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

November 26, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-Nov-26 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 26 November 2008 Mercredi 26 novembre 2008

TEMPERATURE IN CHAMBER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ PROFESSIONNELLE

ET L'ASSURANCE CONTRE

LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

TAXATION

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

PROPANE EXPLOSION

PAY EQUITY

ABORIGINAL HOUSING PROGRAM

WORKPLACE INSURANCE

MINIMUM WAGE

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

MINISTERS' COMMENTS

ABORIGINAL EDUCATION

ELECTRICITY GENERATION

PESTICIDES

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

DEFERRED VOTES

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ PROFESSIONNELLE

ET L'ASSURANCE CONTRE

LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

WILSON CAULFIELD

CYRIL LEEDER

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

MIKE NEUTS

EMERGENCY INTERVENTION ORDERS

ROSE OF SHARON

LONG-TERM-CARE HOME

TIMERAISER

VIC JOHNSTON ARENA

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ABLE INSURANCE BROKERS LTD. ACT, 2008

NIAGARA HEALTH SYSTEM

ELECTIONS ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LES ÉLECTIONS

AU SEIN DU SYSTÈME

DE SANTÉ DE NIAGARA

PETITIONS

DIABETES TREATMENT

AUTISM TREATMENT

CHILD CUSTODY

PROTECTION FOR MINERS

GTA POOLING

INNISFIL EARLY YEARS CENTRE

TUITION

RAILROAD BRIDGE

INNISFIL EARLY YEARS CENTRE

HOSPICES

WORKPLACE INSURANCE

HOSPITAL FUNDING

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 a moment of silence for inner thought and personal reflection.

Prayers.

TEMPERATURE IN CHAMBER

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I will remind the members that it wasn't too long ago in this chamber that they were complaining that it was too cold. I recognize as well that it is a little warm in here. I thought it might be good for you if we turn the heat up a bit, so you can understand what it's like to sit in the hot seat up here. But there are some technical difficulties, and the staff are working to lower the temperature in here. Perhaps, because of that, everyone can do their

part in lowering the temperature here and making for a good, quiet question period today.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ PROFESSIONNELLE

ET L'ASSURANCE CONTRE

LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

Mr. Fonseca moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 119,

An Act to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 119, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la sécurité professionnelle et l'assurance contre les accidents du travail.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I'm pleased to rise and speak again on the McGuinty government's proposed amendments to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997. This bill, if passed, will be good for our province's construction industry; it will be good for our province's construction workers; and it will help us fight the underground economy. This is the right time to help those construction employers who play by the rules and pay their fair share by contributing to Ontario's workplace safety and insurance system.

At the same time, we have proposed a responsible and realistic implementation timeline that will allow stakeholders and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board the opportunity to discuss implementation and ensure that it is successful.

Our proposed bill would extend mandatory workers' compensation coverage to independent operators, sole proprietors and partners in a partnership. These individuals are not currently required to purchase Workplace Safety and Insurance Board coverage. Due to the transient nature of the construction industry and the difficulty of determining on-site who is eligible for an exemption from WSIB coverage, there has been abuse of the current exemptions by certain individuals and companies wishing to gain a competitive advantage. We cannot allow this to continue.

These practices undermine contractors by creating an unlevel playing field and contribute to underfunding of the WSIB system. These practices also undermine health and safety standards on construction sites.

The government has listened and has amended Bill 119 to address the concerns of small companies with one partner or an executive officer in an office. If the legislation passes, the amendment to Bill 119 will allow the government to create a regulation to exempt an individual executive officer or partner who works exclusively in the office. The government will work with business and labour groups before putting forward a regulation to ensure it meets the overall goals of the legislation.

By proposing our bill, we are helping legitimate construction employers be competitive in this marketplace when bidding on construction jobs. They need and deserve the help of government. Our system of mandatory coverage will help us ensure that independent operators subject to this bill are registering within the WSIB system. This connection to the workers' compensation system, in conjunction with other programs such as the Canada Revenue Agency, will help to identify those who may be working in the underground economy.

If the proposed amendments are passed, they would only fully come into effect no earlier than 2012. This three-year implementation period would also allow business to properly understand and prepare for the new rules.

Stakeholders from the construction industry have been advocating for mandatory coverage in the construction sector for over 15 years. The stakeholders include the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, LIUNA, the Council of Ontario Construction Associations, the Residential Construction Council of Central Ontario, the Ontario General Contractors Association, the Ontario Road Builders' Association, the Interior Systems Contractors Association, the Mechanical Contractors Association of Ontario and many, many others.

The legislation is before us because of their relentless efforts to bring attention to this issue for the goal of levelling the playing field for all employers and improving the overall health of the construction sector. I sincerely thank everyone who has worked so hard to bring this legislation forward and for their long-standing advocacy on this very important issue.

This legislation will help the construction sector and those working within it in many ways. One of the most important things it will do is to provide a needed financial safety net for individuals and their families who might otherwise be unprotected. Once again, I will draw attention to the stories that I and my colleagues in this House have heard, many of them in our constituency offices, of some independent operators in construction who have unfortunately been injured on the job and did not have insurance coverage and now find themselves without assistance.

Every year, there are examples of serious injuries and fatalities that cause financial and emotional hardships to families following serious workplace incidents, where the self-employed individual dies without WSIB coverage. One example that comes to mind is an individual involved in construction who left behind a spouse and children. He died from a fall, but did not have the optional WSIB coverage. That means his spouse and children were not entitled to the lump sum benefits and reimbursement for burial expenses they would have received from the WSIB during that very difficult time.

The spouse and young children also did not receive the monthly benefits they would have been entitled to and some of the additional programs the WSIB offers, such as bereavement counselling and labour market re-entry services for the spouse. Had this individual been covered under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, compensation for the children would be included in the monthly benefits. These benefits continue until the children have completed their education, including post-secondary. Insurance may cost money, we all know this, but it provides security and peace of mind.

Just as importantly, this bill will help us prevent injuries and make this province's workplaces safer. Once in the WSIB system, injuries are more likely to be reported, which will help both the WSIB and the Ministry of Labour track unsafe work sites and workplace practices within the construction industry. This will help us monitor our province's workplaces so we can better direct safety efforts and enforce our laws where these efforts will be best put to use.

Again, I emphasize that this bill will provide a level playing field for the many legitimate operators within the construction sector. Underground economic practices in construction threaten health and safety, undermine labour standards and erode construction quality. Establishing a mandatory coverage system would help level the playing field for law-abiding construction companies that comply with their WSIB and other legislative requirements. We need to support the majority of legitimate construction companies that are playing by the rules, and this proposed legislation will do just that.

The proposal would also help reduce incidences of revenue leakage for the WSIB, where benefits are paid to individuals for whom no WSIB premiums have been paid by the principal or the employer. The Council of Ontario Construction Associations estimates that 61% of the industry is paying for 100% of the claims made at the WSIB. This has impacts on WSIB premiums for those 61% who are paying, and it is simply not fair.

How would you feel if the same was true for you about your auto insurance? I am sure, like they have, you would demand change. This bill is simply the right thing for government to do. It will reduce underground economic activity; it will level the playing field; and it will improve workplace health and safety in the construction sector.

Think about it. Many of us drove in this morning. Can you imagine if you were paying auto insurance and you knew that only 60% of those cars out there on the road next to you were paying auto insurance while the others were all being covered by your premiums? That would be so unfair; the outrage we would hear from all citizens across this great province of ours–rightfully so. That's what has happened in construction, where 61% have been paying for 100% of the claims.

This proposed legislation will level that playing field; will make sure that everybody is playing by the same rules; that we are helping those good companies, those companies which are the vast majority. But there are some out there, some bad actors, and we want to shut them down.

We want to make sure that their employees are covered; that they're not using some of the nefarious practices that we've heard out there where they are misclassifying their employees, saying they're independent operators when they're truly not; they've been with that company, some for many years, and have been working as independent operators so that they wouldn't pay the premiums. But when one of those workers is injured, who has to pay? Those legitimate operators.

Those that have been paying all along—very unfair—creating revenue leakage for the WSIB—a system that has been in place for close to 100 years here in the province of Ontario, and it has been there for 100 years because it works. It's working for employers, it's working for labour and it's working for employees.

It allows for a safety net within the construction sector so that when those employees are out there, sometimes on very high-risk jobs on top of a roof, or out there on the road as they're working on our highways, or building our hospitals and our schools, we know that if they were injured they would be covered. Their families would also be taken care of, as I mentioned in that one personal story.

It also puts some onus on the industry so that they understand that there is a cost when somebody gets injured. There are premiums that are being paid out. When there are less injuries those premiums can come down. When everybody is paying, they're all in the same boat and they will work to help to build a healthier and safer workplace. That's what we're doing in the Ministry of Labour.

From 2004 to 2008, we had a program with our inspectors as they were going out into the field. They were working with companies with a targeted compliance initiative, making sure that they looked at the highest-risk types of businesses and industry so that they could lower the lost-time injury rate within business. What they've done is, they've had a lot of success. We have seen an over 20% reduction in lost-time injury claims overall in Ontario. We now have a new program within the Ministry of Labour. It's called Safe at Work Ontario.

It too goes into all different work sites, but it will also go into construction work sites and work with businesses in terms of building a culture of health and safety, making sure that we work with employers so they can understand that when you invest in your people, when you invest in health and safety, you're also helping your bottom line. But they want to make sure, when they're making those investments in safety, that everybody is also doing the same. We're all in the same boat. That's when we want to bring everybody into the WSIB who works within the construction sector.

You see, this is a sector that has some very unique characteristics to it. There is a lot of mobility within the sector. Construction workers may work on three different sites in a week, and would have worked on many different projects. One day they may be working on the QEW for the Ministry of Transportation as they're moving on one of those initiatives; the next day for the Ministry of Health as they're building one of our hospitals; or they're constructing the homes within our community or the community centres, things we need that help us with our quality of life.

Because of those unique characteristics, it has sometimes been difficult to bring everybody into the WSIB system. What this proposed legislation will do is allow for the industry to close many of the loopholes that have been out there. I spoke about the misclassification of workers. There's also the underreporting of payroll or the number of individuals that you have in your company, where some have reported that they've only got three individuals in the company and they say that they are covered, but the truth of the matter is that they may have 10. So if any one of the 10 gets injured, they say it's one of the three they're reporting, so they'll get benefits.

This is completely unfair. As you know, 70% of their payroll is not paying premiums that help the entire system. Because of that revenue leakage and because of what we've also seen within the underground economy in construction, there is a lot of lost revenue to all levels of government. That lost revenue has been estimated by the Ontario Construction Secretariat at approximately $2 billion—wow, $2 billion. What we could do with that: hospitals, schools, roads, community centres. Those dollars for infrastructure would help all Ontarians, and we want to make sure those dollars are there to help all Ontarians.

