protecting good jobs. As a result of the announcement, so far we are creating and retaining more than 1,500 of them. They are expanding their existing operations. Others are establishing new enterprises.

We don’t have time to go through all the announcements related to that, but there are some really good ones. They’re all great, but there are some particularly telling ones. How about a family-owned sawmill like Garden Lake Timber near Thunder Bay? It has been in business for just over 30 years and never had a confirmed wood supply. Now they do, and they’re able to create some more jobs at that important company.

Whitesand First Nation, north of Thunder Bay, has plans to build a sawmill, a three-megawatt cogeneration facility and a plant to manufacture clean-burning wood pellets. We were able to provide them with a wood allocation that was crucial to them moving forward.

In our announcement a couple of weeks ago—actually, maybe 10 or 12 days ago—a leading-edge clean energy solutions company called Rentech is going to build a plant in White River to produce biodegradable, low-carbon synthetic jet fuel—the first commercial plant of its kind. That almost defines the innovative proposals that I think we were looking for and hoping to see.

Those are just a few examples. I can certainly give many others, as can my colleagues from northern Ontario. But that gives us a good sense of the good things that can happen when we make unused wood available.

There’s no question that the wood supply competition process was long, it was complicated, it was challenging, and it continues to be. But what we look at now in terms of our legislation today is to imagine the benefits for Ontarians if we’re able to get approval for Bill 151 and a modernized tenure system that would see unused wood more quickly and consistently made available to support new and existing businesses. We believe strongly that it’s time to act. We need this change now to create jobs and opportunities in Ontario’s forest sector. It’s time to support this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate?

Mr. Randy Hillier: It’s too bad that the minister didn’t give us a few more examples. He did have another seven minutes left on the clock, and I would have been glad to hear some of those other examples had he had them available.

It was interesting listening to the minister. He talked about the industry’s support for this bill. I know that the minister wasn’t at the committee hearings, hearing from industry and the municipalities in northern Ontario. But I guess I must say that the minister probably can’t see the opposition through the trees on this bill. There certainly is significant opposition to this bill—well-founded and well-justified opposition to this bill.

Over the last eight years, under Dalton McGuinty’s watch, forestry in this province of Ontario has been decimated. High hydro prices and overregulation have contributed to the loss of over 60 timber mills and the loss of over 40,000 forestry jobs. Instead of helping northern foresters, Premier McGuinty’s government seems hell-bent on causing more damage to the industry.

Last month, Premier McGuinty’s Liberals introduced the Forest Tenure Modernization Act, which will hurt foresters even further. The bill will replace sustainable forestry licences with unaccountable and bureaucratic forestry LHINs. It will allow the minister to cancel forestry licences with no compensation, no warning and no reason. Contrary to the minister’s statements, that provision still remains within the bill and has caused significant fear and uncertainty in the industry.

When stakeholders like the Ontario Forest Industries Association and the Ontario Bar Association said that the McGuinty Liberals were going to destroy the forest sector by throwing out the rule of law, the McGuinty Liberals on the committee cancelled their northern committee delegations. Last month, I tabled letters in the committee from across the north—from northern communities and councils, foresters and families. There were letters begging the Liberals to reconsider their cancelled consultations. Northerners asked the Liberal government for a fair hearing.

Northern communities like Espanola, Thunder Bay and Timmins were begging the government to allow them to speak out on an issue of vital importance.

Of course, this government isn’t one to listen to anyone who isn’t a moneyed downtown Toronto lobbyist. Research by the PC caucus has shown that this bill isn’t a product of the McGuinty government at all. The root of this legislation was written by none other than a Toronto eco-lobbyist, Tom Clark, in a paper written for the Ivey Foundation. The Ivey Foundation funded Tom Clark to produce that report. We all remember the Ivey Foundation as being that organization which bragged about playing the government like a fiddle. Their mandate is to halt all forestry in the province of Ontario. It looks like the Ivey Foundation has done it once again.

The government is continuing to fiddle while the forest industry burns. Now Tom Clark has helped them create another piece of legislation which will send shockwaves through the industry. This bill is yet another nail in the coffin of the forestry sector. While the government claims this bill will help Ontario’s forestry, it was created by the very same people devoted to destruction of the forestry industry.

It was the best proof yet that Dalton McGuinty has changed. He’s not the man northerners hoped he would be. He has abandoned the north. Instead of listening, northern Liberal members began a misinformation campaign in their ridings, far from their Toronto bosses. The member—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): I’d ask the member to restate his position, please.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Instead of listening, northern Liberal members began a campaign to deflect the legitimate concerns. The member for Algoma–Manitoulin came home and told the press that they wanted consultations at the same time that he actively cancelled them in Toronto.

These Liberal members have made clear that their loyalty is to Dalton McGuinty, not to their constituents. They made it clear when they passed the Green Energy Act, raising energy prices by 150% and forcing northerners to choose between food and heating this winter. These same high hydro prices are now causing the collapse of the forestry sector, as mills struggle to pay bills imposed upon them by an out-of-touch Liberal government. They made it clear when they passed Bill 191 with no consultations, their Far North—and no jobs—Act.

While listening to northerners, the McGuinty Liberals have closed the north to all business and designated 50% of our province as off limits for any development. That piece of trickery was masterminded by another Liberal eco-lobbyist, the president of the World Wildlife Fund.

Now, Bill 151. The Liberals have decided that it’s not even worth appearing in northern Ontario. Why should they suffer the slings and arrows of the good, regular folks in communities like Sioux Lookout, Espanola or Dubreuilville? Why bother listening to people trying to save their families and their livelihoods? Why bother travelling up north when Dalton McGuinty is only trying to win seats in Toronto? The Liberals’ eco-lobbyist friends never leave Toronto, so why should the Liberal members? So the government cancelled all committee hearings in the north on Bill 151. It’s clear the McGuinty Liberals are so out of touch they think northerners need not be heard.

The good news: In 169 days, Ontario families will have an opportunity to send a message to this government: that enough is enough. Instead of dabbling in expensive energy experiments that are causing families’, seniors’ and businesses’ hydro bills to skyrocket, a Tim Hudak Ontario PC government will treat energy policy as an economic policy, not a social program. We will work to ensure that forestry in Ontario is sustainable, productive and prosperous. When it comes to making decisions about northern Ontario, the PC Party will not leave northerners out in the cold. A vote for the PC Party will be a voice for northern Ontario.

Here’s a letter from Marathon. The mayor of Marathon, frustrated with the province—their mill lost their wood. Their mill is closed.

Here’s a story from the Chronicle Journal: “Another Sawmill Bankrupt,” May 12. “Another Buchanan sawmill has entered bankruptcy,” McKenzie Forest Products in Sioux Lookout. Why? Because they couldn’t get any fibre.

That’s Marathon and Sioux Lookout. We have letters before the standing committee from the OFIA, from Ainsworth, from Espanola, from Domtar, from Eacom, from everybody in the forestry industry—Georgia-Pacific. The list goes on and on. And what did this Liberal government do in that committee hearing? They snubbed them. Not one of those legitimate, justifiable concerns about this bill were addressed during the clause-by-clause.

They even went so far—and I’ll clarify this for the minister, because obviously he didn’t read the amendment. The amendment does read that there will be a review and evaluation of the first two LFMCs and that there will only be two LFMCs. The final clause of that amendment says that this amendment “does not apply with respect to ... the first two” LFMCs. So there will be no review. There will be no evaluation. Read it again, Minister. It was the most circular, convoluted and circus amendment that’s ever been put forward in front of a committee here.

Here it is from the township of Ignace: They’re opposed. The mayor of Timmins, the northern Ontario chamber of commerce, the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce, the Chiefs of Ontario, NAN: Everybody is opposed to this bill, but this government is hell-bent on ramming through another bill for the Ivey Foundation and their downtown environmental friends.

I would like the minister to stand up in this House and say, “No, it wasn’t because of Tom Clark and the Ivey Foundation,” which funded and came up with this idea. Stand up in this House and tell us that that’s not where the motivation for this bill came from, because we know that that is where the whole concept and the whole idea of creating these forestry LHINs came from: the Ivey Foundation.

I guess that really is the hallmark of a Liberal bill: not a bill that comes from broad-based consensus in a community, not a bill that comes from broad-based industry support, but from a very narrowly cast special-interest group. That’s what this Liberal government has become when it applies to northern Ontario.

Every one of these—here’s another one from the town of Cochrane, opposed to this bill. We even had the mayor of Dubreuilville here a couple of weeks ago, and the general manager of the mill in Dubreuilville, pleading for some fibre allocation, some certainty that that mill can operate and operate continuously. But no such confirmation came from this government.

I’ll put this on the record, Minister: All those mills and all those tens of thousands of jobs are not just statistics. Behind each one of those numbers is a father, a mother, a son, a daughter, a family member who is out of work and facing the hardships of your policies. It’s time for you to stand up and listen to the north. It’s time for you to bring some certainty to this industry and have some prosperity in northern Ontario.

It’s disappointing that the Liberals time-allocated this bill, it’s disappointing that they did not listen to those justifiable amendments, and it’s disappointing for northern Ontario that they will have to pick up the pieces and pay the consequences of the Ivey Foundation’s relationship with the minister.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: As the critic for the New Democratic Party on this issue and on behalf of our caucus and our leader, Andrea Horwath, I want to put a few comments on the record on this very short debate at third reading.

The government is, yes, moving forward on this initiative for the change of the forest tenure model and the pricing system of timber in this province, something that we’ve opposed for a number of reasons that were laid out at second reading, were laid out in committee and were laid out through the media through the north and through all of Ontario.

