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

October 21, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Oct-21 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 21 October 2009 Mercredi 21 octobre 2009

CORRECTION OF RECORD

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINING AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES MINES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

ONTARIO ECONOMY

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

TAXATION

ONTARIO ECONOMY

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

IMMIGRATION POLICY

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

MUNICIPAL FUNDING

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

TOURISM

SEWAGE TREATMENT

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

DEFERRED VOTES

MINING AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES MINES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CANADIAN HEARING SOCIETY

MARK BOILEAU

SMALL BUSINESS WEEK

CANADIAN HEARING SOCIETY

RIDE PROGRAM

SMALL BUSINESS

ONTARIO MARKET

INVESTMENT FUND

OLYMPIC TORCH RELAY

CANADIAN HEARING SOCIETY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION

FOR FOREIGN NATIONALS ACT

(LIVE-IN CAREGIVERS

AND OTHERS), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR

LA PROTECTION DES ÉTRANGERS

DANS LE CADRE DE L'EMPLOI

(AIDES FAMILIAUX ET AUTRES)

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

(GREEN ROOFS), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS

(TOITS VERTS)

BRISMAIR PROPERTY

MANAGEMENT INC. ACT, 2009

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

PETITIONS

IMAGINE ADOPTION

SERVICES DIAGNOSTIQUES

CEMETERIES

TAXATION

TAXATION

DIABETES TREATMENT

TAXATION

TOM LONGBOAT

TAXATION

TAXATION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

JUSTICE SYSTEM

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TECHNICAL STANDARDS AND SAFETY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX NORMES TECHNIQUES ET À LA SÉCURITÉ

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

CORRECTION OF RECORD

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I rise on a point of order to correct my record. Yesterday, in response to a question from the member from Timmins–James Bay, I said that Jeanne Sauvé Family Services received a funding increase of 35% since 2003, while the number of children in care decreased by 25%. In fact, the number of children in care has increased by 25%. I regret the error, Speaker.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINING AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES MINES

Mr. Gravelle moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 173,

An Act to amend the Mining Act / Projet de loi 173, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les mines.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I am very honoured to lead off today's debate on Bill 173,

An Act to amend the Mining Act. I am extremely pleased to have this opportunity to review for the House the strengths of this proposed legislation and why we believe strongly that this is a bill that our government can be very proud of.

Bill 173 is aimed at bringing our mining legislation into harmony with the values of today's society, while at the same time promoting a strong, vibrant and competitive minerals industry. As I said throughout the comprehensive consultation process prior to the drafting of the Mining Act amendments, a balanced approach that seeks to reconcile divergent views is clearly the only way to achieve our social and economic goals. It certainly isn't surprising that there is widespread agreement on the need to modernize the Mining Act. We acknowledge that.

Neither is it surprising that legislation that affects so many Ontarians in so many different regions and in so many different ways should engender passionate discussion, opinion and debate.

However, our government is taking on the very necessary task of drafting legislation designed to make the Mining Act relevant in the 21st century as we revitalize Ontario's approach to mineral exploration and development. We have gone about this process with deliberation and very careful planning, and with the highest regard for the opinions of all those who are directly or indirectly involved in, or affected by, Ontario's minerals industry.

Our government has in fact been working toward proposed amendment of this legislation for some time, and we have not worked in isolation. We have involved and consulted a wide range of stakeholders and aboriginal communities in a very focused way over a period of several years. The initial process of engaging with aboriginal communities and stakeholders about the province's mineral industry prepared our government well for the extensive and comprehensive consultation we undertook to prepare for amending the Mining Act.

Details of the subsequent process of consultation have been well documented in the House. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, despite characterizations to the contrary by some of my friends across the aisle, the extensive consultation process by which we invited public, stakeholder and aboriginal community input to the drafting of Bill 173. It was indeed most impressive.

Some of these aspects included public consultations in some 20 stakeholder sessions that involved more than 1,000 participants across the province; 156 responses to the discussion paper that was posted on the Environmental Registry; 10 sessions with regional prospecting and exploration organizations, with more than 200 participants; 15 workshops and regional sessions that included over 100 aboriginal communities, treaty organizations, tribal councils and the Metis Nation of Ontario.

We had 11 meetings in individual First Nation communities; we had support from our own aboriginal relations unit staff at 14 sessions, led by the Union of Ontario Indians First Nations; and, of course, we had further consultations in five Ontario communities this summer by the Standing Committee on General Government.

I think it's important to say that our government's having facilitated such extensive consultation is not in itself the important thing; certainly, I'm well aware that we had good debates and received some very valuable input that raised important issues. But the point may be that this comprehensive consultation and the discussion it has engendered have produced a very balanced piece of legislation.

Let me repeat—this is very, very important, and I will continue to state this: Our aim in modernizing the Mining Act is to offer a balanced approach to mineral development that considers a range of interests while supporting a competitive economic climate for the mineral sector. That is absolutely key. We are confident that the proposed legislation reflects the values of a modern Ontario and at the same time promotes a strong, vibrant and competitive minerals industry.

Should Bill 173 pass third reading, we would be moving to our next steps. We clearly understand that certainty of rules and clarity and timeliness of process are crucial for the industry to make their important investment decisions. We are well prepared to move forward on the balanced, moderate course we are proposing to achieve real progress.

Upon receiving royal assent, if we are successful in passage, some new provisions would come into effect immediately. These would include the inclusion of a clause in all leases and lease renewals highlighting the protection for existing aboriginal and treaty rights provided in

section 35 of the Constitution Act. It would also include the ability to replace a lost or stolen prospector's licence without requiring an affidavit, which will be a significant benefit in areas such as First Nations communities where no commissioner for taking affidavits is available.

We will have some provisions for streamlining some administrative processes put in as well, and in southern Ontario, the automatic withdrawal of crown mineral rights under privately held surface rights will be proclaimed. As the issue of surface rights versus mining rights has certainly been pretty contentious in southern Ontario, I think it might be helpful if I offered a brief reminder of what our legislation is proposing on this specific issue.

One objective in modernizing the Mining Act is to mitigate the conflicts that have arisen between mineral exploration companies and private landholders who do not hold the mineral rights on their properties. Lands with private service rights and crown mineral rights that are open for staking—it's very interesting: They represent only 1.4% of the land in southern Ontario. However, we do recognize that this has been a frustrating and worrisome issue for some landowners. Bill 173 would address conflicts where private surface rights owners do not hold the mineral rights on their lands.

The Mining Act amendments propose to automatically withdraw crown-held mining rights in southern Ontario where surface rights are privately held, while respecting existing claims and leases. Now, if those claims or leases forfeit or terminate and the mineral rights return to the crown, those mineral rights would be automatically withdrawn.

As well, exploration where there are mining claims involving private surface rights would be subject to the new graduated regulatory scheme for exploration, which requires exploration plans for low-impact activities and exploration permits for activities with a moderate impact.

In addition—here's another very important aspect of the legislation: Owners of certain lands originally patented as mining lands who are not using their land for mining purposes would be able to apply for an exemption from the mining land tax, and this would end a tax that certainly some have considered unfair.

These proposed changes would address the concerns of private property owners and provide clear rules to the exploration industry, and we think it is an important part of our legislation.

I should also emphasize that much of the proposed act enables processes that would be detailed in the regulations. My ministry would begin to develop these regulations in consultation with our stakeholders. That's a very important point. We would do that immediately upon successful passage of this bill.

If I may give some examples of what the consultation process will entail: This consultation would occur as my ministry develops regulations and policies dealing with aboriginal consultation provisions, for example, throughout the mining sequence, and more specifically, consultation with respect to: the criteria for sites of aboriginal cultural significance and the process for these withdrawals; exploration plans and permits, including the terms, the conditions and the requirements for early exploration; we will be clarifying the existing consultation process for closure plans for advanced exploration and mine development projects; and we will be developing a dispute resolution process for aboriginal-related mining issues.

That is a first in Canada in terms of the dispute resolution process moving forward.

We're also going to be developing regulations and policies dealing with a prospector awareness program for holders of a prospector's licence. It's important that I use this opportunity at third reading to be very clear: This will not be a test to quiz prospectors about their knowledge of their business, which our government absolutely appreciates is substantial. I know a number of prospectors, many, many, in the north. These are extraordinary people, and many of them have been at it for a number of years. So it would not be a training or certification program.

The intent of the prospector awareness program is to ensure that prospectors are aware of the new provisions of the Mining Act: the aboriginal engagement and consultation requirements and the best practices, reclamation of exploration sites and the rules for staking claims and exploring for minerals on private lands. We think that would be an important process, and we're pleased that it's in the legislation.

The regulations and policies that we'll be dealing with after passage of the bill—again, if we're successful in passage—would also deal with exploration plans and permits that regulate the earlier stages of exploration through a graduated approach, to ensure that exploration activities will be carried out with the appropriate aboriginal consultation and with regard to private landowners' interests and remediation of disturbances to the land—again, an important element in our legislation.

We will also be addressing something that certainly has been a point of great discussion, and that is the issue of map staking. It's a map-staking regime that will maintain a competitive system for acquiring mining claims in Ontario. On this particular point, map staking would certainly mark a change from the current system of claim staking we have right now whereby mining companies and prospectors enter on to the land to mark their claims. We do understand how contentious this approach might be—certainly I do; I've spoken to many people about this over the last several months—and we are going to introduce this concept in a very carefully measured way.

I do think it's worth repeating that the phased implementation of map staking will take place over a period of three to five years, but it would start with a paper-based system in southern Ontario, and then it would move to an online, electronic system across the province. This modern computer-based system of staking would reduce even further the already low impact of ground staking. I think it's worth mentioning that we are now certainly in the era of GPS—many of us use that—and Google Earth, and map staking is already a very important part of current mining legislation in a number of jurisdictions.

I know there also have been concerns expressed—I know that my colleague across the floor has certainly heard them as well—about map staking opening up the possibility of a single large company staking large tracts of land in the province. I can assure you, and I can certainly assure my colleagues, that should our Mining Act proposals be passed, ongoing consultation and the experience of other jurisdictions will very much help guide our efforts to ensure that we develop a map-staking system that's right for Ontario—a system that maintains competitive access to mineral tenure for all explorationists.

That certainly includes individual prospectors, junior exploration companies and senior mining companies alike.

We support the fact that the business of prospecting and exploration is truly the foundation upon which Ontario's diverse mining industry has been built, and we will work to ensure it continues to be the bedrock that supports future growth. That's something that I feel very strongly about, as a member from Thunder Bay—Superior North.