With this proposed legislation, we're not only levelling the playing field and bringing fairness into the construction sector, but we're making sure that those who work in the sector are more safe and have benefits if they do get injured. We don't want to hear about the independent operator who didn't have insurance getting injured and finding himself in a bad state and looking at a life—10, 20, 30 or whatever years he has—here in Ontario with a lot of hardship. We don't want that hardship on those construction workers. I know they don't want it.

Sometimes we look at only the short term and think, "Do you know what? I don't really want to pay out those funds." But we don't know what's around the corner. I don't know what may happen if I get into my car on the weekend; there may be an accident. We want to make sure that I'm covered, and also that if something happened to somebody in the neighbourhood, they would be able to recoup funds, to have funds, to have that insurance in place. As I said, if this was something around auto insurance and we knew that only 60% of those on the road were paying for 100% of the claims, there would be outrage.

I know that many in the general public may not understand the inside baseball of this particular issue, but it's about protecting those who are doing a lot for the general public, building the schools and our homes and doing work in the community. When we see those workers up on a roof, we want to make sure that they aren't injured, that safety practices are in place and that employers are looking at best practices.

Within those best practices, we have some amazing health and safety associations here in the province of Ontario. They are there to work in partnership, work together with employers, labour and employees, so that we won't have as many injuries and we will take care of our employees. Once again, this proposed legislation is based on the values of fairness and safety.

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

Mr. John O'Toole: I'm standing here actually as a form of protest, Mr. Speaker, because as you would know, this motion is being rammed through under time allocation, which prevents the members of the Legislature from representing their constituents fairly on an important issue. I can tell you for sure that the member from Cambridge, who is here today, as well as the member from Wellington—Halton Hills are unable to present the views of their constituents. How disappointing. How shameful.

In fact, the minister said in his remarks, which were prepared for him, written by the ministry staff—he read them quite well, but the passion wasn't there. He has been told what to do by the Premier, and he read the speech rather succinctly. Unfortunately, he said, insurance may cost money. Let's be clear: That's the theme here this morning. This is a tax grab. Let's be clear. It's $11,000 for the small construction employer. It'll be the one- and two-man, mom-and-pop shop paying $11,000 of additional tax.

Why are they paying the tax? Because the WSIB, the government-run insurance agency to protect workers, is in a huge deficit. Why, I would put to you, is because there's no plan to fund it properly and this is a method of reaching into someone else's pockets and taking out $11,000 to have more consultation and more dinner parties for the board of the WSIB.

I don't think it does what it's intended to do. The minister also said, "will improve health and safety in the workplace." Now, how does this actually improve the functionality of trades? How is this actually going to make employers, who are now paying another $11,000 per employer, safer? In fact, it arguably might make it less safe because now they don't have the money for the harnesses, the slings and the tie-off ropes because they're paying so much for these premiums.

But it also implies, falsely I might say, that the independent operators don't have insurance, which is completely a misrepresentation of what is the fact. They have liability insurance, if they're at all clever—some may not. Many constituents of mine told me—law-abiding, tax-paying, hard-working citizens and family members—this will drive some of them even further underground. So it won't achieve the goals and the laudable objectives that the minister says. It's clearly an issue that we don't support.

Our member, Bob Bailey, who represents the riding of Sarnia—Lambton, has done a remarkable job of trying to hold the minister's wiggling feet to the fire, but he squirmed out of this with a time allocation motion. They limited debate in committee; it was only because the bill was poorly drafted that they even let it go to committee. They had to go there to get it amended because of the faulty workmanship in the legislation's drafting. Now the minister has brought it back here, time allocated, so no one can speak out. I've been given a minimum of 20 minutes. That's barely enough time to introduce yourself in this place.

But I think that, if I look at it, 61% of the people already pay. Well, I'm going to read an article—Mr. Speaker, through you, with your indulgence as well, I'm going to read an

article or some parts of it from the media this morning, November 26. It's in our package and I encourage members to refer to that. What does it say here?

Interjection.

Mr. John O'Toole: It's actually in the National Post. It's slanted towards business. If it was in the Toronto Star, the Liberals would read it, because it basically—

Interjection: They would write it, never mind read it.

Mr. John O'Toole: They would have written it, quite frankly, but I want to stay serious. This is by Ray Pennings, a director of research for Cardus, the Hamilton-based think-tank, who will address Ontario's construction costs before the economic club today. This is an expert; we can qualify that. It's not me. What he's saying here: "Imagine it is 1978, the year Ontario's current construction labour framework was passed into law.

You are an investor intending to build a major project such as a factory or power plant," which indeed we are; we intend or hope that Premier McGuinty will have a power plant built in my riding of Durham next to the Darlington generating station, so this is a real story then.

"No matter where you choose to invest in Canada, the only workforce that has the skills and capacity to complete your project is the one organized by the craft unions affiliated with the various provincial building and construction trades councils." There you have it. "You could receive competitive bids for your project, but all of those bids will be based on the same labour agreement, negotiated between employers as a group and their unions"—the one big union, the OBU.

"It's a complicated and messy history but if we fast-forward 30 years, that situation has changed dramatically. In British Columbia and Alberta (and to some extent other provinces), major projects are receiving bids from open-shop non-union contractors, alternative unions and the traditional craft unions."

I'm going to intervene here for a minute. The point here is to imply that the only person qualified is one who belongs to a union. If someone has a skill—an artist, an actor, a musician, an electrician, a plumber, a welder, a lawyer—yes, they need to apply and comply with standards, whether it's in a profession or in an art form. But it doesn't qualify them just because they belong to an organization, so it's wrong to assume that they're the only qualified people because they belong to a craft union. I'm not criticizing. There's a place for all of us in this world.

It goes on here and says: "There are no known studies that measure the correlation between these competitive labour pool environments and the comparative economic prosperity enjoyed by those provinces in recent years, but anecdotal evidence and logic both suggest a strong link between competitive bidding and broad economic success.

"Ironically, while all this was going on, Ontario was heading in the opposite direction," and has been since around 2003. Someone argued before that we were off the road for 10 years.

"Working agreements among municipalities, school boards and many corporate investors prevented"—this is a key word—"contractors without labour agreements with craft unions from even bidding on projects." That's why it's costing more to do business. That's a tax. That's my premise here, and that's the thrust of my argument.

It says that the competition is suppressed, and now Ontario is "a 'have-not' province almost completely out of step with the country's fastest-growing provinces when it comes to the organization of construction labour.

"This tale of two economic directions took place due to changes...." I want to put this in a broader context. I read a book recently; it's called The World Is Flat. It's about globalization, it's about competitiveness, it's about our youth and how we will compete in a global economy. We're looking today at the auto sector. I put to you, in a broader section, this is just one piece of a many-legged animal here in Ontario.

The Liberals' plan is to tax anything that moves. In fact, there was a competitiveness report as well. These are not things that I'm making up. All of us are required to do a certain amount of reading here, and they make it easy for us, because they give us these clippings which—

Hon. James J. Bradley: Who's they?

Mr. John O'Toole: This is the civil servants, the staff here, who are great people. They come in here—I think unnecessarily, because of the way these corporate hours work.

Now, they just had a report filed yesterday by a group of academic experts and practical experts, well-known and well-respected—and I give the Premier his due. He has a very illustrious advisory group, which costs millions of dollars, by the way. They tabled a report yesterday. Here's the headline. This is from another famous Toronto paper. It says: "Grits"—that's the Liberals—"Stomp Own Task Force's Rescue Plan."

Interjection: What a waste of money.

Mr. John O'Toole: I know. They spent a million dollars. They bought this advice from these experts on the panel. What do they do? They stomped on it. What did it say? This is exactly what this discussion is about. This is about Ontario doing the right thing at the right time for the right reason. What they're doing is the wrong thing at the wrong time for the wrong reasons. They got it completely wrong. They're off the tracks. They're out of control.

Well, I'm partially out of control here, a bit, but I'll bring it back here.

"The Ontario government rejected key recommendations proposed by its own task force yesterday to stimulate the province's sagging economy, including a call to harmonize provincial and federal sales taxes."

Again, I want to expose this for what it is: Whatever moves is going to get taxed. They've increased spending by about 30% and revenue by about 29%, and now revenue is going to go down because of the recession globally, and they're going to blame—here's the plan. Why is Premier McGuinty not dealing with the auto sector crisis when Ontario is the only province in Canada that is dependent almost exclusively on manufacturing, and more specifically the auto sector? Here's the plan: He's going to wait until Stephen Harper announces it, whenever that is going to be announced, possibly tomorrow.

Stephen Harper is going to announce something, and Premier McGuinty is going to stand up and say it's too little, too late, too soon, too early, not enough—

Interjection: The blame game.

Mr. John O'Toole: It's all a game when, in fact, the Prime Minister has fishing communities on the east coast and forestry communities on the west coast—they're even cancelling the opera in BC.

The issue here is that the Prime Minister has a large family of provinces and territories to take care of and to address, and has, I would say, really responded in a compassionate way. He has indicated, despite the Conservative tendency not to have a deficit, that he is going to look after the people of Ontario and make the key investments. But what's happening here is, Ontario is waiting to blame Prime Minister Harper.

Interjection.

Mr. John O'Toole: I'm telling you, I know how it works. After 15 years, they're going to blame it on somebody else.

This is what they are doing, though, and this report that I'm referring to says it very clearly. They gave them recommendations which he trashed. Here's the irony. If you read this with any conscience and any intuitive understanding of the economy, here's the deal: The Premier, I don't think—I say this with the greatest respect—gets it, or if he does, he's putting a barrier in front of the people of Ontario doing the right things.

Here's what he's saying, which is completely wrong—and I'm saying it as a person who doesn't have as much education as he does, except the education of practical experience: "Cutting corporate taxes will create more ... trouble by starving the ... treasury of much-needed revenue." Corporations don't pay tax when they're not making profits—and we're in an economic collapse. Do you think General Motors, Chrysler, Stelco, Inco, Dofasco, any of them, are making money? No, they're losing money. That's why their shares are going down. That's why they're cancelling the dividend cheque. And why?

Because he doesn't get it. I'm serious. I'm saying it as a humble opposition member. I think he does, though, and he's simply failing to do the right thing. He's doing the popular thing.

Even the remarks by the minister this morning remind me of that argument that insurance may cost money. That's the slippery slope. In other words, "Prepare to batten down the hatches. We're going to increase your taxes." That's what he's saying. It's code language.

