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

November 17, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Nov-17 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 17 November 2009 Mardi 17 novembre 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION

FOR FOREIGN NATIONALS ACT

(LIVE-IN CAREGIVERS

AND OTHERS), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR

LA PROTECTION DES ÉTRANGERS

DANS LE CADRE DE L'EMPLOI

(AIDES FAMILIAUX ET AUTRES)

TECHNICAL STANDARDS AND SAFETY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

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

ONTARIO LABOUR

MOBILITY ACT, 2009 /

LOI ONTARIENNE DE 2009

SUR LA MOBILITÉ

DE LA MAIN-D'OEUVRE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

NOTICE OF REASONED AMENDMENT

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

PENSION PLANS

TAXATION

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

POLICE

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

HIGHWAY 407

NOTICES OF DISSATISFACTION

DEFERRED VOTES

TIME ALLOCATION

TIME ALLOCATION

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NEUSTADT SEWAGE LAGOON

BRIAN COCHRANE

WINTER FESTIVAL OF LIGHTS

CANADIAN YOUTH

BUSINESS FOUNDATION

BRAMPTON BOARD OF TRADE

SANTA CLAUS PARADE

TAXATION

FIREFIGHTERS

TAXATION

ONTARIO KOREAN BUSINESSMEN'S ASSOCIATION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

SOCIAL POLICY

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

JUSTICE POLICY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EHEALTH ONTARIO SPENDING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR L'OBLIGATION

DE RENDRE COMPTE DES DÉPENSES

DE CYBERSANTÉ ONTARIO

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

POLICE ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO

AFFORDABLE HOUSING /

LOGEMENTS ABORDABLES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

POLICE ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO

POLICE ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

PETITIONS

TAXATION

SALE OF DOMESTIC

WINES AND BEERS

YOUTH ACTION ALLIANCE

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

TAXATION

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

TAXATION

CEMETERIES

TAXATION

SOCIAL SERVICES FUNDING

OPPOSITION DAY

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

TAXATION

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION

FOR FOREIGN NATIONALS ACT

(LIVE-IN CAREGIVERS

AND OTHERS), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR

LA PROTECTION DES ÉTRANGERS

DANS LE CADRE DE L'EMPLOI

(AIDES FAMILIAUX ET AUTRES)

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 5, 2009, on the motion for second reading of Bill 210,

An Act to protect foreign nationals employed as live-in caregivers and in other prescribed employment and to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 / Projet de loi 210, Loi visant à protéger les étrangers employés comme aides familiaux et dans d'autres emplois prescrits et modifiant la Loi de 2000 sur les normes d'emploi.

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: We're here once again to debate Bill 210. We all agree that we need to protect foreign live-in caregivers. But we have to ask, why does the Liberal government believe there is no other way to defend foreign caregivers without trampling on the rights of others? Why does the government believe that they should defend foreign caregivers by giving employment standards officers the right to warrantless entry into private homes?

Why do they believe that the Ministry of Labour should be allowed to conduct fishing expeditions on whatever property they deem fit, without even consulting a judge or a justice? Why is it that this government is destroying an entire live-in caregiver industry, destroying the livelihoods of those who help bring caregivers to this country?

Contrary to the beliefs of this minister, not all of those who help bring foreign caregivers into this country are heartless profiteers. Not all employment agencies exploit live-in caregivers.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Excuse me; I believe that you have spoken to this bill. You will relinquish–thank you.

Further debate? The member for Willowdale.

Mr. David Zimmer: It's my pleasure to speak to this bill today. Last spring, when the stories started to appear in the newspapers about the difficulties, the problems, the challenges and the unfairness that had been visited upon the heads of live-in caregivers, it became clear that legislation—government action—was required to alleviate the very difficult circumstances that some of these caregivers found themselves under. I don't want to suggest in any way that all families that employed live-in caregivers were abusive to their caregivers, but there was certainly a segment of our society that was taking advantage of live-in caregivers.

It was for that reason, to protect our most vulnerable, that our government stepped in and decided to take required action in this matter, and we now find the result of that initiative in Bill 210. What I would like to do is just highlight some of the matters in Bill 210 and explain why they've been brought forward, what they are intended to do and how the provisions in Bill 210 will protect some of the most vulnerable in our society: live-in caregivers.

It's a particularly poignant problem, because the paradox, or the irony, is that our society often relies on these live-in caregivers to care for the most vulnerable in our society: young children and senior citizens. Families in their busy lives, mothers and fathers working and managing their careers often make use of live-in caregivers to look after young children and elderly parents.