However, we listened to the government. It’s really interesting: Here’s the government saying that if the member votes against this bill, we’re voting against northern Ontario. What a preposterous comment for the minister to make. This bill is problematic.

You’ve got the Ontario Forest Industries Association, the people who represent the forestry companies in northern Ontario, saying, essentially, you’re wrong. You’ve got major forest operators in this province who are saying that you’re wrong. You have almost every mayor in northern Ontario saying that you’re wrong. You’ve got pretty well every chamber of commerce in northern Ontario saying that you’re wrong. You’ve got unions and workers and communities across the north that say you are wrong. And you say somehow we’re opposed to the north by voting against this bill? I think you’re the ones who are wrong, and I think it will be proven on October 6.

This government, quite frankly, has completely lost touch with reality. They’re not listening to what people in northern Ontario have to say, because if they were, they would have been listening to Jamie Lim at the OFIA. They would have been listening to Tom Laughren and other mayors in northern Ontario. They’d be listening to Mr. Wilson from the chamber of commerce up in Thunder Bay. They’d be listening to all kinds of people who have been saying, “We’re not opposed to change. We understand what change is all about. We’re a resilient bunch in northern Ontario.

We’ve understood for a long time that northern Ontario has some challenges, and we’ve always risen to those challenges. But this is not change that’s going to move us forward. This is change that’s going to put us back.”

You’re mucking around with the licences of forestry companies, and you can ill afford to do so. If I, as a company, go out in order to finance myself for modernization in my mill or any kind of an investment I need to do for expansion, I’ve got to be able to show that I’ve got the ability to secure the money that I’m borrowing. How do you do that? Yes, it’s by the assets you have and, yes, it’s by your balance sheet, but it’s also by being able to prove you’ve got trees to put in the mill. You’re putting those licences at risk.

Forest companies have been saying to you right from the beginning, and the OFIA has been saying to you, “If that is not the case, then put it in the legislation. Put an amendment in place that is absolutely clear that you’re not going to muck with somebody’s licence, and then we can go to the next step.”

But you couldn’t even get off the curb in this debate. You came out of the cabinet room, sat on the curb and announced to northern Ontario what great ideas you had, and then you failed to listen to anybody in northern Ontario. We said, “At least travel the bill to northern Ontario so people in the north can have an opportunity to speak.” “No, no, we don’t have to send this to the north. Cabinet knows better. The minister knows better. Mr. Brown certainly knows better. We just know what’s got to be done in northern Ontario, because Queen’s Park, after all, is the best place to make decisions about northern Ontario.”

Well, let me tell you, as a northerner: Absolutely not. The people of the north had to be consulted and they weren’t. Were they consulted prior to this bill being introduced? Absolutely. Were they consulted sufficiently? Not a question. The problem is, what people talked to you about at the consultation pre-drafting of the bill was very different from what they saw come out of the process once you had drafted the bill.

So on the first point, you’ve mucked up the issue of licences for forest companies, and that is not a good thing. It puts us in line with a whole bunch of other jurisdictions where there isn’t the kind of security that companies can have in order to make the investments in their jurisdictions.

Effectively, what it does is this: For one of these companies that is either a Canadian-based or North American-based forest company which has operations across Canada and the rest of North America, and they have to decide, “Okay, we have X amount of money to invest this year, and we have to decide where we’re going to invest it,” it makes it very difficult for them, as a company, to say, “Well, let’s put it in Ontario,” because in Ontario, life has gotten very tough. We have energy rates that have gone through the roof—and I hear the Conservatives talk about energy. God, you guys started this fiasco.

The nerve of the Conservatives to get up and say they understand energy, when they started the problem. Then the Liberals put it into overdrive, and on top of that, now you’re mucking around with the licences. The companies, the boardrooms and the directors, are going to have to say, “All right, I’ve got X amount of money to invest. I can invest it in Manitoba, I can invest it in Quebec, I can invest it maybe somewhere in the United States, or in Ontario.” And it’s going to make it very difficult for them to invest in Ontario, once this act becomes law.

I promise you this: After the next election, if we form a government, I’m going to scrap this thing. I’m telling you right now. Absolutely. This is bad legislation.

Should we do something to deal with some of the issues that the minister raised? Absolutely. There’s not a municipality, there is not a company, there’s not a chamber of commerce or a mayor who says we should do nothing. However, what you’ve done is completely opposed to what they want. What people wanted was security of tenure, number one, and a way to utilize unutilized timber that already exists in the act that you as a minister and previous ministers of the crown under the Liberal government have refused to use. You haven’t used the power that you have in the act now.

I agree with my friend Randy: All of this is kind of like creating a LHIN, in the sense that if I move everything over to the—what do they call them?—enhanced LFMCs, local forest management corporations or whatever, and I shove the responsibility over to the private sector, then, “Don’t come to me when there’s a problem. It’s not my fault,” says the government from the Liberal side. “It’s them.” It’s the same idea as the LHINs. You’re trying to put a buffer between you and the decision-makers. You’re the minister; you’ve got the seat. You’re the government; you have the majority. You control the cabinet. The decision is yours.

I’ll tell you what I would have done if I was minister over the last seven years, and I know there are some people who would disagree with me in northern Ontario, and certain people within industry. But when a company shuts down, we currently have the authority to take the wood if they’re not going to reopen—the first thing I would do is say, “What can we do to keep your doors open? Is this a temporary closure or a permanent closure?” If it’s a temporary closure, they’ve got to hold onto the wood; otherwise, the community doesn’t have a chance in heck to be able to do anything after.

If the company is going to say, “No, this is a permanent closure,” as was the case with Excel in Opasatika, as is the case in Smooth Rock Falls, I would say, “Okay, as the crown, the minister, I’m taking that wood back,” because we have the authority to do it now without this bill, with the current act, “and that wood will remain tied to those communities,” so that as the economy turns around, we have an opportunity to restart something in that community.

But the government isn’t doing that in this bill. They’re going to a forest tenure model that, at the end of the day, is not going to give the communities any more say about what happens to the trees in their backyards than the decisions of the government today. The government says, “Oh, the answer is the LFMCs. We’ve created two LFMCs, and boy, that’s like sliced bread. It’s so, so good; it’s like ice cream with cherries on it.” Well, that’s not what communities asked you for; communities asked you for a community forest model.

They wanted some way of being able to have a say about the trees and how the forest is harvested and where the trees are going to be processed in their own backyard; that’s what they were asking you for. When the town of Hearst, the town of Dubreuilville and other communities went to your pre-hearings prior to the introduction of the bill, the communities were saying, “We really do want a community forest approach.”

The forest industry is a green industry, something that a lot of people don’t recognize. It frustrates me to no end, as a northerner, when I hear people talk about forestry as if it’s some sort of brownfield industry. God, we’re the greenest industry going. We cut a forest that is about to die or burn down and then we replant it. We’re farmers, except we have a crop that takes 80 to 90 years to grow. We do a good job at it, and we do so by making sure that we watch out for the habitat.

We make sure, through our forest management plans, that we deal with issues having to do with the water, having to do with fauna and animals, making sure that our cutting approaches are able to respect those things.

But back to the bill: The government then says, “We’re going to do these local forest management companies, these LFMCs.” Well, you’ve missed the point on that one, too, so I’m telling you now, this is bad legislation. Thank God we’re four months before an election and the government is not going to have the chance to even enact this legislation—well, they may enact it, but they won’t have a chance to put it into play for a while yet, because the regulations certainly won’t be done by October 6. So we have a bit of breathing room, thank God, because this is really bad legislation.

On the issue of the LFMCs, one thing that I want to put on the record: You are now going to go to a competitive bid system on that wood. What the government doesn’t want to accept is that, yes, the Americans are extremely protectionist when it comes to their market and when it comes to Canadian softwood imports into their country—exports from ours—they are going to use absolutely everything, as they have before, to make the argument that we’re somehow subsidizing our industry.

We’re not subsidizing our industry. Time and time again we’ve gone before the various tribunals and we’ve made the point, and the American government has lost their case each and every time. But now, all of a sudden, if you go to a competitive wood bid system, you open two problems.

One is, let’s say they get money under the roads program—because we build these roads not just to do harvesting, but also to access the forest; there’s a dual use for our roads. Do the Americans now argue, “Well, how can you have a competitive system and, at the same time, subsidize your roads?” It’s just going to invite more countervail. I don’t know why you’re doing that.

On the other point, it’s going to be the highest bidder who will get the wood. That’s the way the model works. When you have a competitive system, it’s never the lowest person who gets the product; it’s always the highest bid that gets the product.

What do you do if, for example, you’re an LFMC, where all of a sudden you’ve got wood in your jurisdiction. You have some use that you would like to use it for locally so you can create jobs in your neighbouring community or your own community. Then all of a sudden, somebody from afar comes in and says, “I’m prepared to pay a premium on that wood.” They can be so much from afar that they can be from Manitoba, Quebec, the United States. There would be nothing to stop us from allowing them to buy that wood on a competitive bid system, and I’m going to predict that’s exactly what’s going to happen.

We’re going to have situations where the LFMCs are going to have wood that’s up for sale and somebody’s going to bid for it away from the community that the wood came from. You’re going to see some local jobs when it comes to the harvesting and the transportation of the wood, and then people in the community are going to sit by the side of the highway and they’re going to be waving as the wood drives by their house to some community farther away in Ontario or a community outside of this province altogether.

I just say that this is really, really bad news on the part of what the government is doing to northern Ontario.

To the issue of allocation of wood: The government has argued, “Oh, we need this because people are hoarding wood.” If people are hoarding wood, it’s your fault. You have the authority under the act now to allocate timber that is underutilized or not being utilized. The government says, “No, we don’t have the right.” What the heck was your allocation process that you just went through? You put up, through RFP, all kinds of wood through a competitive wood bidding system that you set up about two years ago for people to bid on. You did that because you had the authority under the act.