On a related topic, I'm glad to have the opportunity to clear up some misconceptions, as well. There are some misconceptions on the other side by opposition members concerning the issue of payments in lieu of assessment work. I know that was brought up. Let me emphasize three important points, and I'm glad my colleagues are listening.

Mr. Randy Hillier: We're listening on this side.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Yes, you're always listening.

First, our government is absolutely clear on the importance to local economies of assessment work and the benefits of assessment work reporting to our geological knowledge. There is no intention to "do away" with the requirement to do assessment work. You need to understand that.

Second, the act provides for rules around payment in lieu of assessment work such as when and how often it can be used to replace actual exploration work to be set out in the regulations, which will be developed through consultation. This will be an important aspect of our consultation process through the regulations.

Third—again, something that I think is important—payments in lieu would provide an alternative to current provisions in the act that allow for extensions of time when assessment work has not been completed by required deadlines.

Keep in mind that this would represent a very small amount of the annual requirement for assessment work—a very small amount. In fact, in other Canadian jurisdictions this provision accounts for less than 5% to maybe a maximum 10% of the total annual assessment reporting requirements. That was something that came up during the committee hearings, I believe, and I wanted to be sure I clarified that point. I'm seeing a smile across the floor. I hope that's a sign that I'm better understood.

Certainly, a vibrant Ontario minerals industry will continue to need and rely on the expertise and knowledge of local geology by our prospectors—that's so true—and certainly prospectors will continue to be an extraordinarily important and valued part of the exploration process.

As I move toward the end of my remarks, I want to emphasize that, should the bill be enacted, should we have successful passage, the consultation process is certainly not ending; it would not end. My ministry will be consulting broadly to gather input to development of the regulations. We are committed to providing more opportunity for input from stakeholder groups, aboriginal organizations and the public to make sure we get it right.

In

summary, when it comes to developing an amended Mining Act to promote balanced mineral sector development that benefits all Ontarians, we listen; we listen very, very hard. We respected the input from stakeholders. We reflected that input in our proposed amendments, which we believe will bring clarity and certainty for the minerals industry.

The amendments would also make Ontario the first jurisdiction in Canada to expressly recognize aboriginal and treaty rights in its mining legislation. This is something that I think we should all be proud of. Again, for the first time in Canadian mining legislation, it would provide for the development of a dispute resolution process for aboriginal-related issues. We'll be working this particular aspect through the regulatory process, but again, I think everybody in the Legislature should be proud of the fact that this is the first dispute resolution process built into such a piece of legislation.

In essence, the dispute resolution process would address issues related to surface versus mining rights. We will be linking mining development to the development of land use plans in Ontario's far north; that's an important aspect to the bill. The bill will also maintain fair and competitive access to mineral tenure through the introduction of map staking, as I pointed out and, very importantly, we will be proposing a graduated regulatory approach for exploration.

It's important to point out, as I'm near to wrapping up my remarks, that our government was extremely mindful—certainly I was as minister and all my ministry staff, who are devoted to the cause—of the need to help many of our communities realize their economic and social aspirations, and to help ensure that Ontario remains one of the best places in the world for mineral exploration and mining investment. Let me use this opportunity to thank all the ministry staff who worked so hard with so many groups, organizations and individuals, and who believe so much in the mineral potential in the north and have for many years.

These amendments offer a balanced approach to mineral development that considers a range of interests while supporting a competitive economic climate for the minerals sector. I believe this is a fine piece of legislation that does meet those objectives. I'm very, very proud of the hard work that's gone into it by all my colleagues and all members of the House. This will be something that I think will make a huge difference in terms of opportunities in northern Ontario.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: First of all, let me thank the Conservative Party for allowing me to go first, as I have to attend a House leaders' meeting in about 20 minutes.

Let me just say up front that I wish we were standing here at third reading debating a bill that, quite frankly, should have been amended somewhat from what its present form is. I think what the government is trying to do by its stated goals in this legislation is admirable. Nobody would argue that we don't want to find a way of making our Mining Act easier for end utilisers to use, to have a system of rules that are clear and to give First Nations the comfort they need when it comes to people accessing their traditional territories for prospecting and development. I think we can all support those stated goals; I don't think there's an argument there.

I have advocated in this Legislature for a change to the Mining Act in order to deal with these very things. For example, it is unconscionable that you can have a mine developed somewhere north of Highway 11 and not have any requirement whatsoever that the mining company enter into some sort of impact benefit agreement with a First Nation.

First Nations, unlike municipalities, don't have any authority to tax a mining operation. If you open a mine in Red Lake, in Timmins or Kirkland Lake and it's within your municipal boundaries, automatically the Municipal Act gives the municipality the ability to tax the surface infrastructure of the mining operation, giving them much-needed revenue, by way of municipal taxes, to pay for services such as providing roads to the mining site, sometimes providing services such as water and sewer etc.

Again, municipalities have an ability, because of the authorities that they have, to demand from the mining operation a certain amount of local investment, that the mine source some of their particular purchases from the local community or the local region. There's certainly an understanding that there are going to be jobs available to the local community if a mine opens in your municipality.

If you open a mine, let's say, somewhere in the traditional territories of the Cree or the Ojibway, let's say in Treaty 9 or Treaty 5 or 3, or Robinson-Superior, wherever it might be, there are no such agreements; there's no such authority. There are good examples and bad examples. You look at the example of what happened with Musselwhite and you look at the example of what happened with De Beers, two good examples about how you can develop a mine and you can try to find a way to satisfy both parties.

In the case of Attawapiskat, De Beers Canada, when they established their first diamond mining operation in Ontario, said, "We will not go forward unless there's a ratified agreement," that the community of Attawapiskat itself ratifies the impact and benefit agreement so that people have a buy-in for this mine to go forward. De Beers spent in the tens of thousands of dollars to negotiate and to put in place an IBA. Eventually, that IBA was ratified by the community by some 85%.

Clearly, First Nations have said, "We want to have development. We want mining in our area, but there are things we want to ensure: We want to make sure that the environment is protected, that the environment where the mine is going to be happening is developed in such a way that it doesn't adversely affect the environment over a longer term; we want to make sure there's some benefit for the community to which the mine is associated and that there are jobs for the local citizens to be able to do the things that we take for granted."

I look at this legislation, and does it do that? No. All it does is say, "We recognize that First Nations have rights," and that's a step forward in this act; I'll give the government some credit. But when it comes to actually putting in place, "Are there mandated IBAs? Is there revenue-sharing? Is there a comfort on the part of First Nations of knowing they have some authority to determine what's going to happen with that development in their own backyard?" this act doesn't deal with that.

Now, of course, the government is going to say, "Oh, well, that's in the Far North Act. Don't worry about that, because we're going to do that in another act." Well, I'm dealing with the Far North Act, and it doesn't do that either, and that's a subject for another debate.

So on the one stated goal that the government has put forward, that this is a way of being able to resolve issues that have been put forward for over 100 years now by First Nations when it comes to development of mining projects within their territory, this act doesn't meet the test. It moves it forward. I'm not going to say it does nothing; I would be wrong to say that. But does it address the key concerns? Absolutely not.

Now, what are we doing in order to address some of those concerns? One of the things we're doing is moving to map staking. In my view, one of the reasons the government brought map staking forward is that it was one way of being able to get to the issue of not allowing somebody to go on the ground without having permission from the local community.

So the government had to find a way of being able to say, "How do we, on the one hand, allow an open staking system, and on the other hand protect the interests of the First Nations so that the First Nation doesn't all of a sudden wake up, as they did in KI, and find out there are helicopters and prospectors in their backyard without their permission?"

One of the easy ways of doing that is moving to map staking. I understand why the government did it.

I've had some conversations with the minister privately about this, and I said, "I understand why you're doing it." I don't like it but I understand it, because what map staking will do is it will still allow a mining company or explorationist to have open staking so that they'll be able to look at territory and say, "We've done some geological surveys by looking at available data, we've flown the area with some airplanes and helicopters, and we've got some more geophysics information that we've gathered from those passes.

We think there is a potential of development on these particular properties," and rather than going on the ground and physically staking the claim and having to get permission from the First Nation to do so, they'll be able to bypass all that and just do a map stake.

So they will go to the mining recorder's office—well, they probably won't even have to go to the mining recorder's office; they'll probably do it right on the Internet, and they will stake a claim from some office somewhere in Ontario, somewhere in Canada, somewhere in North America, somewhere in South America, Chile, Bolivia, China—they can do it from anywhere in the world, as long as they've got the Internet. Some will argue this is a good thing. But I think it isn't, for a couple of reasons.

One is that it doesn't deal with the core issue, which is, how do we deal with the concerns of First Nations when it comes to access to their territory? It's a clean way of being able to deal with this, to a certain extent, but it doesn't deal with the basic issue, and that is the issue of respect towards the First Nation.

Number two, it really does—I disagree with the minister—give larger players an opportunity to stake more ground quicker and to gather and gobble up more ground. The minister says, "Don't worry, we're going to cover that off in the regulations." Listen, I've seen this TV show before. How many pieces of legislation have I seen go through in my last 20 years in this Legislature and we say, "Don't worry, it will be all in regulations, and we're going to safeguard to make sure that doesn't happen." The minister may be very well-intentioned. I know the minister to be a very honourable person.

I have no disrespect, and I believe he believes what he believes. But the reality is, the regulatory committee is going to have to come up with a balance of how much is too much and how much is not enough. That's going to be the real test.

I think what you will end up with is an ability to stake a fair amount of land, with some trigger being put into the system where you may have an upper limit of what you can do, but you will certainly be able to stake more land cheaper than you can now, which will give an incentive to the larger companies. And then, tied to that is the issue of assessment.

For people to understand what we're talking about, the way the system currently works, if you think there's a mine on a particular piece of ground and it has not been staked by somebody else, you go on the ground, you mark the corners of the stake by physically putting a post or a ribbon or something to mark the ground, that you've actually been there and you've staked that. You go to the mining recorder's office and record the claim.

They double-check to make sure that nobody else has it, and if nobody else does, you have the claim, provided that you pay the fee up front and you do some physical work on that claim to determine if there is anything there. We don't want people to grab ground and hold on to it for a long period of time and not do any physical assessment work on the ground, because that's counterproductive to the need for exploration to find new mines.

