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

December 3, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Dec-03 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 3 December 2009 Jeudi 3 décembre 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT (GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS TRADING), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

LA PROTECTION DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT (ÉCHANGE DE DROITS D'ÉMISSION

DE GAZ À EFFET DE SERRE)

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBER'S BIRTHDAY

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

TAXATION

TAXATION

AGENCY SPENDING

TAXATION

CANCER TREATMENT

TAXATION

ABORIGINAL CHILDREN'S SERVICES

FOREST INDUSTRY

TAXATION

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

INJURED WORKERS

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

DEFERRED VOTES

GOOD GOVERNMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA SAINE

GESTION PUBLIQUE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TAXATION

JOHN LENNON

TAXATION

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

OVER 55

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

DURHAM CONSOLIDATED COURTHOUSE

VALERIE HUNT

DAY OF REMEMBRANCE AND ACTION

ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN /

JOURNÉE DE COMMÉMORATION

ET D'ACTION CONTRE LA VIOLENCE

FAITE AUX FEMMES

PETITIONS

TAXATION

TAXATION

HISPANIC COMMUNITY

TAXATION

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

CANCER TREATMENT

TAXATION

HISPANIC COMMUNITY

PENSION PLANS

HISPANIC COMMUNITY

TAXATION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

TAXATION

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

HISPANIC COMMUNITY

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(SENIOR DRIVER'S

CONDITIONAL LICENCE), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(PERMIS DE CONDUIRE RESTREINT

POUR PERSONNE ÂGÉ

E) FIRE PROTECTION

AND PREVENTION

AMENDMENT ACT (FIRE SPRINKLER

RETROFITTING), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PRÉVENTION

ET LA PROTECTION CONTRE L'INCENDIE

(INSTALLATION RÉTROACTIVE

D'EXTINCTEURS AUTOMATIQUES)

HISPANIC COMMUNITY

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(SENIOR DRIVER'S

CONDITIONAL LICENCE), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(PERMIS DE CONDUIRE RESTREINT

POUR PERSONNE ÂGÉ

E) FIRE PROTECTION

AND PREVENTION

AMENDMENT ACT (FIRE SPRINKLER

RETROFITTING), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PRÉVENTION

ET LA PROTECTION CONTRE L'INCENDIE

(INSTALLATION RÉTROACTIVE

D'EXTINCTEURS AUTOMATIQUES)

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT (GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS TRADING), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

LA PROTECTION DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT (ÉCHANGE DE DROITS D'ÉMISSION

DE GAZ À EFFET DE SERRE)

Mr. Gerretsen moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 185,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act with respect to greenhouse gas emissions trading and other economic and financial instruments and market-based approaches / Projet de loi 185, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection de l'environnement en ce qui concerne l'échange de droits d'émission de gaz à effet de serre ainsi que d'autres instruments économiques et financiers et approches axées sur le marché.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate?

Hon. John Gerretsen: Before beginning a few comments on this bill, let me just thank all of the members who have been involved on the various committees that have been working on this for their positive input, because this is a very important bill as we move forward in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

Bill 185 is a critical piece of legislation that, if passed, would allow us to create a fair and broad cap-and-trade system for Ontario that could link to other emerging North American systems. It would help us reach the ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets in our climate action plan that was produced some three or four years ago. That is 6% below the 1990 levels by 2014, and a 15% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. It would help establish Ontario as a competitive player in the lower-carbon world that is bound to come.

Ontario is demonstrating leadership by taking concrete action now to combat climate change: by phasing out coal, as we're doing by 2014; making landmark investments in green energy through the Green Energy and Green Economy Act; transit–over $10 billion of investment over the next number of years; and working with other forward-thinking jurisdictions to develop a cap-and-trade system.

Just yesterday, I tabled our government's climate change action plan 2008-09 annual report, which shows the significant progress Ontario is making in cutting our greenhouse gas emissions. I should thank some of the environmental groups that came out in favour of the plan that was filed yesterday.

As part of our memorandum of understanding signed in 2008, Ontario and Quebec are working on the design and implementation of a system in conjunction with the Western Climate Initiative. We need to implement this system that would ensure broad access to trading, establish a level playing field for industry and help protect us from the risks of potential border measures on Ontario exports, particularly into the United States.

Just this week, we put in place a greenhouse gas reporting regulation, a vital step toward the implementation of a cap-and-trade system. All companies that are emitting more than 25 megatons per year have to start reporting in 2010. The reporting requirements are compatible with the new US reporting rules. While the federal government has indicated that it would align with the US and is waiting for US legislation, we are actively engaging our US counterparts—states such as California—to inform the development of a consistent approach.

An effective cap-and-trade system must exist within a harmonized and broader North American context. We have been consulting broadly over the last year to ensure that we have a cap-and-trade system that can link with the other emerging systems. I would like to take a moment once again to thank everyone who responded for their contributions, including all honourable colleagues on both sides of the House, particularly those who have been involved with the committee work.

We consistently heard that auction revenues from cap and trade should be used to support greenhouse gas reductions in sectors covered under the system. We are looking at providing support to capped sectors through a greenhouse gas reduction account to be set up by using revenues generated through a cap-and-trade system from the auctioning of credits. This would build a stronger and greener economy through support for transformative technology. The resulting innovations would mean reduced greenhouse gas emissions and the creation of new jobs, and would help boost our global competitiveness.

If the bill is passed, it would also provide the flexibility to identify additional greenhouse gases. This would mean that we would adapt to evolving signs and new cap-and-trade developments that may occur in the US and around the world over time. Given the current lack of progress on the federal front, it is more important than ever that we continue to move forward with purpose and concrete action to reduce our greenhouse gases in Ontario.

We are serious about fighting climate change while building a strong, greener economy for this province. We are serious about showing real leadership to deliver Ontario's progressive reduction targets. Our government is confident that a fair and equitable cap-and-trade system would help us achieve our goal of sustainable prosperity for generations to come. This is legislation I'm very proud of, and I think the government and all of us can be proud of it. I urge all members to offer their full support.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate? The honourable member for Oxford.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I stand to address this government made-for-TV—and not much more—answer to climate change. While the calendar has changed and the committee deliberations have concluded, not much has changed with Bill 185.

Before I get into the problems with this bill, I want to make it clear that I support, and our caucus supports, protecting our environment. As someone with an agricultural background, I know very well the relationship we have with our land and how much we depend on it for our survival. As someone with grandchildren, I want to ensure that we are protecting the environment for them and their grandchildren.

That is why I think it's a sad day today that we can only get 15 minutes per party to talk about this important issue. I think it's a shame that the government is so busy trying to rush things through this Legislature that they can't wait to make sure they have the bills right. In fact, because they introduced a time allocation motion earlier this week, we had a day of debate on whether we would be able to debate this bill, instead of spending that day debating this bill. Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you will agree that talking about whether you are allowed to continue the debate is not the best way to spend your time.

I'm sure you are aware that as we are considering this proposal of cap and trade, Denmark will be hosting leaders from across the world to discuss the global approach. Indeed, Denmark's Prime Minister raised the stakes for next month's United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen by inviting 191 world leaders, including President Obama and Prime Minister Stephen Harper, to attend. Will Minister Gerretsen and the Premier be attending to put forward Ontario's plan to solve this international problem?

Hon. John Gerretsen: Yes.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Thank you, Minister.

The decision to invite the leaders from across the globe comes at a time when the summit's original goal of forging a broad global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions appears to be in jeopardy, officials say.

"Your personal attendance is a pivotal contribution to a successful outcome," Danish Prime Minister Lars Rasmussen, who is hosting the December 7 to 18 summit, said in a letter to the heads of state.

Negotiations prior to the summit have been deadlocked over several issues, such as how much rich countries should pay poor ones to help them adapt their economies to pollute less. Negotiators have been working to draft an agreement to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012.

Whatever the outcome, we need to remember that while we need to do our part provincially, what really is needed is global answers to a global problem. And as I said, we only have a short time today to discuss this bill and what this province proposes to do about emissions in Ontario through cap and trade.

Here is how a cap-and-trade program works; in this case, we'll use the power plant example. First, the amount of allowable carbon emissions for power plants above a certain size threshold is decided based on emissions in previous years—that's the cap.

The government—nationally, provincially or regionally—issues allowances, each of which would cover one metric tonne of emissions of a particular pollutant, in this case carbon. Plants would measure and report their emissions annually, then surrender enough allowances to cover those emissions.

Cap and trade contrasts traditional command-and-control systems, involves specific rules and regulations on the amount of pollutants a plant could emit, and could be as specific as the amount per hour.

Companies would get those allowances based on a specific formula for the pollutant and comply with the regulations in a number of ways. They could reduce emissions by installing technology, cut the utilization of a unit or burn a cleaner fuel. Regardless, the companies have to have allowances to cover their emissions. If they are still needed, they can turn to the marketplace and buy allowances from someone else. That is the trade.

In basic terms, the underlying economic theory in cap and trade is to make it more expensive to emit pollutants. Here in Ontario, Hugh MacLeod, climate change secretariat, gave a brief synopsis to the committee on this province's approach—an approach that is furthered by Bill 185.

"In 2007, the government introduced Ontario's climate change action plan as the framework for action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The action plan established the following global greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets: 6% below 1990 levels by 2014—the 1990 baseline is in keeping with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change; 15% below 1990 levels by 2020; and 80% below the 1990 levels by 2050. These GHG reduction targets signal Ontario's strong commitment to taking real, measurable action to reduce greenhouse emissions."

I will tell you that south of the border, where similar cap-and-trade plans and debate are occurring, there are issues that this government seems to be ignoring. Both US industry and consumers are rightly concerned, cost being the main factor, about what it will do to the already struggling overall economy.

A US Treasury document indicates that not only could cap and trade cost $300 billion annually, but domestic policies to address climate change and the related issues of energy security and affordability will involve significant cost and potential revenues, possibly up to several percentage points of the annual GDP—$300 billion and several percentage points of the annual GDP. While the government may tell you otherwise, the cap and trade certainly comes at a significant cost.

As for the American consumer, "The US Treasury Department admits that a 'cap-and-trade' system for regulating greenhouse gas emissions could cost every household $1,761 a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15.%." I just point out that's also approximately the same average it will cost the average Ontario family for the HST.

In West Virginia, Governor Joe Manchin is worried about the hit his coal-rich state will take if the price of allowances gets too high. "A $20 to $30 cost of allowance could double the price of coal per ton, putting coal-fired plants at a competitive disadvantage," he said.