And the government says, “Oh, we need to stop the hoarding of wood.” Give me a break. You have the ability to do whatever you want with underutilized or non-utilized timber, period. You have the right to put up an RFP process. You have the right do whatever you want by way of crown wood because it is the crown, it is the province that controls that underutilized, unutilized wood. So instead, the government says, “We’re doing this because we want to stop the hoarding.” I would argue that you have the authority already under the act to deal with the hoarding issue.

Let me get to the Rentech issue that was raised by the minister. Yes, that’s good news. Listen: You’re not going to hear me, as a New Democrat, say that the idea of finding a use for timber in northern Ontario is a bad thing, but a couple of questions have to be asked about this particular project. First of all, what you’ve done is, you’ve allocated timber from other communities like Dubreuilville—

Mr. Michael A. Brown: No.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, he says no. You’re going to get a chance to correct my record if you want. The point is, there’s a limited amount of wood that’s available. The community of Dubreuilville and the community of Marathon are up in arms because at the end they’re saying, “Listen: The wood that’s going over to White River”—and thank God for them; they’re going to get something—“is at the expense of our communities”—number one. If that is true or not true, clarify, but that is the sense that people are getting in Dubreuilville and Marathon.

The other issue is that we need to ensure it’s a best-end-use policy when it comes to the wood that goes into that mill. The only way you can do that is to find a way to make sure that the mills in Dubreuilville and Marathon and other communities can open up, take the timber, pass it through their mills, and the wood that goes to White River is basically chips from the mills or it’s tops and scraps from the trees as they’re cut in the forest. If you do that, then that makes some sense, because we do know there’s a lesser market for chips today and that is a problem for our sawmills. That’s one of the reasons why the sawmills are shut down.

In the province of Quebec, they have a policy that says you can’t grind round logs. You can’t grind trees to make chips for mills in Quebec; they have to be residual waste from sawmills. What that does is, it allows the sawmills to make money on the sale of their chips, which allows them to keep their doors open, more so than they have in Ontario, and then supply the chips into the paper mills and into the pulp mills of Quebec.

If the government was to have an approach that says, “We’re going to work at making sure that the wood that goes into the Marathon project is going to be residual wood waste from the forest floor as we harvest the trees and the chips from the mills by which the logs are going to,” then there’s some sense to this; then that’s a really good thing. At the end of the day, it means to say that the sawmill in Dubreuilville or Marathon or wherever it might be goes into operation, because they’re going to need a lot of wood. The project in White River is over a million cubic metres of wood a year.

That’s a fair amount of wood. Let’s ensure and guarantee that that mill is going to be operating with wood waste and not grinding logs, because that is what’s starting to happen in this province. In Terrace Bay, for example, they’re chipping round logs because there’s no place to send the trees through the sawmill because of the set-up we have in Ontario, and they need the chips to operate, so they’re grinding.

Grinding 80- or 90-year-old spruce or whatever else you might be using is not good policy, so we need to ensure that the White River mill, when it moves forward, is one that operates on wood waste and doesn’t necessarily operate on grinding timber in the forest.

The second thing is: Is the financing really put together for this project? I had a chance to speak with Angelo last week when I was in White River at another event having to do with Agent Orange at the health fair that they had there. He seemed to think, “Yes, probably.” But there really isn’t any guarantee at this point that the financing is even in place for this particular project, and it’s probably a fair amount of time away before that project ever gets off the ground.

I say to the government: This is not a bad thing that’s happening to White River. You’re not going to hear New Democrats say it’s a bad thing. But what I’m saying is, we need to make sure that this is a win-win situation not only for White River, but that it’s also a win for the province; that it’s a win for the communities in the neighbouring areas around White River, that their sawmills are going to be able to get up and running again; and that it’s a win for the local economy and the people working there. I think we have an opportunity to do that, and there are some questions that have yet to be answered: Does the deal, at the end of the day, follow those principles that I set out?

I say to the government in this debate: To try to say all of a sudden that voting against this bill is voting against the north is completely off track. It makes no sense.

I’ll just use the last minute or two that I have to say to what degree the Liberals are out of touch. Mr. Bartolucci, the minister of whatever, was up in Timmins at FONOM last week, I believe on Friday. He spent 40 minutes in his speech talking about how it’s not true that the government is not consulting northerners. For 40 minutes, he stood in front of the mayors and various aldermen from across northern Ontario and various people who were there and said, “We’re consulting. We’re doing a good job. You know, the Liberals are doing so great.

It’s the NDP and the Conservatives who are lying to you.” That a minister of the crown has to go to Timmins and spend 40 minutes to try to convince northerners that this government is consulting tells me that they’re not consulting, and I think it’s pretty indicative of where this government is at. I think this is sad.

For a government to introduce such legislation at this point in their mandate tells me that, politically, they ain’t very wise and that, number two, they really do not understand after almost eight years in power what they could have done to make life in northern Ontario better. It will be the people of northern Ontario who will judge the results. We’ve had a precursor, looking at the federal election, where the Liberals ended up in third place in pretty well every riding except a couple in northern Ontario. It pretty well tells you what’s going to happen in the next provincial election with this government.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate? The member from—

Mr. Steve Clark: Leeds–Grenville.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Leeds–Grenville.

Mr. Steve Clark: I’m pleased to join in the third reading debate on Bill 151.

I was walking over to Queen’s Park this morning, and I was thinking about what I’ve learned in the general government committee hearings as we debated Bill 151. It almost makes me think of that old game—when I was a kid, I called it the shell game—where you had the three walnut shells with the marble. You would move them around and have people guess where the marble was.

When you open up the shell, it was almost like when the minister made his announcement on January 13, when he opened it up and said, “This is what Bill 151 is going to be like.” Then the marble went down and the shells turned around, and then the bill received first reading on February 23, and the bill wasn’t the same as the minister’s announcement in January. There was significant difference.

We got lots of correspondence, lots of resolutions from municipalities, lots of letters from the forestry industry, saying, “How come the bill that’s presented isn’t the same as the minister’s announcement or some of the information that was given as part of the consultation that the minister and the parliamentary assistant talked about?”

So then, we have a general government meeting where the subcommittee decides that there’s going to be northern hearings. They decide that the committee’s going to go to Pembroke, Timmins, Thunder Bay and Sault Ste. Marie during our break week in April. Then the shells go around again, and the next day it opens up, and we have a meeting on April 30 when, lo and behold, the government says, “No, we’ve already had enough consultation. The minister has come forward and talked about what is going to be in the bill, so we don’t need to go to the north.”

But then the shells get changed around again, and our friend the member for Algoma–Manitoulin gets quoted in the Mid-North Monitor saying, “‘I don’t want to see consultations in the cities, that is what I said, because that is not where the people directly affected by this legislation live,’ explained Brown. ‘I want to see the hearings go to the communities directly affected by this legislation, places like Espanola.’”

So, on one hand, as part of the shell game, we make an announcement as a government. The minister says, “This what we’re going to do.” We make a decision at committee that we’re going to go to the north; we’re going to consult. We’re not sitting anyway. It’s a break week. All of a sudden, the rug gets pulled out from under northern communities, and then the quote. It’s that whole sleight of hand that this government seems to play with northern Ontario.

But do you know what? Every time you play the shell game, eventually, even though you’re pretty quick with your changes, even though you’re great with your misdirection as a government, every so often, somebody’s going to guess where the marble is underneath the walnut shell.

I was at the Canadian Club a couple of weeks ago and heard the Premier talk about a lot of things. Most things I didn’t agree with, but one thing that he did say was true. He talked about democracy and the fact that in an election the people are always right.

You can move the shells around all you want. You can make an announcement in January and table a bill in February that’s not the same. You can say to the north that you’re going to go and do hearings one day and retract it the next. But on October 6, that’s when the north is going to judge you. It’s going to judge you on whether they believe that you were good to them with this bill, that you listened to them.

It’s the same thing with the Far North Act. We did the same dance at the general government committee with the Far North Act, where we said we were going to go to the north, and then you pulled out the rug on the north for those hearings as well.

Interjection.

Mr. Steve Clark: No, we didn’t. We were supposed to go in June, Mike; come on. That may be what you said to the Mid-North Monitor back then, but—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): I remind the member to direct your comments through the Chair.

Mr. Steve Clark: Thank you, Chair; I will.

I want to also commend the member for Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington because, when we did clause-by-clause on May 4, he put forward a motion on behalf of our party that all LFMCs are to be examined on the criteria of financial viability after that five-year plan and that the report comes back here to the Legislative Assembly, comes back here for the 107 MPPs to deal with and to review. That motion wasn’t passed.

From our perspective in our party, that’s again an opportunity that we had as MPPs to review that, and this government said no. It abdicated our responsibilities as members of the Legislative Assembly. As my eastern friend and neighbour said, we need those reviews. We need to review those two cases. We need to give the north the opportunity to review that report, bring it right here and table it right there at the table—not to do it in secret, not to deal with the minister and the bureaucrats. Let’s not play the shell game with northern Ontario again.

Make no mistake: As the member for Timmins–James Bay said earlier—and he was the third member of the opposition side who was at the hearings—there are a lot of problems. The Ontario Forest Industries Association brought up some issues just prior to our third reading. I’ve read a lot of their briefs, and they’ve sent us a lot of letters on behalf of the industry. You know what? I think Jamie Lim and Scott Jackson would make a better minister and parliamentary assistant than you two, because they have brought forward a number of issues that you’ve ignored.