What we have now: I stake the claim; every year I have to do a certain amount of assessment work on that claim in order to show that I'm actually physically working on that claim and bringing it towards, hopefully, a mine, or deciding that there's nothing there. But I physically have to do something. I have to do some geological work, I might have to do some trenching, or I might have to do some diamond drilling. Depending on where I am in the process, every year I have to do something.

The effect of that is, it says to the person who holds the claim, "You just can't hold on to the ground for a whole long period of time and do nothing with it. We expect you, if you're going to stake the claim, to actively seek and find out if there are any minerals under that ground." At one point, once you've spent a certain amount of money and you come to the conclusion that there are minerals under the ground, you try to sell it off to somebody else or you develop your own mine, or you get rid of it by basically relinquishing the claim back to the province and the ground is reopened for staking again.

Under this system, once you go to map staking, the large companies are going to map-stake a whole bunch of ground. They're going to have to do some physical assessment—I agree with the minister, because I somewhat understand how your process is going to work—but you will be able to apply to do what is called a payment in lieu; that is to say, I only have to give a cheque to the province of Ontario every year with some conditions in order to hold that ground as ground that is my claim. That means to say that there will be less physical assessment done.

The issue to me is that we need to at all times, when staking ground and having a claim staked, make sure there is physical assessment work being done in order to determine if that ground is, yes, going to be a mine, or it's not, and to force people to do that work so that they just don't hold on to the land for two or three or five or 10 years without doing the required amount of work that should be done to make sure there is actually a mine there.

So I think payment in lieu, in the long run, is going to lead to less physical assessment being done, and it will diminish the information that we have in our geological database here in the province of Ontario.

I'm being signalled for something. I see a clerk standing on the side of the Legislature opening hands and reading books. He's a committee clerk, so I figure he is trying to drag my attention to something.

Anyway, I say that is the problem with that particular part. Why did the government do it? As I said at the beginning, simply put, map staking is an easy way of getting around the issue of having somebody show up on traditional territory, without permission and knowledge of the community, to actually physically stake a claim. That's that part of it.

The next part of what the government is doing is that prospectors are going to have to take prospectors' awareness programs. The government says, "Don't worry, that's not a licensing system. It's just to make sure that everybody understands what is in the new Mining Act." Well, do you think that people in the mining exploration business wouldn't take the time to figure out what's in the act? It's their business. I'm an electrician. My colleague who's going to speak after me is an electrician.

Do you think that when we were in the trade, and even today, we don't keep up with what's happening with the electrical code? I've been out of the trade for over 25 years and I'm still having conversations with friends about the stupid things they did in the code book last year, because that's my trade; I'm an electrician. You keep up with what happens in your trade so that you know what the rules are as they change from year to year.

I just look back and I look at people who are in the business, the prospectors in this province, and I think of people like Dave Meunier. If you know Dave, he's a very knowledgeable prospector in the exploration community. He has been in the business for over 30 years, knows what he's doing. He knows the Mining Act inside out and has a really good understanding of what mining is all about. And you're going to go to him and say, "Take some sensitivity training so that you can understand what's in the Mining Act"? A guy like Dave Meunier or a person like Don McKinnon or some of these long-standing prospectors, they're going to take that as a bit of a slap.

Prospecting is a very—how would I say it? It attracts a very different breed of people. It's almost a bit—I know I'm going to get in a little bit of trouble with this, but it's somewhat of a frontier. People who go into the prospecting business love the outdoors. They love the issue of geology. They love the hunt of trying to find a mine. And it is a somewhat secretive business, because one prospector doesn't necessarily tell the other prospectors what he or she is up to. Why? Because at the end of the day, you're trying to stake ground that nobody else knows about.

It's a very different breed of people in this industry, and to say to people like Dave and Don and others, "You're going to have to go out and take a prospectors' awareness program in order to keep your prospector's licence in good standing"—I can guarantee you, when this legislation comes into force, there are going to be really interesting discussions between the ministry and some of these characters. I see the minister kind of smiling and looking at me, because he knows it as well as I do. Can you imagine the person who has to deal with Don McKinnon? You know Don McKinnon as well as I do.

And Don has only found how many mines? He found the Hemlo gold mine, and the list goes on. This guy has been one of the more successful prospectors in Ontario. I don't want to use the word "bureaucrat," because it's not a very nice way to put it, but some employee of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines is going to have to sit there and try to determine if Don knows his business. I can tell you there's going to be a real interesting discussion in that room.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: There's thousands of other prospectors.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Oh, yeah, there's thousands of other prospectors who are probably all going to do the same thing.

Is it a good idea to have a prospectors' awareness program for new prospectors? Absolutely. All I asked in this committee was that we grandfather those who have been there for a certain period of time. That I thought was a very reasonable request. You did it, for example, when we created new trades such as the electrical trade and others. People who had been in the trade and earned their living at it for a number of years were deemed to have known what they were doing, therefore they got their licence. We should have done the same thing for the prospectors.

We should have said, "Anybody who has been an active prospector for X number of years doesn't have to do this. Here's a copy of the new act. Here's the circular that goes with it. Please read this on our behalf. Thank you very much." They would have read it, as they will read it anyway. I think it would have been one way of being able to say to those prospectors, "We respect that you know what you're doing and at the end of the day you're going to know what has to be done under the act." Why didn't we grandfather? Is the idea itself a good idea? I don't think it's a bad one.

To say that new prospectors have to go through this, I don't think it's a bad idea but we should have grandfathered.

Then there's the whole issue of the exploration licences or permits. I think that's not a bad idea. That's one part of the act that I look at—and I know there are going to be some who are going to have some problems with that, but I think it's not a bad idea so that we clearly determine what it is you want to do as you move into advanced exploration, so that there's a clear understanding of what type of work is going to be done on the ground, that it's defined, there's a scope to it and there are no surprises at the end on the part of people who may be concerned about that particular development. So I don't think it's a bad idea.

There are going to be some in the exploration industry who are going to argue this adds yet more costs to the business of doing mining. I understand that and that is going to be one of the issues that is going to come out of that—but, in itself, not a bad idea.

Then the whole issue—and we are going to hear about this in greater detail from my friend Mr. Hillier—of private lands: I've only got three minutes left, but what the government attempted to do is, lands in the province of Ontario were not always—originally they were always sold with mining rights associated to them. But over the years, mining rights were removed from some of the sales in some cases, or people forfeited their mining rights, because if you had mining rights you had to pay an additional tax on that land.

So people over the years said, "I will keep the surface rights and I will sell the mining rights or give the mining rights back to the provincial government." It's created a situation where about less than 2% of lands in the province of Ontario have those mining rights that are separated from those surface rights, and how to deal with that, because the effect was if you didn't own the mining rights and you owned the surface rights, you can physically have somebody come on your land and do some exploration and not have a heck of a lot to say about it. It was the perception on the part of many people.

In northern Ontario, you don't see that very often because what always happens—and I'm not aware of any case where it hasn't happened—the prospector would go out and stake the claim, yes—and you don't have to have permission to stake the claim; they would just go out and mark the corners of what their claim is. But the minute that they went out and did any kind of exploration, they would seek permission from the property owner and they would come to some sort of understanding.

This has not been done in all cases and there's been some rare cases where explorationists have gone in and done that work without any permission. So the government asked how to deal with the issue where somebody owns the surface rights but doesn't own the mining rights and you have this type of conflict going on. They said, "Whoopee, we've got ourselves a solution.

Everybody in southern Ontario, we're going to close those grounds to staking so that if you own private property to which you don't have the mining rights, the mining rights that are owned by the crown will be withdrawn from the database and you will no longer be able to stake there."

In southern Ontario that's not a very big issue, because there's not as much mineral potential as in northern Ontario. So they said, for the north, the province already has those mining rights and if you wish, as a property owner, to have your private property rights respected, you can then apply to have the claim withdrawn from staking. So that has created a double standard; there's one standard for southern Ontario and a very separate standard for northern Ontario.

I understand why the government did it, but for a lot of people they see it as a double standard and they see it as the south getting something that the north didn't get. I understand why the government did it. I'm a northerner. I understand that most of us in northern Ontario understand what the business of staking is and there isn't as big of a problem on this issue as there is in southern Ontario, but still, it leads the issue.

It's unfortunate because we find ourselves now with

an act that was supposing to provide clarity, certainty of rules, and to make the Mining Act more modern. It certainly makes it somewhat more modern, I wouldn't disagree with what the government said there, but falls short, I think, on some of the key components they should have dealt with.

It doesn't address the First Nations issues when it comes to revenue-sharing and when it comes to the issue of access to employment, it doesn't deal adequately with the modernization that was sorely needed within the Mining Act and I don't think, at the end of the day, it provides the type of clarity that the government says they needed to provide in the first place. For that reason, I will be voting against this legislation at third reading.

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: Before I get to some prepared notes I would like to just make a few comments regarding the minister's statements and also put on the record that here in third reading of a most important bill, it's important for everybody in this province to understand that the PC caucus, all the members of the PC caucus who attended many meetings and were engaged in a lot of discussion with stakeholders over this bill, are now prevented from discussing Bill 173 because of the time allocation motion that this government put into place. The whole PC caucus now has 20 minutes to debate one bill called Bill 173.

But I do want to say this: I believe the minister is an honourable person and is striving and doing his utmost to try to improve things. However, it also reminds me of the story Alice in Wonderland. Maybe it'll be a new one, Michael in Wonderland, with Bill 173. I know his intent is good, and he suggested that we're going to make sure all these things are taken care of; all these problems and concerns that we know are there, we're just going to make sure that the regulations are correct and mitigate these problems.

Everybody in this province has seen the level of management and administration of this government when it comes to their agencies, their ministries or boards or commissions. We've seen the level of scrutiny that this government provides to their employees. This government certainly gets involved when it comes time to have patronage appointments or they get involved when there are untendered contracts or bids that need to be dealt with. But otherwise, it's a hands-off approach.

The bureaucracy runs the show, and we in the House will never get the opportunity to represent our constituents, represent the people of Ontario, when those regulations are brought forward. They will come through by executive order in council and we will never see them. We will never have that opportunity to do what we are hired to do, what we're elected to do, and that is to represent our constituents and ensure that legislation is fair and just and reasonable.

Bill 173, the concept of modernizing the Mining Act, is indeed important. We've seen the conflicts in mining. We've seen things such as Platinex and why Platinex has called for the minister's resignation. There are significant conflicts.

We also heard time and time again that what needed to happen was community participation, that we needed to have revenue sharing, that we needed to have equal protection of property rights under the law. We haven't got any of those things, any of those necessary commitments to prevent the conflicts in mining and allow mining to prosper.