I can only say to you that I'm passionate about this because I worked in this sector for years. I know there's an important purpose here, to protect workers, and employers should have choices in that. This is a managed, dictated program for all of the construction trades groups, and it's payback time for the Working Families Coalition, and I want to—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Member, take a seat. I'd like him to withdraw that comment.

Mr. John O'Toole: I'll certainly withdraw that, Speaker, with due respect.

Personally, I wanted to say that I know there are others here who wanted to speak. The member from Cambridge and the member from Wellington—Halton Hills did want to speak. Time allocation has disallowed that, so I am going to make the generous gesture to give up the rest of my time to the member from York—Simcoe.

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

Mr. Paul Miller: I rise today to talk on this Bill 119. I just want to give you a little history on the progression of this bill. In principle, we agree with the bill but we have a lot of problems with the bill. We brought forward 19 amendments in committee and not one of those amendments was dealt with and addressed properly. I had great concerns. The four in particular that bothered me were sections 8, 10, 19 and 27. I'd like to take a little time and talk about 19.

Having spent a good part of my life in heavy industry and in the trades, I think I can speak from a position of experience. The one that really got me, that the government wouldn't deal with, was the intimidation and coercion

section that we brought forward. Why I say that is because the minister stood up and talked about how this bill will enhance safety and health in the workplace.

I'm going to give you a personal view of what happened to me in the steel industry. There is a part of the steel plant called the coke ovens. They're vertical furnaces, which heat the coal into coke, and they have what they call a pusher car, which pushes the coal into quenching cars on the other side of the ovens. Then they go to the quenching station to be cooled and on to the blast furnace. On what they call the bench, on one side of the ovens, they have the pusher car, a 50-tonne car that has a big arm that pushes the coke into the cars.

There is no way to get off that bench if you are on a man lift, which we were on because we used to go up in man lifts to repair the furnace doors or other parts of that furnace.

I brought forth a health and safety concern about being trapped in a pinch point, where you couldn't get away and you could be killed. The company didn't like it. They wanted to put a safety man on the car. They wanted to have a guy with a little horn while this car was moving up and down pushing coke out of the ovens.

It got to a point where I refused to do the job. The company tried to intimidate me and threatened dismissal. All kinds of interesting things transpired. The two workers who were with me—I was the lead hand—refused to do the job too. Well, they got to them after about a week and a half by threatening to fire them. I only had one year to go to get my 30 years, so I could have been in jeopardy for my pension, but I felt that it was very unsafe and I stood up to the company. I was the only one, by myself.

They called in the Ministry of Labour. They had the company executives, there were the ministry people by phone; at the time they were on rotating strikes, and we had a group call. They listened to my side of the story, they listened to the company and they said they would have to make a decision on that. They came to some conclusions that weren't acceptable to me, but at a point where it was better than it was.

Well, lo and behold, three months later on a night shift, the driver of the pusher car fell asleep at the wheel. The 50-tonne pusher car went off the rails and smashed into the other battery of ovens. It hurt one individual seriously and tore out six ovens. There were hundreds of thousands of dollars' damage. I didn't have to say, "I told you so," because it was evident from what happened—just one incident over the years where I was threatened to be sent home by refusing to do unsafe work.

I was exposed to all kinds of carcinogens over the years, from asbestos to tar pitch volatiles, ammonia, naphthalene—you name it; I've been exposed to it. But we finally got masks. What I'm trying to get to is that we tried to build in to the new bill the ability for workers not to be intimidated and coerced, whether by a big employer or small employer. I'd like to bring up the point that I was in a strong union environment—the United Steelworkers—and I still got attacked and intimidated. What does the poor guy do who is working for a five-man company or a smaller place? He probably would be fired and sent home.

There were several amendments that came from an experience level over the years that this government would not listen to and would not entertain. They think they know it all, but they don't. There are a lot of people out there who have a lot of valuable information and input to put into it. Ever since I have been in this House, not one amendment I have brought forward, not one bill, has been accepted by that side of the House—absolutely disgusting.

Another thing that's bothering me is the 2012 implementation day—slowly. They could have sent this out to the public. They could have had more discussion, as the official opposition has complained. They could have talked more about it. They didn't. They decided to push it through.

When you deal with a bill, as you well know, bills have parts you don't like. The government always stands up in the House and says, "You voted for it. The NDP voted for it." Well, you can't pick out certain parts of a bill and vote against those parts or cut a bill in half. You either vote for the bill or you don't. There are parts you like and parts you don't like, but you've got to vote for it one way or the other. That's unfortunate, because I do support the premise of the bill. It's moving in the right direction, but it falls short of a lot of the major things that I was concerned about.

Item 10: It's our belief that there should be no exemptions in WSIB coverage in the construction industry. With respect to the home renovation industry, there is no reason that construction workers employed in the home renovation sector should not have mandatory coverage. I'll give you an example of why they've missed the boat on this one too. It's because in home renovations you're going to see a lot more small construction companies become home renovators, and they're going to fall under that auspice so they don't have to pay the premiums.

You're going to see, all of a sudden, all these new companies in Ontario that are going to change their direction, change their mandate, and this government is going to lose out on those things.

They're telling me that a guy working on a roof in an industrial site like Stelco or a guy working on a home roof—can that person not fall in both situations? But he is considered a home renovator. So I'm concerned that they have not delved into this properly; they haven't taken a really hard look at it.

I safely say, and I'm not bragging by any stretch of the imagination, that most of the members on that side have probably never worked 30 years in an industrial environment or in construction. Some may have, but most haven't. But they're calling the shots and they don't want to listen to other people who have experience—me and many others. They think they know it all. They don't, and they won't listen.

That's unfortunate, because I think you're going to see some more pitfalls in this bill and there will be more people getting around the so-called—well, the underground area they're talking about where people don't pay their premiums. I think you're going to increase them, I really do, and they'll find angles to get around it.

I agree with them as to why is this legislation necessary? Because there has been abuse in the system: no restrictions as to who can be classified as an IO; and that's another exemption—officers of the company. I don't know about anyone else in here, but on any construction sites I've seen or been involved with, owners or superintendents of those companies were telling me, no, they're not going to go there; they're going to sit in their offices. Baloney. They have trailers on-site at all these construction sites where these guys go, talk to their draftsmen, talk to their engineers, talk to their foremen, talk to their lead hands—they're there. They should be covered too.

I don't disagree that if they are only there 25% of the time maybe the premiums should be adjusted accordingly. But no, you're going to have a lot more operating officers than you had before so they can get around premiums.

Let's talk about private insurance. I asked one of the people who made a presentation in favour of private insurance, "Sir, would you think that if you put in a lot of claims your insurance would go up?" He said, "Absolutely," and I said, "And you said to me you haven't had any claims in 20 years. That's amazing. In the construction industry, it doesn't matter if you have five or 20 employees, and you've never made a claim."

Wow, that sends a strong message. That tells me that they're not reporting claims because they want to keep their premiums down. How many of those guys, 25 or 30 years later, have injuries that they received on a job and didn't claim to keep their job because they didn't want to bug their boss, and now they're walking around crippled? I can name lots of them, and I can remember the days in WSIB where even our company, Stelco, one of the biggest steel companies in Canada, would offer you—we were actually being tricked at the time. They would say, "Mr. Miller, you fell off a scaffold and you hurt your knee.

Well, I'll tell you what: You come into work. We'll pay for the taxi. You come into work and you sit there and just sharpen pencils." I thought I was doing a favour to the company. I thought I was being a good employee so their claims wouldn't be put in and their rates wouldn't go up.

Little did I know that I put myself in jeopardy. By not claiming anything, by not reporting my injury, 30 years later, when that nagging injury that may have happened two or three times when I was sitting sharpening pencils for the company because they didn't want me off on WSIB—they said to me, "I'm sorry about your knee, Mr. Miller. It appears that you didn't go off; you went to work. We don't have any record of your injury." Interesting. And the minister stands up and talks about how he's going to help safety and health.

I question it, because there are a lot of things that we put in that they wouldn't even entertain. So all I can say is it's going to come back to haunt them. You heard it here today. A lot of these things they're doing are not well thought out, not complete, they didn't talk to enough people—and that's what happens with bills sometimes, when you don't get all the proper sources.

A lot of our people in the union are in favour of the bill, and I agree that it will help more workers to be covered—90,000 to 130,000, to be exact. I agree with that. But they didn't go far enough. They didn't deal with these pitfalls, and these are just some from over the years that I could bring forward to show them. But once again they wouldn't listen, they don't want to hear about it, they think they've got it all figured out. Well, we'll see what happens.

In closing, I'm proud to say that in a non-partisan manner I have supported—

Interjection.

Mr. Paul Miller: As the member from Peterborough makes a comment—I have supported six Liberal bills to date, in my short tenure of a year and a bit. Six bills I've supported, because they were good for the people of Ontario. I believe they had good points; I supported them. Not one bill has the NDP put forward that they have supported. They've shot it down in committee; they won't even entertain it. I call that partisan, not for the people of Ontario. I call that arrogant. That's exactly what they're doing, and I'm very disappointed.

I have a few minutes left, and I will be sharing them with the member from Nickel Belt.

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

Mrs. Julia Munro: I want to begin the conversation today on Bill 119 with the fact that each time the minister was asked to respond to a question in the House, or certainly this morning in his comments, he talked about the importance of safety. I want to be absolutely clear in my comments that no one disputes the legitimacy of the need for safety. One of the things that I would applaud the WSIB on is the increased public awareness of the need for safety.

I think the fact that they are able to put together very graphic commercials and also repeat the fact that there are no accidents—these are extremely important public messages. I know that in a case that I'm familiar with, it was an "accident" actually done by someone who was the health and safety staff person. It was a simple thing of forgetting to turn off the machine. So the training and the exposure to understanding the importance of safety and what those regulations are within the workplace that provide safety are extremely, extremely important.

I think the comments that have been made in defence of this bill have somehow glossed over the fact that no one disputes the importance of safety. However, that's not the mechanics of the bill, if you like. We have been very clear about the fact that this is a bill that zeroes in on small business. Certainly, within the small business community there has been, I would argue, a stifled reaction but certainly a reaction. I've received e-mails from constituents and people who are struggling in an extremely complex and difficult economic environment, which I'll mention later.

The cost of this is estimated to be in the neighbourhood of $11,000 a year, in a situation where obviously many people in these businesses already have private insurance. So we have to look at, how is this being fair to those who are the targets of this piece of legislation?

I think it comes at a most inopportune moment. When we have, as a caucus, looked at the decline in manufacturing jobs and in the forestry industry over the past two years—we've been identifying that decline and challenge to the government for two years, certainly pre-dating the current climate that we find ourselves in.