The Canadian Bar Association, at third reading on April 13—the member for Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington mentioned it earlier—made some excellent points that you just ignored.

This bill needs work. We missed an opportunity to take the time, in the few days we had left, to make Bill 151 work. And you threw it all away.

So on October 6, the people of the north—

Mr. Michael A. Brown: They’ll decide.

Mr. Steve Clark: They will decide, Mike. They will.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate?

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I am delighted to take

part in this third reading of Bill 151, a bill that has been canvassed across the province and across northern Ontario for more than two years. It has had, just so people understand, 118 hearings and consultations across this province. Of that 118, 114 took place in northern Ontario. I think that speaks loudly to the concerns, and to the government listening to those concerns, across the north.

We need to put the wood back to work, and this is what this bill is about. There are nine million cubic metres of wood out there that were not being used—some would say “hoarded,” but at least they were unused.

I have communities across my constituency that have suffered greatly because they lacked access to wood. I have proponents come into my office almost on a weekly basis who suggest to me that they want opportunities for that wood and can’t get it under the present system. There is—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: How did you give it to White River if you can’t do it?

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I can tell you. The member from Timmins–James Bay raised an issue that’s close to my heart and close to the minister’s heart, and that is the Rentech project in White River—1.3 million cubic metres per year to a company that is going to use unmerchantable timber. He knows what that means. It means that it’s not sawlogs. That’s what it means. That’s exactly what it means.

For him to cast aspersions on a prominent company that is going to work in White River—ask the mayor of White River. Ask the council of White River. Ask the councils and the people across that region, because in truth, it is a regional economic driver. Ask them about it. Ask Hornepayne about the fact that on Saturday I announced 220,000 cubic metres of additional wood for them. That is what this means. This means a market for timber.

I cannot understand why anybody, particularly my friends in the Conservative Party, would believe that some kind of free market would be a bad thing. I don’t understand how anybody who believes in competition and free markets could believe that this rather modest effort at providing the crown forests with some degree of response to markets, both up and down, would be a bad thing.

I’m not going to speak too much longer. But I want to know why, at committee, if the New Democrats thought this bill was so bad, they introduced but one amendment, and it was to the purpose clause at the beginning and it was already covered. And I’d like to know why the good friends in the official opposition decided that 200 of their amendments didn’t even need to go forward. I couldn’t believe they withdrew all those. Look: They’re all bluster, all smoke and mirrors—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): I’d ask the member to withdraw.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I withdraw.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: They’re all bluster; they’re all smoke and mirrors.

The people of the north will judge us, and we look forward to it.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Order.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated May 3, 2011, I am now required to put the question. Mr. Gravelle has moved third reading of Bill 151,

An Act to enact the Ontario Forest Tenure Modernization Act, 2011 and to amend the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, 1994. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred until after question period today.

Third reading vote deferred.

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon. Gerry Phillips: I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House, when the order of the day is called for resuming the adjourned debate on government order number 56, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the motion and any amendments thereto, which questions shall be decided without further debate or amendment; and

That the vote on government order number 56 may be deferred pursuant to standing order 28(h); and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on government order number 56, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate?

Mr. Norm Miller: It’s my pleasure to join in the debate this morning on the time allocation motion the government has called. I was actually, to be honest, expecting someone from the government to speak to their own time allocation motion, but it doesn’t seem like they’re interested in speaking to their time allocation motion.

This time allocation motion is kind of interesting in that it’s to do with putting an end to the debate on their very political motion that they brought forward yesterday that was a very political motion where it talks about all the wonderful things they’ve done, which I won’t repeat. Then it goes on to say that they reject the introduction of a carbon tax as a measure that would hurt Ontario’s economic growth and they reject an increase to the HST rate or a decrease to the rate that would benefit the wealthiest and take $3 billion out of the economy.

That’s what this motion is all about: The McGuinty Liberal government stating once again that they’re not going to bring about a tax increase. That’s what it’s all about, and it seems extraordinary that we are debating this motion, and now we’re having a time allocation on this motion, just so that the McGuinty government can state, in a different way, the same message they’ve stated very clearly on a couple of occasions in the past.

I do believe that the Premier even states that the best predictor of future behaviour is your past behaviour. It was he that, on September 11, 2003, stated very clearly to the cameras that he wouldn’t increase taxes in that 2003 election. For myself at that point, I actually believed him. I just didn’t expect someone that went before the cameras and actually signed this taxpayer protection pledge—I just didn’t believe that he’d actually break that promise. But he did; he broke that promise, and very quickly after the 2003 election, so it wasn’t worth the paper it was written on.

Just to refresh your memory, Madam Speaker, what he agreed to in 2003 was that he wouldn’t raise taxes. He stated, “I, Dalton McGuinty, leader of the Liberal Party of Ontario, promise, if my party is elected as the next government, that I will not raise taxes or implement any new taxes without the ... consent of Ontario voters....” He ran 200 ads in that election campaign restating, and restating many times, this promise.

I think it was quite persuasive. I know there would be a lot of voters out there who would be worried—the Liberal brand is that they like to tax people and they like to spend money. There would be people who wouldn’t vote for them because they would be worried about that and what it would mean to the finances of the province of Ontario if they were successful in winning government. This pledge, I think, was very effective. Unfortunately, it wasn’t worth the paper it was written on.

As we know, immediately after the 2003 election, Premier McGuinty brought in the health tax, which is a huge tax increase. Over $3 billion a year is being raised by that, and it’s not going to health; it just goes into the general revenues. That was just a way of camouflaging a tax increase, and they’re very good at being creative that way—an extra $3-billion tax, so that you pay up to $900 a person for this new tax that the Premier and the McGuinty government brought in after the 2003 election, after making a very clear pledge that they wouldn’t raise taxes. That’s 2003—one time.

Then, in 2007, we have another election happening. In that one, he made a different statement. I think he was accused that he would raise taxes, and when he was accused by his critics that he was going to raise taxes, he said, “They’re wrong. They’re wrong. They’re wrong.” I don’t remember the word “HST” being mentioned in the 2007 election. Perhaps the member from Simcoe–Grey could let me know if I’m wrong in that, but I certainly don’t remember it being discussed at all.

Then, after the 2007 election, surprise, surprise, in the first budget almost immediately after the election, the government brings in the HST—which was a tax increase, because the way that this provincial McGuinty government implemented it—and they have choice there; whether you like the tax or don’t like it, there’s choice about how the government implements it. It applied to all kinds of things that the former provincial sales tax did not apply to.

So all of a sudden, you have a whole bunch of things that there was not provincial sales tax on that now there is HST on. Those are things like gasoline for your cars, electricity for your homes, heating oil—some pretty basic staples that the old tax didn’t apply to and the new tax does apply to, and other specific ways they implemented the McGuinty HST. One of the benefits for businesses is that there are input tax credits, where they can claim some of the tax back. Well, they conveniently deny input tax credits on any companies over a certain size.

It adds up to about $1.3 billion a year for eight years that they are denying input tax credits, the one benefit business might get. The way they’re implementing it—you know, we’ve got a problem with people saving enough money for retirement. The McGuinty government is making it worse, because they’re putting the HST onto the management fees on registered retirement savings plans, meaning that if you don’t save enough money, it makes it more difficult for families to save for retirement.

Once again, this was another tax after saying that they wouldn’t bring in a tax. They brought in so many different new taxes. They brought in the diamond tax. We’re finally having our first diamond mine in the province of Ontario, with De Beers, a well-known company, investing hundreds of millions of dollars in Attawapiskat. They’re a few years into the project, working with the communities around them to benefit them, and all of a sudden, the McGuinty government changes the rules of the game midstream—anything they can do to get some extra money coming their way.

They doubled the diamond tax after the company was committed, so they couldn’t at that point decide, “Oh, sorry; the rules have changed. This doesn’t make sense for us anymore.” They were committed. So it was a sneaky way of going about a tax increase.

We just learned yesterday about the rules changing with the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. Municipalities that host the slots, and I think it also applies to racetracks, where they thought they were going to get 5% of the gross revenues—what’s the McGuinty government doing in that case? They’re changing the accounting rules. What it’s going to mean is less money for these municipalities.

That provoked a reaction from Point Edward Mayor Dick Kirkland yesterday in the Observer, in an

article entitled “Casino Revenue to Shrink in Sarnia, Point Edward.” It said: “‘It’s just another tax grab by the government,’ said Kirkland. ‘The government is looking for every penny they can find to pay for their debt. I’m very disappointed if this is what their new accounting practice means. For us, the loss of $46,000 means a capital project won’t get done.’”

The communities, when they agreed to host these slot facilities, were counting on 5% of gross revenue, and they use that money for projects in the communities. I know in Sault Ste. Marie they use it to fund the hospital; they use it for physician retention. I’m sure Dick Kirkland, the mayor of Point Edward, had many good projects that he was counting on that money for. But once again, the McGuinty government has changed the rules of the game in midstream, and that’s going to hurt those Ontario communities.

What I’m establishing is a pattern here: That is, where the McGuinty government says one thing before the election and they say something very, very different after the election. They’re doing it again with this motion, which they’ve gone to the extraordinary effort to time-allocate to end debate on it, because they recognize that the opposition will keep debating this. The reason we want to keep debating it is, we want to point out and remind people, who maybe have short memories, what’s happened in the past.

In 2003, there was a pledge to not raise taxes. It can’t get any clearer when you go on TV and you sign a document before the cameras, and then you break that pledge. Just last week, a PC candidate was here at the Legislature with that pledge to remind people that Mr. McGuinty made it. Then, of course, in 2007, once again saying they won’t raise taxes, and they did.