The minister also makes all kinds of assertions that there were all these workshops, and, sure, there were many, many workshops. However, unlike the minister, I've actually sat through some of these workshops; I wasn't there just for five or 10 minutes at the opening. What is so clear with all these workshops is that they are contrived and they're manipulated, and a predetermined outcome is the order of the day. That's just a little bit of a hint why the National Post columnists are now calling this government "Canada's worst government."

I will get back to some of my prepared notes on Bill 173. As we talked about these workshops and all this consultation, when I attended the committee hearings here in Toronto and through the north, person after person condemned the bill. The miners, the prospectors, developers, aboriginal groups and northern communities all raised their grave concerns about this bill. And of course, in committee, their concerns were not even addressed by the government.

Yet there was one group that said they were quite happy with the legislation, that they were consulted and that they were quite pleased, and that was Monte Hummel from the World Wildlife Fund. He was thrilled that the McGuinty government has decided to abandon the north while ignoring the needs of the residents and the people in the north. The Liberal government has abandoned the north for their environmental zealots, who are often at Liberal fundraisers.

This bill, along with its companion bill, Bill 191, creates a climate of instability in Ontario's resource industry and ignores that industry's contributions to our economy. This bill makes the government's disregard for our natural resources sector clear. It paves the way for gross mismanagement of our mining industry and resources by the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

This bill also creates three classes of citizens in Ontario, each with different levels of protection of the law. This bill tramples upon individual property rights but protects the property rights of the Ontario northland. This bill is worded with hypocrisy and it's spelled out with contradictions. This bill speaks volumes to the Liberals' contempt for justice and their ignorance of democracy. Our common-law principle of equal protection is thrown out their utopian window as this Liberal government peers through it.

There are no checks and balances, and there is no justice in this new Liberal meaning of "law." Clearly nobody will argue this: This bill has created different classes of citizens. People in the south, people in the north, people in the far north, their property rights—

Interjection.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I can hear the member from Algoma interjecting. But I will say this: Five members from the Liberal Party were on that committee, and not one of them spoke about the objections except for the member from Algoma. He was the only mouthpiece allowed from the Liberal Party on this bill.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: You weren't even there two thirds of the time.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I was there all the time.

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: These concerns and objections were brought to the attention of the committee not only by those who chose to appear, but also by myself and my colleagues from the opposition and the third party. This government refused to listen. They have not made any changes to this legislation. In fact, they have obstructed us each and every time we tried to amend the legislation. As I said, only one Liberal member spoke; often he didn't even attempt to argue because he knows the government does wrong but he was just toeing the party line.

Now they've moved this time allocation motion, pushing this bill forward against the wishes of the people of Ontario. Like I said, it's no wonder this Liberal administration has earned the title of "Canada's worst government" in the Financial Post last week. They think they can just sweep it all under the carpet and that the people of Ontario will forget.

Let me just read a moment from that column: "Every now and then a province falls into the hands of blundering politicians so inept that their government ends up deserving of the title 'Canada's Worst Government.' It's a rare award. At any time somebody has to be the worst, but no award for routine bottom-of-the-barrel performance seems necessary. Occasionally, however, the metric of incompetence is so large and conspicuous it demands special recognition."

Just to let people know, the National Post now is running a contest for others in the country to see if their governments can measure up to Canada's worst government here in Ontario.

Let me just read a couple of things here as well. Jon Baird, talking about the two bills, because they are companion bills, said, "No self-respecting MPP should vote for this." Bill 191 and its sister bill, which apply to all of Ontario, grant massive arbitrary power to the Ontario Minister of Natural Resources and bureaucrats and the Ministry of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry. Rulings are not appealable, no hearings and on and on. No self-respecting MPP should vote for these bills. That's what is being told and heard and seen.

The people of northern Ontario will not forget their lost jobs. They will not forget when the mines close down or when people lose their livelihoods and communities wither on this Liberal legislative vine. This government is managing the demise of northern Ontario, and this is how they've decided to do it: through legislation, by dismantling northern industry, by destroying our resource industry and by abandoning all of the economic opportunities present in the north to this utopian environmental ideal that they have swirling in their Michael-in-Wonderland world.

There can be no denying that the north of Ontario is a place of great natural beauty as well as great opportunity. None of us know what still remains to be discovered in the vast tracts of boreal forest and in the stone of the Canadian Shield, but to talk about the north only in terms of what might be dug up or chopped down and chipped out is not to the point. The resources and wealth of the north are not limited to nickel and iron, gold and diamonds; the wealth of the north is found in our northern Ontario people.

The entrepreneurial spirit and hard-working attitude of the people are its greatest strengths and the greatest resource. That's what this government has abandoned and left out in the cold.

This bill doesn't just affect miners and prospectors; it affects the entire north and the resource economy which exists there. It will doom aboriginal groups to generational poverty and force them to live on the dole. Grand Chief Stan Beardy said, "Bill 173 isn't a partnership either. NAN First Nations have great concerns because it does not go far enough to seek proper prior informed consent. It too is a violation of our treaty relationship based on peaceful co-operative partnership agreed to more than 100 years ago." He wasn't consulted.

The Porcupine Prospectors and Developers Association told our committees, "Bills 173 and 191 have been put in place long before they are ready. This was clearly done for political posturing and has nothing to do with full consultation with all parties impacted by such legislation. These bills could be in place for 20 years or more." They weren't consulted.

The Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada told our committee, "It is our recommendation that Bill 173 ... be amended in a number of areas prior to further consideration by the Legislature."

Did this government listen? Did they amend the legislation? Did they fix the problems? The answer to all of that is no. They moved to a time allocation motion, shut down debate in committee and tried to ram this legislation through before anyone notices.

Mr. Paul Miller: It's disgraceful.

Mr. Randy Hillier: It is disgraceful. What this government, this Liberal administration, has done is disgraceful. Their actions are shameful. It's a shameful disregard for industry and the wealth that it brings. It's shameful to abandon the north and its citizens. It's shameful to ignore the northern voters in favour of their downtown Liberal friends. It's shameful to push through flawed legislation when they can do better.

But the interests of serving their party's political agenda trumps the north's concerns. This is

an act created by politicians who think that their narrow desires supersede the will of the voters. The people in the north are being abandoned along with our democracy.

We have seen, on and on—the member from the third party was also quite involved in all the discussions—opposition to this bill. Again, we all recognize the need to modernize the Mining Act, but why has the government missed on all the key elements?

They have not come to recognize that municipalities should be sharing in the wealth of our natural resources. If we want to improve our communities' motivations and improve and encourage mining, all the money from mining ought not to end up in Toronto. There should be a share allotted to communities that do have mining in their communities. It should not be just Toronto and the Liberal Party that collect the money. That revenue-sharing can bring an end to conflicts. However, it's lost.

This belief that they can protect property rights by the minister not allowing exploration is not actually affirming property rights. He's just saying to the people in southern Ontario, "We will not allow exploration for the time being on your land." Why not come out and say to the people, "We recognize your freedom to peaceful enjoyment of your property and we will protect it. We will protect it within the law, not just by the whim of the minister"?

I'm sure this minister will provide some level of protection for those property owners who don't own the mineral rights, who only have their surface rights. But I'm not sure how long that minister will be in that chair. I'm not sure how long any minister will be in any chair on that side of the House. This is why we protect justice and create justice in law, not just to be at the whim of a minister.

Community participation: It does move in that direction with Bill 191 in the north, but why not community involvement in mining for all communities? We are going to see more and more conflicts, because clearly, the process failed. Real consultation did not happen. As many members at the committee said, we were not allowed to discuss the real questions. We were spoon-fed the questions and had to—and I saw this directly myself in the forestry workshops held by MNDMF last Thursday in Pembroke. Only two questions were allowed to be talked about for forestry.

All the other challenges that that industry faces, and they were only allowed to speak about pricing and tenure; they were not allowed to speak about red tape and regulations. This is what happens when you have a failed process, when you do not allow open and honest discussions—frank discussions—about all of the problems that an industry faces. That failed process ensures that you have a failed outcome.

I do hope that the minister provides that scrutiny on regulations that he's talking about. I don't have a lot of faith that this Liberal administration will do so and give us that assurance and confidence that they will safeguard the interests of the people of northern Ontario and the people of all of Ontario in the backrooms as regulations are crafted up, not by the minister, not by elected representatives, but by people who have purposes other than representing the people of this province.

If we want to be honest, these regulations need to come before the House and be clearly investigated by people who have responsibility to their citizens. Otherwise, we will just be back at mining reform once again after another generation of conflicts and problems.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to the order of the House dated October 6, 2009, I am now required to put the question.

Mr. Gravelle has moved third reading of Bill 173,

An Act to amend the Mining Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

Third reading vote deferred.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Orders of the day. The Minister of Mines and Northern Development.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: No further business.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): There being no further business, this House is in recess until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1004 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Today in the chamber I'd like to introduce the public sector employees' coalition, which is opposed to the HST. They have come here today to talk about a rally they're hosting next week with the New Democrats and the Progressive Conservatives.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I'd like to introduce Lynn Sveinbjornson from the Canadian Hearing Society from my riding in London. Thank you for coming here today.

Mrs. Julia Munro: I'd like to have all members help me welcome the parents of page Henry Lenz, Dan and Elaine Lenz, and grandmother Muriel Hackett.

Mr. Bill Mauro: I'd like to introduce from Atikokan, in my riding of Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Bud Dickson. Bud is a councillor in the town of Atikokan and wears many hats up there. He's down here for the Quetico Foundation dinner tonight.

Mr. Paul Miller: Shortly, the grade 5 class from A.M. Cunningham in Hamilton will be joining us, and Julie Melanson is their teacher.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Today is Canadian Hearing Society Day at Queen's Park. I'm pleased to introduce Kelly Duffin, president and CEO of the Canadian Hearing Society, Gary Malkowski, a former MPP who represented York East in the 35th Parliament, as well as the delegates in the members' and public galleries who are here today on behalf of the Canadian Hearing Society.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I want to introduce somebody representing the Canadian Hearing Society from northwestern Ontario. The regional director, Nancy Frost, is here. Welcome, Nancy.

Mr. Jeff Leal: I have the pleasure of introducing somebody who works very hard with the local hearing society in Peterborough. Maggie Doherty-Gilbert is in the gallery right up there. Welcome, Maggie. Good to see you.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I'd like to welcome members of the yellow shirt brigade from Fort Erie and Port Colborne: Joy Barton, Doris Emerson, Wayne Gates, Anne Kranics, Ida Ortis, June Robinson, Susan Salzer, Pat Schofield, Sylvia Smith and Giselle Tokar, as well as Police Pensioners Association of Ontario representative Jim Garchinski.