A much lower amount for CO 2 emissions, such as $5 or $6 per ton, would mitigate the hit to consumers and the overall economy. "If the rest of the world doesn't follow suit, their energy is going to be much cheaper, especially the coal-fired units that are in China and India and all these developing nations." Higher energy costs locally, cheaper manufacturing costs to an already taxed sector in a downturn: Governor Manchin is concerned that "we're going to lose more jobs," and I think we should be concerned about that in Ontario. Further, in Manchin's West Virginia there are concerns that increases in energy costs under cap and trade will impact expenditures throughout the state.

We should all be concerned in the way we approach this. Many are saying, "Just what will the economic impact be to Ontario?" We continue to ask, and we continue to receive no answers. During the committee meetings, Mr. Barrett attempted to introduce amendments to ensure that the plan is costed before moving forward, and again we were denied. This government never seems to want to talk about cost. That's how we wind up with a $24.7-billion deficit. My question again is: What are the costs; what is the impact of this on Ontario?

In the meantime, as Ontario, and indeed US, lawmakers work on the details of cap-and-trade carbon dioxide legislation, they need to know what Europeans already know: When trying to slow down global warming, beware of unintended consequences.

Consider the example of Kollo Holding's factory in the Netherlands. A silicone carbide maker, they used the waste gases to generate energy and installed the latest pollution control equipment. But Europe's emission program has driven electricity prices so high that the facility routinely shuts down for part of the day to save money on power. The plant has laid off 40 of its 130 employees and trimmed production. Two customers have turned to cheaper imports from China.

They aren't the only ones suffering. French cement workers fear they are going to lose their jobs to Monaco. German homeowners pay 25% more for electricity than they did before the caps. In the meantime, because of lobbying by well-connected companies, the EU's limits on emissions ended up being higher than the actual emissions. As a result, fewer companies than expected had to buy emissions credits and the price of carbon allowances, which had topped $30 per tonne of carbon in 2006, crashed to about $1 per tonne in 2007.

Germany boasts that it has cut emissions to 18.4% below 1990 levels, but nearly half that reduction was because of sagging industrial output. I hear similar boasting of emissions reductions in Ontario, and I fear there are few on the other side of the House who understand that most of that reduction reflects reductions in jobs and industry itself. It's easy to cut your emissions when you are losing your manufacturing sector to a failing economy.

In a report entitled The Expensive Failure of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme, the TaxPayers' Alliance spells out a foreboding story of what could go wrong if we tread the wrong path. The report indicates that the European Union emissions trading scheme, introduced in January 2005 as the centrepiece of the European Union policy response to the threat of climate change, is the largest cap-and-trade scheme in the world, covering over 11,500 installations across all the member states and Norway.

Again, as in North American cap-and-trade schemes, the theory behind the scheme is simple: A limit is placed on the amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted in total, and firms are then allowed to trade the right to emit, which produces an effective price on emissions. It should mean that reductions take place where it is most affordable to do so.

However, as the Europeans have learned, things have been far more complex in practice. There have been disputes, some reaching the European court of justice, over the national application plans drawn up by the different countries, which have to set out the right level of emissions for the thousands of installations covered by the scheme.

The emissions price has been so volatile that energy companies and environmentalists have called for intervention to put in place a minimum price. There has been concern that energy companies have reaped billions in windfall profits. Most importantly, the scheme appears to have imposed a substantial bill on consumers and manufacturing industries. The emissions price has rapidly fallen by a third or more a number of times since the ETS was put in place in 2005.

"In 2005, the price fell from €29 per tonne on 11 July to €18 per tonne on 22 July." It eventually declined effectively to zero for much of phase 1, falling below €1 per tonne in February 2007 and then continuing to decline. "This complete collapse in the price has been attributed to many of the participating countries allocating an excessive number of allowances...." This price tracking is courtesy of Matthew Sinclair of the British TaxPayers' Alliance.

"This substantial volatility in the emissions price has important consequences:

"It makes it harder for firms and families to effectively manage their affairs as it makes their costs less predictable" and expensive.

It also "weakens the incentive produced by the carbon price to make investments that reduce emissions ... 'Wild fluctuations create a risk that deters some investors altogether and makes others demand a significant risk premium, putting up the price of capital.'"

But "fixing the price would call into question the entire point of the trading scheme."

While volatility in the price has so far taken the form of collapses, thay say there is no reason to think that similar volatility cannot take the form of a sharp increase in the price.

Meanwhile, another problem that has emerged is that, as seen in the European example, "energy companies make windfall profits" under the emission trading schemes while the little people suffer. The bottom line is, as the TaxPayers' Alliance tells us: "It is increasingly clear that the ETS just isn't working. The carbon price is so volatile that energy companies and environmentalists are calling for it to be fixed while ordinary families and manufacturing firms have to cope with the unpredictable addition to their energy bills. Windfall profits for energy companies are paid for by the poor and the elderly.

We estimate that the total bill to consumers across Europe has been between €46 billion and €116 billion" since this scheme started, "with British families paying more than £117 in 2008. As the permits are increasingly auctioned, that will just mean that the scheme is another tax, and a regressive one, supporting excess public spending."

The report goes on to conclude that "policy in this area is clearly a long way from serving the interests of ordinary families, who are paying a high price for such a flawed attempt to cut emissions. Their money is even spent on legal fights in the European court of justice to tighten the scheme and increase their electricity bills further."

While we consider this government's completely inadequate and costly remedy for an international problem, it's important that we consider the actions of the international community. We have mentioned the upcoming Copenhagen meeting, the US concerns and the European experience. What of the so-called BRIC group of countries—Brazil, Russia, India and China? Well, the BRIC is expected to overtake the rich countries in primary energy consumption by 2030.

Given the fact that particularly the latter three are already some of the greatest utilizers of fossil fuels, with little in the way of emission reduction technology, our provincial attempts will unfortunately have little impact other than to force our industries to move out of Ontario to somewhere else with fewer environmental controls.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: What we have before us today is a tag-along bill, a weaker, paler version of initiatives that have been taken in other countries. I know that the Minister of the Environment, when he introduced this bill, talked about Ontario leading the way. Well, for a jurisdiction that's leading the way, it has been made very clear that we aren't going to have anything solid in place until we see what everyone else is doing, and then we may or may not throw in our own two cents.

This is a bill that has no reduction targets. It doesn't show what the percentage reduction in emissions from industrial emitters will be. It does not have a target for total megatons of reduction in greenhouse gases. It is a free-floating empty vessel, and frankly, we need an awful lot more than that.

When I talked about this the other day in the Legislature, the minister seemed to take some umbrage with the idea that he didn't have targets. Well, frankly, yesterday in a little-noticed, little-heralded report on greenhouse gas emissions—this government's climate change policy—if you turn in that document to the page that talks about cap and trade, there is no target for achievements in reduction from this particular policy initiative.

That report, by the way, was released in the morning. The Premier didn't talk about it in his scrum. There was no question planted in the House by a backbencher to ask the minister what exactly had been achieved, what wonders had been brought forth on this earth by the Liberal government. There was no ministerial statement heralding the groundbreaking, epic-making steps that this government had taken. What we had, really, was a document that was released in as quiet a manner as possible. I guess the reality is they could have released it on Christmas Eve and buried it even more deeply.

This report is an orphan, and frankly it is no surprise that the report is an orphan. If you read it, the government is saying very plainly that the policies it has in place today will not allow it to achieve the targets that it has proclaimed it will be taking on to deal with climate change. An announcement that you're not meeting your targets, that you don't have the pieces in place to meet your targets, is of consequence.

The bill before us, the cap-and-trade bill, has very significant loopholes in it that are of consequence to this province, to this country and to the people of this world. One of the items in it is a provision for offsets, a way for polluters to buy permission slips so that they can continue polluting. Substantially, significantly, both the Pembina Institute and the David Suzuki Foundation, when speaking about this legislation, when writing about this legislation, said that there should not be offsets and if they did exist that they had to be an extraordinarily minor part of the operation. That is not in this legislation. Offsets are given free rein.

Frankly, if this government's intention is to follow the Waxman-Markey bill in the United States, the American cap-and-trade legislation, then the reality of analysis there is that the emissions, the pollution, from fossil fuel burners in that country will continue unabated at current rates till 2020; that in fact that bill will have very little impact on actual emissions from that country, and permission slips will be handed out at a tremendous rate.

This bill does not block the issuance of free credits to companies, and the reality we've seen in other jurisdictions is that issuance of those free credits has led to some companies securing windfall profits at the expense of the environment and at the expense of the economy. That was not set aside in this legislation. This legislation did not embrace a regime in which all credits had to be auctioned, a substantial weakness and failing in this bill.

One of the points I raised in the course of the clause-by-clause was prohibiting Ontario Power Generation from selling the credits that it might realize by reducing its coal operations.

I wanted that to be touched on because that, as a centrepiece of this government's actions, may well be—and it's not clear yet that it is—used to sell credits to other jurisdictions so that their coal plants can continue to go full out while we here in Ontario deal with a government that will say it has acted in the greatest of virtue and shut down or reduced its coal emissions, while at the same time making sure that other jurisdictions can proceed undaunted, having gotten permission slips from the principal here in Ontario.

What we have before us is a package into which the government may pour just about any regulation that it likes; a package that does not have a target for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, does not have requirements that it will actually reduce the consumption of fossil fuels; a package that does not deal with the necessity of funding the transformation of our economy by making sure that workers whose jobs may change or may go get the sorts of support for just transition into other employment.

This is a package that does not provide for funding for those people whose livelihoods have been disrupted or, in some cases, changed radically by the impact of climate change itself. And that is of consequence.

I ask this government to come forward with a package that will actually make the difference that is needed in this country, in this province. We may well vote for this legislation, but I can't say we do it with any enthusiasm whatsoever.

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

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I'm pleased to join in third reading debate on Bill 185, the proposed Environmental Protection Amendment Act (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading). I'm proud to stand in support of this bill, which builds on the concrete action the McGuinty government is taking to reduce greenhouse gases and combat climate change.

During the many years I was the medical officer of health for York region, I became really alarmed about the health problems, particularly the increased incidence of childhood asthma and premature deaths, resulting from air pollution that had been so well documented in our province by the Ontario Medical Association.

Globally, we have seen the rise of certain infectious diseases, and our current scientists and health professionals believe it's directly linked to our changing environment. We must move quickly if we are going to reverse the already noticeable and potentially catastrophic effects of global warming. Too many incidents of extreme weather, the ongoing destruction of ecosystems and the retreat of glaciers have served as clear warnings of the frightening consequences of maintaining the status quo. As a parent, I'm deeply concerned about the kind of world my children and their children will inherit.