I just want to say that this is the wrong group. This is a group that doesn't have the same needs, in terms of WSIB support. It's the wrong time, as Ontario is dead last in economic development. It's now a have-not province. We have fewer and fewer jobs in the province. And frankly, it's the wrong process.

When I look at the way in which this bill has been brought to the House and the way in which it has been shepherded through with time allocation, without hearings beyond Toronto, with only two days of public hearings, the fact that we're forced through time allocation at this point in time and the fact that the bill isn't until 2012—it has been in a very compressed time here, with a timeline that goes beyond the next election. So I think it's really important for the people to understand that it's the wrong group, it's the wrong time, it's the wrong process.

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

M me France Gélinas: It is a privilege for me to respond to Bill 119, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Amendment Act, that finally addresses mandatory workers' compensation and benefits coverage for construction workers who are not presently covered. This legislation means that about 90,000 Ontario construction workers will have the privilege of being covered under WSIB.

On behalf of the NDP caucus, I certainly want to take this opportunity again to thank the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario for their advocacy on this issue for the last 15 years.

In the last 15 years, the Ontario construction industry has been substantially restructured by the practice of hiring subcontractors and independent operators. The use of independent operators has resulted in thousands of workers in the construction industry being deprived of coverage. That has created a group of employees who are entitled to claim benefits from WSIB if they get injured, but who do not have to pay premiums to the WSIB.

In addition, the contractor can insist on subcontracting to firms that are portrayed as independent contractors, rather than employing workers, as described by the WSIB, in order to gain a competitive advantage. That has shifted the whole cost of statutory payments to WSIB to a smaller and smaller group of construction workers who pay into WSIB. That has also translated into an unfair competitive advantage. You can see that if you make sure that the subcontractors that you're going to be hiring are deemed to not have to pay into WSIB, there's a saving to be made there.

So two companies: one that plays fair, treats its employees as workers so that they are covered by WSIB and pays the premium; and one that looks for loopholes and makes sure that each of the subcontractors is not considered workers, doesn't have to pay into WSIB, and therefore has a competitive advantage because there are savings to be made. But those savings are made on the backs of the workers who might get injured, and this is not fair.

I cannot stand here and talk about WSIB as the be-all and end-all of it, because I've worked in the health care industry long enough to know that WSIB comes with its fair share of heartache. A lot of people who were injured on the job cannot gain access to WSIB benefits because of the loopholes you have to go through.

But there is a system in place. There are arbitrations in place so that a worker has a chance to be heard. It is sometimes cumbersome, but at the end of the day, the workers get their coverage.

People who would argue that you can get way cheaper benefits by taking out an insurance policy are—there's an argument to be made. Sure, you are probably able to pay less, but you also get less. Further, if you are denied coverage from your private insurance, there's nobody there to help you, there's nobody who knows that system except for very expensive lawyers, and then you question yourself as to why you ever went down that path.

WSIB for construction workers makes sense, and this is why the NDP will be supporting it.

En ce moment, selon le nouveau projet de loi, la Loi 119, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la sécurité professionnelle et l'assurance contre les accidents du travail, il y a près de 90 000 employés de la construction qui n'ont pas droit à la sécurité professionnelle et l'assurance contre les accidents du travail. Ils n'y ont pas droit souvent parce que les sous-traitants qui les emploient leur demandent d'être travailleurs indépendants. Comme travailleur indépendant, tu n'as pas besoin de payer les primes de sécurité professionnelle.

Par contre, s'il t'arrive un accident au travail, tu auras droit à la couverture. Ce qui arrive dans ce temps-là c'est que certaines compagnies qui traitent leurs employés comme des employés, eux paient les primes et leurs employés sont couverts. D'autres compagnies un peu moins scrupuleuses vont demander à leurs employés d'être des sous-traitants indépendants. Comme sous-traitants indépendants, cela veut dire que la compagnie qui les embauche n'a pas besoin de payer leurs primes à la sécurité du travail.

Par contre, ces gens-là ont droit aux bénéfices, ce qui veut dire que de moins en moins de travailleurs légitimes et d'organismes légitimes paient les primes, bien que le nombre d'accidents continue d'augmenter. Ceci devait être changé et la loi le fera.

Par contre, il y a encore toute une catégorie d'employés qui ne seront pas couverts. On parle ici des personnes qui travaillent dans ce qu'on appelle des travaux de rénovation domiciliaire, et ce n'est pas acceptable.

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

There being none, pursuant to the order of the House dated November 5, 2008, I am now required to put the question.

Mr. Fonseca has moved third reading of Bill 119,

An Act to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

Third reading vote deferred.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Orders of the day. Deputy government House leader.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have no further business at this time.

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

The House recessed from 1004 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I would like to welcome to the chamber the students of O'Gorman High School, who are here today, all the way from Timmins—they drove down last night and will be back in Timmins by tomorrow—and all the firefighters who are here with us today.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I'd like to introduce Fred LeBlanc, president of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association; Mark McKinnon, the vice-president; and Barry Quinn, the secretary/treasurer. Welcome, Fred, Mark and Barry, and all the other firefighters who are here.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Shortly, we will be joined by members from OPSEU; from CUPE 3903, the York University faculty; and also SEIU Justice for Janitors.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am delighted to welcome Jim Holmes and Rich Kerr, from the London Professional Firefighters Association.

Mr. Jim Brownell: I would like to introduce Bruce Donig, president of the Cornwall Professional Firefighters Association.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I would like to introduce to members of the Legislature and welcome to the Legislature Terry Colburn and Corry Vanderlee, from the St. Catharines Professional Fire Fighters Association.

Mr. Jeff Leal: It always gives me great pleasure to introduce Paul Wilson from the Peterborough Fire Department, a great service in the city of Peterborough.

Mr. Kim Craitor: I am pleased to introduce Tim Lea and Michael Collee, two members of the Niagara Falls Professional Firefighters Association, who have taken the time to come up here.

Mr. Dave Levac: I would like to introduce all the members of the professional firefighters association who are not here, and thank them for allowing these guys to be here.

Hon. John Wilkinson: Just for reciprocity, I want to welcome Rod MacDonald, from the Stratford firefighters group. I am delighted that he is here today.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I would like to introduce John Sobey, from the firefighters in my riding. He and his team are keeping us safe all the time. Thank you very much.

Mr. Jim Wilson: It is my honour to introduce Stephen Emo of Collingwood Professional Firefighters Association, who is here with us today.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I would like to welcome, in the public gallery, Carrie Pearson, who is my assistant in the Lindsay office, and Brook Jewell, our co-op student from Lindsay Collegiate and Vocational Institute, who also works in our Lindsay office for a few months. I'd like to welcome them to Queen's Park.

Mr. Joe Dickson: Somewhere in the audience—there are so many firefighters here, which is great—is Dan Bonnar, president of the Ajax Firefighters.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I just want to bring to the House's attention the fact that SEIU, CUPE and OPSEU have just arrived.

Mr. John Yakabuski: With so many firefighters here, perhaps they could do something with the fire that seems to be going on in here—it's about 90 degrees.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: Welcome to North Bay firefighters Tim Mainville, Keith Hann and Brian Boutilier, whom I don't see yet but I know they are coming today. We welcome them.

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: I'd like to welcome the firefighters, as well as the Hamilton firefighters, and Henry Watson, who's here today.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I would like to apologize to the firefighters in Oxford county who couldn't be here today.

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: I would like you to help me welcome firefighters from Burlington: President Dan VanderLelie, Paul Cunningham, Jeff Rock and Sandor Toth.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I thank the honourable members. That was a useful test for me on remembering riding names for members.

I want to take this opportunity on behalf of the member from Hamilton Centre and page Bradyn Litster to welcome her father Dwayne Litster to the gallery today. Welcome.

As well, I want to take this opportunity to welcome, in the Speaker's gallery, a good friend of mine, Warren Scott from the St. Thomas Professional Firefighters Association. Welcome, Warren.

And to the honourable member from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, who made comment about the heat in the chamber this morning: As I relayed earlier, there were some technical difficulties. Perhaps this heat will help to cool the atmosphere in the chamber today. The Speaker would very much appreciate that.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I will try and respect your suggestion, Speaker.

My question, through you, is to the Premier. Yesterday, your government received the annual report from the task force on prosperity chaired by the Dean of the Rotman School of Management, Dr. Roger Martin, and the great economic minds in your administration dismissed that expert advice and effectively flushed the $1-million-a-year cost of the task force down the toilet.

One of Dr. Martin's recommendations was that, in these difficult economic times, your government should tighten its belt and perhaps bring in a restraint program. Premier, are you at least going to accept that advice? And when can we see a plan?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm pleased to take the question. I know that my colleague will recall that, as part of our fall economic statement, the Minister of Finance announced further restraint measures that we would adopt. He announced as well that we would not be proceeding as quickly with some of our new initiatives.

But the spirit of the question is laudable. I think it's important that we all take a look at how we conduct ourselves in government. I've asked the finance minister to consider other measures that we might bring forward to this House. There will be more measures that we will adopt, I can say. I should also say they will be largely symbolic in nature in terms of the limited savings to be achieved there, but I think we have a responsibility to lead by example.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My recollection is that one restraint measure was a $53-million cut to health care.

Press reports today indicate that tomorrow's federal economic update will include things like restricting use of government planes, cutting travel for cabinet ministers and senior civil servants, ending unnecessary travel and entertainment, and spending cuts at crown corporations and agencies. The federal government, Premier, clearly understands that politicians and governments have to lead the way in showing restraint during difficult economic times. What is your plan and when will we see it?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Just to go up to the 30,000-foot level for a moment: My colleague will know that we have achieved savings in 2007-08 of $806 million. Through the fall economic statement, we have announced an additional $108 million by way of savings. But beyond that, again in keeping with the issue specifically raised by the leader of the official opposition, we intend to announce further measures that we think we ought to adopt. I think, again, they are largely symbolic. The financial savings will be somewhat modest, given the multi-billion-dollar budget that we manage. But I think it's important that we do that and we look forward to announcing that in due course.

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: In terms of those savings, I'd say, "Show me the beef." Send us that list. We'd love to see it.

Just in this fiscal year, when we knew we were already in tough economic times, heading for a deficit and have-not status in this province for the first time in our history, your government spent up to $2.7 million—tax dollars—on a party for your friends in Windsor; you spend $2.5 million for hotel rooms; you personally spent $1 million in government flights to fly to places like Hamilton from Toronto; you spent $4.5 million—tax dollars—for spin doctors in the Ministry of Education; on and on.