Mr. Kim Craitor: I too want to welcome the yellow shirts from my riding of Fort Erie, and some of them are from Port Colborne. They're very passionate, very caring ladies who care about our health care system and, more importantly, I want to say that they are near and dear good friends of mine. So welcome to Queen's Park, ladies.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We would like to officially welcome all the guests from the Canadian Hearing Society who are here. Many have been introduced. I too would like to extend a special welcome to Gary Malkowski, who represented York East in the 35th Parliament. Welcome back to the Legislature, Gary.

I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome the strangers to the floor, as you are entitled, and we thank you for providing the interpretive services today. Welcome to Queen's Park, as well.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is for the Premier. When Dalton McGuinty was Leader of the Opposition, he called for a public inquiry 47 times on at least seven different issues. But when a potential inquiry involves his scandal, his waste of 10 times more money than the sponsorship scandal, we see a different Dalton McGuinty entirely. Premier, why are you suddenly against public inquiries when it involves the name Dalton McGuinty?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague continues to express his ongoing dissatisfaction with the work of the auditor. I embrace that report. And as I've said many, many times, we'll adopt every single one of the recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, I think there's something else that I should draw to your attention to be found in the auditor's report. There is in fact a chart on page 26; it comes from Canada Health Infoway. It talks about the degree of completion of projects through eHealth. It says that when it comes to client registry we are 95% to 100% complete; diagnostic imaging system, 95% to 100% complete; clinical reports or immunization, 95% to 100% complete. A lot of the work has been done. There is more to be done and we look forward to doing it.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: When Dalton McGuinty was Leader of the Opposition, he called for public inquiries more often than he sent out for pizza. But nothing could make a more compelling case today than a $1-billion boondoggle that accomplished nothing for Ontario families and gave out sweetheart deals to Liberal-friendly consultants. This certainly is not the same Dalton McGuinty whom people thought they were voting for back in 2003; this is a Premier who refuses to give up his dirty secrets. Premier, why are you refusing to shine a light on the people who fleeced Ontario taxpayers for hundreds of millions of dollars?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think it's also important to note another finding in the auditor's report. The opposition insists that taxpayers received no value whatever for the investment they made in the eHealth system. Of course, the auditor found otherwise. He says the following: He makes reference to the network and the two data centres—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'm finding it extremely difficult to hear the answer. I trust that the opposition members would like to hear the answer as well.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think we always have an interest in this House in reliable information, and I have more here. The auditor makes reference to the network and the two data centres that underpin the electronic health records, and he says, "As of December 2008, the data centres housed an estimated 1,300 servers, and the network connected some 3,500 clients. Clients include all Ontario's public hospitals, public health units, community care access centres, and retail chain pharmacies; many of the province's continuing care organizations; and some physician offices." Much work has been done.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Now the Premier has suddenly changed his tune to where his $1-billion boondoggle was a good thing. Well, Premier, why don't you tell the people here from Fort Erie and Port Colborne who have seen the services at their hospitals cut and their ERs closed? This is a Premier who mocks accountability each and every day by standing by his right-hand man, George Smitherman, who presided over $837 million flushed down the drain. As we know, only the Premier can call an inquiry into this matter. The Premier had previously called for inquiries on 47 different occasions. Premier, when will you call an inquiry, or will you continue to be a hypocrite?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I ask the honourable member to withdraw the comment, please.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Withdrawn.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think it's fair to say that the leader of the official opposition and I see things differently on this particular score. I continue to have a great deal of confidence in the auditor and his findings. I'm not sure I can make it any more clear than to say the following: We accept all the findings. We will adopt each and every one of the recommendations. I would recommend to my colleague that he also accept the report in its entirety, where it says there was no evidence of fraud or criminal activity, where it says that there was no evidence of party politics.

Yes, there was an absence of sufficient oversight. We accept that. He goes on to say as well—

Interjection.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I hear my honourable colleague opposite. I encourage him to read the report as well.

He goes on to say that in fact there was a tremendous amount of work that had been done. There is more work to be done and we are committed to finishing the job.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: Premier, at the end of September, you said that you needed to run a record deficit of $18.5 billion to stimulate the economy. We know $1 billion of that went to stimulate Liberal-friendly consultants. Premier, that was three weeks ago. How much deeper is the actual deficit really going to be?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I look forward, along with my honourable colleague, to the fall economic statement, which will be presented in this House tomorrow. What I can say, though, is that there is a significant deficit. I think Ontarians anticipate that and understand why we find ourselves in these circumstances.

We're doing it for the right reasons, which is the same reason why we'll put in a plan to address the deficit over the long term—because that's also the right thing to do.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Quite frankly, Premier, no wonder you've been dubbed the worst government in Canada.

Premier, your runaway spending on billion-dollar—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, your spending on billion-dollar boondoggles at eHealth has saddled each and every household in Ontario with $11,000 in new debt. Dalton McGuinty is a lot like the contractor who gives an estimate of $10,000 to do a home renovation, but ends up charging you $25,000 once he's there—and the place looks worse after he's done with it. Premier, how much more debt are you going to put on the backs of Ontario families?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, you will not be surprised to hear that I just don't find that's particularly helpful.

I think we should use the metaphor used by the auditor in his report. He said that we have been building a highway. That highway is largely completed. Where there is still more work to be done, it consists of putting the cars and trucks in place that can deliver information back and forth along that new infrastructure. That's what he has said.

There's been a significant investment that has been made in this highway, so to speak—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): This is making it extremely difficult to hear, and I would just ask the members to have consideration for our guests who are here, who also would like to ensure that they understand what's happening in these proceedings today.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Just to finish, the fact of the matter is that there has been a significant investment in the foundation for our electronic health record. I think Ontarians understand why it's so important that we finish this work. It will introduce new efficiencies in the health care system, but more importantly, it will provide better health care for our families. That's why we're going to keep moving ahead.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Ontario families now know where your highway is taking us. It's taking us to have-not status and the biggest debt level in the history of our province.

The Premier has increased Ontario's net debt by $53 billion in just six years, saddling each and every home in our province with $11,000 in debt. The Premier has everyone paying higher income taxes, higher fees, higher auto insurance, higher tuition, higher hydro, and the list goes on. We're seeing emergency rooms close down in communities like Fort Erie and Port Colborne—less time with the kids, less time with their family and less money in their take-home pay.

Premier, how much longer and how much harder will Ontario families have to work to pay down your record debt?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to take this opportunity to say to Ontarians that it's been a tremendous privilege serving as leader of their government and to thank and congratulate them for the work that we've been able to do together.

The fact of the matter is, we have more schools and more hospitals, we have more doctors, we have more nurses, we have more teachers and we have shorter wait times. We have more MRIs. We have higher test scores. We have higher graduation rates. We have more land than ever before protected and set aside for future generations to enjoy this wonderful, natural environment that we have in the province of Ontario.

Unlike my friend opposite, I remain very optimistic about the future of the province and have every continuing confidence in the people of Ontario to rise to whatever challenge that they might—

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

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. While this government sat back and allowed a billion dollars to go out the door, health care services have been on the chopping block. Now, the finance minister is hinting that more cuts are on the way, and I shudder to think what this is going to mean for communities across this province.

Does the Premier understand that his health care cuts are already hurting families, or is he more concerned with keeping the door wide open for his million-dollar-a-day consultant feeding frenzy?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm always pleased to take the question. As my honourable colleague knows we are in fact making great strides forward when it comes to reducing the number of consultants we are using. It's down by 34% in contrast to 2003.

My honourable colleague also knows that every year, year over year, we have increased our funding levels for health care in the province of Ontario. Hospital funding has gone up by 42%. I stand that in contrast with the increase to the cost of living over the same period, 11%. The facts are, consultants are coming down and funding levels continue to go up.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Today in the gallery are residents from Fort Erie and Port Colborne. Last month, their emergency room was closed. People in Fort Erie know the impact of cuts to health care because they're living with the consequences each and every day. They now face potentially life-threatening travel times to surrounding hospitals that were barely coping before the influx of new patients that is coming their way.

With a billion dollars gone, with consultants still making more than a million dollars a day and with health bureaucrats' bloated salaries being hidden, what does the Premier have to say to the people of Fort Erie?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the folks here from Fort Erie, I welcome them to Queen's Park. I can say that their commitment to the best possible health care in the community has been nothing short of inspirational, and I thank them for the work they have done.

We've been working hard with the local community, with our partners in the Niagara region. We've worked with the mayor of Fort Erie, Doug Martin, the local emergency system and doctors who are supportive of the plan that we are putting in place. What we're saying essentially is that 97% of the folks who are going to the Douglas Memorial now will be able to continue to go there in the future, but 3% of the folks whom we cannot manage at the optimum level in terms of quality of care are going to have to move on—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We welcome, as always, all of our guests to the Legislature. Just stop the clock, please. We ask that you observe and, as much as you may wish to participate in the debate, you need to be elected to participate in the debate. So, I would say that nodding your head one way or another is not helpful, and I just ask that you be conscious of that. Thanks.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: People feel strongly about their hospital and their health care in their community, and I understand that and I respect that. But I must say that we've been working long and hard with the community to put in place the best possible health care, we've relied on the best local advice that we can, and we're confident this will improve quality care within the community.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontarians are already seeing the cuts, those from Niagara region and elsewhere across the province; they know that more cuts are on the way. The Premier needs to come clean. He need to be upfront and tell us what else he is planning to cut. But he also needs to tell us how he'll rein in consultant contracts, how he'll end the waste, how he'll stop the excesses in compensation in this province. Will he look at the people from Fort Erie right now and tell them how?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Just so we have a few facts with respect to what's happened in the Niagara health system, there has been more than an $88-million increase in funding since 2003; that's a 43% increase. There is a $60-million increase in the Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant LHIN towards a three-year local aging at home strategy. Something that is really important is the new Niagara Regional Cancer Centre, which is going to save folks in Fort Erie the drive all the way to Hamilton. I would think this is a tremendous source of pride in the regional health system as it grows ever stronger.

I know and I understand that there are always concerns when there are these kinds of changes that are made in your own community, but we have worked with the best professionals, relied on the very best advice, and our intention remains to improve the quality of care within the community itself.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Premier as well. Yesterday, the Minister of Finance cryptically implied that people should expect more cuts to public services. Today, the public sector retiree coalition, a group of retired police officers and municipal employees, announced an HST protest that's going to take place here at Queen's Park next week. Their concern: higher costs on everything from hydro to condo fees.