So now we have a situation where we have, in many cases, vulnerable live-in care workers being asked to look after vulnerable seniors and young children, and it's incumbent upon our society to give the same protection to the vulnerable caregivers as we give to young children and senior citizens, whom the live-in caregivers are often called upon to care for.

Here are some of the highlights of Bill 210. First, it applies to foreign nationals who are employed in Ontario as live-in caregivers or in such other positions in sectors as may be prescribed by regulation—so, other employment. Right now, the legislation applies to live-in caregivers, but there is the potential to expand it to cover other types of prescribed employment; that is, protecting vulnerable workers.

Number two, the legislation provides that persons who act as recruiters in connection with employing these foreign nationals are prohibited from charging the foreign national a fee. What has happened in the past is that a recruiter has gone out and recruited a foreign national as a caregiver and arranged for them to come to Canada and accept a placement here in Ontario, and then charged a fee to the foreign caregiver, often in addition to a fee charged to the employer of that foreign caregiver.

Under this legislation, those kinds of fees that are charged to foreign caregivers—again, the most vulnerable employees here in Ontario—are proscribed. They are forbidden. The money that is paid to the foreign caregiver will be their money. They will keep that money, and there will be no further fees. That's an abuse that Bill 210 has stopped.

A third thing that we find in Bill 210 is that employers of foreign nationals are prohibited from recovering fees from the employee, because a backdoor way for a recruiter to get around not collecting fees is to say to the employee, the caregiver, "We're not going to charge you a fee." A caregiver comes to Ontario, accepts the placement, and lo and behold, where they've accepted the placement, the family then tries to recover their fee or a part of the fee they have paid the recruiter. So we have to nip that in the bud too. That's exactly what Bill 210 does.

A fourth thing that Bill 210 does is prohibit employers, where they're working, and prohibit recruiters, who have arranged for them to take the placement here in Ontario, from taking possession, retaining or controlling in any way their travel documents, in particular their passport.

One of the abuses that we heard about in this past year was a caregiver who was brought into the province, surrendered their passport and other travel documents either to their employer, the family or their recruiter, who then held those documents as a lien or as a method of controlling travel, placement and where the foreign caregiver could move around in the province.

These vulnerable employees coming to Ontario with the very best of intentions, to care for our young children and our senior citizens, were in many ways trapped. The employer or the recruiter seized their passport and travel documents and would give them back on payment of fees. So that has been proscribed.

A fifth thing that this legislation has done to protect these vulnerable workers is that the employer and the recruiter are now required to post copies of various documents that are published by the director of employment standards. These documents contain rights that the vulnerable care workers have. It contains a description of the obligations of the employer, the family, and of the recruiter.

We've now done a couple of things, and you can see the progression of this. We've said you can't charge them fees, you can't take their travel documents, and now, you've got to post—you've got to give them in writing—a statement of what their rights are and what the obligations of their employers are, so that they can sit back and decide and have some sense of whether they are being treated fairly, whether they are being treated according to the law.

We are providing that information in a very concrete, clear, written manner, so that there is a level playing field. The vulnerable care worker now has access to documentation that explains their situation, and the employer and the recruiter also has a very clear statement in writing as to what their obligations are. One of the first steps in creating a level playing field for vulnerable care workers, their family employers and their recruiters is to make sure they're all reading from the same rule book. That's what this legislation is designed to do.

The legislation goes on and has a series of prescriptions that address the issue of: What if there is a situation in the employment relationship with the vulnerable care worker, their employer or the recruiter that is out of whack, if you will, and that is the subject matter of a complaint? Well, there is a complaints process set up in Bill 210. It lays out what a vulnerable care worker who is covered by this legislation can do to enforce those rights that are set out in the documents they will have from the director of employment standards. There's a regime, a process, to handle complaints from vulnerable care workers.

Let me touch on some of the aspects of how that complaints process will work. Essentially, the complaint will make its way to employment standards. Here is the very significant piece of this legislation: The employment standards officer, on receipt of the complaint, has some powers and authority. To date, it has been unclear what employment standards officers could do with respect to a complaint from an in-home care worker.

Under this legislation, employment standards officers are permitted to undertake an inspection and an investigation, and they can require employers and recruiters to post various notices to correct deficiencies or correct actions that are inconsistent and/or illegal under this act.

There's also a very clear and distinct penalty provision in the legislation for contraventions of the act. If the rights of a vulnerable live-in care worker are alleged to have been violated, there's now a process to investigate that complaint in a meaningful way. If the complaint is established, there are a number of things that can follow from that. There are corrective or remedial measures that can be taken via the issuance of notices to employers and recruiters. There is also the imposition of penalties on the recruiter and on the family employer.