I'm encouraged by the leadership Ontario has shown in tackling this problem. Over the last several years, our province has worked hard to become a leader in conservation and in renewable energy conservation. We are starting to reap the rewards of those initiatives through cleaner air and water and through the emergence of a green economy.

We have been tackling climate change on many fronts for a number of years. Our government's 2007 climate change action plan set out progressive and ambitious targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: 6% below 1990 levels by 2014 and 15% below by 2020. Yet there is much more work to do to translate these goals into action. The clock is ticking. Every level and every sector of our society must be involved in addressing the root causes of climate change. We, as legislators, have a responsibility to preserve this planet and its abundance for future generations.

As Minister Gerretsen has stated, Bill 185, which enables a cap-and-trade system to be developed, is the next important step in our efforts to address climate change and to help us reach our reduction targets.

We believe that Ontario's cap-and-trade system needs to be fair to industry and harmonized across a wide geographic area to create a level playing field. Ontario has been working diligently to do just that as part of the Western Climate Initiative, a partnership between our province, Quebec, Manitoba, BC and seven US states, who are all working towards a greener environment.

Cap and trade would drive new investments in those vital green technologies of tomorrow. It would create new products and processes along with new opportunities in the financial markets to support carbon trading, and it would help create new jobs for Ontarians in a number of different sectors. Cap and trade will be a reality in North America in the not-too-distant future. The momentum is growing here and in the US; it is already a reality in the European Union and has been since 2005. We can learn from the experience there to build our system here. A cap-and-trade system is in the works for Japan, Australia and New Zealand. Cap and trade works.

Since 1990, Ontario has also had its own cap-and-trade system in place for acid-rain-causing nitrogen oxide and sulphur dioxide. Although cap and trade is a mature idea, its practical application to greenhouse gases is a phenomenon that is only now coming of age. It's clear that the places that are striving to build a new sustainable green economy will be the places that succeed in attracting investment and creating prosperity. Transforming to a more sustainable framework for our world economy will benefit our environment, reduce pollution and foster the new technologies and green processes that will give rise to the green jobs of tomorrow.

Ontarians and Canadians are looking to governments to take action on climate change. They understand the seriousness of this challenge. They know we have a responsibility to take action and they support that action. People across our province are going green. They are demanding products and seeking information that will help them reduce their own carbon footprints.

Bill 185 is about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it's about reducing pollution, it's about ensuring a stable, successful green economy and it's about doing our part. We all want to ensure that future generations have a high quality of life and a secure, prosperous way of life.

For all these reasons, I urge all my colleagues in this House to join me in supporting Bill 185.

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It's a privilege to stand, following on the heels of our member from Toronto—Danforth, a former executive director of Greenpeace who surely has more credentials in the environmental field than anyone in this House, and to hear him speak about the inadequacies of this bill.

What we're in fact, though, speaking about in this House, for those listening and watching at home, is a closure motion, a time allocation motion—yet another time allocation and closure motion—to shut down debate on this bill. So that in itself is egregious. That in itself is something that would prompt New Democrats to stand on their hind legs and howl and say no, and we will.

But to talk about the bill itself, we have to keep it in context. This is a government that has been promising to shut down the coal-firing plants since they were elected in 2003, and every time we turn around, the date is pushed off into the future yet again. If this were a government that's serious about doing something about the environment—and I couldn't agree more with the member from Oak Ridges—Markham in terms of what we all want. The question is, how are we going to get there?

This is a government that is not taking the baby step—and it's a baby step, but a dramatic baby step—of cutting down and in fact closing the coal-firing plants. If they don't do that, everything else is for naught, and they're not doing that.

Again, the member from Toronto—Danforth referred to the inadequacies of this bill. It calls itself a cap-and-trade bill, but it's not. I call it a shuffle-and-sham bill, a typical Liberal bill that calls itself one thing and in extreme Orwellian terms does something very, very different.

So does it cap? No, it doesn't really. He mentioned the reality of being able to buy your way out of the situation: being able to pay to pollute. Cap and trade does not mean pay to pollute. If you have offsets, you have a system where you can, and are able to, pay to pollute, and people will. Pembina and Suzuki and everyone else have commented about that aspect, and they've commented, of course, about the inadequacies of this.

My friend, again, from Toronto—Danforth commented on the quietly released environmental report by this government, a release to no fanfare; why? Because essentially it said they're not on target to meet their targets. That's what it said. Needless to say, the public didn't hear about that. Needless to say, we didn't get a chance to debate that in this House, and won't, or to raise it too often because, again, we're dealing with time allocation and a way of shutting down this Legislature.

I think of another classic Orwellian move where the environment is concerned, and that's their MoveOntario 2020 plan. This is great. Talk to anybody in the city and they'll say it's great: Move 2020. Only elect them over and over again, at least three times, and then maybe we'll see the fruition of that plan. Certainly, for all of the fanfare of that plan, the song and dance and the spin, the money isn't there. "Where's the money?" say the TTC, who are always scrambling and are always running in deficit, it seems, these days.

Where is this government on public transit? Well, the simple reality is that they're nowhere. The simple reality is that they're nowhere on public transit. They say they are, but they're not, in the same way that this bill says it does something, and doesn't. There are no reduction targets. Simply put, that's again a serious problem. If you don't have reduction targets, then what is the point? Again, shuffle and sham. Shuffle and sham, not cap and trade.

Listening to my friend from Toronto—Danforth, I'm moved on behalf of the constituents in my riding and across this province to really bemoan the lack of action. But, hey, spin away: have photo ops, cut ribbons, announce plans that won't have fruition for another 15 years, and hope that people buy it, when in fact people don't. People really do see beyond this, and if they don't see beyond it right now, they certainly see beyond it when—if they're in the environmental movement—the cheque never does arrive, the cap never does get imposed, the offsets keep getting bought and nothing changes.

Again, I point to their own environmental report. Nothing is changing. Nanticoke still fires away. Children still are getting asthma at record rates. Gradually and, unfortunately, more and more quickly, our whole planet is moving in a dangerous direction, and certainly this province is, and yet this government is satisfied with something that sounds good, that has no substance. That truly is sad. The question might be for somebody watching this: Between Liberals and Tories, what would you prefer—a government that says they'll do little and then does little, or a government that says they'll do a lot and then does little?

The Conservatives traditionally and federally, as we see with great horror, say they'll do little and, quite frankly, deliver little on the environment. The Liberals say they're going to do a lot and then deliver little on the environment. What would you prefer as an environmentalist? I say that both are unacceptable. It's unacceptable to do little and say you will do little; it's equally unacceptable to say you're going to do a great deal and then do little, make a lot of noise and then deliver very, very, very little. That's what the shuffle-and-sham bill called cap and trade actually does.

It'll be interesting to see if, after two full terms of administration here, the original promise to close the coal-fired plants is even one inch closer to fruition. That will be interesting to see. That's hard data. That's a real action, and that is not happening and, again, shows no signs of happening.

It will be interesting to see if any significant amount of money—and one wonders where it would come from, with a $25-billion deficit—goes towards transit. Our transit system is the least well capitalized per capita system of just about anywhere in the developed world. That's not really the responsibility of the city of Toronto, quite frankly: that's the responsibility of the provincial and federal governments. We need a national transit plan; we don't have one. We need a provincial plan; we don't have one—but we do have announcements. We have announcements but, hey, not a lot of money.

Meanwhile, we are running diesel trains through my neighbourhood at the rate, they say, of about 400 a day. That's actually in the works. That's actually going ahead.

If this government wonders why people in ridings really don't buy them as green, those are the reasons. And this bill does nothing to change that. What people see who look is that nothing is changing. If they listen, they hear that something might, and that's the best we get.

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

Mr. Phil McNeely: It is strange to hear the words we've heard from the third party this morning. I'd like to start off by just looking at what Canada signed as the Kyoto agreement some years ago. We're going to be following those requirements in Ontario to meet the Kyoto objectives. That's what Minister Gerretsen spoke about this morning.

We're doing many things in Ontario. We're going to reach those Kyoto targets, even though the federal government has not looked at it. We have the third party in British Columbia, which voted against all the environmental leadership that the Liberal government in British Columbia was doing. They're doing the same thing here, instead of joining us on good legislation from the very beginning. We're going to be 6% below the 1990 Kyoto levels of emissions by 2014, 15% by 2020; and we're on target to do that.

Closing of coal is going to happen, and that's all the people in Ontario are going to be paying for—closing of coal—but of course it's happening now. I think 35% of our objective is met. These are important initiatives that Ontario is taking.

I haven't spoken to the Green Energy Act, which I was involved with, with Minister Smitherman—the Green Energy Act, which was so well supported across this province and has led to our plan for the future: renewable energy generation, the feed-in tariffs, the grid access, the streamlined approvals in order to get the renewables up and running so that we can close our coal-fired plants.

Energy efficiency and conservation: I was proud to represent this province on behalf of Minister Smitherman in Halifax a year ago. We were showing that conservation, the way we're doing it and the plans we have, will eliminate the need to increase our generation over the next 20 years. Six thousand megawatts is the growth in our needs over the next 20 years and that's going to be met by conservation and renewables. We're doing that. That's what the Green Energy Act was about.

We're going to support a lot of communities that will be able to bring in renewables: the aboriginal communities and the remote communities.

So there are all those initiatives that have been taken by this government, and it hasn't been short-term; it has been planned. We set the objectives, we got our plan in place, we got the Green Energy Act in place and now we're over to cap and trade. Of course, you can criticize cap and trade, but we're doing that with our neighbours in the US, with Manitoba and with Quebec. We've signed a memorandum of understanding with Quebec which is going to cover at least half of Canada and more if you put our two populations together.

These are all initiatives that are very important. Ontario is showing the leadership. We're getting recognized that way and I think it's really important to congratulate Minister Gerretsen for bringing forward this cap-and-trade bill which is the next stage of Ontario leading North America in green energy.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate? I believe we've used—did the NDP have any more time? No. There's just one more minute left for the government side.

Seeing no further debate, pursuant to the order of the House dated December 1, 2009, I am now required to put the question.

Mr. Gerretsen has moved third reading of Bill 185,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act with respect to greenhouse gas emissions trading and other economic and financial instruments and market-based approaches.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? 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 Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Orders of the day? The Honourable Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Hon. Michael Chan: No further business.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): This House stands in recess until 10:30, at which time we will have question period.

The House recessed from 0948 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I'm delighted to introduce my constituent Una Murray, and her sister, I believe, Marjory Parkin. They're here to celebrate with her granddaughter, Paisley, who is a page. Welcome to Queen's Park.