Here we have another election around the corner, and guess what? The McGuinty Liberals are making another pledge. The question is: Should the Ontario general public, should the taxpayers, believe this pledge?

Mr. Steve Clark: They say they really, really, really mean it this time.

Mr. Norm Miller: Yes, they’re saying that they really, really, really, really mean the pledge this time. They’re very clear this time that they mean the pledge that says that they won’t—it’s almost like when they say they won’t do something, you should reverse it and say, “That means they really are going to do it.” So they say they won’t introduce a carbon tax and they won’t increase or decrease the HST. I’m not sure why they don’t like a decrease. I guess it’s because they’re so against reducing the tax burden on Ontario families.

But I can tell you, I’m hearing from Ontario families and seniors that they’re feeling the pressure of daily life, of pocketbook expenses. There isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t hear from someone in Parry Sound–Muskoka by email, a phone call or some form of communication that they’re concerned about their increasing hydro bill.

Their hydro bills have gone up so dramatically, it’s come down to choices about having to greatly restrict the use of their power or, in some cases, they have to actually—I met one constituent who actually was wearing a snowmobile suit when they met me because they were afraid to have the heat on after they got an equalization bill. They had a $7,000 hydro bill because Hydro hadn’t been in to do the reconciliation for a year and a half. This constituent was in visiting with me in a snowmobile suit, turning the breakers off in her house because she was afraid of what the next hydro bill would be.

That is commonplace around the province.

I can see that you’re getting ready to cut me off, so I will sit down.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. It being 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome Jim Watson, the member from Ottawa West–Nepean in the 38th and 39th Parliaments, back to Queen’s Park today. Your Worship, welcome back to the Legislature.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I hope all members will join me in welcoming two ministers of the environment who are here today. They are ministers of the environment today for the province of Ontario. We have Georgia Berta, who is from Parkdale–High Park—she goes to St. Pius; and we also have Brandon Cormier, who’s from Holy Spirit Catholic School in Scarborough–Agincourt.

We are joined by a very proud mom, Ingrid Ally, who is the mom of Brandon; and a very proud dad, Joe Berta, who’s here with Georgia. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. John O’Toole: Today is Community Living Day here at Queen’s Park, and I’d like to welcome, from Community Living Durham North: Karen McKeown, as well as Samantha Hillis, Laura Mercer, John Lee, Colleen Arbuckle, Tony Clayton, Nicky Jones, Tina Good and Felishia Charles. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Monte Kwinter: I’d like to introduce the mother of our page Amira Abdalla, Irina Demitcheva, and her sister Larissa Smeretsky. Welcome.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I’m pleased to welcome Jim Triantafilou from Brampton Caledon Community Living.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I’d like to welcome Debbie Rollier, president, and Keith Powell, executive director, from Community Living Ontario to the Legislature today for their annual day.

I’d also like to extend a warm welcome to representatives from all the local Community Living agencies here today. A special welcome to Chris Stringer, Bruce Rivers, Mary Pat Armstrong, her daughter Jenny Armstrong, Patsy Anderson and Susan Seller from Community Living Toronto.

Thank you all for joining us today and for all your work on behalf of those with developmental disabilities.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Though they’re not here yet, because it’s Community Living Day here at Queen’s Park today, we were expecting a large contingent from Community Living Tillsonburg, who are going to be here to join me for lunch today. I want to welcome them to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to take this opportunity to extend an invitation to any interested members and staff in the building this afternoon. His Honour the Lieutenant Governor will be rededicating the plaque commemorating the 1939 visit of the King and Queen to Canada and to this Legislature. The event will be taking place at 1:30 on the west lawn. All members and staff are welcome.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENERGY POLICIES

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is to the Premier. Premier McGuinty is squeezing Ontario families and seniors with his increases to taxes and skyrocketing hydro bills. The Ontario PC leader is offering Ontario families relief by ending the sweetheart deal with Samsung that is driving up hydro bills.

The Premier showed what his idea of relief for families is when he sent the Minister of Finance out last week to say—and I am not making this up—that Premier McGuinty lowered gas prices by slapping an 8% HST tax grab onto what families pay at the pumps. Is that the same reason he slapped the HST on hydro bills too?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m glad that my honourable colleague has raised the matter of our hydro policies, our clean energy plan and our Green Energy Act in particular, because I want the opportunity to speak to that.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to visit CS Wind in Windsor. It’s an exciting new business. They have taken over a vacant auto parts plant; they must have over 200,000 square feet there. They’re hiring 300 people, because they have orders for 300 wind towers every single year.

In the afternoon, I went to visit Canadian Solar in Guelph. They took over a plant that was empty for three years. There are 300 people working there now, making solar panels. They’re going to grow to 500.

This morning, I was at Samco Solar. They have some 60 employees there. They’re sourcing parts from 23 separate Ontario businesses. All those, in turn, represent parts.

What they want to know is: Who is going to stand up for their jobs?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Premier McGuinty has gotten so tired and so out of touch that he thinks adding 8% HST to hydro and gas is relief for families. It’s as laughable as when he said that smart meter tax machines and time of use would save Ontario families money or that his Green Energy Act only adds 1% to hydro bills—

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Willowdale.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister of Finance. Member from Leeds.

Please continue.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: The Premier actually thinks that Ontario families will believe him when he says they will pay the same amount for hydro this year as they did last year. All of these hydro increases have two things in common: He lowballs how much Ontario families will pay for them, and then he slaps the greedy HST tax grab on top of that.

Ontario families simply can’t trust the Premier. If he pledges to give relief this fall, why shouldn’t Ontario families run for the hills?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to remind my honourable colleague, of course, that without the participation and full support of federal Finance Minister Flaherty, we could not have put the HST here in Ontario. I want to remind her of that.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: He understands.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: He understands the importance of strengthening our economy to succeed in a highly competitive globalized economy.

I want to come back to the point I was making a moment ago. I’ve had the opportunity now to meet and look directly into the eyes of people who have obtained employment in our burgeoning, exciting clean energy sector. What I’m encouraging my honourable colleagues opposite to do, notwithstanding their commitment to recklessly destroy this industry which is, really, in its infancy and represents so much opportunity to our children and our grandchildren, is to go visit those same plants. I want them to go look at those same workers. I want them to look them in the eyes.

I want them to tell them they don’t believe in their jobs, they don’t believe in their future, they don’t believe in our capacity as a province to come together and find opportunity in the post-manufacturing—

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Here is the reality of what’s happening: Just as with gas, the McGuinty Liberals collect more HST on hydro every time the rates go up. Your take of the HST on hydro bills grew and will keep growing with each hydro rate increase; all the expensive energy experiments, like Samsung, that get added to their bills; and the debt retirement charge that you’ve turned into a permanent tax grab. Premier McGuinty has taken away the incentive to keep bills low.

How much did his eyes light up when he realized that it doesn’t matter how much he raises the price of hydro; he will take in more HST revenue each and every time he increases the hydro bill?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I want to commend the federal government and, in particular, the leadership of Minister Flaherty, with whom we worked so well in order to ensure that we laid a foundation for growth and prosperity to create 600,000 more jobs. Without the support of Minister Flaherty in particular, we could not have gone ahead with the HST.

Again, I want to say to my honourable colleagues that I’m urging them, on behalf of the workers with whom I’ve been meeting in recent days, to give serious reconsideration to their plan to kill their jobs, to kill our Green Energy Act and, particularly, to rescind the Samsung contract, which represents on its own 16,000 new jobs. On behalf of those workers, I am asking my honourable colleagues to ask themselves once again why they won’t stand up and fight for jobs that are there for us to be had in the exciting new clean energy sector.

TAXATION

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Back to the Premier. Last week, the Minister of Revenue appeared at the estimates committee. On behalf of the Ontario PC caucus, I asked her how much revenue has been collected from the HST on hydro bills. In fact, we had to ask her 25 times, and she still refused to say how much revenue her ministry took in from the HST on hydro bills. It’s an important question given that, earlier today, the Premier was asked himself if he would promise not to raise taxes, and he said, “We’ll keep doing what we’re doing” to Ontario families. How much more money have you taken from Ontario families and seniors for the HST that they pay on hydro bills?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I’ll remind the member that the harmonized sales tax is now collected by the federal government. The total amount that’s collected in Ontario goes into the national pool. It is then allocated—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I can see that the honourable member who just asked the question had to put in her earpiece to hear the answer, and it’s as a result of the interjections coming from her own side. I would ask that you would be respectful to your own member.

Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: It is then allocated to the provinces based on an econometric formula that’s developed in consultation with the provinces. The monies are then remitted on a weekly basis.

One of the interesting aspects now that we’ve harmonized not only the tax but the collection of the tax is that we’re saving Ontarians half a billion dollars a year in collection costs, and that builds on our decision a number of years ago to harmonize the collection of corporate taxes, which saves everybody a lot of money.

It’s the right policy. It’s a good policy. She may want to ask the federal government if they can break out that number for her.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Only the finance minister of Ontario would have the audacity to come to this House and say that adding 8% to 17% more of the items in Ontario is a tax decrease.

He has had a week to release details of what they say it will cost to end their sweetheart Samsung deal. Your energy minister had an entire weekend, with advisors, to come up with the numbers, but nothing. With the revenue minister, it’s even worse. The first time we asked her how much HST Ontario families paid on hydro bills was two weeks ago. We asked her 25 times. Ontario families are feeling the squeeze. They’re struggling to pay the hydro bills. You’ve had two weeks to come up with an answer to their question and our question.

Why don’t you want Ontario families to know how much money for the HST you are taking out of their pockets and putting into yours?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I am very glad that we are cutting personal taxes by $11 billion for all Ontarians. I’m very delighted.