Premier, when are you going to show real leadership, accept expert advice, do the right thing, lead the way and bring in a restraint plan to cut and curtail unnecessary spending?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We will always make efforts to act responsibly when it comes to managing the people's money. We understand how hard Ontarians work for their money, and we understand their very legitimate expectations of us, as people privileged to serve them through government.

Let me talk a little bit about the restraint initiatives that were just announced. We talked about completing the hiring of 9,000 nurses over a longer period of time than anticipated; that will save us some $50 million. We're deferring less urgent action—education capital improvement projects; that will save us $25 million. We're delaying the launch of our Ontario social venture capital fund; that's $20 million.

Those are the kinds of things that we have looked at, but again, specific to the kinds of issues raised by my colleague, there will be an announcement in due course that deals with those things that we can more specifically do ourselves, as members of the government.

TAXATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question to the Premier: On November 3, Ontarians woke up to the grim reality that under Dalton McGuinty, Ontario had become a have-not province. Yesterday, the Task Force on Competitiveness, Productivity and Economic Progress, chaired by Dr. Roger Martin, shone a spotlight on the fact that Ontario has the highest tax on new business investment in all of North America. That means that if you're starting a new business in Ontario or expanding an existing one, you are hit with punishing taxes greater than our sister provinces or competing states.

Premier, will you commit to following Dr. Martin's good advice and reduce the level of business income taxes as part of a plan to grow Ontario out of its have-not status?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to take the first part of this question and I want to speak to this whole issue of Ontario being a have-not province. I want to remind my colleague once again of the facts. There are only three provinces in Canada which are net contributors to the federation: Ontario, Alberta and BC. This year, Ontarians will contribute $23.5 billion to Ottawa for distribution to the rest of the country. If you take a look at the net contributions from Alberta and BC, Ontario's contribution is 40% bigger.

The issue in Ontario is not that we're not generating enough wealth; it's that we're not able to keep enough of our own wealth—just to set the record straight when it comes to this whole issue of whether or not Ontario has enough wealth.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, not only is Ontario now a have-not province, but when it comes to answers to grow us out of it, we have a have-not Premier. You put Dr. Martin's latest report on the shelf with such speed, it gave the press gallery whiplash.

Remember that on September 25, 2006, you announced Roger Martin would be your special economic adviser. Since then, you've ignored his advice so often and so predictably, he's probably feeling like a member of the Liberal caucus.

Your only plan to date to grow us out of have-not status is to put out your hand to Ottawa and say, "Please, sir, can I have another?" Premier, when, if ever, will we see your plan to grow Ontario out of its have-not status, and will you include Dr. Martin's recommendation to lower the business income tax once and for all?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I always appreciate the good work done by Dr. Roger Martin and his institute, and we give careful consideration to his advice. I just want to remind my colleague of some of the advice that we've received in the past and how we've dealt with it.

Dr. Martin has indicated that we should eliminate the capital tax. Well, we've gone so far as to eliminate it for our manufacturers, and we did it on a retroactive basis. He said that we should encourage investment in machinery and equipment, and we've done that through the capital cost allowance measures we've adopted. He said that we should be focusing more on increasing apprenticeships. Well, we've invested $75 million in our 2008 budget, and we have thousands more young people enrolled in our apprenticeships. He said we're going to have to do something to address the dropout rate from our high schools.

Well, so far, because of the student success measures we've adopted, close to 11,000 more kids are finishing high school every year. Those are direct responses to Dr. Martin's recommendations.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, the task force looked at your so-called record on business taxes and they were far from impressed. In fact, last year Dr. Martin said the government was losing tax revenue due to high business taxes, and that's exactly what the economic statement a few weeks ago had shown.

Let's get to this main point: Under Dalton McGuinty, Ontario is now a have-not province. For the first time in the history of Confederation, we are receiving equalization payments. In short, we're on the welfare rolls of Confederation. You know as well as I do that the same outdated tax-and-spend policies that got us into this mess sure the heck aren't going to get us out of this mess.

Since November 3, all you've done is brought in a new WSIB bill that puts punishing new taxes on small businesses, with the goal of shutting them down at the behest of the union bosses.

Under Dalton McGuinty, Ontario is on the welfare rolls of Confederation. Where is your plan to grow us out of it?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I just can't see things that way. It's such a negative, pessimistic outlook on this great and wonderful province of Ontario, the best province in the best country in the world. I just can't share my colleague's outlook.

Obviously, we have some fundamental differences of opinion when it comes to what we need to do to further strengthen this province. We believe that you've got to invest in innovation. We believe you have to invest in the skills and education of our people. We believe you've got to invest in partnerships with businesses to put them on a stronger and more sustainable footing. We believe that you've got to reduce taxes, but in an affordable and thoughtful and responsible way. We believe those are the foundations for strengthening our economy.

There's one thing more that we believe in: We believe in the future of this province. We believe it's a future filled with great hope. Yes, these are challenging times, but we're going to get through them the way we've always overcome our challenges: by hanging tight and hanging together.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Howard Hampton: To the Premier: There is yet more evidence that Ontario's auto sector is in very serious trouble. Oshawa, the home of General Motors, has experienced a 96% increase in the number of employment insurance claims. Windsor, the home of Chrysler Canada, has experienced a 30% increase in employment insurance claims.

My question is this: With thousands of Ontario auto workers already out of work and tens of thousands more in danger of losing their jobs, will the McGuinty government table a made-in-Ontario auto investment plan before this Legislature recesses for Christmas?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Late though it may be, I welcome the support offered by my colleague.

I don't want to belittle the seriousness of the issue and the concern in the minds of all those families who enjoy a good quality of life as a result of somebody in the family working in the auto sector.

What I'm asking my friend to do is to understand that this is a national concern now. One of the single greatest challenges before us has to do with our credit issues and liquidity issues, and we cannot resolve that without the support of the federal government. That's why we'll continue to work hand in hand with the federal government.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: I think everyone understands that the auto sector is important nationally, but I think the McGuinty government needs to understand that it is vital for Ontario's economy and it is vital for hundreds of thousands of jobs in this province.

The Conference Board outlines the nature of the problem. The Conference Board says that 15,000 more assembly jobs will be lost by the end of 2009; even more jobs will be lost in the parts side of the auto sector by 2009. The board also says that Ontario's auto sector will lose $1.7 billion this year as new vehicle production declines by 15.3%.

What I'm asking the Premier is: Instead of referring to Oshawa, instead of referring to Ottawa or instead of referring to Washington, when are we going to see a real auto investment plan from the McGuinty—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, it is at least passing strange that when we moved ahead aggressively with a $500-million auto investment strategy, through which we leveraged some $7.5 billion—$8 billion in new investment, we received no support. In fact, that was opposed by the New Democratic Party.

The challenge associated with the auto sector in North America is big, to say the least. We understand that the best way for us to move forward in that regard is to work hand in hand with the federal government. The Big Three understand that. The CAW understands that. I think the people of Ontario also understand that. We're going to continue to find a way to work with the federal government and provide some solid foundation on which the Big Three and the auto sector generally can continue to build and grow here in Ontario.

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: I want to be very clear with the Premier. Yes, I did disagree with your former strategy of handing $200 million to General Motors without any product guarantees or any job guarantees. I didn't think it was very good that General Motors got $200 million and thousands of GM workers were put out of work. I didn't think that was a very good strategy. What's happening now is this: Companies, workers, unions and people who study this industry are all saying it needs some action now, and what went before didn't work, and what went before can't be relied upon as an excuse by this government.

Are we going to see an auto investment strategy to help sustain hundreds of thousands of jobs from the McGuinty government, and are we going to see it soon, or are we going to continue to see more job losses?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We're going to see a determined, thoughtful and—this is really important—concerted effort to address the auto sector challenge.

I have had a couple of conversations with the Prime Minister. Ministers Bryant and Clement are working well and hard together on this particular file. We will continue to do everything we can. We'll continue to stay in touch with representatives of the auto sector, not just the manufacturers but the suppliers, the dealers and the like.

If you take a look around the world, you'll see that it's the national level of government, the federal governments, whether you're talking about the US, Australia, the European Union, for example—now here in Canada, it's not the kind of thing that we Ontario taxpayers can take on on our own. We have to work in concert with the people of Canada.

I understand my friend's impatience in this regard, but we're going to take the time to get it right. We'll take no more than the time we need, but we'll take all the time that we need as well.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Howard Hampton: Again to the Premier: It's surprising, when I contrast the Premier's words of just a few years ago with his words now. Just a few years ago, not long ago at all, the Premier was saying, "I will not tolerate any notion that somehow we are backsliding when it comes to the auto sector in the province of Ontario. We're at the highest point in our history when it comes to securing a strong economic advantage on the auto score."

A couple of years ago, the Premier was out there boasting and bragging that the strategy then was the right strategy. Well, that strategy didn't work. The crisis has gotten worse. You can either wait for this to be decided in Washington, or you can try to get out in front of it and position Ontario. What's it going to be? Allow the decisions to be made in Washington when Ontario could lose thousands more jobs, or are you going to state a position that will help sustain jobs in Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Obviously, a lot has changed in the last couple of years. Among other things, we've all learned about something called a sub-prime mortgage crisis, that a million Americans lost their homes and that what started out as a domestic financial crisis became a global economic crisis, and we've all been swept up in it.

What has also happened, of course, is that many North American consumers have stopped buying cars, and that's had a direct and profound impact on the health and vigour of our domestic auto sector. There are no magic fixes in this, and there are no quick answers. It's going to require that we bring our very best to address this challenge. That's why we're going to continue to work closely with the federal government to make sure that we get this right and to make sure that we decide upon a strong foundation on which we can continue to build.

I believe, as the number one automaker in North America, that we have a very strong position from which to move forward. I look forward to making that—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: Just a couple of years ago, the Premier claimed to have all the answers. In fact, the Premier was getting a sore shoulder from patting himself on the back and saying that Ontario was going to lead the auto sector. Well, Premier, the situation has gotten much, much worse, and it does no help that your government seems to try to be on both sides of the fence at the same time. One day you say the auto sector is important and the next day you say, "Well, maybe it's not as important as worrying about the deficit."

Premier, what people need to hear from this government is, what is this government's position? Are you going to require product guarantees? Are you going to require job guarantees? Are you going to require that the Big Three in the auto sector start producing some energy-efficient vehicles in Ontario? What's the McGuinty government's position, other than referring to Washington and to Ottawa?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: In some ways, the auto sector issue and the challenge is very complicated, but in other ways, I think it's pretty simple. We are the number one auto producer in North America, and for long into the foreseeable future, North Americans are going to continue to buy millions and millions of cars. Why would we give up our position of dominance in this particular market?