How can this Premier tell pensioners to pay more and expect less?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Revenue.

Hon. John Wilkinson: Next year, when we permanently cut income taxes for people, we will honour the contributions our seniors have made to this great province by taking special care and ensuring that it's our seniors who will receive the most benefit from our proposed tax cuts.

The first thing that we're doing for some 93% of Ontarians is permanently cutting their taxes by lowering the income tax rate on the first $37,000 worth of income. Beyond that, seniors of modest means, particularly seniors on fixed incomes, received today, some of them, the GST rebate. That is going to be more than doubled.

We're also increasing the property tax credit as well, and for seniors we're more than doubling it, because we feel the best way to honour our seniors and the contribution they've made to this province is to ensure that those tax cuts that are coming to people in Ontario are targeted particularly to seniors. It's our way of honouring the contribution that they have made to our province.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: You know, this minister knows very well that for every dollar raised off a consumer's back, only 18 cents are going back in tax cuts. That's the fact. This government seems to have all the money in the world when it comes to the chosen few: a million dollars a day for consultants, hidden bonuses for senior staff, a billion dollars in tax cuts to business. But for everyone else, like retired police officers and firefighters who put their lives on the line for years and years in this province: a new tax and more cuts. How can the Premier justify asking people to pay more and get less?

Hon. John Wilkinson: Perhaps the member wasn't listening to my response. It must be the new math, but I know that seniors understand the old math.

Interjection.

Hon. John Wilkinson: What we are doing is taking all of the money that—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just ask the honourable member from Nepean to withdraw the comment, please.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Withdrawn.

Hon. John Wilkinson: It's important that seniors understand that under our tax reform package, as we modernize our tax system so that we compete and win for jobs in the 21st century, we are taking the money that's raised by sales tax and permanently cutting income taxes for people. There is no group in the province of Ontario that we will honour more with our tax cuts than our seniors, who have contributed to this great province that we have.

As I was saying, we are permanently cutting income taxes on the first $37,000 worth of income. We'll have the lowest personal income tax rate of any province in this country after we finish—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I think someone around here said, "Nobody's buying it," and that's the truth. Nobody is buying it. As the Premier stumbles around to rationalize million-dollar-a-day consultant costs, he tells the people to brace themselves for cuts—cuts to health care and cuts to education in this province. Meanwhile, he's plowing ahead with a job-killing—job-killing—new tax that will make life less affordable for the people in this province, for middle-income Ontarians and everyone else. People are being told to pay more and to expect less.

How can the Premier justify this massive tax on the backs of people who most need a break right now?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I would say, particularly to the seniors, that there is a wonderful public service provided in the province: quality public health care available to everybody. There is no one who counts on that more than our seniors.

They understand that despite this global recession, the most important thing we can do is get people back to work. We need people working. That is the greatest assurance that we can have that we will be able to maintain our high-quality public services. So we've taken a step to ensure that Ontario and our businesses are going to be competitive so they can hire people.

It's exactly those people who want to have a brighter future who are willing to make that sacrifice, who are going to pay the taxes to ensure that we can keep our covenant with seniors, that we will continue to provide high-quality public service, particularly universal health care, in this province for all seniors. We know that they appreciate that. When I was talking to my own mom and dad about this, and I was able to explain to them the tax cuts that they will receive, they said, "Well, that's amazing"—

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

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Norm Miller: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Minister, three weeks ago, you confidently stood in the House and said this year's deficit would be $18.5 billion. Yesterday, at a speech to the Canadian and Empire clubs, you hinted that deficit would be worse than you forecasted just three weeks ago. The minister's remarks away from this House shows he is more committed to selling a PR scheme for his record deficit than stopping it at $18.5 billion.

Minister how many more billions did you add to the deficit in just three short weeks?

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

Mr. Norm Miller: Minister, we're talking about three weeks. In three weeks, we've seen a government that is too distracted with scandals to manage economic recovery. The auditor revealed the McGuinty Liberals wasted a billion dollars on eHealth. Freedom of information revealed that Cancer Care Ontario was used to hand Courtyard another $18 million. The Ontario PC caucus revealed millions of dollars in budget overruns on the Windsor casino expansion and $80 million wasted on an energy centre. It's no wonder the McGuinty Liberals are described as "Canada's worst government." Why should taxpayers give this distracted, scandal-ridden, out-of-touch government billions more?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We have responded to the worst global downturn since the Great Depression. We followed the advice of the International Monetary Fund.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. If you want to have a debate, I appreciate that you debate in the chamber, but I need you to go through the Chair. If not, I would encourage the Minister of Economic Development and Trade and the honourable member from Simcoe—Grey to go outside and have the discussion there.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I apologize for that, because the Speaker should not be causing disorder in the House.

Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We have continued to turn our attention to the serious challenge with employment for Ontarians throughout Ontario by investing $32.5 billion in infrastructure over two years and by maintaining the size of the public service. We think it's wrong to lay people off at this time. We think it's wrong to do those kinds of things that will harm the economy.

These are difficult times that are faced around the world. Governments around the world are facing larger deficits than any of them would want.

We've taken those decisions. We will make the right decisions to get Ontario through this. We will be bigger, we will be better and we will be stronger when we're done.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is for the Minister of Finance. The Ontario Association of Food Banks and Ontario farmers need your help. Even while there are 140,000 children in our province who live in a home without enough food, there is an abundance of fresh, surplus, local food available at Ontario's farms that is ploughed back into the soil or sent out for disposal. Farmers and food banks are asking for a farm tax credit to offset their much-needed donations of fresh food to our poorest families. Minister, will you implement this tax credit in your next budget?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: There are enormous challenges to ensuring that we feed all of the people of Ontario. That's why I was delighted when Gail Nyberg of the Daily Bread Food Bank endorsed our government's policy of tax cuts for low-income people. That's why I'm glad that Hugh Mackenzie and others associated with the New Democratic Party have urged your leader to back off on the things you're saying that will harm the poorest.

With respect to tax policy, we consider any number of options in any given year. I remind the member opposite that we doubled the seniors' property tax credit; he voted against that. We've created the largest sales tax credit in Canada; he voted against that. He voted against a number of measures that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture endorsed in our budget. But—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I have allowed the clock to run when the noise is so loud from the opposition side. The clock will run. But if I continue to get interjections, I will stop the clock. We have lots of time. Some of you can be late for your meetings. But I think it's important. Question period is extremely important to the people of Ontario, and I think we collectively owe it to them to allow questions to be asked and answers to be given as well.

Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We consider any range of options with respect to tax measures—those are normally dealt with in the budget—and we will continue to consider those sorts of things as we move forward through these challenging times.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: Thousands upon thousands of families are struggling to make ends meet during tough economic times. In the first three months of 2009, demand for food banks has skyrocketed by 20% annually, and the procurement of fresh food is very difficult for all of these people. An estimated surplus of over 25 million pounds of fresh fruits and vegetables in Ontario that is currently ploughed back into the soil or sent for disposal, could provide nutritious meals for 350,000 of our poorest citizens who are forced to turn to food banks each month.

The solution is very simple: Are you on board or are you not on board? Will this government commit today to implement a tax credit for farmers and food banks so that people can have decent and nutritious food?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Here's what the Daily Bread Food Bank said about what our government did in its last budget. It said, "If you're a low-income Ontarian this is a positive budget, and I congratulate the government on recognizing that you can fight poverty and stimulate the economic scene at the same time." That member and his party are voting against those measures. You're voting against the increase in the child benefit. You're voting against—let's talk about farmers.

The member opposite does not want us to allow farmers to no longer pay sales tax on trucks, on light vans and parts, furniture, lawn mowers, computers, office supplies, freezers and equipment. The member opposite has voted against a range of stimulus packages. He wants to have it both ways, and he can't. He needs to be consistent, he needs to be clear and he needs to be straightforward.

IMMIGRATION POLICY

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. An

article in the Toronto Sun titled "Immigration Bad for Us" goes on to highlight how newcomer policies are flawed and that Canada is changing for the worse as a result of mass immigration. This

article was written in reaction to a book published by the Fraser Institute titled The Effects of Mass Immigration on Canadian Living Standards and Society. The publication provides an assessment of the negative impact of immigration on Canada in recent decades. It concludes that immigration has been harmful to our living standards and is challenging the country's existing national identity, culture and social fabric.

These viewpoints are in stark contradiction of the beliefs and actions of the McGuinty government. Should folks in my constituency of Scarborough—Rouge River, one of the most diverse in the country, be concerned over the development of these so-called findings?

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to thank the honourable member from Rouge River. I am aware of the findings made available by the Fraser Institute. I flatly disagree with the findings. The suggestions are absurd, narrow-focused and downright backwards. Our national identity is stronger because of immigration, our culture is more vibrant because of immigration and our social fabric is more intact because of immigration.

In Ontario, we are committed to a clear vision for newcomers, a vision that is open, inclusive and equal. We understand that immigration is fundamental to our social and economic well-being. Residents of Rouge River and communities across Ontario can rest assured that our government welcomes newcomers with open arms.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: The

article goes on to quote a James Bissett, a former executive of the Canadian Immigration Service, as saying, "Reasons with which Canada justifies its high immigration intake are simply not valid." The publication speaks for a model of a Canadian society based on a rethinking of the Canadian policy on multiculturalism: zero net immigration and limited government intervention.

It's ironic that we are having this discussion during national Citizenship Week, a week where we celebrate all the things that the findings suggest we should undermine. The Ontario I know cherishes and values the contribution of all its citizens, including newcomers. Could the minister inform the House about the work this government is undertaking to ensure that all newcomers continue to play a vital role in building our communities across Ontario and across Canada?

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to tell you who I agree with. I agree with Naomi Alboim and the Maytree Foundation. I agree with their report on fixing Canada's economic immigration policies. I agree that it is essential to grow our population base, achieve labour market growth and contribute to innovation. I agree with them that during the current economic climate, Canada needs a robust, competitive immigration system that will contribute to our society. We'll take advice from the Maytree Foundation, not from the findings or the publications of the Fraser Institute.

This is why we are investing in our newcomers and investing in new settlement services: language training, bridge training and others. Allow me to repeat: Ontario—we are open, inclusive and equal.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Premier. The McGuinty Liberals wasted a billion dollars of taxpayers' money on eHealth with nothing to show for it. But—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. The honourable member just got up to ask the question. She was not even up five seconds and the interjections were coming across the floor—and it goes both ways. I just ask that we try and be respectful to one another and allow these questions to be put.