Mr. Charles Sousa: I would like to welcome to Queen's Park the family of page Iman Kassam, from Mississauga South, who led today's procession. She's joined today by her father, Ayaz Kassam, her uncle, Shiraz Jaffer, her aunt, Judy Jaffer, her grandmother, Nazlin Fazal , her other grandmother, Gulshan Habib, and her mother, Tazmin Kassam. I don't think they've arrived just yet but they will be here soon. I'm talking more to delay, in hopes that they will be here, to acknowledge them. But to all, on Hansard, welcome to the House.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I welcome Blake Batson, who is a resident of Ottawa, to the Legislative Assembly.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the member from Niagara Falls and page Alana Fansolato, we'd like to welcome her godmother, Ingrid Balinski, and her godmother's friend Cathy Stevulak to the gallery today. Welcome.

Also, I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome, up in the Speaker's gallery today, my brother Joe. Joe Peters, welcome. Maybe you should grow a moustache so we can trade jobs.

Hon. John Milloy: I'd like to introduce guests from my community who are with us today, Charlotte Craven and Ann Bilodeau. I know members will join me in welcoming them to Queen's Park.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: In the west members' gallery, Blake Batson, an Ottawa blogger and former council candidate in the city of Ottawa, and a recent deputant at the finance and economic affairs committee, is here. He's opposed to the HST.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Goodbye, Charlie Brown.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Goodbye—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Introductions? The member for Brant on a point of order.

MEMBER'S BIRTHDAY

Mr. Dave Levac: I rise today—but before we do: Don't shave the moustache. I think it's apropos for you.

The member from Northumberland—Quinte West, the unofficial leader of the rump, is celebrating a birthday today. I want to say happy birthday to Lou Rinaldi.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Happy birthday.

There being no further introductions, it is now time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Premier. On Monday, Ontario's Auditor General will release his report on several agencies and programs, including health agencies, the Education Quality and Accountability Office and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. Premier, how many investigations will the auditor say you blocked this time?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the question but I can't agree, of course, with the underlying premise.

We commend the auditor for his work. In fact, we've asked him on a number of occasions to get directly involved in taking a look at some things which we think are worthy of closer examination. I think in pretty well every instance we have publicly—in fact I'm sure of this—welcomed his reports, accepted his advice and adopted his recommendations. He's continuing in his good work and we look forward to receiving that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: A pattern has developed where Premier McGuinty treats a report on his waste and scandal like it's a communications exercise.

You'll do anything to hold on to your secrets. When the auditor reported on the $1 billion wasted at eHealth, you did a controlled leak of bits and pieces of information beforehand and then dumped boxes of Cancer Care information during the auditor's press conference. You're the first Premier to use a scandal to hide from another scandal. Premier, what do you have planned this time around?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think that is the opposition's somewhat roundabout way of thanking us for providing so much information to them. They had originally criticized us for not providing an adequate amount of information. We've provided a tremendous amount of information. Now they are saying that they're being inconvenienced by the time at which we introduced the information.

The important point is that we have introduced a tremendous amount of transparency into the work that we do here. We've changed a number of rules to heighten accountability and transparency. There's always more to be done, and we look forward, once again, to receiving the auditor's report, reviewing his advice and, undoubtedly, fully welcoming his recommendations

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Actually, the point of the question was to show that Canada's worst government is also Canada's most secretive government.

Over the past few months we've uncovered how you wasted $1 billion on eHealth contracts, many of which were not openly tendered. You buried the Deputy Minister of Health's salary in hospital budgets without telling anyone, and now you're pulling the same trick with Sudbury hospital and the McKinsey contract. You protect your secrets while quietly ushering Liberal friends like Deputy Premier George Smitherman and rainmaker Jeff Smith to the back exit. And while Ron Sapsford initially survived the purge at eHealth, he suddenly announced his early retirement. Premier, did he leave because of eHealth, or is there something else coming up in the forthcoming Auditor General's report?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague has adopted an approach which I think is unbecoming. She has picked up a big brush with tar and is less than careful in terms of how she uses that brush.

The auditor has made a number of things clear, including the fact that we have been much quicker at adopting his recommendations compared to previous governments.

If we make mistakes, I like to think that we have the wherewithal to admit to those and to take steps to fix those. The auditor is apparently coming out with more advice and recommendations on Monday. We look forward to receiving those, and in fact we would welcome any advice that he offers to us on an ongoing basis.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is also for the Premier. We know that you're desperate to get out of here and lick your wounds. It's been a rough session for you, starting with the summer of scandal, a $25-billion deficit, one broken job promise after another—

Interjections.

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

I recognize that this has been a long week for many members, but we still have serious business to conduct on behalf of the citizens of Ontario, and part of that is through the forum of question period.

The member from Thornhill.

Mr. Peter Shurman: The list again—and it has been a rough session for you, Premier—the summer of scandal, a record $25-billion deficit, one broken job promise after another, ramming through a sales tax grab. What's next? Stay tuned.

There's Steve Mahoney and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board; hospitals paying bureaucrats' salaries; the McKinsey contract; Cancer Care Ontario; untendered deals for the Maid of the Mist; Casino Niagara; and whatever else Bob Lopinski, Karli Farrow, Jason Grier and your former deputy are up to. And—oh yes—my personal favourite, the Windsor Energy Centre. You built a wall around yourself—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It's good to know that my colleagues haven't lost their sense of humour. It's been an interesting week for all of us, but I think particularly interesting for the members of the Conservative Party.

We've had a productive session. I'm proud of the progress that we've made on behalf of Ontarians. I'm especially looking forward to putting into place our package of tax reforms. It includes personal income tax cuts, cost savings for our businesses and, of course, the harmonization of our provincial sales tax with the federal goods and services tax. The package of reforms, in its entirety, is designed to create nearly 600,000 more jobs exactly at a time when we need that kind of progress on behalf of the people of Ontario.

There's still time for the Conservative members to join us in our support for this package of tax reforms.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Shurman: Premier, there are several questions that you still haven't answered, like who got rich off the $1 billion of taxpayers' money handed out to eHealth? You know the answer because you did the deals. Instead of telling us what you know, you spin the situation your way by telling Ontarians that you fixed things, that you adopted the auditor's recommendations. Well, while the recommendations help prevent the public from being ripped off in the future, knowing who got rich off eHealth contracts is the first step in recovering what was wasted this time around. Will you give up your dirty little secret and tell us whom you are protecting?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would just ask the honourable member to be choosing his words more appropriately.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I've always said, having spent a great deal of time in opposition, that the opposition has a valuable role to play, but I think there are even some limits around what we can do in opposition, as there are—appropriately—for us in government.

One of the things I look forward to is to receive a positive proposal from the Conservative Party, especially when it comes to securing a bright future for our families. They are rejecting our package of tax reforms. They're rejecting our personal income tax cuts, something they've called for in the past. They're rejecting our tax cuts for our businesses so that they can grow stronger and hire more Ontarians, something they've also called for in the past. They're rejecting our plan to harmonize the provincial sales tax with the federal goods and services tax, something they've also called for in the past.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Answer.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We know what they stand against, but on behalf of Ontarians, it would be good to know at some point in time what they stand for.

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

Mr. Peter Shurman: Good luck on calling for the answer, Speaker.

A Premier should protect the public and not his friends. You used to believe public involvement was important when you said, "'Public hearings'; those two words go together nicely if you believe in ... democracy...." You called for 17 public inquiries when you were in opposition, Premier. Now the 2009 Dalton McGuinty blocks a public inquiry into eHealth and does everything he can to avoid public hearings on the HST outside his Queen's Park bubble. What happened to the person who used to talk like he put the public ahead of Liberal insiders and his elite friends?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think Ontarians would like to hear a little bit more about what we've done together here during the course of this recent session.

In addition to working very hard on creating those 600,000 new jobs over the course of the next 10 years through our package of tax reforms, we just passed our cap-and-trade legislation. I'm very proud of the work done by my Minister of the Environment, John Gerretsen, in this regard—and Ontarians should know it was passed unanimously. That bill is all about we the people of Ontario, privileged global citizens, assuming our responsibility in the face of a global challenge: climate change.

We've also passed our student achievement legislation, which is all about ensuring that all our school boards everywhere, right across the province of Ontario, have student achievement, student growth and progress at the heart of their responsibilities.

We also won the Pan Am Games—and we're proud to have the support of the Conservatives on this particular package—creating all kinds of infrastructure and amateur sporting opportunities for our kids.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. The Premier's unfair tax scheme has touched a nerve in this province. From small business owners to First Nations leaders to the thousands of Ontarians who write to us every single day, people are rejecting this unfair tax. Later today, I'll be joined by Ontarians from across the province who have come to raise their voices about the HST. If the Premier is so sure of the merits of his harmonization scheme, will he join me today and meet with those Ontarians?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm always grateful for the invitation.

What I want to say is that one of the things I will ask my honourable colleague to convey to the assembled on my behalf is—

Interjection.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm sure she'll want to bring greetings from me.

I would like her to remind Ontarians about their personal income tax cut that takes effect on January 1. I would like her to remind them that our package of tax reforms has the support of both poverty groups and business groups, economists on the left and economists on the right. In particular, they embrace the fact that this is going to create nearly 600,000 more jobs.

I would ask my honourable colleague to kindly convey that to the assembled on my behalf. I'd be grateful.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The point of the exercise is to actually listen to the people, not talk to them like this Premier continues to do, without doing any of the listening. The Premier stopped listening, in fact, quite some time ago to the people who elected him.

This week and next, the harmonized sales tax and numerous other bills are going to be passed with limited debate in this chamber. People who wanted to speak at hearings on the unfair tax have been shut out. In Ottawa, the same exact scene is about to play out. People are being told they have to pay more for home heating, hydro, gas in their car and even for their Christmas trees because the government thinks that corporate Canada needs another tax break.

What does the Premier expect the hundreds of thousands of people who reject this scheme to actually do?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It is true that the price of some goods will go up; there's no doubt about that. But it's equally true that the overwhelming majority of purchases made by consumers remain unaffected by any tax changes. In fact, 83% of the stuff we buy will see no tax changes.

For example, and this is important, there are no tax changes when you buy groceries, when you buy prescription drugs, when you buy your clothing, when you buy furniture, when you buy toys, your tickets to sporting events, your movie tickets, your restaurant meals, your cellphone charges, your home phone services, your cable TV service, your auto insurance, your home insurance, your residential rent, radios, stereos, CD equipment, refrigerators, freezers, computer software, music lessons, pharmacists' dispensing fees, auto rentals, car purchases, car parts and car repairs.

There are no changes of any kind on any of those things.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier says his plan will actually help families, but not so long ago, he was rejecting the exact same scheme because it was going to hurt them. He says other provinces will follow suit, but Manitoba just rejected tax harmonization.