What we're going to do in order to retain that is, we're going to pay close attention to what they're doing south of the border, we're going to work hand in hand with the auto sector here in Ontario, and we're also going to work together with the federal government. We're not going to be precipitous. We're not going to be reckless. We will pay very close attention to what is happening on the front lines, and we will continue to work hand in hand with the federal government.

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: The Premier refers to being reckless. I'll tell you what was reckless, Premier. What was reckless was to hand out $200 million to General Motors without getting a commitment that the energy-efficient, fuel-efficient hybrid half-ton would be built in Oshawa. What was reckless was to turn out money to corporations without getting guarantees that energy-efficient, fuel-efficient vehicles would be produced in Ontario.

What would be reckless, Premier, about saying to the Big Three that the McGuinty government is prepared to make an investment, but they have to guarantee that Ontario will no longer be the home of gas-guzzling dinosaurs; Ontario will be the home of fuel-efficient, energy-efficient cars and trucks that people actually want to buy? What would be reckless about the McGuinty government stating that position for Ontario workers and for Ontario jobs?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to a few facts connected with Canadian consumer demands. One of the criticisms that has become fashionable of late is that the Big Three are making products that we don't want. If you take a look at the top 10 selling vehicles in Canada in 2007, four of those in the top 10 are trucks. The number one selling vehicle in Canada is a truck. Five of the top 10 are trucks and minivans. Those are not the most fuel-efficient vehicles.

So, in fairness, as we impose new responsibilities on the Big Three in particular to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles, I think we have a corresponding responsibility as consumers, as we move forward to support our auto sector, to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. I think that, again, we're all in this together.

PROPANE EXPLOSION

Mr. Toby Barrett: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Minister, during the 10 days following that explosion at Sunrise Propane last August, did you do any air quality or water quality testing?

Hon. John Gerretsen: I can tell you that our inspectors were on site immediately. They worked very closely with the city of Toronto during that period of time. They were complemented by all of the other emergency staff individuals that were involved during that period of time. With respect to your question, as to whether or not air quality testing was done or water quality testing was done, I will get back to the member on that specific issue.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Toby Barrett: They were on-site, but you don't need to get back to me. You did not conduct any testing within that 10-day period. I have the proof right here.

You have a legal obligation to perform those tests. Your ministry has a responsibility—the legal responsibility—to protect health and the safety after these types of accidents.

There are firefighters in the Legislature today. Minister, explain to these firefighters, what were their colleagues and area residents exposed to during the 10 days after that blast? And if you don't know, if you cannot explain, will you conduct an investigation into why there was no air quality and no water quality testing done during that crucial 10-day period?

Hon. John Gerretsen: Once again, we're very proud of the work that was done by all the emergency workers, including the firefighters at the time. We worked very closely with the city of Toronto. We had the main responsibility in actually dealing with the clean-up of the situation there. I think that the entire situation, from beginning to end—all of the various people that were involved from the Ministry of the Environment, from the city of Toronto to the firefighters etc., worked in a very exemplary fashion to make sure that the people of that area were protected in the best possible way.

If the member doesn't want me to get back to him with respect to the specific question that he has, I will submit to this Legislature that I will find out the answer to that question and submit it to him anyway.

PAY EQUITY

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Minister of Labour. In Ontario, almost one in two workers are doing part-time, contract or temporary work and many are being paid considerably less for doing exactly the same work as full-time workers. In the European Union, this would be illegal. Will the minister change the Employment Standards Act so that all workers doing equal work will get equal pay?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I thank the member for the question. Under the Employment Standards Act, temporary employees, including those working for agencies or through agencies, generally have the same rights as all workers. Also, under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, those workers have the exact same rights as all workers in Ontario.

What I can tell the member is that our ministry actually embarked on a consultation over the summer. We have met with Parkdale Community Legal Services, the Workers' Action Centre, and ACESS, which represents 80% of those temporary agencies. We want to make sure that we review all of those recommendations and continue to work with all employers to ensure the health and safety of all workers in Ontario.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: To the Minister of Labour again: We have a member of CUPE 3903 who has worked 16 years on contract work as a university professor and has to reapply for a job every year. We have OPSEU members here, SEIU members here. They all know that this government is in violation of the UN's declaration that everyone, without discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. When will this government change its employment legislation and finally bring fairness to Ontario's workplaces?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just remind—we welcome guests to the gallery. We welcome you to observe but we ask that you not participate. Thank you.

Minister?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: What I can say to the member is we are working very closely with the stakeholders: with labour groups, with employers, and speaking to those workers who work through temporary agencies. That's why we embarked on this consultation over the summer. We are reviewing all of those recommendations. From the member's own riding we are working closely with Parkdale Community Legal Services and the Workers' Action Centre.

We want to make sure that workers are treated fairly. I'm sure the member wants workers to be treated fairly. We want to make sure that there is fairness and workers are protected in terms of their health and safety through the Employment Standards Act, through the Occupational Health and Safety Act. That's what we do. It covers all—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I'm constantly hearing references to an internal labour relations issue that I don't think is appropriate to be heard in this chamber. I'm putting the government members on notice, because it's not the first time that this issue has arisen. This is an internal labour matter that the member will be dealing with and I don't need to hear about it in the chamber. I appreciate that.

New question.

ABORIGINAL HOUSING PROGRAM

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Toronto's aboriginal community is large and is growing. In fact, over 35,000 aboriginal Canadians are living in our city, and they are an important part of our ethnic cultural makeup. I've been approached by a number of these communities, especially in the aboriginal groups, to find out what our government is doing in terms of helping to create affordable housing for them, especially for low-income families, so they can spend more of their money on other necessities, such as skills training and saving for their children's education.

Minister, I know you've been delivering $36 million to Toronto for social housing repairs and $1.8 million for the rent bank this year. I know you're helping Toronto build new affordable housing through the affordable housing program, but specifically, what is our government doing to assist aboriginal communities with their housing needs?

Hon. Jim Watson: I want to thank the honourable member for Davenport for his question. I was very pleased this morning to be with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and my colleague the Deputy Premier, in his capacity as MPP for Toronto Centre, at the Miziwe Biik Development Corp., where we signed a memorandum of understanding with the development corporation to flow $20 million for aboriginal housing projects in the greater Toronto area.

This money is part of the $80-million aboriginal trust funds that have flowed to the province of Ontario, and this money will go into building new affordable housing units, housing repairs, as well as home ownership loans that will help create housing opportunities for close to 320 families in the greater Toronto area.

I want to in conclusion thank nine-year-old Briar Perrier, who sold Minister Smitherman, Minister Duguid and I these wonderful bracelets. She has raised $1,200 for aboriginal housing.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: That's great news, and I want to congratulate the minister on signing such an important memorandum of understanding. I'm sure this money will be of great benefit to the households who receive it.

We know that the majority of the aboriginal population throughout Ontario is very young, we know that over 25% of the aboriginal population is 15 years old or younger and we also know that a stable and secure home is important to lift people out of poverty; it is a basic determinant of health and, for that matter, a healthy future. It gives youth a foundation they need to succeed. Minister, can you tell us how this memorandum of understanding signed today fits into this government's commitment to improve the quality of life for aboriginal people in Ontario and specifically for aboriginals in Toronto?

Hon. Jim Watson: I refer it to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I too rise with Briar's bracelet on today to respond to this question. I want to say—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. You're supposed to seek unanimous consent to be wearing something in the chamber. It's clear in the standing orders.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I hear the comments, but we have rules that are very clear in this place. There was reference made to the bracelet.

Hon. Brad Duguid: That's fair enough, Mr. Speaker. My apologies.

I rise today to say that we are on the threshold of making real progress when it comes to improving the quality of life of First Nations, Metis and Inuit communities across this province. It starts with respecting aboriginal communities, in a respectful, trusting relationship. That's being built right now in an unprecedented way, but it also starts with building that in the nature of government-to-government relationships.

That's what this particular initiative respects, because Miziwe Biik provides the aboriginal community with the responsibility of administering this program. I think that's what really helps here. That's what was really exciting this morning—

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

WORKPLACE INSURANCE

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is to the Minister of Labour. The official opposition's proposal at committee for the WSIB legislation would fully exempt executive officers from paying you WSIB premiums. It was struck down by your Liberal colleagues. Instead, you brought forward a regulation that, according to you, will allow exemptions for executive officers and directors in the future, clearly a move on your part to please big business and unions. Your amendment doesn't address executive officers or independent officers for small and medium-sized businesses who may be on jobs sites and already carry their own insurance.

Along with verifying who is covered and who isn't, how do you plan to enforce your regulation?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: What I can say to the member is that this government listened to all stakeholders, and we brought forward an amendment that is for executive officers or a partner who is in the office. Yes, if somebody is out on the construction site, they have to be covered by WSIB because those are risky places; they are dangerous places. We want to make sure that they are covered. That is what we have brought forward.

I had a chance to speak again to the legislation earlier this morning, and this proposed legislation, if I put it into the terms—and I was thinking about this as I was coming in to Queen's Park the other day—if only 60% of drivers out on the road were insured and they were paying 100% of the freight for all the others, I don't think that would be fair. This is about covering everybody—

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

Ms. Laurie Scott: Minister, you're surely aware of the economic difficulties we are going through in the province, and more and more layoffs are taking place every day. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, your legislation is a cash grab of over half a billion from hard-working small businesses. That's half a billion dollars into your labour monopoly that has proven year after year that it is unable to manage its unfunded liability, which is now over $8 billion.

Why are you discriminating against executive officers of small and medium-sized businesses when they are on the job site and already carry their own coverage?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: It's unfortunate that this member does not want to support legitimate, fair, hard-working companies that are out there that are being undercut by bad actors: those who are not paying their fair share.

This is about fairness. It's about safety for those workers. It's making sure that all workers on a construction site are covered. It's combatting the underground economic activity that takes place in construction. It's about the revenue leakage that is happening with WSIB, where 60% of the industry is paying for 100% of the claims. That's unfair. I would hope the member can understand that.

It is about fairness, it is about safety, and it is about working with labour, with employers, and especially keeping in mind that this is for all those Ontario workers out in the construction sector.

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. The Canadian Association of Food Banks reported yesterday that the number of working Ontarians turning to food banks increased significantly in the year 2008. How does the minister explain this?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me start by thanking Food Banks Canada for their report. It is yet another important piece of information for us, as we develop our poverty reduction strategy and as we begin to implement it. I want to thank them for their contribution, not only this report, but also the Ontario Association of Food Banks for their significant contributions to our strategy.