We've heard from the vulnerable care workers. We've also heard from responsible employers and from responsible recruiters, because although I've stressed the difficult circumstances that many vulnerable care workers find themselves in, there are many, many responsible employers and recruiters, and they've worked with us and with the care workers and some of the agencies that represent and take a particular interest in vulnerable care workers to help give us some advice in drafting this legislation.

The legislation, like most legislation before this House, is designed to root out a particular piece of mischief or misconduct, and the particular piece of mischief or misconduct here is the taking advantage of vulnerable care workers.

There's another aspect that has cropped up in a number of questions that have been raised in this chamber and in the media; that is, why doesn't Ontario follow the model of the legislation that the province of Manitoba has in addressing this issue? I just want to take a couple of minutes to address this.

The Manitoba model is a licensing regime where the recruiter has to be licensed in order to recruit employees and bring them into the province of Manitoba. Manitoba approaches it by putting some very tight controls and rules and regulations on the recruitment process through a licensing regime. If you don't have a licence as a recruiter, you can't recruit foreign care workers.

We looked at the licensing regime and heard from live-in caregivers, and we determined that the best way to ensure protection here in Ontario is through a complete fee ban, a strong enforcement of that fee ban, a strong enforcement of prescribed rights for foreign live-in care workers and a very precise regime of prescribed obligations for their employers or the recruiters who recruit them, along with stiff penalties that can be applied to the employer or the recruiter.

How does our legislation specifically differ from the Manitoba legislation? Well, the Manitoba act focuses on administration, with a recruiter licensing and employment registration regime. The Ontario legislation focuses on strong enforcement and stiff penalties with respect to the rules covering the employment relationship. We also have a number of very innovative prohibitions and prescriptions of the obligations of employers.

Unlike Manitoba's legislation, violations here in Ontario, if they are really quite outrageous and egregious, could result in very substantial financial penalties and perhaps even incarceration. In addition, if the Ontario legislation is passed, Ontario would be the only jurisdiction in Canada to ban the withholding of passports and other personal documents. The idea of withholding passports and other documents as a way of imposing the employer's or the recruiter's will on these vulnerable foreign workers is, from the workers' point of view, really quite a fearsome—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. Questions and comments?

Mr. John O'Toole: I always enjoy listening to the member from Willowdale. In fact, I think he made a very, very good point.

I'm really anxious to see something quite new put on the table here. I'd like to have the Manitoba model tabled so all members can be refreshed on that option, because really, when I look at Bill 210—and there are sections of it, of course. We are very much supportive of protecting all workers, not just vulnerable workers. All workers need protection—we understand that—especially persons who may have been wrongly informed or inappropriately managed by recruiters and other people. Let's be very clear on that.

But, thanks to the member from Willowdale raising the point, we now want a full briefing on the Manitoba model before we can support this, because this model has some structural problems that we've drawn to the attention of the minister and others.

I'm just going to mention here in the brief time—I wish I could get more time here, though; I'm running out of time. On page 18 of the bill, and specifically on

section 34, which is the investigation and inspection powers section, it's a bit overarching and a bit strong there; posting of notices,

section 37, is another part; and

section 40, offences in general. These are sections that need a little more clarity in terms of what are the repercussions for an inspection officer coming in under a whistle-blower type of event, where someone said something untoward has happened and the inspector comes in to the privacy—this warrantless entry provision is completely unacceptable in a democratic society. You have to prove in some kind of court that you have justifiable reason for needing this warrantless entry.

I think that if we looked at the Manitoba model, we might come to a consensus here. Isn't that what we're trying to do, to move forward—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. Comments and questions?

Mr. Michael Prue: I listened intently to the member from Willowdale, and with the greatest of respect, he is like so many other Ontarians who do not understand immigration, immigration law, immigration policy and immigration abuse.

With the greatest of respect, I did work there for more than 20 years, and I will tell you, if there is a way to exploit the vulnerable, people will find it. People will find that exploitation.

We can see today in the province of Ontario that there are unscrupulous immigration consultants, unscrupulous recruiters, unscrupulous people who take advantage of new immigrants.

The province of Ontario, if they want to put an end to it, has to adopt the Manitoba model. You have to license people in order to be able to shut them down immediately when they fail.

I fail to understand what the member from Willowdale was talking about, saying that our model is different and our model is superior. Our model is not superior when you have to go through a long process in order to try to help those who are vulnerable. They have no roots. They have no ability to stay. With a three- or four-year proceeding in order to take someone to court, the chief witness will in all likelihood be gone.