Please continue.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: But when the public interest calls for an inquiry, Premier McGuinty calls it "gamesmanship," and acts as though he soars above the political fray. If he is as committed to the greater public interest as he says he is, then we need to see him put his money where his mouth is. My question is, how much of the billion dollars wasted in the eHealth scandal has Premier McGuinty ordered the Liberals to pay back to Ontario taxpayers?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would just ask the honourable member to withdraw that last comment, please.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Withdrawn.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I'm just one of those who believes that the facts are important, and I want to return to the facts. My colleagues opposite have difficulty accepting the findings of the auditor. But one of the things I'd ask them to turn their minds to is—there's this chart I referenced to earlier. It comes from Canada Health Infoway. They assessed the jurisdictional progress on electronic health deliverables as of March 31, 2009. They said that when it comes to the client registry in Ontario, we are 95% to 100% complete; when it comes to the diagnostic imaging system, we are 95% to 100% complete; and when it comes to clinical reports for immunization, we are 95% to 100%.

Again, I would encourage my friends to understand that there has been a tremendous amount of work done, a strong foundation has been laid, and we look forward to continuing to build on that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Well, despite what the Premier is saying, the Auditor General has indicated that hundreds of millions of tax dollars were wasted in this, with nothing to show for it. Now, the Premier has indicated that he accepts the auditor's finding that Ontario taxpayers did not receive full value for money and the untendered contracts that Minister Smitherman, Management Board, and the Premier's hand-picked CEO gave to Liberal friends, but he hasn't recovered any of that lost money. He hasn't fired Minister Smitherman for spending $837 million on what he called "a cesspool." So what is the Premier going to do to get the money wasted by Minister Smitherman back?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would just ask the honourable member to withdraw a comment that she made in the first part of her question.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Could you clarify, please?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): You left the impression that something was given to somebody. I just ask that you withdraw that.

Interjection.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I withdraw.

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I will allow my colleagues to speculate, interpret and to interpolate, but I'm going to stick with the report itself, because I think the findings in there, the specific wording, are really important. With respect to the work done, I want to repeat the finding of the auditor. He said that when it comes to the network and the two data centres that underpin the electronic health record, as of December 2008, the data centres housed an estimated 1,300 servers and the network connected some 3,500 clients.

Clients include all of Ontario's public hospitals, public health units, community care access centres, retail chain pharmacies, many of the province's continuing care organizations and some physician offices.

Again, the facts are—I'm not interpreting, and I'm not speculating; I'm just sticking to the report—we have laid a strong part of the foundations when it comes to the Ontario health record.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is again to the Minister of Finance. All across this province, frustrated Ontario drivers are up in arms. At the same time that many are getting double-digit increases in their premiums, it appears that this government is going to cave to powerful insurance insiders and slash insurance payouts for non-catastrophic injuries by 75%.

Minister, when will this government stop caving in to every demand of the private auto insurance industry, draw the line on rate increases and fundamentally rethink a system that every driver and every consumer knows just doesn't work?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We will be introducing a number of reforms very shortly as a result of the five-year review of auto insurance premiums.

There's no doubt that consumers are concerned about recent increases, as is the government. It's an important issue for many people. They have to have insurance; we compel them to. It's incumbent on us to provide the right regulatory climate. I remind the member opposite that premiums do remain below where they were when we took office. We are working hard to ensure that, moving forward, we continue to ensure the proper regulatory climate and the proper industry situation to ensure that people who purchase auto insurance continue to benefit from rates that don't go up beyond the rate of inflation. I'll be bringing those changes forward very shortly.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: I'm glad the minister wants to bring them forward because he promised to bring them forward in June, in July, in September, and we're now mostly finished October.

Here are the facts: Double-digit rate increases are hitting drivers province-wide, and for some Toronto-area drivers, rate increases could total 30% or more—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just ask the honourable member from Essex—I believe that came from him—to withdraw his comment.

Mr. Bruce Crozier: I'll withdraw that.

Mr. Michael Prue: Any day now, this government will cave to insurance-industry pressure to reduce the cap on medical and rehabilitation costs for non-catastrophic injuries to $25,000 from $100,000.

Minister, it doesn't have to be this way. There are—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I didn't hear where that comment came from, but it's not appropriate to continue to throw comments like that across.

Please continue.

Mr. Michael Prue: Minister, it doesn't have to be this way; there are other options available. Will this government launch a full-scale review of Ontario's badly broken auto insurance system? Will it take a serious look at the public auto option that has so successfully served the drivers of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, BC and Quebec for decades?

Interjection.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: As rich as it is to respond to that, I want to begin by acknowledging how important insurance premiums are to working families. That's why we have worked hard to keep them down, and that's why we will be bringing forward a package shortly that we believe will assist in that.

These are always challenges, as the member knows full well. Even his own government pledged to do public insurance then backed down on that. He'll also remember that premiums went up 20% between 1993 and 1995. He'll know that they increased premiums three times when they were in office. They abandoned the commitment on public auto insurance for a variety of reasons.

This is always a challenging issue. This government, this party, remains on the side of working families. We'll do our best to help them manage their auto insurance premiums so that they can continue to be affordable.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My question is for the Minister of Research and Innovation. The high-tech economy and creating good jobs in the technology sector are incredibly important in my community of Ottawa and to my constituents of Ottawa Centre. Not only is this a major regional industry and employer for our community, but it is also exactly the type of industry we need to foster in Ontario for the 21st century. New technologies and applications will revolutionize the way our lives and our commerce are conducted. There is a huge amount of economic gain to be had if Ontario is at the forefront of that enormous new market.

Minister, I know you understand the absolute necessity of our economy embracing the 21st century, and I know you are working hard to ensure we, as a government, make smart investments in emerging technologies and the high-tech sector for Ontario's future prosperity and competitiveness. Could you tell my constituents what we are doing to make sure that Ottawa and Ontario are at the forefront of the new innovation-based economy?

Hon. John Milloy: I was very pleased a number of weeks ago to join my colleague the Minister of Economic Development and Trade at a round table with leaders of the high-tech community in Ottawa that was organized by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and his other caucus colleagues. At the end of the session, I was pleased to help announce $9.3 million to support a $44-million initiative called the Coral CEA. The Coral CEA will support Ontario companies that want to compete for part of the growing demand for a technology known as communication-enabled applications, or, as they're known in a short form, CEAs.

This initiative is expected to create 200 new high-tech jobs and strengthen Ottawa's technology community. CEAs are software applications that enable different technologies to communicate with each other, potentially creating smart systems that can analyze information—

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

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My supplementary is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Minister, you might know that for decades now, Ottawa has been referred to by the high-tech industry and proud residents alike as Silicon Valley North. This nickname is a tribute to our talented and innovative technology sector, which has historically rivalled the best technology clusters in the world. Above all, my community wants to ensure that we will continue to thrive as one of the top jurisdictions for companies and entrepreneurs to create, develop and produce the things the modern world wants and needs.

But many in my community are concerned. We are worried that the technology industry in Ottawa is facing decline. With the demise of Nortel, which had been one of the cornerstones of the Ottawa technology foundation, the perception is only growing that perhaps the best days are behind us. Minister, what is our government doing in light of these challenges to ensure Ottawa continues to be known the world over as Silicon Valley North?

Hon. John Milloy: Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I very much appreciate the question. This member also knows that we participated in the microelectronics conference in Ottawa again this past Friday. It is heartening to see these companies, many of them Ottawa-based, which are thriving, which are recognizing that our challenges are of a global nature. That means we have to take on the world.

The Ontario government is there to reach out and help them to do this. We are giving them significant business tax relief, and have been doing so for the last three years. In addition, we're helping with some incentive programs that our IT sector is taking advantage of. So 284,000 people working in this sector across Ontario have much to look forward to, because our cluster for IT, against all of North America, is the third largest, and we're moving up.

MUNICIPAL FUNDING

Mr. Bill Murdoch: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It has been brought to my attention that next year you're going to fully implement the OMPF grant that was designed about three or four years ago, where the Minister of Municipal Affairs has always topped up the municipalities that were going to be affected. A lot of them in rural and northern Ontario were going to be devastated, some with an up to 20% increase in their taxes. Now it has been brought to our attention that next year you will be implementing this fully.

I want to remind the minister that it's his job to protect the municipalities, to keep them away from the Ministry of Finance. Also, it's not up to the municipalities to pay for the $1-billion boondoggle.

My question to the minister is, will he leave it alone next year and top it up again and then phase it in over five years? A lot of municipalities have asked you to do that. Will you do that, Minister?

Hon. Jim Watson: I'm happy to take the question, and I thank the honourable member for the question.

The Ontario municipal partnership fund, or OMPF, does fall under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance, but I can confirm to the honourable member that in 2009 we provided $949 million through OMPF grants and also as a result of the uploading of the Ontario drug plan and the administrative costs of the Ontario disability support program. This combined benefit is a $105-million, or 12%, increase over 2007's OMPF grant and a $330-million, or 53%, increase over the old community reinvestment fund. I think many of us who served in municipal government remember the old CRF—it was not fair or transparent.

The OMPF is much more transparent and more understandable to the municipal sector. We've been there to help the municipal sector in the past, and we look forward to working with them in the future.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is obviously also for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing respecting the ending of the mitigation funding as well. We don't need a mathematical dissertation; we need an answer.

In my riding, in the county of Renfrew nine municipalities will take a hit totalling over $4 million if this issue is not resolved. As one example, the township of Admaston/Bromley, with a total tax levy of $864,000 will lose $268,000 if this issue is not addressed. This is not new to the minister. AMO and the Eastern Ontario Wardens' Caucus and the county of Renfrew have written you, the Minister of Finance and the Premier to no avail.

This situation is unacceptable. It will leave municipalities bankrupt. Will you commit to postponing these changes until a fair and equitable arrangement can be made with municipalities and not leave them hanging by a thread as a result of your mismanagement?

Hon. Jim Watson: I think every member of this Legislative Assembly will acknowledge the work that this government has done to increase funding for every municipality across the province of Ontario. As a result of the uploads for which our government signed an agreement with AMO and the city of Toronto a year ago this month, Renfrew will be ahead by $5.9 million, net dollars.