The Premier may meet people at Liberal fundraisers who like his particular tax scheme, but if he had the courage to travel the province and learn about a different Ontario made up of the people who will get whacked, it would serve him well. Has the Premier grown so arrogant that he thinks he can ignore these people forever?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm sure that my honourable colleague understands—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock, please. We always welcome our guests to the Legislature. We welcome your observation; we just do not welcome your participation, and that includes applause. Thanks.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I just want to make it known that if there's anybody here applauding me, I will not object to that.

Mr. Paul Miller: He was booing you.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know. That's what I'm afraid of.

My honourable colleague, I'm sure, has heard me say in the past that I think the responsibility that we share here is to answer a question that is being asked by Ontarians on an ongoing basis, which is, what do we need to do to grow stronger? And the single most important thing that we need to do to give families this most important advantage—or perhaps even recognize a right that they have in life: a job. We've got to make sure that they've got a job. Everything else comes second to that, and our package of tax reforms is all about creating 600,000 more jobs.

My colleague knows that our world has changed, and we've got to make some changes as well. One of those changes is putting into place a modern, competitive system of taxation, lower personal income taxes, lower business taxes, a harmonized sales tax—all designed for 600,000 more jobs.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Premier as well. Last August, the Premier was so convinced that Manitoba would join him and Prime Minister Harper in their unfair tax scheme that he declared: "I wouldn't be surprised if we had another Premier decide to move ahead with this, based on the conversations I had...." But on Monday, the Manitoba government rejected the harmonized sales tax and resisted the overtures of the Harper Conservatives.

My question is this: Is the Premier surprised?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I am confident that over time, all the provinces will move towards this. It's not an easy thing to do. If it were easy, then the Bob Rae government would have done it or the Mike Harris government would have done it. That's why we've had the advice of federal Liberals, federal Conservatives and former Premier Mike Harris, for example, to move ahead with this kind of package.

What's enabled us to do this, particularly at this time, is the $4.3 billion we received from the federal government in support of our move—money which will be passed on directly to Ontarians, and small businesses, as well, to help them make the necessary change to adopt the HST practice in their workplace.

It's high time that we got on with this. We're proud of this initiative. It's not an easy initiative, we understand that, but it's all about 600,000 more jobs for Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier shouldn't be surprised that Manitoba is saying no to the HST. The Selinger government realizes that it's an unfair tax shift from big corporations to people and that a new tax on gas and home heating won't lead to any new investments in important public services in that province. If the McGuinty Liberals were listening to Ontario families, they too would know that a new tax on home heating and gas in the middle of a jobs crisis is a really bad idea.

Is the McGuinty government out of touch, or is it simply that our neighbours to the west are better listeners?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: That's why we are accompanying the introduction of this package of tax reforms with a cut in personal income taxes, with some three transitional payments to help families through this period of transition.

I ask my honourable colleague to keep in mind, as well, that we are not the first to do this. They've done it in the Maritime provinces. They've done it in 130 other countries. I think it's worthwhile noting that anybody who has ever done this has never undone it. They have never reversed it. Whether followed by a party in government on the left, a party in government on the right or a party in government in the middle, nobody has ever reversed it. That's why neither the NDP nor the Conservative Party will commit to undoing this. They know that fundamentally this is a good thing for people, it's a good thing for our economy and it's a good thing for our jobs.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I beg to differ with the Premier. In fact, Saskatchewan did not go ahead with the HST. When they took government, they didn't implement it. So in fact, he's wrong in saying that nobody reversed it. Saskatchewan reversed the trend towards the HST. But the Manitoba government also stood up for families and politely told the Harper government to get lost. That used to be his government's position.

In March 2008, Mr. Flaherty came to town, telling the Acting Premier to cut corporate taxes. The Minister of Finance called him an embarrassment at the time. But now, they're like two peas in a pod. They believe in the same corporate tax giveaway mythology and preach from the same Jack Mintz bible.

If the HST is, in fact, the single most important thing, why did Manitoba tell Mr. Flaherty to take a hike?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I was pleased to get the report of Jack Mintz. He is an economist who is generally acknowledged to be on the right side of the spectrum. But there is another economist who is generally acknowledged to be on the left side of the spectrum. His name is Hugh Mackenzie. And this is what he had to say: "Ontario's 2009-10 budget establishes the right direction for the next few years. It provides substantial economic stimulus. It is consistent with the new orthodoxy that relies heavily on governments to help rebuild damaged economies. It imposes some coherence on an incoherent federal plan.

It increases support for low-income families and individuals. It modernizes Ontario's consumption tax."

Again, my colleague can pretend that somehow, somewhere, there is a tight group of economists or thoughtful people who are opposed to this. The fact is, groups on the left and right are equally in favour of our progressive package of tax reforms. They understand 600,000 jobs.

AGENCY SPENDING

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question, again, is for the Premier. Your former Deputy Premier, George Smitherman, has his fingerprints all over three of the agencies the Auditor General is reporting on. While wasting $837 million on eHealth contracts with little to no value, former deputy Smitherman also oversaw the assistive devices program, teletriage and long-term-care homes.

Just before the last auditor's report, you shuffled out the member for Don Valley East, who had been left to carry George Smitherman's dirty laundry. Premier, who will take the blame for the member for Toronto Centre this time?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: There is a process in place, and I'd ask that my honourable colleague respect that. We asked the auditor to take a look at these kinds of matters. He came in, and he had thorough access to everything. He was thorough in keeping with his practice in taking a look at everything that went on, and he made a number of important conclusions which my colleagues in opposition refuse to accept. He was very clear in terms of what he thought was inappropriate. He said there was a lack of oversight. We have accepted that. We've made changes to ensure that there is in fact greater oversight in place.

The kinds of allegations and insinuations that are being made by my colleague are simply not in keeping with the report put out by the auditor.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: We'll wait and see what the auditor's report has to say.

But the report will also be focusing on the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. The deficit of the workers' compensation fund has doubled each year since your Liberal friend Steve Mahoney became chair. This year, you and Mahoney have become so arrogant that you didn't even file the report for public accounts. Over 600 agencies, boards and tribunals have filed their annual reports for public accounts, but the WSIB didn't. Premier, what is it that you don't want the public of Ontario to know?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I want to thank the member for the question. The member talks about the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and the unfunded liability. As an institutional investor, the WSIB has been hit like all other large institutional investors. It has seen the impact of this global recession, but the WSIB is focused on providing the ability to provide benefits for injured workers.

I know that a colleague of the member opposite is looking to do away with the WSIB. We don't feel that way. I have spoken to employers, labour groups and injured workers. I'll be meeting with the injured workers tomorrow to talk about the benefits that they receive through the WSIB. One thing I can tell the member is, we can't go back to the regressive formula that that member's party brought to injured workers and that cut their benefits.

TAXATION

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, I hosted a press conference with the Toronto Association of Business Improvement Areas, TABIA. At that event, representatives from TABIA, including retail and real estate, representing 27,000 small business owners in the city of Toronto, told us that more than 80% of all small business owners in Toronto oppose the HST. They oppose the HST because they know it will hurt their customers. They know it will make their goods and services more expensive. They know it will drive many of them out of business.

The question is really a simple one: Why is the McGuinty government introducing a tax that will hurt so many hard-working small business owners?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I'm delighted the member opposite shared that with me.

I don't agree with them. I have pointed out to a number of small business groups—by the way, many who are supportive of this—that we're in fact cutting the small business tax in Ontario by almost 18%. That's what the member doesn't talk about.

We have to rely on a variety of sources of advice and information with respect to these. We have met with many of them, including business improvement associations, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and a variety of others. This is the right tax package. It will cut taxes for small businesses. It will lower taxes for consumers over time.

As difficult as this is, this government is committed to creating 600,000 new jobs for Ontarians over the next 10 years.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Small business is Ontario's main employer. Today, more than 1.5 million Ontarians are employed at a small firm with fewer than 50 employees. The current unemployment rate in Ontario is 9.3%. In areas like Toronto, it is 9.7%. If these numbers aren't shocking enough, small business owners are telling the McGuinty government that the HST is going to hurt thousands of small businesses. At best, the McGuinty government responds with dubious job projections from a single economist. In a time when Ontario is undergoing record unemployment, the question is, again, why is this government introducing a tax that small businesses are saying will be a job killer, not a job creator?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: There's a group called the Smart Tax Alliance. Let me just give you a few names of who belongs to that. It's the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, Certified General Accountants of Ontario, the Information Technology Association of Canada, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, the Ontario Trucking Association, the Ontario Road Builders' Association, the Retail Council of Canada and the Toronto Board of Trade. The small businesses I know are all members of those organizations.

I acknowledge that we need to continue to help people understand all of the aspects of this, including the 18% tax cut for small businesses which you are voting against. You ought to explain yourself on that and you ought to tell seniors why you're voting—

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

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Over the past few months I've had a number of constituents in my riding who have had some difficulty getting access to the medication they need. One drug in particular is Avastin, a first-line chemotherapy drug used for the treatment of colorectal cancer. Funding began for this expensive drug, but it was limited to a number of cycles, which is difficult for people struggling with this cancer and their families. I understand that the decision has recently been made to expand access to Avastin. Could the minister explain how and why the decision was made?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I must say that we are extremely pleased that we have struck an agreement with the drug manufacturer that will enable our government to make Avastin more widely available to those who might need it here in Ontario. It's very good news.

We have the clinical experts who sit on the committees to evaluate drugs. They are charged with the very serious responsibility of making decisions on drug funding based on clinical evidence and cost-effectiveness. Back in May, the ministry initiated discussions with the manufacturer around the funding of Avastin. These discussions accelerated in light of requests the ministry received for patients to continue treatments past the cycle cap. I'm very pleased that the ministry has reached a new agreement with the manufacturer which lifts that cap and allows funding to continue if a patient is responding well to the treatment. We'll continue to make progress for Ontarians with cancer.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: The expansion to access for Avastin is good news for Ontarians fighting cancer. However, there are many other types of cancer that Ontarians are struggling with every day. Cancer touches us all. It affects our parents, our children, our brothers and sisters and many other loved ones. We all need to rally together to fight cancer.

Can the minister please tell this House about any other steps the government is taking to support Ontarians in their fight against cancer?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We have made good progress for Ontarians suffering from cancer. We introduced Bill 102 to get better value for money and to give patients better access to the medications they need. Since 2006, we've added 28 different drugs to the formulary, and since taking office we've almost tripled funding for cancer drugs. In addition to this, so very important to people with cancer and their loved ones, we're bringing down wait times for cancer surgeries.