We need the province of Ontario to stand up for foreign workers, we need them to put in a licensing provision, but we also need them—and it has not been talked about—to go back to the federal government and talk about how morally reprehensible the foreign worker program is.

We should be bringing people here to Canada with full rights of immigration. They should come with papers. They cannot be exploited in anywhere near the same way that those who are coming temporarily are.

There was a time when there was only a small agricultural program for foreign workers. Then we expanded it to nannies. Then Canada expanded it to literally hundreds of places, and it just is not working. The government is not addressing—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. The member for Eglinton—Lawrence.

Mr. Mike Colle: I certainly agree with the member from East York that we've got over 200,000 part-time foreign workers now coming in every year with no controls, so it's right: The federal government is basically asleep at the switch, just opening the door with no controls, no support.

The member from Willowdale I think also touched on the humanity of this, and I appreciate that, but it's so rich to hear the Tories stand up and say they want the Manitoba model, when they're the ones that stripped all these protections away from temporary workers, foreign workers, when they were in power.

Then the member from Durham has got the gall to stand up and talk about warrantless entry in inspecting working conditions. It was the Tories that put that in. It was their government that put in the warrantless entry. Now they say that's undemocratic. As you know, in labour standards, labour inspectors have the right to inspect places of work. In this case here, if it's someone's home, they don't have the right to warrantless entry. But it's so incredible to hear the retro explanations of the Tories.

They're the ones that took all these protections away so that these vultures, the human traffickers that traffic and exploit foreign workers, like caregivers, were given free rein by the Tories. Now they're saying they need more protection. The member from Durham should apologize and leave this chamber for that kind of disgusting thing. They took away the rights. Now they say, "You need more protections."

Anyways, this is a reasoned approach. For the first time in the government of Ontario's history we're protecting foreign nationals in the workplace, and it's about time.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you very much. Further comments?

Mr. Randy Hillier: It was interesting listening to the debate here and the member referring to "those vultures." Of course, the vultures who exploit these caregivers—the most noted and infamous vulture was the Liberal member of the federal House, Ruby Dhalla. That's the vulture he wants to prevent, and I would agree that we should prevent them. I'm sure that under the Manitoba model, Ruby Dhalla would not get a licence. That's what we should be looking at in this bill.

I agree with the member from Willowdale, and I really appreciate him standing up and speaking about how good the Manitoba model is and how we should be looking to copy that Manitoba model and prevent those vultures the member for the cricket club was referring to.

Anyway, there is significant irony here. The Liberals are trying to protect the rights of foreign live-in workers. We agree with that, of course. But to trample on civil liberties, to deny people the privacy of their own home, to allow for warrantless entries, to trample on everybody else's rights for the protection of another: Even the most elementary of debaters would understand and realize that you don't protect some by harming others. You don't protect some by harming others.

Anyway, I do believe that this licensing arrangement under the Manitoba model would be effective. It would prevent the vultures, like the Liberal member Ruby Dhalla, from ever being involved, and it would allow us to provide those opportunities for foreign live-in caregivers to come to this country and seek and retain gainful—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you very much. The member for Willowdale has two minutes to respond.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. Pursuant to standing order 47(c), there having been six and a half hours of debate, this debate will be deemed adjourned unless the government House leader specifies otherwise.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: No further debate, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Therefore, this debate is adjourned.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

TECHNICAL STANDARDS AND SAFETY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 16, 2009, on the motion for second reading of Bill 187,

An Act to amend the Technical Standards and Safety Act, 2000 and the Safety and Consumer Statutes Administration Act, 1996 / Projet de loi 187, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2000 sur les normes techniques et la sécurité et la Loi de 1996 sur l'application de certaines lois traitant de sécurité et de services aux consommateurs.

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

Mr. John O'Toole: It's a real pleasure this morning to continue the remarks on Bill 187,

An Act to amend the Technical Standards and Safety Act, 2000 and the Safety and Consumer Statutes Administration Act, 1996.

Yesterday, without House leaders' agreement, they brought this bill forward at the end of the sessional day, at about 5:57, which I felt was a little unfair. At that time, we stood because we find that public safety issues are very important, especially in this time of H1N1. The pandemic plan for the province of Ontario is a good example of the planning, or lack of it, that this McGuinty government is able to execute.

In almost every area that I look at—the economy, how is it doing? Terrible—300,000 jobs. The managing of the government expenditures: a deficit of almost $25 billion. The resignation of a minister; another minister involved in a court issue, another member involved in a court issue; a deputy minister resigning; $1 million a day in consultant fees—unaccounted for, by the way. You look at H1N1: Is there a lineup; is there enough or is there not? I don't think they can manage anything.