I just want to share some quotes with my colleague opposite. Now, this is a direct quote from March 27, 2009. It says, “I’m quite encouraged by the fact that the government of Ontario decided to harmonize the PST with the GST.... This is jobs, this is investment, this is good economic policy.” Who said that? The Honourable Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance for Canada.

The member for the opposition may not want to say what they’re going to do, other than she accused Ottawa businesses of fearmongering because they dared to speak up against a Tory policy. That kind of intimidation doesn’t work here—

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I have some quotes of my own. I’m happy.

Jim Garchinski of the public sector retiree union says, “We’re all vehemently opposed to this HST by a government that is about to unilaterally force another massive tax grab on citizens”—he called it legalized theft.

Internal modeling done back when gas was a buck a litre shows that Premier McGuinty knew that an 8% HST on energy would bring in almost $1.6 billion in revenue. Ontario families simply want to know how much of that HST you have collected off their hydro bills.

We asked the minister who collects the tax 25 separate times. You, instead, got her to read a letter to the editor that was published in community newspapers on the record, but still she refused to reveal how much more Ontario families are forced to pay.

We want you to respect Ontario families. Why won’t you respect Ontario families who are paying the bills?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The HST is 8% on gas and hydro, and we gave, on hydro, a 10% rebate which that member and her party voted against.

Let me share a couple of other quotes with the member opposite. Here’s another quote: “We understand that the”—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound. Member from Halton.

Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Here’s another quote: “We understand that the whole tax policy is switching to consumption-based taxing as opposed to income-based taxing.… We see the input tax credit, as has been described by Jack Mintz and others, as probably the right sort of policy....” Who said that? John O’Toole, PC MPP for Durham, in a standing committee.

You know what? They’re here one day, there the next day. Their federal brethren support it. Your own colleague supports it. You don’t get it. You know what? You accused Ottawa businesses of fearmongering. You can’t intimidate them and you can’t intimidate us. We’ll stand up for Ontario families, and you’ll be given a very clear message—

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

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Does the Ontario Liberal Party accept donations from publicly funded institutions like colleges?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: There are rules in place which govern political contributions and I’m sure my honourable colleague is very much aware of those. It’s incumbent upon all of us to respect those, and I want to assure her that we are in fact doing that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: In May 2008, the Premier hosted a $5,000-a-plate dinner in Barrie. One guest was Brian Tamblyn, the president of Georgian College, a publicly funded institution. What did the Premier speak with Mr. Tamblyn about at that dinner?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: If my honourable colleague honestly thinks that I can recall what I spoke to a particular individual about three years ago, then she has a higher appreciation of my own memory than I do myself.

What I can say is that there are rules in place governing political contributions. It’s incumbent upon all of us to respect those rules, and we will continue to do so on our side of the House.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Records obtained through the freedom-of-information process show that Brian Tamblyn, the president of publicly funded Georgian College, expensed that $5,000 Liberal Party donation to his college. The public and students paid for it. Why does the Premier think that Mr. Tamblyn considered attendance at an Ontario Liberal Party fundraiser as a legitimate cost of his job?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the issue raised by my colleague, but my information is different, in that it was paid out of his own pocket and not expensed to the college.

But I think there is a point to be made here. Maybe we can use this as an opportunity to remind all of those who have the privilege of working in our broader public sector that should they wish to attend a political fundraiser, they are obviously entitled to do so. There’s nothing saying that they can’t do that, but if they want to do so, they should be paying that out of their own pockets.

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. I’ve got a fairly good idea why the president thought expensing a political donation was reasonable. Mr. Tamblyn likely thought it was the only way to get a hearing on behalf of his students and his community. Does the Premier really think that politics should work that way in this province?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Obviously, I can’t agree with—I don’t think one iota of information, such as it is, is to be found within that question. I think that if you were to objectively assess our government’s record when it comes to post-secondary education, the fact that we have created 260,000 more spaces in our colleges and universities and apprenticeship programs, the fact that we have in fact tripled the number of grants—one in four Ontario students are now accessing grants. We brought grants back. They had been eliminated under the previous NDP government. We capped loans, OSAP loans, at $7,300 per year.

I think the record reveals pretty specifically and explicitly that we have done much to support our post-secondary education system, and we look forward to doing much more.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: You would be interested to know that shortly after we submitted our freedom-of-information request, Mr. Tamblyn repaid the donation personally.

But can the Premier tell us how many other publicly funded institutions or organizations have been—

Interjections.

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

Minister of Energy. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister of Community Safety. Minister of Agriculture. Member from Ancaster. Minister of the Environment. Minister of Energy.

Please continue.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is: Can the Premier tell us how many other publicly funded organizations have been expensing donations to the Liberal Party?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I remind the honourable members that this is a historically designated building. These desks are antique and are very important, and we want to ensure that they are usable for future members. I would just ask that they refrain from heavy pounding.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to state to my honourable colleague that a moment ago I was left with the distinct impression that Mr. Tamblyn had not paid for this particular ticket on his own. I think we all were left with that mistaken impression. I would invite my honourable colleague to correct the record and, should she wish to do so, to in fact apologize. I think that would lend honour; honour to herself and honour to our Legislature.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister of Agriculture. The member from Sault Ste. Marie. Minister of Community Safety. Member from Ancaster. Minister of Health.

Final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I don’t remember seeing anywhere in the records that the Liberals actually gave back this donation from the college. Mr. Tamblyn eventually did, once the FOI was filed.

The point here, though, is that the Premier should be listening to the best ideas in this province, not the best donors to his political party. Can the Premier tell us what was discussed at this $5,000-a-plate dinner, and why a college president felt that it was the best way to get the ear of the Premier to hear his ideas?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: This was a gotcha question and my honourable colleague got herself. I’ll leave it at that. I’ll let the honourable member do what she thinks is appropriate in the circumstances.

What I can say is that we have in fact banned lobbyists in our publicly funded institutions, particularly because we believe that presidents, CEOs, executives and representatives of those institutions have full access to our ministers, who have responsibility for those institutions. We think that’s the kind of government that we ought to be and, in fact, that we are: one that is accessible and open to our public partners to ensure that we have an ongoing dialogue, that we work together in the greater public interest.

TAXATION

Mr. Norm Miller: My question is to the Premier. The McGuinty Liberals have grown so tired and out of touch, they’ve stopped trying to make sense of what the Premier is doing. Ontario families need gas to get to work, hydro to wash clothes and natural gas to heat their homes. They’re squeezed by your tax hikes, hydro bill increases and tax hikes on your hydro bill increases. Last week, you sent out the finance minister to boast that you kept gas prices low by slapping an 8% HST on what families pay at the pump.

How much more evidence do Ontario families need that you’re out of gas and hard-wired to increase taxes than seeing you add 8% to gas and hydro and then call it a tax cut?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Our government is now implementing an $11-billion personal tax cut across Ontario.

As of 9 o’clock this morning, here’s what gas prices across the country were looking like, on average: in Vancouver, $1.42 per litre; in Montreal, $1.46 per litre; in Halifax, $1.33 per litre; in Newfoundland, $1.39 per litre; in New Brunswick, $1.27 per litre; in Toronto, $1.25 per litre.

We have implemented, working with the federal government, a comprehensive tax reform that lowers personal taxes. I note that the federal Conservatives are not cutting the GST on gasoline. I note that they’re not cutting it on hydro. Why? Because they provide sales tax credits of roughly—

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

Mr. Norm Miller: Again to the Premier: If we didn’t have 8% HST, it would be 10 cents a litre cheaper in Ontario.

Premier, you’ll say and do anything to stay in power, including calling the 8% HST you add to hydro, gas and hundreds of items families use every day a tax cut. You’ve broken your promises not to raise taxes so many times, even you have figured out it’s time to give up.

Today you were asked if you’ll promise not to raise taxes, and you said you’ll keep doing what you’ve been doing to Ontario families. Well, that means Ontario families better grab hold of their wallets before you do, because what you’ve been doing is creating new health taxes, raising sales taxes and adding eco taxes to everything. Is it any wonder Ontario families are bracing themselves to pay 2% more for HST—

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We are in the process of implementing one of the largest personal tax cuts in Ontario history. We were delighted with the support of the federal government: almost $4 billion that in part allowed us to do that.

We brought something forward called the Ontario child benefit, which is a large tax cut for very modest-income Ontarians. That member and his party voted against it. When we lowered the personal tax rate on the first $37,000 of income for Ontarians to the lowest in the country, that member and his party voted against it. When we created the most generous sales tax credits in the country, that member and his party voted against them. And when we created the Ontario clean energy benefit, which lowers the price of electricity by 10%, that member and his party voted against it.

Our plan is the right plan for a better future for all Ontarians, for more jobs, better security, better education and better health care.

STOCK EXCHANGE

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, you will know that the London stock market made a bid on the Toronto Stock Exchange, to the consternation of many people in our province and many people in this country. There are plenty of people in the financial sector who saw this as a bad takeover bid on the part of the LSM, who saw Canadian sovereignty and the capital markets, quite frankly, being controlled by somebody else.

Now we have the Maple bid that’s made up of the pension funds and a number of banks here in Canada. They’re putting a bid of $148 a share to buy the TSX.

My question to you is this: Can you tell us which particular bid your government supports?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: As I said over the weekend, we welcome the new bid. It is subject to a number of regulatory hurdles at the federal level, anti-combines legislation, so we welcome the bid. I am particularly delighted and I’m glad the NDP joined with me after I had expressed concerns on behalf of all Ontarians about the importance of a Canadian-owned stock exchange.