We are building more capacity. Just last Friday, the addition to the Ottawa Hospital's cancer centre opened, which, in combination with the Queensway Carleton development, will serve 1,300 more people each and every year. We're expanding cancer prevention and screening programs. We launched Canada's first province-wide colorectal cancer screening program. We're funding more than 130,000 colonoscopies over five years. The Ontario breast cancer screening program will reach a million participants this—

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

TAXATION

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Premier. At finance committee hearings this morning on the HST, I requested that the government members table all of the documents and materials, including transcripts of your so-called public meetings, on the HST around the province since the budget. When will you make these records available to the committee?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Many of these meetings have been widely covered in the media. Just today, there have been reports of meetings that our various members and colleagues have had. We have tabled documents. We have set up Web pages. We have respected advertising laws that prevent the kind of abuse of government money that your party participated in for some nine years.

I'm delighted that we're having these hearings today. I look forward to the input we're going to hear this afternoon. The input this morning was very valuable. I'm also told that we will be tabling a whole range of other documents at committee today.

I look forward to the continuing debate on the HST and on the 600,000 net new jobs that we will create as a result of this.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The utter arrogance of that government is astounding. Today your member from Ottawa Centre basically insinuated that only scholars hired by your Liberal Party should be heard during these public hearings, not ordinary taxpayers who have flown on their own dime from the city of Ottawa today because you chose not to allow public hearings in a city of one million people.

You are arrogant, you are out of touch and you are acting like you're not responsible to the public.

Clause-by-clause is on Monday. The deadline for tabling material from your so-called public consultations, which took place before the bill was introduced in this chamber, is Monday. Will you stop the secrecy and will you make sure they are tabled, or are these meetings just a part of a PR sham?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Since we introduced the legislation last March, we have conducted literally hundreds of meetings.

I'm very pleased, for instance, that we were able to reach agreement with the housing industry about changes to the bill; that we were able to reach agreement with the food services industry about changes to the bill; that we've been able to meet with groups from across the province on a range of implementation issues that will benefit our business community and consumers. I'm delighted that we've had that opportunity. They've been widely reported; this has been ongoing.

I'll just repeat—I couldn't hear over a few others—that, again, we've made a number of changes to the substance of the bill, resultant from a vast range of public consultations and meetings with industry associations over the last nine months. This is the right plan for a brighter future—

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

ABORIGINAL CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. On Wednesday, December 1, you attended a reception of First Nations leaders at the Sheraton hotel. At this reception, you had a discussion with the grand chief of the Mushkegowuk Tribal Council, Stan Louttit. He told me that he discussed with you the funding crisis at Payukotayno and you told him the following—he put it in a follow-up e-mail to me:

"She indicated to me that her regional staff were having positive discussions with Ernest Beck and his board"—that's referring to Payukotayno. "I spoke with Ernest Beck"—this is Chief Stan Louttit—"and what the minister is saying is the furthest from the truth—there is no progress, they are still in crisis mode, layoffs have been issued...."

Minister, there are two issues here: Why did you tell the grand chief one thing when the facts were different? And what have your actions done to harm the trust First Nations should have in the provincial government?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I'm very proud to have been able to reach out, in many instances, and speak to individuals like Stan Louttit and Grand Chief Beardy at such a reception. We had a lengthy discussion with respect to our government's commitment to make sure that the interests of children in the north and children being served by agencies such as Payukotayno are looked after. Ongoing discussions continue.

At that meeting, Stan actually tried to contact the ED by telephone, because he indicated to me that perhaps his information was a bit different than mine. I invited him to reach out and give me directly that information, if that was the case.

I can tell you that discussions continue with our staff in Moosonee. We looked very closely at a number of issues, in particular the issue of outside-purchased resources and how we will find a pathway forward to ensure that the children are protected.

My commitment remains the same: Our aboriginal children will continue to be protected.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Minister, I'm sorry: I had the discussion with Ernest Beck this morning. Your staff has had no discussion with his board or him in regard to the funding crisis. The only thing that your person is doing is looking at the day-to-day administration of that organization. You are not dealing with the funding crisis, and as a result, kids are at risk. We have an epidemic of suicide on the James Bay. This organization is there to care for those kids and to try to do some of the prevention work that needs to be done, and you're not having those discussions with them.

So I say it again to you: Why did you tell the grand chief one thing when, quite frankly, the other was true? And what does this do to the relationship between the provincial government and First Nations in this province?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: As I've said, we continue to work and examine the issues closely. Examining the costs of outside-purchase resources and boarding rates might seem like something that is not relevant to the current situation, but it is precisely relevant. We are digging down and reaching a determination as to what is taking place in communities across the north and why they are seeing these challenges, and that is specifically with respect to children's aid societies. Obviously, there's a much broader consultation and discussion that needs to take place, and that's exactly the commitment that I have made to aboriginal communities.

Our commission for sustainability will be reaching out. We're seeking the advice of experts and individuals right across the province to, for the first time in a very, very long time, look at this critical issue. I work shoulder to shoulder with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

We will deal with this issue and we will deal with it in a way that other governments have chosen not to. We will ensure that children are protected.

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Today marks an important day in my communities of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex and in many other communities, not only in Ontario but around the world. Today is the International Day of Persons With Disabilities. Communities everywhere are celebrating with events and promoting the need to empower people with disabilities.

Research tells me that approximately 1.85 million people in Ontario have disabilities, representing more than 15% of Ontario's population.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Thank you to the member for her question.

I invite all members to join me today in recognizing the contributions that people with disabilities make to our communities.

On March 31, we closed the doors to Ontario's institutions for people with developmental disabilities. We closed the door on segregation and opened the doors to a new era of inclusion. Today, people with disabilities are living with more independence than ever.

There is still more to do, but by working together, Ontario can become a place where people with disabilities reach their full potential.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: I too believe that by working together, we can foster a society that is both inclusive and empowering for those with disabilities.

Minister, you mentioned the closing of the last three institutions here in Ontario. I can't help but remember the anxiety that arose from this, since one of the three impacted directly on my riding and that of my colleague Pat Hoy. I know that there were concerns among the families of the people who lived in those institutions, concerns about removing loved ones from an environment where they had lived their entire lives. Minister, can you tell us about those concerns and how those people have adjusted today?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I would like to thank the member, who is such a dedicated advocate on behalf of her constituents in southwestern Ontario.

Let me tell a story of a young man who transitioned out of the Southwestern Regional Centre. This young man now lives independently, with some assistance from Community Living. He's living a new life filled with new opportunities. He enjoys working in his community and has not one, but two jobs. His boss at work has made it clear that this may be the first time that he hired a person with disabilities, but it won't be the last time.

These people have a better quality of life because they are now active members in their community and are more connected with family and friends.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. When you passed the Endangered Species Act, you promised the forest industry that you would use the Crown Forest Sustainability Act as the regulatory tool when establishing habitat protection zones. You went back on your word and took direction from those who opposed logging, period. You have now filed regulations for the wood turtle that will endanger the industry itself.

At a time when forestry is on its knees from other forces, such as access to credit, a high Canadian dollar and a slow United States housing market, why would you add a made-in-Ontario burden on them with no meaningful consultations with those so deeply affected? Why would you do that?

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: I'm pleased to respond to the member's question. The Endangered Species Act has been around for over 30 years. When we renewed the act, we had an opportunity to look for more flexibility within the act in order to do accommodation. I have said right from the beginning that the Endangered Species Act would be incorporated into the spirit of forest management plans, and that is exactly what we are doing. It is no different than what's been done in the past.

All forest management programs have already involved themselves in the Endangered Species Act. They make accommodations for turtles, snakes and caribou. All we're saying is, as the science changes, as our information changes, how do we improve? It's based on science. We work with the forest industry, and we've been doing that all along.

I had the pleasure of attending some sessions up in the Pembroke-Renfrew area where, again, I walked in the forest—

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: That's a nice way of spinning it, but that's not accurate. You've gone to a permitting system that simply will not work.

Minister, no one opposes habitat protection. In fact, the Crown Forest Sustainability Act had that as part of its bedrock, but your decisions need to be based on real science, not the recommendations of your political scientists.

You've dismissed all of the requests and all of the recommendations of those who represent the thousands of families in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke who depend on forestry as a way of putting food on the table. You've released no science to support your decisions, working simply on the basis of making forestry's enemies your friends.

Minister, will you not stop until there is no way left for rural families to make a living?

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: I am more than pleased to be able to provide some accurate information to the member. In fact, there's an organization called COSSARO. COSSARO is an independent body, separate from the government, made up of scientists who make the decisions on what species will be put on the endangered species list right from the area of concern through to determining if they've been extirpated. That particular group then makes the decision independent of government.

In addition to that, we have another group called SARPAC, made up of the industry and interested stakeholders. They advise the minister in terms of how we implement the Endangered Species Act. We have two years in which to do it, to sit down, talk with and involve people in what we do, and that is exactly what has been going on.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Minister of Finance. This afternoon, First Nations from across the province are going to be at Queen's Park to protest this government's possible elimination of the point-of-sale exemption. They will deliver thousands of petition signatures from Attawapiskat to Walpole to Tyendinega to Fort Frances. Can the minister explain how a single 8% tax on school supplies, gas and clothing actually helps struggling First Nations?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I'm judging by the leader of the third party's question that she's supporting our position that, indeed, the federal government should take Ontario's position on this very seriously and implement the exemption that's available to First Nations at point of sale.

Our Minister of Finance has been in touch with his colleague federally, Mr. Flaherty. Our Minister of Revenue's been in touch with his colleague. I've been in touch with my own, and the Premier, as of yesterday, sent a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, calling on the federal government to adopt Ontario's position and to adopt the position of First Nations. We stand shoulder to shoulder with First Nations on this issue, and we welcome the NDP's support as we do that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, nobody buys this nonsense, particularly not the chiefs of the First Nations of this province. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs should be ashamed of himself. First Nations are tired of hearing this government blame Ottawa. The McGuinty government signed two memoranda of understanding with the federal government without even consulting with First Nations, even though the Minister of Finance acknowledged that the point-of-sale exemption was, in fact, a part of aboriginal and treaty rights. He made sure that Timbits were exempted, but First Nations were ignored.

How can the McGuinty government talk about a new relationship with First Nations when it struck a backroom deal with Stephen Harper Conservatives without even a single consultation?