I am so disappointed right now in what's going on in Ontario under the McGuinty government that I have no choice but to make one statement first—these debates seem to be falling on deaf ears. We want the government to commit to public, province-wide hearings on the new HST. This is the largest single tax grab in the province's history and they want to ram it through without consulting the public.

So I'm going to say that based on this government's unwillingness to work in consensus and co-operation, I move adjournment of the debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Mr. O'Toole has moved adjournment of the debate. 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 nays have it.

Call in the members. This will be a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 0939 to 1009.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Mr. O'Toole has moved adjournment of the debate. I ask all those in favour of the motion to please rise.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 42; the nays are 0.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): I declare the motion won.

Second reading debate adjourned.

ONTARIO LABOUR

MOBILITY ACT, 2009 /

LOI ONTARIENNE DE 2009

SUR LA MOBILITÉ

DE LA MAIN-D'OEUVRE

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 29, 2009, on the motion for second reading of Bill 175,

An Act to enhance labour mobility between Ontario and other Canadian provinces and territories / Projet de loi 175, Loi visant à accroître la mobilité de la main-d'oeuvre entre l'Ontario et les autres provinces et les territoires du Canada.

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

Hon. John Milloy: It's a pleasure for me to participate in this debate on Bill 175, which I think is a very important piece of legislation for the economy of Ontario and, indeed, the economy of Canada.

Just at the outset I'd like to give a little bit of a

summary of what Bill 175 is about, what the principle behind it is. Many in this Legislature, and indeed many who are watching this debate on television, may be surprised to learn that in Canada, a country which boasts a number of regulated authorities, a number of occupations for which you need special training and certification—here in Ontario, about 300 such occupations—if you receive that training, and I'll give a few examples such as an architect, a veterinarian, an engineer and an audiologist—once you've completed your education or training, you must go forward and receive a certification.

Many might be surprised to learn that despite the fact that we are a single nation—that we are a single market, so to speak, in many cases—if you receive this accreditation in one province or territory, if you want to move to another province or territory, you cannot freely practise that trade, that profession, that what-have-you.

This has been an issue which has been long-standing here in the country of Canada. I think all of us have recognized sometimes the irony that despite the fact that we are a nation, there are barriers between different provinces and territories. The fact of the matter is, we need to move to eliminate those barriers as best we can so that we can move forward and compete. I think people are aware of some of those efforts that have taken place. In 1994, the Agreement on Internal Trade was passed, which was an effort by all the provinces in co-operation with the federal government to remove many of these trade barriers. Included in that was the notion of labour mobility.

Unfortunately, I hate to report that about 14 years later, in 2008 when this next came up on the public agenda, not much had happened, and many of these interprovincial barriers still existed; that is, an architect, a veterinarian, a what-have-you in one province couldn't as easily move to another province or territory and take up their regulated profession. They had to jump through hoops and sometimes they were denied because they didn't have experience in that particular province and they were forced to undertake further training.

This became, as I say, a focus in 2008 among Premiers as they met at the Council of the Federation meeting. I want to pay a tribute to the leadership of our Premier in bringing this forward, along with his colleagues, and making a commitment that all provinces would work together to remove these barriers. What was proposed was a very simple rule, a simple philosophy, which underlies the legislation that we're discussing here today. That is that if a person who is part of a regulated profession is recognized in one province, they are in a sense recognized in all provinces and territories.

In other words, an architect from Saskatchewan who has received their accreditation there can come to Ontario and hang up his or her shingle and practise.

When you think about it, there's a certain logic to this. All of us in this Legislature have had a chance to travel throughout the country, both on personal business and also on legislative business. I don't think any of us who enter a building in Saskatchewan, to take the architect example, are fearful that somehow an architect in Saskatchewan does not meet the same standards as an architect in Ontario. The principle is that if these various professions—as I say, in Ontario we are looking at about 300 occupations—have received accreditation in one province, that will take place in other provinces moving forward—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you very much. It being 10:15 of the clock, the House stands recessed until 10:30.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I'm delighted to welcome to the House today David Wolfe, from my riding, who is the dad of Sam Wolfe, one of our great new pages in the batch that just started yesterday.

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: In the gallery we have members of the Halton Regional Police Association: Walt Bucci, Irene Kun and Rick Lostracco.