I have had a chance to look briefly at the report. I look forward to reviewing it in more detail, but I was happy to note that 4,000 fewer Ontarians used food banks this year compared to last year, on a monthly basis; 24,000 fewer Ontarians used food banks each month compared to the peak in 2005.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Michael Prue: The minister failed to answer the question. The question is: Why is it that more and more working Ontarians are being forced into the food bank?

The minister and her government often talk about increases to the minimum wage, but this report shows that the increases have not been enough to stop more and more working Ontarians from relying on food banks.

The report last week by well-known economist Jim Stanford found that a minimum wage of $16 an hour is needed for a single parent raising a child to meet her family's basic needs in Toronto. This government repeatedly refuses to increase the minimum wage to a fair and decent level, saying it will hurt business, even though leading economists say it just isn't so.

My question: Why won't the minister acknowledge that Ontario's minimum wage is too low to live on and increase it to a liveable level of $10.25 now?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The member highlights that we still have a challenge when it comes to poverty in this province. None of us are denying that we have a problem; in fact, we're prepared to address the problem. We are moving aggressively, but in a balanced way, on minimum wage. I think it's very important that minimum wage continues to increase, but let's think about it for a second. When we were elected in 2003, it had been flatlined for nine years at $6.85. It's gone up now to $8.75 an hour, and it's on its way to $10.25. That's an aggressive but balanced approach to increasing minimum wage.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: My question is for the Attorney General. Ontarians have the right to live without fear in their homes and in their communities. Many Ontarians want to know that we are taking the necessary steps to prevent and end violence against women, youth and children.

Earlier this year, our government committed over $8 million in new funding to help ensure that women who are victims of abuse and their children get help faster and are better protected from future harm. Those investments included a new early victim contact program, more annual ongoing funding for the partner assault response program, and new annual funding to the province's 79 supervised access program locations.

Yesterday, the Attorney General introduced legislation that included important reforms to the restraining order regime in this province. Could the Attorney General tell us how the new legislation, if passed, would strengthen the protections for vulnerable women and children?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I join my colleague from Huron—Bruce and all members of this House in saying that we must have an Ontario where all are able to live their lives free of abuse and violence. Restraining orders are those orders that judges make to keep the vulnerable, particularly women and children, safe. But we've heard for more than 10 years, and my colleague from Durham has been an advocate, that the restraining order system is not tough enough, it's not available as it should be, and they are not enforced as they should be.

So just the other day I was pleased to introduce legislation that will make the orders more available, will put real teeth into the orders and will give them real enforcement that will keep our women and children, and all Ontarians, safe from abuse and violence.

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: Sadly, violence against women and children in times of family breakdown and distress is not something that is new. In fact, many people have been calling for a strengthened restraining order regime for a number of years. I know that we have had legislative attempts in the past to reform the restraining order regime, but could the Attorney General tell us why this legislation will bring in the changes that we need to make life safer for women and children?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: My colleague is right. For more than 10 years, every member of this House and ones before have stood and said, "We need to reform." There was a unanimous bill passed by this House, but not proclaimed, that spoke to the principle. There are many members of all parties who have brought forward initiatives, so we have all worked collectively, and what we introduced on Monday is the product of all-party and all-corners-of this-province support for a system that will be stronger and tougher.

Let me just let you know what an advocate for a world without violence against women said about this. Pam Cross, who is well known to all, says, "Those of us who work with abused women and children are thrilled with this package of family law reforms. This legislation would help hundreds of women and children by making justice faster, more accessible and more affordable." To all of us, the Premier, the member from Etobicoke—Lakeshore, my colleague, children's minister—

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

MINISTERS' COMMENTS

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Premier.

Premier, last Thursday, members of your caucus voted to defeat my resolution to build new long-term-care beds in Simcoe and Grey counties. Just before the vote, your Minister of Education said twice, "Why should we care about seniors in Simcoe—Grey?" and that disrespectful comment was repeated by your Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Premier, you're here to govern for all the people of Ontario. Don't you think your ministers should be apologizing to the senior citizens who are waiting for a long-term-care bed in Simcoe and Grey counties?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. David Caplan: I think the member would want to recognize that this government has worked very hard to continue on the progress that we've made when it comes to long-term care. In fact, we have a comprehensive long-term-care strategy which is going to benefit not only the members you represent in the community of Simcoe—Grey, but all Ontarians right across the province.

That includes things like quality improvement. We're going to measure and for the very first time publicly report health outcomes and satisfaction through the Ontario Health Quality Council. We're working with our partners in the sector to implement the recommendations that Shirlee Sharkey made to improve the quality of care within our homes.

We have new legislation and new regulations. I know the member would want to acknowledge that we have increased staff capacity within—we've added over 2,500 more personal support care workers, over 2,000 more nurses. We've already—

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: I didn't hear any apology in that ramble.

Premier, let me read you some e-mails I've received.

A registered nurse in Simcoe county wrote, "I am totally disgusted at the responses of the two ministers who were totally out of line in their remarks to your presentation."

Another constituent even wrote an e-mail to you, Premier, that said, "(this) clearly outlines your party's despicable behaviour toward the people of Ontario and especially to the senior citizens of Simcoe—Grey. I urgently request that the two ministers named provide a public apology for their insolent behaviour...."

Premier, will you apologize to the 4,000 senior citizens waiting for a long-term-care bed in the Simcoe and Grey catchment areas in central Ontario?

Hon. David Caplan: I'm going to ask the Minister of Education to respond.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I just want to be clear that the Minister of Children and Youth Services and I have actually issued a statement that made it very clear that on the day in question, what we were talking about was support for long-term-care homes for all of Ontario. We are so committed in each of our ridings—but across the whole province. The Minister of Health has spoken to our government's record.

I want to be clear to all of the constituents in the member opposite's riding that there is absolutely no ill will that comes from any of us on this side of the House to them. We are completely supportive of their needs, and we will work as a government to provide support for the health needs of all Ontarians.

ABORIGINAL EDUCATION

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Premier. You describe yourself as the education Premier. That's what you said when you were first elected. If you're the education Premier, why are you not responding to the desperate calls for help from the children of Attawapiskat who are trying to get their school replaced?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Education.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: One of the challenges, I think, for our society in Canada is the issue of the jurisdictional debate—

Interjections.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: No, listen. I'm not going to hide behind the jurisdictional debate. I just want to raise it as an issue that we need to deal with.

The reality is that the federal government, as you know and as the member opposite knows quite well, has had responsibility for education on-reserve for those children.

What you need to know is that I am working with First Nations, Metis and Inuit people across this province to see if there are ways that we can support the education of all aboriginal children. We have already got in place an aboriginal framework for education in the province. We are in the process of developing tripartite conversations.

It is extremely important to me, as the Minister of Education, that we support the—

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Madam Minister, these kids are desperate. They've been trying to get a school rebuilt in that community for the better part of 10 years. It is an absolutely desperate situation.

Let me remind you of a couple of things. First of all, these kids are Ontario citizens and they deserve the full attention of their provincial government when it comes to education.

Let me tell you something else, Madam Minister. Ontario signed Treaty 9, and one of the reasons that people signed the treaty over 100 years ago with the province was to make sure that they had education for their kids. So let me ask you on behalf of those children: What are you prepared to do as a province to make sure that those kids get the same education as any other child in this province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Hon. Brad Duguid: The member knows full well that education on reserves is a federal responsibility. But if he listened closely to the Minister of Education, he would have noticed that after generations and generations of governments that have just allowed it to stop there, this Minister of Education is saying we've got to do more. We're going to do more because these young people deserve the same access to opportunity that every person in Ontario has.

So we're committed to working with the federal government if necessary, and we're also committed to working with First Nations if we have to go after the federal government to make sure that that equal opportunity can be developed here in this province. Because the member is right: There are two tiers of education right now across this country when it comes to First Nations, Inuit and Metis students and non-aboriginal students, and we're committed to working with all partners to resolve—

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

ELECTRICITY GENERATION

Mr. Charles Sousa: My question is to the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure. Minister, over the summer you came to Mississauga South to announce that Lakeview will not be considered as a potential site for a new gas-fired power plant. After hosting a dirty coal plant for 40 years, the residents of Lakeview, and indeed all of Mississauga, welcome the decision to protect our waterfront. Now that Lakeview is not an option for power generation, we are one step closer to our goal of revitalizing the area.

At the same time, however, you stated that you will be directing the Ontario Power Authority to initiate a request for proposal for a new gas-fired power plant in the southwest GTA. Since then, you have issued that directive and the RFP is under way. Minister, my constituents are apprehensive about this. They're not sure what this means for the community or when or how decisions will be made. What are the requirements for the RFP, how will the location of the new plant be decided and how can communities get involved in the process?

Hon. George Smitherman: I want to thank the honourable member and I want to acknowledge that he has been very proactive on the part of his constituents.

As our province undergoes the bold ambition of eliminating coal, we have a need for peak capacity. That is, when a lot of people at the same time demand energy, it's our obligation that it be available to them, and accordingly, these gas-fired power plants are part and parcel of that. I did direct the OPA to initiate a process that will see 850 megawatts located in the southwest GTA. This is a process that will be completed by June of next year, with an in-service date for the plant no later than the end of 2013.

The project will be required to undergo all local, municipal and environmental standards, and there's going to be a very big process of involvement with communities. We had a great town hall meeting a few weeks back in Mississauga. Since then there have been efforts by the OPA in more localized centres in the southwest GTA to involve the public, give them information and respond to their questions.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Charles Sousa: As you know, the Clarkson airshed study found that we have a stressed airshed in Mississauga South. Emissions from industry, the QEW and nearby coal plants all played a role in these findings. Even though the Lakeview coal plant has been demolished and the Nanticoke plant is soon to follow, air quality remains a concern. As such, people are worried about the cumulative effect of existing emitters and a new gas-fired power plant on the air we breathe. I've heard from many community leaders and ratepayers who raise the same concerns about gas plant emissions, like CO 2 and particulate matter.

In response, many have suggested that power generation should be placed farther away from residential communities. In addition, they proposed that new power be transmitted over greater distances via transmission lines.

Minister, in light of the finding of the Clarkson airshed study, why is it necessary for new gas-fired power generation to be built in the southwest GTA?

Hon. George Smitherman: In the southwest GTA we have a characteristic which is evident in quite a few parts of the greater Toronto area, which is growth. That is an area where hospitals are growing, as one example, and demanding more electricity. It's crucial that we meet those needs reliably.

On the matter at hand from the member about the Clarkson airshed study, a couple of things that I think are very important to keep in mind: First and foremost, we've already taken out of play there a very large polluter that is Lakeview. This airshed is downwind of Nanticoke. Nanticoke is the single largest source of air pollution in Ontario and that's why it will be out of service as a coal-burning plant by 2014.