Hon. Brad Duguid: If First Nation leaders and chiefs decide to visit Queen's Park today, this government welcomes them here, because I'll tell you something: They're coming to a place that is a lot friendlier to their cause than it was—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: —than it was six years ago. That's for sure. The relationship with First Nations is at an historical high in this province. We will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with First Nations when it comes to going to the federal government. In fact, I can quote from a letter from the Premier that was sent yesterday to Prime Minister Harper. It reads: "Ontario Regional Chief Angus Toulouse recently conveyed to me his serious concerns about the matter.

I fully support the request he is making on behalf of all Ontario First Nation leaders to continue the existing Ontario sales tax approach under the federal administration of the HST." Let's be clear. This government stands shoulder to shoulder with First Nations on this issue—

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

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Minister, there have been stories of late discussing how many immigrants are overqualified and are earning less than their Canadian counterparts in the job market. This is in relation to an analysis done by Stats Canada that looks at employment numbers for newcomers. The numbers show us that qualified newcomers are working for low wages, many in part-time and temporary work. Research shows that newcomers who arrived in Canada in the last five years are facing challenges to finding appropriate employment.

Minister, we are keenly aware that Ontario newcomers are facing the same challenges and are part of a bigger picture that the analysis reveals.

Will the minister commit to providing Ontario newcomers with the necessary support, resources and training to ensure that they find employment that is suited—

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

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to thank the honourable member from Scarborough—Rouge River. Our government knows that getting newcomers into the workforce is the single most important step. This is why we are supporting programs such as Pathways to Employment in Biotechnology. It's one of the 16 projects that will help yet another 5,000 newcomers get training and get a job. Support for these programs is part of our plan to strengthen our economy by investing in the skills and knowledge of Ontarians. Ontario needs to be competitive in the global marketplace. Such investments are part of this goal.

They bring opportunities for success into the lives of Ontarians. We know when newcomers grow, Ontario will grow.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: The study found that newcomers are not only earning less but are working longer hours. It is obvious that this recession has been particularly hard on many newcomers.

There has been significant coverage in the last couple of days talking about the introduction of a pan-Canadian framework on recognition of foreign qualifications. There was an

article in the Globe and Mail that said this: "It has ... become clear that, without provincial co-operation, the immigration system cannot adequately serve either immigrants themselves or the economy."

Clearly this government has a very important role to play here. Our economy depends on ensuring that foreign-trained professionals succeed, and foreign-trained professionals are relying on the government to get this right so that they can succeed. Minister, can you tell us what role you played in this pan-Canadian framework and what this will mean to Ontarians?

Hon. Michael Chan: Newcomers come from afar. They travel thousands of miles. They cross the oceans. They come to Ontario, but Ontario is a new land to the newcomers. This is why the Pan-Canadian Framework for the Assessment and Recognition of Foreign Qualifications is another important step to support these individuals. Through the Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act, we established the Office of the Fairness Commissioner. Through significant investment in bridge training we are supporting newcomers to get the training they need to get jobs in their fields of study.

The framework complements our ongoing effort to help newcomers succeed, because their success is crucial to the future economic prosperity of our province. When newcomers succeed, Ontario succeeds.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: We were informed that the Premier would be here for the entire question period today. I guess I'll have to pose my question to the Deputy Premier.

It's no secret, Deputy, that there will be a cabinet shuffle in the near future. You only have to read the Star to find that out. Some cabinet ministers have gone because of scandals, and others because they are running for municipal office. So your secret is out. Your government's Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is strongly rumoured to be running as a mayoral candidate in 2010. With all these not-so-secrets, Deputy, when will the Premier ask the minister to resign so he can focus on one job?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The enormous accomplishments the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has made are really, really astounding. Your government and your party downloaded costs to municipalities and municipal taxpayers, and that minister and this government uploaded those costs.

Interjections.

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: They invented downloading.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The Minister of Education and the member from Carleton—Mississippi Mills, you can have your discussion outside.

I will ask the minister to continue, but I would remind all members that when they are asking questions, they need to pertain to business within this chamber, and particularly to the portfolios of their ministries.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Just this year, our government has begun to upload the cost of social assistance. That government cancelled provincial housing and downloaded housing costs to municipalities all over Ontario. Do you want to know where the minister is today? Let me tell you where the minister is. He's doing his job on behalf of Ontarians. He's in Ottawa at a federal-provincial-territorial meeting on housing and homelessness. That member and this government have done more in their term for municipalities and for Ottawa than your government ever did. That—

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

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: It is the government's duty that I am speaking to here. Deputy, it is your government's responsibility to ensure that all municipalities receive full attention across the province from their municipal affairs and housing minister. When will the Premier demand this minister's resignation so that you can get on with the job and have the cabinet shuffle, so that the personal ambitions of this minister aren't being served?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The Conservative Party of Ontario left vulnerable Ontarians out in the cold. They cancelled 17,000 affordable housing units and no new affordable housing units were built in their eight years in office. Our agenda with municipalities and housing has been clear: It is to undo the legacy of that member and her party, undo the things they did to Ontario's most vulnerable. That was just one example.

These are difficult times. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is out working hard for all Ontarians. I'm proud he's my colleague and I'm proud of the work he has done for the poor and vulnerable and for municipalities.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): After question period.

The member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

INJURED WORKERS

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Tomorrow is the 18th annual injured workers' demonstration in front of the Ministry of Labour—the 18th. Something is wrong there.

With Christmas coming, I'm asking, on behalf of the WSIB pensioners in Hamilton, and across Ontario, who receive their pension cheques on the last day of every month: Will the minister agree to fast-track the December WSIB cheques so that these pensioners can buy gifts for their kids and grandchildren in time for the holidays?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: What I can say is that this government has taken more action to put more dollars into the hands of injured workers than those two previous governments combined.

Often, when I speak to injured workers, they'll talk to me about the F-word, and the F-word is the Friedland formula, brought in by the NDP government and made more regressive again by the Conservative government. We've changed that. We've changed that channel.

In 2007, three times we increased injured worker benefits, by 2.5% each time. I will be speaking to the injured workers tomorrow. I look forward to that. We are partners. The WSIB is moving to address the regressive manner of how they were treated by the NDP and Conservative governments—

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

Mr. Paul Miller: If you're partners with them, what are they in front of your offices again for?

The McGuinty government has policies for people on fixed ODSP incomes—that their December cheques are always released before Christmas and not at the end of the month, as usual. ODSP recipients will receive their cheques on December 22.

Will the minister be the Grinch who stole Christmas and didn't lift a finger to help injured workers and pensioners this holiday season, or will he do whatever has to be done to ensure that the WSIB pensioners will receive their December cheques in time for Christmas? And don't deflect and talk about other things; answer the question yes or no.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Again, the member speaks about injured workers, and I can say that this government's record in regard to injured workers has been one where we are partnering with injured workers and where we have brought forward increases that they had not seen since 1995, when the NDP government, in a very harsh and regressive manner, cut benefits to injured workers—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Hamilton East just asked the question. As he knows, according to the standing orders, if he's dissatisfied with the answer, he can file a notice with the table.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Hamilton East will please come to order.

Minister?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I look forward to continuing to work with injured workers. We know that injured workers have gone through not only a financial impact to their lives but also an emotional one. As partners, we have to be there with supports—with financial support as well as—

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

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Mr. Rick Johnson: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, I have heard of reports of farmers in areas of the province having difficulty with elk on their properties. I know that elk were recently reintroduced to Ontario, but in some areas their populations have grown so large that some farmers have experienced crop damage. I understand that there is a provision in the good government bill to help farmers protect their property from elk damage.

Elk is an iconic Canadian species. Its successful reintroduction to Ontario is a cause for celebration.

Can the minister please state for the record how the Ministry of Natural Resources will react to this provision found in the good government bill while still ensuring a healthy elk population? Will the minister please describe what she will do to enhance and protect elk populations in Ontario and how the minister will ensure that Ontarians have a say in elk management?

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: I'd like to thank the member for the question. The member is correct. Back in the 1800s, when the elk were a native species, they disappeared. So, in 1990, 13 member partners with MNR actually reintroduced the elk, and they've been very successful in some areas.

By amending the good government bill through the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, we would be able to work with the farmers in terms of removal of elk when there's crop damage involved. On November 23, what we did is actually put an elk management plan on the Environmental Bill of Rights. You have until January 7 to be able to respond to that draft plan.

We will work with the farming community to ensure that their crops are protected, but at the same time we'll make sure that the reintroduction of the elk, this extraordinarily magnificent animal, will in fact ensure survival in Ontario.

DEFERRED VOTES

GOOD GOVERNMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA SAINE

GESTION PUBLIQUE

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 212,

An Act to promote good government by amending or repealing certain Acts and by enacting two new Acts / Projet de loi 212, Loi visant à promouvoir une saine gestion publique en modifiant ou en abrogeant certaines lois et en édictant deux nouvelles lois.

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

The division bells rang from 1136 to 1141.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Ms. Smith has moved third reading of Bill 212. All those in favour will rise one at a time and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Those opposed?

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 48; the nays are 24.

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 deferred votes, this House stands recessed until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1144 to 1300.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I'd like to welcome to the House Jacqueline Benn-John, the executive director of the Sexual Assault and Violence Intervention Services of Halton and president of the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres, and Sly Castaldi, the executive director of Guelph-Wellington Women in Crisis and former domestic violence advisory council member.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I'd like to welcome to the east gallery my constituents Michelle Krohn and her daughter, Yvonne Racowiz—constituents of yours—and also Dan Procop from CARP. Welcome to Queen's Park today.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I'm delighted to introduce Mr. Dil Mohammed, who is in charge of Pakistani Television in Toronto. To his immediate left is Elizabeth Fonseca Sánchez, who is the manager of Havana airport. She is here today to listen to us as we debate the issue of Hispanic Heritage Month.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): So that's how you get quick passage through the Havana airport.

The member from York West.

Mr. Mario Sergio: They will be introduced formally later on, but I'd like to welcome and introduce to the House the members from the various fire departments who are here, not only to attend the working of the House this afternoon but also to listen to the debate on one fundamental bill dealing with their protection as well as protecting our seniors: the retrofit of fire sprinklers in seniors' homes. I'd like to welcome them to the House this afternoon.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TAXATION

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: We have repeatedly asked the McGuinty government to go out and listen to Ontarians about the impact of the HST, the hated sales tax. We have told them about people like Rick from Thamesford, who said:

"My business is small and part-time and is similar to the hundreds of karate schools, music, dance, and gymnastic schools. We provide instructional service and only have to charge 5% GST. The HST will add 8% to our costs. We have little or no retail sales, so there is no savings to us. It is all tax cost. In this economic climate, how can I increase my fees by 8%? My business is already down 40%. McGuinty is going to wipe us out for a tax grab."