Mr. Paul Miller: I'd like to introduce my daughter Sheri Miller, who is here with her classmates who will be graduating this year from the registered nursing program at the University of Western Ontario: Jillian Dodman, Carmen Romero, Rachel Rollings and Bera Garcia.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I'm very pleased to introduce the president of the University of Windsor, who has joined us in the House today. President Alan Wildeman is here, and we welcome him and invite all MPPs to a reception that the University of Windsor is hosting downstairs in the dining room this evening between 5 and 7 p.m. Welcome, Dr. Wildeman.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): He's also a constituent of the riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London.

Mr. Bill Murdoch: I would like to introduce Michael Schmidt, who is here on the third anniversary of the famous MNR raid on his farm. He's a farmer in Grey county.

M me France Gélinas: It is my pleasure to introduce four officers from the Greater Sudbury Police Service. They are Jim Gibson, Marc Guerin, Greg McDonald and Dan Zembrzycki. Welcome to Queen's Park.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I too want to welcome the fine officers from the city of Greater Sudbury, but also all the police officers in the province of Ontario who are here for their lobby day, represented by their executive: Larry Molyneaux, the president; CAO Ron Middel; Karl Walsh, president of OPPA, the Ontario Provincial Police Association; and Mike McCormack from the Toronto Police Service.

Mr. Randy Hillier: It's my pleasure to welcome Karen Selick, a member of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, joining us at the Park today supporting Michael Schmidt.

Mr. Paul Miller: I'd also like to welcome the Hamilton Police Association and their members.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I want to introduce members of the Provincial Council of Women of Ontario, who are here for their 86th semi-annual meeting at Queen's Park: President Thelma McGillivray; board members Sheila Pepper, Beverlee McIntosh, Shirley Browne, Carol Canzona, May Toth, Marnie Sherritt, Margaret Jennings; and members Denise Mattock, Connie Zboch, Juno Piltz, Sheila McAuliffe, Eileen Lackie, Susan Jaap, Luba Podolsky, Barb Skelton, Mary Potter, Cynthia Dobrindt, Gracia Janes and Kim Ivan. Welcome to Queen's Park.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I'm pleased to welcome, from Kitchener—Waterloo, Catherine Thompson, Kevin Crowley, Hélène Crowley and Elizabeth Crowley. They are the family of my page, Simon.

Hon. John Milloy: I too have a delegation as part of the police association meetings here today at Queen's Park. I'd like to welcome, in the visitors' gallery, Mike Sullivan, Paul Perchaluk, Laurie Cartwright and Amanda Harrald from my community.

Mr. John Yakabuski: On behalf of my page, Vanessa Van Decker, I would like to introduce her mother, Maureen Madigan, and her friend Cavalena Cawthray, who are joining us in the gallery today.

Mr. Joe Dickson: I'm pleased to welcome the grade 5 students from St. Patrick school in Ajax, who will be arriving here at about 11 o'clock. I thank their teachers and parents. This is the school that Minister Watson spoke on very recently, in reference to Greenbelt Day.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of page Paisley Murray and the member from Oak Ridges—Markham, we'd like to welcome her mother, Carol Heck, her grandmother Una Murray, and her grandfather David Murray. Welcome to Queen's Park.

On behalf of the member from Niagara Falls and page Alana Fansolato, we welcome her mother, Carina Fansolato, to the Legislature today. Welcome to Queen's Park.

On behalf of the member from Barrie and page Jordan Morello, I'd like to welcome his sister Olivia Morello, his father, Renzo Morello, and his mother, Carol Veale-Morello, to the east members' gallery. Welcome to Queen's Park.

We have with us in the Speaker's gallery the Consul General of the Portuguese republic here in Toronto, Mr. Júlio Vilela. Please join me in warmly welcoming our guest to the Legislature today. Welcome, Consul General.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd ask all members to join me as we allow the pages to assemble for official introduction.

Hadhy Ayaz, Halton; Nickolas Barbieri, Etobicoke—Lakeshore; Melissa Bray, Pickering—Scarborough East; Simon Crowley, Kitchener—Waterloo; Christopher Dabner, Burlington; Alana Fansolato, Niagara Falls; Paisley Murray, Oak Ridges—Markham; Saeyon Mylvaganam, Beaches—East York; Connor Niedbala, Etobicoke Centre; Jamie Sheidow, London North Centre; Valerie Steckle, Huron—Bruce; Vanessa Van Decker, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke; Samuel Wolfe, Nipissing; Cairistiona Federico, Brampton—Springdale; Olivia Hughes, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington; Maggie Hutchinson, Durham; Iman Kassam, Mississauga South; Karen Lin, Willowdale; Robyn Lin, Don Valley West; Nicolas McWatters, Parkdale—High Park; Jordan Morello, Barrie.