That's the single-largest climate change initiative and should be very, very beneficial to the residents of Clarkson, who are dramatically downwind from that.

This new gas-fired facility in the southwest GTA will meet the needs as dictated by the Environmental Assessment Act, and overall, we see progress towards substantial improvement in the air—

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

PESTICIDES

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. During the debate on Bill 64, the pesticide ban, you assured cemeteries that they would be exempt. We now find that you have broken your promise, but given your track record, nobody is surprised.

You further committed to comprehensive consultations with lawn care professionals to implement regulations in a sensible way, with a realistic timetable. You have gone back on your word to them as well.

If your government understood business at all, you would recognize that your regulations leave them no room and no time to plan or prepare for the 2009 growing season. Why can't you people keep your word?

Hon. John Gerretsen: Well—and I appreciate the question—we have been very adamant on the whole pesticide situation that we were going to implement the new rules and regulations by the growing season of 2009. We have said that right from the very beginning, and we intend to do that.

But, as the member also knows, the final regulations are on the EBR right now. We're looking for comments from individuals. We've met with the same organizations that he has obviously met with within the last day or so. We are still reviewing the situation, and we'll be making a final determination shortly.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Those regulations will be finalized in March, and that doesn't give anybody enough time.

Your regulations will, further, create the very strange situation of allowing individuals the right to apply class 7 pesticides, such as Grub Eliminator, but not allow professionals to do the same.

Many people, including seniors and the disabled, rely on professionals to take care of their properties—professionals who are trained to deal with the products in the safest possible manner, including not requiring the homeowner to deal with the storage or disposal of unused product.

Will you commit to correcting this blatant inconsistency immediately?

Hon. John Gerretsen: We know where this government stands on this particular issue. We want to protect children in the best way we know possible as far as banning the cosmetic use of pesticides is concerned.

We also realize that there are certain products that under certain circumstances could be used for purposes other than—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Renfrew, you just asked the question. I would ask that you be respectful and listen to the answer.

Hon. John Gerretsen: As he well knows, there are certain products that can be used for different purposes. For those purposes, particularly when we're talking about indoor purposes, there will be a use of restricted products on that list that will be sold to individuals on an individual basis for those specific purposes.

We intend to bring in the best possible law, as we have done, and the best possible rules and regulations to make sure that the children of this province are—

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

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

M me France Gélinas: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Rouge Valley Health System, Ajax and Pickering hospital, recently completed a state-of-the-art, nine-bed psychiatric intensive care unit costing $3 million—not too many of those around.

Can the minister explain why, in spite of Durham region's desperate need for these psychiatric services, these new beds will not be used for mental health, but will be replaced by general beds?

Hon. David Caplan: As the member is well aware, the hospital, working with the Central East Local Health Integration Network, made a determination as to the very best way that they could be able to provide the services both for general surgical and also for mental health to the people served by Durham region. It was, in their determination—certainly not by the ministry—the best way to coordinate and to be able to configure the particular services in this area.

I know that the member is well aware that this is an example of people in local community determining how to best meet local needs. This is the whole advent and reason behind the formation of local health integration networks, that, in fact, it is people empowered within their own community who are in the best position to be able to direct and determine the kind of care needs for the populations they are serving.

I know that this proposal has moved forward. I know that it has created a lot of conversation within—

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

M me France Gélinas: The fact is, the people of Ontario spent $3 million to build this psychiatric intensive care unit, and it will never be used. The people from Durham region want to have this psychiatric unit in their hospital.

Ontario is facing a mental health services crisis. The Canadian Psychiatric Association recommends that patients be admitted within 24 hours in case of a high degree of risk to self or others, yet in Ontario, people often have to wait five days or longer, often with catastrophic consequences. Without these new psychiatric beds, Durham residents will face increased wait times and potentially devastating outcomes. My question is simple: How can this government shut down mental health facilities in a time of desperate need?

Hon. David Caplan: The characterization of the member is unfortunate and simply incorrect. Facilities are not being shut down; they are simply being configured in a different way.

In fact, mental health funding in the province of Ontario has increased: over $200 million in funding to expand services to over 200,000 additional Ontarians, hiring more than 1,100 new mental health workers.

Interjections.

Hon. David Caplan: I would contrast that with the experience under Mr. Kormos or his colleagues in the New Democratic Party, who cut mental health funding by over $23 million in 1992, and a further cut, my friends, by over $42 million in 1994 and 1995.

Interjections.

Hon. David Caplan: I am not going to take a lecture from the member opposite, given his very sorry record, given the treatment of the mentally ill under his party. It's—

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

DEFERRED VOTES

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ PROFESSIONNELLE

ET L'ASSURANCE CONTRE

LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 119,

An Act to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 119, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la sécurité professionnelle et l'assurance contre les accidents du travail.

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

The division bells rang from 1137 to 1147.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Mr. Fonseca has moved third reading of Bill 119,

An Act to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.

All those in favour will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): All opposed, please rise.

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 64; the nays are 19.

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

Third reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters):

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

Just a reminder to members that I encourage everyone to join the press gallery tonight at their gallery auction in support of the United Way.

This House stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1151 to 1500.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Jim Brownell: I would like to introduce Damian Kraemer in the gallery here, a resident of Toronto Centre—not from my great riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry but here in Toronto Centre, an associate with Gowlings here in Toronto.

M me France Gélinas: I forgot to introduce members of the Sudbury Professional Fire Fighters Association who were here this morning. So a little bit late, Mark Muldoon, Mark Gobbo, Danny Wendler, Chad Witmore, Brent Cadotte and Sean McMahon.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Introductions? Members' statements?

Mr. Peter Kormos: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: My apologies. It isn't so much a matter of there not being guests; it's a matter of there not being very many members present to introduce those guests, obviously.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): It's not a point of order.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I stand before you today to inform this House and the citizens of Ontario about a real injustice and tragedy that is occurring at the racetracks of our province while the government of Ontario refuses to protect the agricultural community.

The previous government allowed racetracks to install slot machines. An agreement dated July 31, 2000, between Georgian Downs Ltd. and the OLGC stated the following: "and

whereas the slot programs at racetracks is intended to promote live horse racing in the province and subsequently benefit the agricultural sector in Ontario and the OLGC supports this endeavour."

What is happening today? Exactly the opposite. The OLG, the completely dysfunctional Ontario Racing Commission and the McGuinty Liberals are allowing the casino licence holders to suspend or cancel racing dates. For example, this January and February, there will be no racing at Georgian Downs.

Do horses still have to be fed? Of course they do. Do racing stables still have ongoing costs such as heat, hydro and insurance? Yes, they do. Will cancelling racing dates have a negative impact on agriculture? Yes. Will the slot machines at Georgian Downs be closed at the same time? No; you bet they won't.

While the McGuinty Liberals and the OLG hold lavish $2.7-million parties at Casino Windsor, while the McGuinty Liberals allow the useless expansion at Casino Windsor to run hundreds of millions over budget, they refuse to come to the assistance of citizens of rural Ontario who depend upon harness racing to feed their families.

I call upon the Legislature to demand a public inquiry into the actions of the OLG and the Ontario Racing Commission.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'd ask for unanimous consent for all parties to speak for up to five minutes on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Agreed? I heard a no.

Members' statements?

Mr. John O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Could you please identify who said no?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I heard a no.

Interjections: I didn't.

Mr. John O'Toole: I didn't.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'll allow the member to seek unanimous consent once again.

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: It's my understanding that this was to be done after members' statements. Would the member defer asking for unanimous consent until after the finishing of members' statements?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Yes, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We'll continue with members' statements.

WILSON CAULFIELD

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey: I recently attended the Ontario Senior Achievement Awards ceremony. Recipients are those who have made a significant contribution to their community after turning 65 years of age.

One such individual is Wilson Caulfield of Brampton. In the early 1980s, Mr. Caulfield joined his local service club, the Kiwanis, and recommended they institute a new program which would capture discarded prescription eye glasses, collect them in a central location in Ontario and distribute them to developing countries. The eyeglass project created by Mr. Caulfield has helped thousands of people in developing countries who would not otherwise have had the benefit of sight.

Over the years, more than 66,000 pairs of eyeglasses have given the gift of sight to literally thousands and thousands of people who would not otherwise have been able to read and write, sew or build. The eyeglass project volunteers work in collaboration with eye clinics where ophthalmologists and optometrists provide eye examinations and treatment, and opticians ensure that patients receive glasses best suited to correct their vision.

This project continues today through the Kiwanis Club of Islington. Mr. Caulfield was recognized by the Kiwanis of the Year Award in 1998 for his accomplishments with the eyeglass project.

The Ontario Senior Achievement Award honours those who have made outstanding contributions to their communities. Please join me in congratulating Mr. Caulfield on having been recognized and chosen as a Senior Achievement Award recipient.

CYRIL LEEDER

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: I rise today to congratulate the Ottawa Senators chief operating officer, Cyril Leeder, on winning the Ottawa Chamber of Commerce Business Person of the Year.

Cyril has been with the Senators since the franchise returned to the NHL in 1992. Along with owner Eugene Melnyk, Cyril has worked hard to make the Sens a great success and to bring the 2009 IIHF World Junior Championships to Ottawa this winter—and now they have their sights on a major league soccer team for Ottawa.

That most recent project had Cyril and Eugene in California on Thursday, so Cyril's beautiful wife, Lydia, was there at the dinner to accept the award.

Born in Brockville, Cyril is a real asset to eastern Ontario. He serves on the board of directors of the Ottawa Congress Centre and the marketing board for the National Arts Centre.

I was very happy to be at the dinner to recognize so many outstanding businesses and business people of my great city, Ottawa. My only regret about Cyril winning the gold is that my 38-year-old son Ian Sterling, president of Doherty and Associates Investment Counsel, won the silver. I want to take this opportunity to say just how proud a dad I am of my son Ian and thank his beautiful wife Tanya for her support, and their three great kids, my grandkids.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I just want to say how concerned we in the opposition are that, for the first time in many years, the government has not allowed us to take five minutes per party and speak about this incredibly important day, which is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.

We are absolutely firm in our demand for this. I know the vote won't happen until after this, so certainly we would like to see that. You know, there's always time for everything else except in the case where one out of every two women, 51%, experience abuse or assault during the course of their lifetime. So I would ask every member of the House to vote in favour of five minutes at least, so that each party can speak about this important topic. To not do so is, of course, really, to just ignore the spirit of the day and the importance of the day and the importance of this day to all of the various women's groups that are working so hard in their battle against the battle against women.

Again, I would just hope that in the deferred vote after members' statements there is unanimous consent for st