Every single year for the last four years, we have committed to mitigation funding, but when we signed the AMO agreement a year ago this year, we committed to one more year of mitigation, and the Minister of Finance undertook that he would do a review in conjunction with AMO. That review is being undertaken now.

But I can tell you also that in the honourable member's riding, the city of Pembroke will be ahead $2.6 million. So there is more money going to the municipal sector. We're proud to partner with them, and we look forward to working with them in the future.

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Minister of Education. My niece is here with her classmates from A. M. Cunningham school in Hamilton. Her name is Sarah Benvenuti.

Today is early childhood education appreciation day, as most members in this chamber know, and it's an ideal day to hear more about the government's timetable for implementing full-day learning for children in Ontario.

Will the minister assure us today that the McGuinty government will fully implement all the recommendations in Dr. Pascal's report and tell us when we might be able to expect her announcement in this regard, or will it fall victim to a new round of government belt-tightening?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to welcome all the students here today. It's wonderful to have you in the chamber.

I want to assure everyone that we are committed to implementing full-day programming for four-year-olds and five-year-olds. We've been very, very clear about that. It's a huge opportunity to make sure that our youngest students get the enriched environment they need, that we have the best learning resources available for them.

We know that, given the economic circumstances, we may not be able to do everything at once, but what we also know is that the education sector and parents and the community know that moving on this is more important than an ideological rigidity about complete implementation instantly. What's important is that we get started and we make sure that children in this province have the resources they need—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I'm sure Charles will be happy to know that you think he's an ideologue, Minister. The minister's response does nothing to build confidence in the government's commitment to full implementation of Dr. Pascal's report. Parents and educators, child care providers and school boards all want to know when the government will announce the full rollout of all the recommendations in the Pascal report. We, for one group in this Legislature, actually believe they deserve an answer.

With all the government talk of cuts and belt-tightening, will this minister also commit to maintaining the stability of Ontario's existing not-for-profit child care centres as the implementation proceeds?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We're going to begin rolling out the full-day learning for four- and five-year-olds in September 2010. We are committed to that; that's what we're going to do. I just have to say that it has been known for a very long time that early childhood education is very important and that the education system needs to be involved.

We have done more for education in the six years—it seems to me that the party opposite was in office at a time when it was clear that early childhood education was important, and this program was not implemented. We're going to begin September 2010. We've been very clear about that and we're working closely with the child care sector. I've been working with Minister Matthews before and Minister Broten now; we're very cognizant that the education system and the child care system need to be working together. We're going to start in September 2010. It is a great opportunity for Ontario.

TOURISM

Mr. David Zimmer: My question is for the Minister of Tourism. The economic downturn is a huge concern for tourist operators in the province and the GTA. Tourism has its own very special set of economic challenges which affect the province and the city of Toronto. Fewer US travellers visited the province because of the fluctuating dollar, the state of the economy and confusion over passport requirements. Minister, what are we doing to help this vital industry here in Ontario and the GTA?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I want to thank the member for Willowdale. As he mentioned, our tourism sector across Canada has faced a number of challenges over the past few years, including the high dollar and the economic downturn worldwide. At the same time, our government has recognized the importance of tourism and we've continued to invest in tourism opportunities across the province.

A few weeks ago I attend the Scotiabank Nuit Blanche Pre-Nuit, which was an event here in Toronto. I am pleased that the McGuinty government has invested $350,000 to help Scotiabank Nuit Blanche enhance and market their event. This free event, which took place over the weekend of October 4, featured three exhibition zones across Toronto. It hosted 130 projects and included close to 500 artists. Supporting innovative events like Nuit Blanche helps to bring creativity to a community and attract people to visit that community.

Our festivals and events across the province are invigorating local economies. Tourism is an important job creator and economic driver in communities across the province and I think that our government will continue—

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

Mr. David Zimmer: Nuit Blanche is one of the many signature events held in Toronto each year. It's been taking place in Toronto since 2006. In fact, it was the first of its kind in North America. It's a substantial tourist draw to Toronto and shines a cultural light on tourism in this area. Minister, what is the specific economic impact of this event for Toronto and the GTA?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: As I spoke of earlier, tourism is an important job creator and economic driver for the province. In 2007, tourists spent over $22 billion in Ontario, which translates to approximately 300,000 direct and indirect jobs in our province. I'm proud that, through our investment in Nuit Blanche this year, we've seen an expansion of Nuit Blanche, which was founded in 2006 here in Toronto. This event fills hotel rooms, increases spending in restaurants and businesses, and attracts many visitors to the city. Last year alone, over 800,000 people attended the event.

Of these, over 100,000 were visitors from outside of the GTA. This year, attendance is estimated at over 900,000 and the economic impact for the city of Toronto is estimated to be over $16.5 million.

By working together with our partners in the industry and investing in festivals and events like Nuit Blanche, we can position tourism to become an even more important economic driver for future growth and prosperity in Toronto and—

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

SEWAGE TREATMENT

Mrs. Julia Munro: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. The Pefferlaw Post has reported that Sibbald Point Provincial Park is spraying effluent from their sewage lagoon on parkland only metres from Lake Simcoe. The Ministry of the Environment district office told the Post they "have never inspected the facility." No one at the Ministry of the Environment or Natural Resources or the park could even say how many litres are being sprayed.

Minister, why are you allowing this to happen? Is this consistent with the Lake Simcoe Protection Act?

Hon. John Gerretsen: As the member well knows when she first made me aware of this issue a couple of days ago, we looked into it right away. As a matter of fact, I forwarded to her right in this chamber the note that I got on it so that she could be fully aware of the situation there.

It's my understanding that the certificate of approval that was given with respect to the pond is currently being looked at. It was issued back in 1972 for the operation of a sewage lagoon treatment system. The ministry is looking into this situation, it will continue to monitor the situation, and we will do whatever we can to make sure that the health and welfare of the people, not only in this area but particularly in Sibbald Point, are protected in the best way that we know how.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Julia Munro: Is this practice common to all provincial parks?

Hon. John Gerretsen: I'm sorry, I didn't get the question.

Mrs. Julia Munro: Is this practice common to all provincial parks?

Hon. John Gerretsen: I'll refer that to the Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: I'm more than pleased to be able to respond. It would depend on the location of the park. Obviously, where there are water treatment facilities, where there is sewer and water, then we have a different system in place. Again, it would depend. I'm more than happy to give the member different parks with different processes.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. Premier, you're aware that Buy Local is in danger. There are ongoing trade negotiations happening behind closed doors that may well close the door to local purchasing requirements. Will you commit to opposing any trade deal that undermines local requirements?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: We certainly appreciate the question. It's a concern to all of us in Ontario, the province in this nation that is the most affected by what we see is clearly a buy-American plan by the municipalities and states south of our border.

What's really important for people to note is that all of the provinces have come together in a historic fashion very quickly to be able to parcel together a package that our federal government can put on the table with the Americans, to suggest that we sit down and have negotiations so that we can undo some of this buy-American pattern.

We are suffering as a result. Our businesses here in Ontario have lost valuable contracts. It's important that we take a step forward to say that we're prepared to negotiate, that we want to have that special relationship restored with our American friends, because when they do business with an Ontario company, it's good for their business.

DEFERRED VOTES

MINING AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES MINES

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 173,

An Act to amend the Mining Act / Projet de loi 173, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les mines.

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

The division bells rang from 1138 to 1143.

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

Ayes

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

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 57; the nays are 31.

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

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

Third reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): There being no further business, this House stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1146 to 1500.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I'd like to welcome Marilyn Reid. She's the regional director of the Canadian Hearing Society in London. She is with us here somewhere in the gallery.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CANADIAN HEARING SOCIETY

Ms. Sylvia Jones: It is my pleasure to welcome to Queen's Park today the Canadian Hearing Society. The society was founded in 1940 and has since become the leading provider of services, products and information that remove barriers to communication, advance hearing health and promote equity for people who are culturally deaf, oral deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing.

The Canadian Hearing Society strives daily to educate the public about their organization, and earlier today they were able to share with MPPs and our staff CHS's ideal vision: a society where people are respected, have full access to communication and are able to participate without social, economic or emotional barriers.

To realize their vision, the Canadian Hearing Society offers a number of services across the country that include audiology, hearing aid fittings and dispensing. In addition, they also offer programs in seniors' outreach, mental health and addiction counselling, sign language

interpretation and language development programs for children, just to name a few. These services are a tremendous asset not only to clients of the Canadian Hearing Society but to their family and friends as well.

Without the dedication of staff and volunteers, the Canadian Hearing Society would not be the thriving, successful organization that it is today. On behalf of the many families and individuals who have a better quality of life in Ontario because of your work, I thank you.

MARK BOILEAU

Mr. Jim Brownell: My riding of Stormont-Dundas-South Glengarry is blessed with outstanding individuals and families who are passionate about their communities and who work continuously to strengthen the urban and rural fibre of those communities. The Economic Developer of the Year Award is presented annually by the Ontario East Economic Development Commission and is determined through a nomination process among economic development officers from across eastern Ontario. The award recognizes those individuals in economic development who go above and beyond their work to attract businesses and investment and retain businesses.

This year, the award was presented to Mark Boileau, manager of the city of Cornwall's economic development department. Mr. Boileau's advocacy and hard work in economic development is certainly recognized with this award. Mr. Boileau is the second economic developer from Cornwall to win the award, as founding Ontario east member Paul Fitzpatrick has also been honoured in the past.

Mark Boileau is an outstanding example of excellence in his profession. He has been an active member of the Ontario East Economic Development Commission and a strong advocate for Cornwall and area. In the past year alone, he has helped secure a major distribution centre for Cornwall and eastern Ontario.

It is with great pride that I recognize today the great accomplishments and the contribution of Mark Boileau to his city. Cornwall is certainly a better place for his work, and I thank him, and the community thanks him, for his involvement with economic development.

SMALL BUSINESS WEEK

Mr. John O'Toole: Canadians celebrate, from October 18 to 24, Small Business Week.

I'm proud of the accomplishments of small business in my riding of Durham and the organizations that enable small businesses to help each other in our communities: the Clarington Board of Trade, for instance—Elaine Garnett is the president and Sheila Hall is the administrative person; Uxbridge Chamber of Commerce, with Ian Giffin—I spoke to them a week or so ago; Scugog Chamber of Commerce—Tony Janssen is president; the Bowmanville BIA, the business improvement area—Edgar Lucas is currently the chair and Garth Gilpin is the administrative assistant there; Uxbridge and Area Networking Group, a innovative group of young business operators, many home-based—Annie Hardock is the chair; the Newcastle and District