Welcome to all our pages. Enjoy your time here at Queen's Park.

NOTICE OF REASONED AMENDMENT

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 71(a), the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka has given notice of his intention to file a reasoned amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 218,

An Act to implement 2009 Budget measures and to enact, amend or repeal various Acts. Bill 218 may therefore not be called during orders of the day today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is for the Premier. Why are you choosing to exempt newspapers from your sales tax grab but not other sources of news, like magazines, Internet service or cable news?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The tax package that we're providing Ontarians with—the personal tax cuts, the corporate tax cuts as well as the implementation of a more efficient form of tax—is the right package of tax changes, including the exemptions that we have provided for.

The Leader of the Opposition will be aware that we've provided a number of other exemptions.

The government has determined that those exemptions, including the newspaper exemption, are the appropriate exemptions in the context of the broader tax package, which will create more than 590,000 net new jobs in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Frankly, I'm disappointed the Premier didn't respond to a very simple and direct question. Let me try again. Ontario families are concerned that instead of listening to those who are going to foot the bills, you're more concerned about listening to high-priced Liberal lobbyists and insiders like Jason Grier, who might as well have hung out a shingle to say, "If you want access to George Smitherman, come through me."

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I remind the honourable member that we refer to members by their riding names.

Mr. Tim Hudak: The member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale. Thank you, Speaker.

Ontario families will wonder why Premier McGuinty is cutting a special side deal for newspapers but is going to make working families and retirees pay 8% more for gas for their car, heat for their home, Internet bills, cable bills, and the list goes on.

I ask the Premier directly: Does the exemption for newspapers have anything to do with the fact that Jason Grier is a lobbyist for the newspaper association?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We have provided a number of exemptions under the HST as well as the—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I ask the member for Halton to withdraw the comment he just made.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I withdraw, but it's true.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I ask the honourable member to withdraw that next comment he just made.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The exemptions we've provided are among several that are designed to help families. We adjusted the housing factor and we talked about feminine hygiene products, a range of children's clothing and other exemptions that we believe are the appropriate mix. I want to urge all members again that this package is about tax cuts for families, tax cuts for businesses—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Have you withdrawn the tax on truth serum?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke will withdraw the comment, please.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I withdraw. It was just a question. I was just wondering about it.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We don't think creating jobs is a laughing matter, like the Conservatives. That's why the fair tax coalition has come out—

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: This Jason Grier is one powerful fellow. Instead of the member for Toronto Centre, Premier, maybe you should make Jason Grier your Deputy Premier. At least it would be a bit more honest.

Let me ask the Premier directly again: You're trying to nail Ontario taxpayers with the biggest sales tax increase in the history of our province. Working families and retirees are going to pay more for gas for their car, heat for their homes—a $3-billion tax grab that is going to hurt families and kill jobs. Premier, if you truly believe that this greedy tax grab is in the best interests of Ontario families, show the courage of your convictions. Call for public hearings in Niagara Falls; call for public hearings in Peterborough, public hearings in London and North Bay. Take your case directly to the taxpayers, because I bet they'll laugh you out of the hall.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The Minister of Economic Development and Trade will withdraw the comment she just made.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I withdraw.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: This from the leader of the party that had its last budget at Magna—talk about lack of public access. You know, I'd like the leader of the Conservative Party to tell us why their 2009 pre-budget submission said that the official opposition calls on this government to heed the call of the federal government and take immediate action to fix Ontario's competitive tax structure. We've done just that. Can you explain to me why Mr. Runciman said, the day we introduced the budget, "I think in theory our party is supportive of harmonization." That party has been all over the map.

This province needs leadership. The Premier of Ontario is providing, and this government is providing, a tax package that will cut taxes for 93% of Ontarians. It will create 591,000 new jobs. This province is going to support this. This province knows that we need to create jobs and we need a more competitive—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The Minister of Finance will come to order.

Interjections.

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

New question.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier, and I wonder if the Premier and the finance minister have the guts to try that circus act in full public hearings in Niagara Falls, in Peterborough and in North Bay.

Premier, you have ordered your Liberal caucus to shut down the public accounts committee hearings into your billion-dollar eHealth boondoggle before the committee finished their investigation. Why are you ending the committee's work? What exactly, Premier, are you afraid of?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It's up to the committee to make their own decisions in terms of what work they want to pursue and how much time they want to devote to that. I do want to thank them for the work that they have done.

I also want to relate back to the original work performed by the auditor and thank him, once again, for his good work. I thought he was nothing short of thorough. He made some specific findings and came up with some specific recommendations, and we adopt each and every one of those. He pointed out, in particular, a lack of oversight on the part of our government over activities that were unfolding over in eHealth and through Smart Systems. We accept that. We agree with that. We take responsibility for that.