People like Kevin wrote to the Minister of Finance—and he hasn't even received a response. He said:

"I have had many customers with a serious concern over the new HST, of which the main one is what is going to happen to the cost of their heating fuel.

"I hope this has been an oversight, but just wanted to remind you we do live in Canada where there is winter, and heating your home is not an option. I looked at several customers' fuel volume from the 2008-09 heating season and calculated an average increase of $200 to heat their homes. You have stated necessities will remain tax-exempt. In my opinion, heat and hydro aren't a luxury item."

I hope that all the Liberal members will take the time to actually talk to the people of Ontario to hear from them that they do not want and cannot afford Dalton's hated sales tax.

JOHN LENNON

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: I rise today to remind this House of the anniversary of a tragic event that occurred 29 years ago on December 8, 1980. On that day, our country lost a friend. John Lennon was shot and killed while returning from work outside his apartment in New York City.

John Lennon had a special connection with Toronto and our country because we welcomed him when most of the world would not. In 1969, he performed in a live concert at Varsity Stadium. During that concert, he, apparently for the first time, had people in the audience light matches and lighters when he came on stage. This has become a rock and roll tradition, and it was first experienced right here in Toronto's Varsity Stadium. It was at the concert in Toronto that he first performed his song Give Peace a Chance, live.

Prime Minister Trudeau met with him as well, and they spoke together on world peace for over 50 minutes back in 1969.

As a member of the Beatles, he visited Toronto in 1964, 1965 and 1966.

Following his concert in 1966, a summer student gave him an OPP crest, and that OPP crest was then given to Paul McCartney. Paul McCartney would wear that crest when the Beatles shot the photograph for their 1967 album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. That crest continues to be recognized throughout the world as a result of that incident.

Lennon has been gone since 1980, but his music, memory and legacy as an ambassador for peace lives on and continues to grow and expand.

TAXATION

Mr. Norm Miller: Once again, I bring the voices of Ontarians to this Legislature on the proposed harmonized sales tax.

Richard writes:

"My wife and I are retired and on a pension, for which we are very thankful, but your government is challenging our ability to even maintain our current standard of living and retain our home.

"We are deeply discouraged and angry about your proposed tax grab HST.... Companies are hurting due to the current economic situation and your overall mismanagement of the province's finances. Corporate taxes should have been reduced a long time ago.... We don't trust your government to be honest with us about the true costs that we will incur."

Audrey from Gravenhurst writes:

"No one can afford to pay double taxes on just about everything they purchase. Heating fuel, hydro, fire insurance and vitamins should all be exempt.

"Seniors on a fixed income, OAS supplement and Gains cannot afford to pay this exorbitant tax rip-off.

"Don't be so greedy; be satisfied with the PST you now get."

Sue writes:

"Please keep at the HST.

"The timing on this is just so bad.

"We are retired. Our small business is down dramatically. We make practically no interest from the banks.

"Politicians are not thinking straight.

"This situation is absolutely ridiculous and it's time Mr. McGuinty comes to his senses and thinks about the 70% of the population that is against this measure."

It is no wonder that the McGuinty government refuses to take Bill 218 to the people. They are simply afraid to hear what the people have to say.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Mr. Michael Prue: I stand to talk about a similar issue: the events of the past week. We all know that this has been a very difficult week. Some members have been expelled. The opposition was forced to make a motion for hearings to start at one minute after midnight. The Speaker—thank you, Mr. Speaker—made a ruling which said that that was illegal. The House leaders then got together and thankfully came to a compromise which allowed for hearings to take place.

At today's meeting, though—I am again profoundly upset and disappointed at what is happening—the first thing that happened was the Liberal members had their staffers handing out government of Ontario finance books, trying to convince those people who were in opposition to the HST to not speak that way. I don't think that was appropriate inside the committee. They were admonished by the Chair of the committee, who told the members that the booklets had to be handed out outside the committee room, because at that point she had no jurisdiction.

But that was not the end. One member bitterly complained that a deputant had donated to the Conservative Party, as if somehow this had lessened the deputant's credibility. It was only after that that we discovered the same deputant had also donated to that same member who complained, to his campaign, and we learned as well that the member had been the CFO of that deputant in a municipal campaign. These are the shenanigans that are going on—

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

OVER 55

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I rise in the House to bring great news from the city of London. Not only is our city at the forefront of health and technology, we are also pioneering in social services. Over 55 is a one-of-a-kind organization that caters employment services to people over 55 years old. It's organizations like that in which I take pride.

Their unique approach to employment is not a common method in Ontario. There is a stereotype that people over the age of 55 are not in great demand in the job market, but this organization breaks the stereotype and has helped many people find work, not only by connecting them with potential employers, but by also connecting skilled workers and professionals to new clients and customers.

Minister Bentley and I had the pleasure of attending the launch of the job creation partnership they have made with the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. They will now offer services to people who need retraining in fields like database development and special events management. We met with many happy community members, and I would like to thank the volunteers at Over 55 who made this a success.

I want to take the opportunity to continue thanking those people who devoted their time to help their fellow men and women who cannot find jobs, especially when they are the age of 55 or older.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Mr. Frank Klees: I, too, want to address this government's handling of the HST public consultation process. I had the opportunity to sit in on the committee this morning and expressed again at committee the fact that members of the government continue to refer to public meetings that took place. Those meetings were not consultations. Those meetings were lectures by the Minister of Revenue and other members—basically a propaganda campaign—to convince people of the wisdom of this tax, which, by the way, we take great exception with.

I want to thank Mr. Paul Bailey, a retired York region police officer, who is now president of the Police Pensioners Association of Ontario. He presented this morning, and said directly to the committee:

"Many of us have spent considerable time in the House during question period, have listened to the government tell us how good this HST will be for us individuals and as a province. We have been told by Jack Mintz it's a great gift for the province.

"Committee members, with respect, we don't believe a word of it. This new tax will take more money out of our pockets than we can afford. You know that, and so do the seniors of this province."

Sadly, there are few hours left for public consultation. We sincerely hope that the government is listening and will be able to make some changes to their intentions regarding the HST.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast: I had the distinct pleasure of spending a large portion of the summer and the following months visiting retirement homes and senior homes in my riding of Kitchener—Conestoga.

I had the opportunity to discuss with my senior constituents, among other things, the HST and how these tax reforms will benefit them in particular.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Joan Norris and Catherine Freeborn of Chateau Gardens seniors' home in Elmira, which is in Woolwich township. I'd also like to thank Debby Riepert of Trinity Village for helping to make all of these visits happen.

I'd also like to thank Sharon Walsh of Community Care Concepts and Meals on Wheels—as we delivered meals out of St. Jacobs and the home office in Elmira—for facilitating my participation in delivering Meals on Wheels to our seniors in their homes.

I'd like to thank Ron Schlegel and his staff at the Village of Winston Park. It's a continuing care facility that continues to be engaging and co-operative in these open discussions. I wish Ron all the best in his speedy recovery.

These continue to be enjoyable sessions with my seniors—a free exchange of information.

Just like all government members, I continue to consult, meet and discuss with seniors the impact of tax harmonization. In particular, I'd like to mention Mildred, who I've come to know as Millie, and thank her personally for taking me on a tour of her newly renovated bathroom.

DURHAM CONSOLIDATED COURTHOUSE

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: Our government is committed to renewing our infrastructure while ensuring we keep our environment clean for future generations.

One example of how we're accomplishing this is the Durham consolidated courthouse. This afternoon, the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure will be present at a completion-of-construction event; we're expecting the facility to be fully operational by March 2010. This state-of-the-art integrated facility brings together justice services that were formerly being delivered from seven different locations. It will house 33 courtrooms, three judicial hearing rooms and related legal and court services.

What's also important about this facility is that it's designed to conform with high energy management and conservation standards. For example, compared to similar buildings, the design of this building has reduced energy consumption by 42%. The Durham courthouse was also built to achieve LEED silver certification.

What's more, about 1,500 various staff and visitors will conduct business daily in the building. This means increased demand for restaurant meals and other services in downtown Oshawa, contributing to the local economy.

The Durham courthouse is a great example of how our government is working hard to improve our environment, create vibrant urban neighbourhoods, stimulate investment in jobs and boost development in communities just like Oshawa.

VALERIE HUNT

Mr. Dave Levac: She was not a former member of this place or a politician of any kind. She was not a famous athlete. She was not a celebrity from the entertainment world. Not many people will have heard about her.

Peacefully, surrounded by her brothers, her mother, her best friend and the rest of her loving family, she passed away.

Valerie Hunt was just 42 years old. She was my friend. She always started her day with, above all, juice first. Unfiltered and straight from the hip, she told you what was up. No strings attached, affection and love oozed from her.

Speaker, she collected pens. You were on her "Okay Guy" list.

She was born and wasn't supposed to live for two hours. The family was then told, "Maybe two years, with a little bit of care, in an institution." Instead, tender loving care was provided for her at home. Valerie beat all the odds. Her daily heart attacks couldn't stop her. Her heart simply, inexplicably grew. Down's syndrome couldn't stop her either.

She leaves many family and dear friends just a little sadder and just a little empty. The good news is that she's now with her beloved angels and her dad.

I will miss my friend Val. The next Tim Hortons coffee I have, I'll splash a little bit to Val—and it has to be Tim Hortons.

To the staff, to the teachers, to the friends at Crossing All Bridges, to all the workers and volunteers at Community Living Brant, and to the special staff of our hospital who cared for Val: Know that you cared for an angel.

Val, my friend, use your free pass to heaven. You're home. Two thumbs up.

Applause.

DAY OF REMEMBRANCE AND ACTION

ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN /

JOURNÉE DE COMMÉMORATION

ET D'ACTION CONTRE LA VIOLENCE

FAITE AUX FEMMES

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs on a point of order.

Hon. Brad Duguid: This is a unanimous consent request. I believe we have unanimous consent that up to five minutes be allotted to each party to speak on the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, and for each member to have the opportunity to wear a white ribbon and a button in support.

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

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: Twenty years ago this Sunday marks a dark day in Canadian history. On December 6, 1989, a gunman walked into l'École Polytechnique de Montréal and killed 14 female engineering students.

C'est un jour dont je me souviens clairement. J'étais étudiante de premier cycle en sciences, au sein d'une promotion composée en majeure

partie d'hommes, en plus d'être une activiste politique et une féministe.

It was a day I remember clearly. I was an undergraduate science student in a predominantly male graduating class, a political activist, a feminist. I remember my shock, my confusion and my growing sense of vulnerability, and over the next few days, my friends and I clearly saw December 6 for what it was: A heinous act of misogyny.

This act of hatred was not an attack against students or engineers; it was an attac