Laughter.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: They can laugh all they want, but there was stone silence in many quarters when this happened and this government responded.

I look forward to having the opportunity to have a full evaluation of both bids. What I want to see is the bid that benefits Canadians the most, that shows that Canadians are leaders in financial services. That’s the bid that should win. I welcome the bid by our pensions and, by the way, the people who contribute to the pension plans: workers—men and women right across Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: As I told the Toronto Star the other day, the minister has set his finger in the air and he’s trying to figure out which way the wind is blowing.

You’re trying now to say that this is a federal government responsibility when it comes to the approval of this bid. You know that is not the case. The OSC is under the responsibility of this Legislature and this government.

So I’m going to ask you this: The committee did some very good work in taking a look at the takeover bid on the part of the LSM. Are you prepared to reconstitute the committee that looked at this bid and allow us to take a look at what the Maple bid means to Ontario and Canada and what conditions we should put to the bid, if any?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The proponents of the Maple bid have indicated that they do in fact require anti-combines approval out of Ottawa, which is appropriate. Yes, they require OSC recognition on the 10% rule.

What is important for us to recognize is that a group of our largest financial institutions, banks and pensions, representing the provinces of Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, have come together as Canadians and put in an alternative bid. I think that is welcome and I think it is healthy. That bid needs to go through considerable scrutiny of regulators, particularly combines regulators in Ottawa. But as a Canadian, I welcome it. I believe that our stock exchange is an important national asset, and I believe we can compete and win on the global stage. I know all Ontarians share that view.

ENERGY POLICIES

Ms. Helena Jaczek: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Minister, yesterday during question period the Leader of the Opposition made a number of alarming statements such as, “Skyrocketing hydro bills hurt families and they kill jobs.” Last week, he said he wants to cancel the Samsung deal and eliminate the feed-in tariff program should his PC Party be elected in October.

I am extremely puzzled by these statements. As I think everybody knows, the member for Newmarket–Aurora, a long-time member of the PC caucus, has been in the energy business for years, and it has been reported that he has invested in a business that has applied to the FIT program, so I would like to ask the minister to explain what impact the opposition leader’s statements have on attracting businesses to Ontario.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I am delighted to answer this question, because it’s important that businesspeople around the world know that Ontario is open for business. You just wouldn’t know that if you had to listen to members of the opposition who are making wild and irresponsible statements about green energy policy that is simply killing jobs—not killing jobs in October; killing jobs right now. It’s these opposition members who want to talk about sweetheart deals when they created the mother of all sweetheart deals when they were the government. We are busy creating jobs; they were busy with sweetheart deals.

And the truth is that their own caucus members don’t agree necessarily with their leader’s position. Their leader’s position is killing jobs in Ontario today. We are determined to fight for those jobs in Newmarket—

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

Ms. Helena Jaczek: Since the Leader of the Opposition revealed his desire to kill the Samsung deal and the FIT program last week, many companies right across Ontario have come forward to express their dissatisfaction and frustration with the PC leader’s statements. Yesterday, a group of Ottawa businesses specializing in renewable energy technology sent an official letter to the Leader of the Opposition, calling on him to reconsider his opposition—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I remind the member again to tie this into government policy and not a position of one of the opposition parties.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: The firms stated that the green energy economy is revitalizing the manufacturing sector and creating well-paying, high-skilled jobs. They said that the opposition leader’s pledge to scrap the—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Question?

Ms. Helena Jaczek: On this note, Mr. Speaker, since we have established that the Leader of the Opposition’s plan is a job-killer, can you explain—

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

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: Once again this morning—and virtually every morning—I receive letters from investors who want jobs in Ontario. But this is a copy of a letter that was sent to the Leader of the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Nepean. The member from Renfrew. The member from Simcoe–Grey.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. Minister of Finance. Minister of Energy.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I don’t need any assistance in the chair from the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, thank you.

Minister?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I don’t want to talk about sweetheart deals unless we’re talking about the ones from the Leader of the Opposition. While he was a cabinet minister—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Start the clock. Member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound.

Interjection.

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

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: Government policies in Ontario are creating jobs. The Green Energy Act is creating jobs. Members of the opposition are fighting. They want to rip up contracts. We wish they would have ripped up contracts to Leslie Noble, to Tom Long and to Deb Hutton. Let’s talk about those sweetheart deals.

We’re talking about jobs, a feed-in tariff that creates jobs and members of the Conservative caucus who are having jobs created in their own ridings—and they are killing those jobs. We will be heading to those very ridings to show the people of Ontario the jobs that they are going to fight against and the ones that we are creating.

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. John Yakabuski: To the Minister of Energy: An Ontario PC government will give Ontario families relief on their hydro bills; Premier McGuinty will not. In fact, he’s telling Ontario families—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. Minister of Research and Innovation. Minister of Economic Development. Member from Bruce.

Please continue.

Mr. John Yakabuski: In fact, he’s telling Ontario families to buck up some more so he won’t be embarrassed internationally for the bad deals he’s signed.

What the Premier isn’t telling families is that his FIT and Samsung deal has already made him an international laughingstock. Yesterday, Malaya Business Insight, a Filipino paper, mocked Premier McGuinty for sticking with his expensive energy experiments when Spain, Germany, China and even Korea have all scaled theirs back.

Why won’t Premier McGuinty spare our pocketbooks and reputation before his expensive energy experiments do more damage to both?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The member wants to talk about the positive impact our energy policies are having on Ontario families across this province. He and his leader should have joined the Premier and I this morning at Samco, where we met 60 people who are now back working again—laid off during the global recession, now back working again and supporting their families.

Let me share with you what one of them had to say. Mike Walker, a manufacturing engineer, said this: “My daughters, aged 10 and 13, always speak of the environment, its protection and ways we can do our part. I found myself out of work during the recession and, coincidentally, the growing solar industry provided me with a job opportunity that is close to my children’s heart.”

Why does the Leader of the Opposition want to put Mike out of work? Just when he and his family are getting back on their feet, why do they want to bring him back down again?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Premier McGuinty will say and do anything to stay in power. He’s been caught trying to blame others for making him an international embarrassment. He also tried to avoid embarrassment by demanding “specifics” on the monetary penalty to cut our losses on the sweetheart Samsung deal that he made—

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I’ll give you a sweetheart deal you should have ripped up.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Please continue.

Mr. John Yakabuski: His interest in the specifics conveniently comes and goes, or maybe he’d be more specific about which cabinet ministers actually gang-tackled George Smitherman when he gave the details of the shady deal; maybe he’d reveal the specific details that got them so upset. Was it the half a billion dollars you promised this multinational foreign conglomerate without getting a single guarantee of one job in this province, not a single guarantee of a job?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The member opposite can try to divert any way he wants. The fact of the matter is, last week, your leader came forward with a plan that’s going to destroy our clean energy economy and kill thousands of clean energy jobs—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The honourable member from Renfrew, you just asked the question, and you know the standing orders. At any time, if you’re not satisfied with an answer, you have the ability to call for a late show.

Mr. Mike Colle: He does this every day.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Nepean and the member from Oxford.

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Just to bring this home to the members opposite, these are real people, real jobs and real families that their policy is going to severely impact.

I want to share with you what Gary Cummings had to say; he’s a lead hand operator at Samco. “This is the first and only job I’ve ever had that has had an effect on each and every person in my” family.

Those workers are really, really proud of what they’re doing. Their families are proud of what they’re doing. They’re proud to be part of an initiative that’s building a cleaner, more prosperous future for us here today but, more importantly, for our kids. Why doesn’t your leader get that?

CORONER’S INQUEST

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is for the Attorney General—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I’m going to warn the Minister of Economic Development and Trade and the member from Nepean–Carleton. If you want to have your discussions, please take them outside this chamber. Be respectful of the other members. So, it’s a final warning to each member.

Member from Kenora–Rainy River.

Mr. Howard Hampton: To the Attorney General: In October 2007, almost four years ago, two young First Nations people died in Thunder Bay. Inquests were ordered into their deaths. The families of the deceased young people asked Attorney General officials for information about whether the jury rolls, from which coroner’s juries are selected, were representative. The AG official refused the request.

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently decided in favour of the First Nation families and said, “Their request for this information was quite reasonable. But they did not get any answers. Instead, they got the runaround. A lot of time and money might have been saved had the ministry ... simply provided this information.”

Since then, more young people have died on the streets of Thunder Bay. Can the Attorney General explain giving the aggrieved families the runaround and wasting time and money while more young people die on the streets of Thunder Bay?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: We’re all at one in saying that terrible tragedies have occurred. I know that those at every level with any hint of responsibility are searching for answers. I won’t comment, as my friend has done, on the specifics of the coroner’s process. We’ll leave that; that is proceeding. But at every level for us, we’re looking for answers. I would hope the federal government is, because it actually funds the school. It is a private school run by the First Nations. I know everybody is interested in finding answers and working very hard to find them and the coroner’s process will, in due course, provide some recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: It’s not me who’s commenting. This is the senior justice of the Ontario Court of Appeal, the highest court in Ontario. It says that your government hasn’t been doing everything it can to get to the bottom of these issues. It says that your government has been giving the aggrieved families the runaround, that you’ve been wasting time and wasting money.

The Deputy Grand Chief of Nishnawbe Aski Nation says, “Tragically, there has been another death in our communities and yet the Attorney General claims that Ontario is doing everything it can. After the deaths of seven of our teenagers in similar circumstances since 2000, I do not accept that this government can claim credibly that” they’re doing everything they can.

Minister, how can you waste time, waste money and give families the runaround while more—

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

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I agree with the Deputy Grand Chief that every death is a tragedy. We want to find answers for every death, every tragedy. We are working very hard within this government to find those answers. The coroner’s inquest will hear evidence and, in due course, provide us with information.

I know my friend will want to direct some inquiries to the level of government responsible for the education of these young people because they came from their communities to another community to be educated. I know they came, funded, to a private school run by the First Nation, and I know everybody should be working as hard as they can to find answers.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. Jeff Leal: My question today is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Today in our gallery, we have some great Ontarians who are supported by Community Living. It’s Community Living Day in the Legislature for all the work that member agencies do throughout Ontario for people with disabilities. This organization is a source of tremendous support for tens of thousands of individuals. As a government, we have continued to support Community Living agencies to ensure that all Ontarians can reach their full potential.

Minister, how will this government continue to move forward in partnership with Community Living agencies to support our collective goal of assisting individuals with disabilities and transforming the development services sector for the better?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I’d like to thank the member from Peterborough, as well as recognizing Community Living Ontario and their member organizations for all the work they do.

Community Living Ontario works so that people with developmental disabilities are included in all aspects of community life. As a government, we must continue to support community inclusiveness so that individuals can live closer to their friends and family.

Community Living Toronto’s Lights project is a great example of inclusion and action and a project that I am pleased our government supports. This innovative program brings families and community leaders together with the agency to help individuals find long-term housing that meets their needs.

I look forward to our continued partnership with Community Living Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Leal: Thank you, Minister. This year’s budget made no mention of funding for development services. As you know, people with developmental disabilities in families are anxious that development services are not being gutted by this government.

I meet regularly with clients, their families and community support agencies who advocate for more funding. Many families in my riding have told me that they want to keep their loved ones at home as long as possible, but families face daily challenges that make this very difficult. Others are aging parents who can no longer support their children.

How is the government supporting the developmental services sector?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Since 2003, we have invested over $550 million in new funding for developmental services—a 54% increase. This year, we are increasing funding for a further $40 million to help those facing emergency and crisis situations and to increase funding to Passport and special services at home.

Since 2003, 2,900 more adults with developmental disabilities live and receive supports close to their families and friends; 4,800 more people receive SSAH; and 2,700 more adults receive Passport. I am proud to say that the McGuinty government has been and will continue to be there for those with developmental disabilities and those who care for them.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is also for the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Minister, all Peel MPPs received a letter from a Community Living agency which was shocked to learn of your government’s secret deal with OPSEU, which provides government employees with a 3% wage increase. Meanwhile, multiple Community Living agencies across the province are currently negotiating agreements with CUPE, but fear your secret deal with OPSEU will undermine their bargaining efforts. If agreements are not reached, we will once again be dealing with labour unrest in the developmental services sector.

Minister, how do you suggest Community Living groups hold the line with zero increase while your government gives out 3%?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I am particularly proud of our government’s achievement working with Community Living right across the province. There is always more to do, and we will continue to work with those families.

Through the public and broader public sector, we negotiate some 4,300 collective agreements governing every aspect of work life in the public and broader public sectors. The average rates of settlement are coming down, which we think is an important achievement. We are achieving zero and zero on a number of arrangements, and we have more to do.

The choices that we’ve made are about enhancing public services as we move back to balance. I’m pleased that the credit rating agencies have maintained Ontario’s credit rating through the greatest downturn since the Depression. We look forward to working with our partners in the broader public sector on a range of issues over the coming four years.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Minister, you negotiated in secret and then you hang the community development agencies out to dry.

You know your government’s secret deal with OPSEU puts the developmental services sector at a disadvantage once again. It puts individuals with intellectual disabilities in the same position they were in five years ago, while striking workers picketed outside their supportive living residences. This is why I introduced Bill 83, the Protecting Vulnerable People Against Picketing Act.

Minister, will you commit today to

schedule Bill 83 for public hearings so that this legislation can move forward?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The member opposite knows that the House leaders of all three parties make arrangements on that, so it’s really not something that I have any say over.

What I can say to my colleague opposite and to her bill is that we will not go back to their style of labour relations—26 million teaching days lost. We’ve had eight years of peace and stability in our sector. Unlike Kevin Gaudet, the Tory candidate who says that we need a Wisconsin up here, we reject that. We think that’s a mistake.

The member herself indicated to the media earlier this week that she wants to rip up the OPP contract. I wonder if that reflects Tory policy or if it’s yet another division within the ranks over there of a party that simply doesn’t have its act together and isn’t ready to govern.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday in Windsor, the Premier was asked when families would finally see some work start on a long-term-care home at the former Grace site. On the agonizing four-year process, the Premier said, “We’re getting close to the limit, but I think we’re going to push a little bit more.” But this government has already pushed. They’ve pushed Windsor families beyond their limits.

What is the Premier’s absolute deadline for construction to begin before he pulls the plug on this developer?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m happy to have a chance to respond to this question again. I can assure you that the members from Windsor have ensured that I am up to date on this issue. They are pushing very hard to have the long-term-care beds available for the people of Windsor and the Windsor area.

We’ve had great success building more long-term-care beds. We’ve got 9,000 more long-term-care beds built since when we took office. This one particular project is very troubling. We’re working with the developer on it. We’re having daily updates, and we are determined to get these beds built.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I would agree; it’s troubling, all right.

Major demolition has yet to occur on the site, and the developer doesn’t even have a building permit yet. Meanwhile, Windsor’s long-term-care system has reached a literal crisis, and patients are waiting longer and longer.

Does the Premier have a plan to fix this mess, or is he just going to push Windsor’s hospitals until they hit their limit?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I can assure the member opposite that we are absolutely determined to get these beds built in Windsor as quickly as possible. There have been problems with this particular developer; there’s no question about it. We are working to find a solution. We’re working hard because we have a responsibility to the people of Windsor to get these beds operating as quickly as possible.

RETIREMENT HOMES

Mr. David Zimmer: My question is for the minister responsible for seniors. My question is about regulating retirement homes. The Retirement Homes Act was passed in June of last year, and it’s sort of up in the air right now. My Willowdale constituents, especially seniors and their families, have been pressing me to find out about the status of this law.

Minister, in light of the recent stories in the media profiling abuse and neglect in care homes around the province, they really want to know what’s happening with this act. It has passed, but when is it going to come into force? When is it going to take bite?

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: Thank you very much to the member from Willowdale for that question. It gives me an opportunity to inform the House on the status of the Retirement Homes Act.

Today is an important day for our seniors in Ontario who choose to live in a retirement home anywhere across our province. I’m proud to say that our government is taking immediate action to further protect our loved ones living in a retirement home before the Retirement Homes Act is in full force.

Today, we’re announcing a few things. One is that we’re increasing the availability of the CRIS line, which is the complaints response and information service line. We’re making it mandatory for suspected harm to be reported to the registrar of the Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority, and we’re also obligating the registrar to order an immediate inspection on reports of abuse or neglect.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. David Zimmer: Thank you, Minister. I know that when fully enforced, the act and its current regulations are going to cover a wide range of important areas, including care and safety standards, licensing, inspections, enforcement and so on. But for now, Minister, for today and tomorrow, starting right away, how can my constituents, the seniors and their families, get some detailed information on how the measures will protect their families from abuse and neglect? They really want to know quickly and in clear, simple language where they can get detailed information about how the act works and, in particular, how their complaints are going to be dealt with.

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: Thank you very much, again, to the member. The member is right. All of us want to know that our parents, our grandparents, our seniors are safe when they decide to live in retirement homes. That’s why, today, our government has made it clear that we have a zero-tolerance approach towards abuse or neglect in retirement homes across the province.

We are expanding the hours of the CRIS line by more than 100%. That means an additional 44 hours. The hotline number is 1-800-361-7254. It will be open seven days a week, from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. What’s more is that we will make sure that the complaints helpline is posted in all retirement homes in Ontario.

Regulating retirement homes in the province of Ontario is the right thing to do, and this government is moving forward.

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is for the Minister of Education. Minister, I know that your Liberal rural caucus is meeting to discuss issues affecting rural Ontario. One of the big issues is your school transportation policy. As you know, it is destroying many family-owned rural businesses. I have the list of casualties here.

When your government boasts about phantom green jobs that don’t exist, I have here a letter from Hammond Transportation in which Mr. Hammond writes that, to date, your government has forced 15 independent busing companies out of business. With them also go hundreds of jobs—jobs that actually do exist.

Minister, will you commit to doing what we have said we would do: halt your small-business- and job-killing policy and review it?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I’m happy to have this opportunity to update the House. I thank all the members in this assembly who have taken the time to bring this issue to my attention—many members of my caucus as well. As a result of their work, and because we are in regular contact with our stakeholders, we have been working with the School Bus Operators’ Association as well as the Independent School Bus Operators Association. I met with one group last week; I will be meeting with the other this week.

I’m sure the honourable member would agree that we want to be sure that we are getting the best value for our dollar. I believe it’s important that we get both sides of this issue together and work on a solution. I believe that is where the solution is to be found, by working together—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary? The member for Leeds–Grenville.

Mr. Steve Clark: Minister, the buck stops with you. This policy comes directly from your office. You and your government will ultimately be the ones to blame for the destruction of Ontario’s independent busing industry. In Leeds–Grenville, your policies are quickly pushing many independent bus operators to the brink of extinction. Recently, I’ve spoken to two companies—Brockville City Bus Lines and Healey Transportation—who are extremely concerned that you’ve recklessly pushed forward with this ill-conceived policy.

Minister, what am I to tell the people of Leeds–Grenville, the local independent bus operators and their employees, when you and your government put them out of business?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I’m surprised that when the honourable member was speaking with his constituents, they wouldn’t have indicated to him that they’re actually meeting with me this week and that they’ve already