That's why we have put in place a number of specific changes to ensure that those kinds of activities are not repeated, and in particular, we are no longer going to allow sole-sourced contracts for our consultants.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: The Premier knows that Liberal Party fingerprints are all over the eHealth boondoggle, from former Liberal campaign chair John Ronson to your former adviser and adviser to the Deputy Premier, Karli Farrow. In an explosive revelation at committee, the former deputy minister, Ron Sapsford, told the committee that the Premier's senior health adviser, Sacha Bhatia, and his principal secretary, Jamison Steeve, had meetings with the CEO of eHealth, Sarah Kramer. Premier, since we don't get any answers from you, we need to ask Sarah Kramer directly about the contents of that meeting.

Premier, will you support the PC caucus motion to call Sarah Kramer for appearing at the public accounts committee, or are you trying to cover the trail that is now leading directly to the top advisers in the Premier's office?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: No, I won't. I will not support the continuing efforts of the official opposition to engage in games. I think that's counterproductive. I think it runs counter to the public interest, and it runs counter to the very specific finding made by the auditor. I want to draw the opposition's attention to this yet again. The auditor's report says, "We were aware of the allegations that 'party politics' may have entered into the awarding of contracts and that those awarding the contracts may have obtained a personal benefit from the firms getting the work—but we saw no evidence of this during our work."

No matter how many times I confront my honourable colleague with this finding of an independent auditor, he continues to reject that finding. Instead, he prefers to engage in political games. We won't participate in that. We'll continue to move forward and put in place an electronic health records system for all Ontarians.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I don't understand why the Premier is afraid of hearing directly from Sarah Kramer, his hand-picked CEO at eHealth.

We all know that this billion-dollar eHealth boondoggle has so far resulted in the chair of eHealth, the CEO for eHealth, the deputy minister, and Ministers Caplan and Smitherman all losing their jobs. The only senior eHealth figure who has yet to lose his job is Premier McGuinty himself. And just when the committee found the direct links to his principal secretary, to his top health adviser, all of a sudden Dalton McGuinty now wants to cut off the committee hearings.

Premier, what ever happened to your commitment to transparency? What ever happened to your commitment to integrity? What ever happened to your commitment to watch out for the best interests of taxpayers? What happened to Dalton McGuinty after six years in office? Will you call Sarah Kramer to that committee today?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We have a different approach and I think Ontarians can garner that on a day-to-day basis.

Rather than engaging in innuendo, I think Ontarians are looking for ideas, especially good ideas, and e-health is a good idea.

According to Canada Health Infoway, we are 95% to 100% complete on our client registry, on our diagnostic imaging systems, and on clinical reports of immunization. There is more work to be done, but we are making real progress. Since 2005, more than four million Ontarians now have electronic medical records in place. All of our hospitals have now gone filmless and are using digital diagnostic scans.

There were some problems, admittedly, at eHealth. They had to do with oversight. The auditor spoke to that in a very direct way.

Now we choose on behalf of Ontarians, in their interests, to move forward, and that's what we're doing.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. People across the province are worried—worried about their jobs, worried about their ability to pay their bills. The Premier says that a new tax on gas, on heating and on haircuts is going to make all that go away. Alberta-based economists may think that, but Ontarians struggling to get by during this recession absolutely do not.

My question is, when will the Premier start listening to the people of Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague is right; there have been a number of economists who have spoken out in favour. There is a very strong consensus that it's time for us to do this kind of thing. One of those, in particular, is Hugh Mackenzie, who's an economist. I think it's fair to say that he's on the left side of the political spectrum. This is what he said: "Ontario's 2009-10 budget establishes the right direction for the next few years. It provides substantial economic stimulus. It is consistent with the new orthodoxy that relies heavily on governments to help rebuild damaged economies.

It imposes ... coherence on an incoherent federal plan. It increases support for low-income families and individuals. It modernizes Ontario's consumption tax."

I'd urge my honourable colleague to listen to an economist who is highly regarded on the left and, I'll also say, in connection with these comments, highly regarded by everyone.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier asked Ontarians for input on the last budget, but people's concerns about his tax plan are now falling on deaf ears—people like Lynn Eckert from Pickering, who writes this: "It is unfortunate that during these tough economic times ... middle-income families will have to battle another struggle just to make ends meet. Most of us have cut back as much as we thought possible just to keep our heads above water over the past couple of years and now we will have to ... make even more sacrifices for our families just to make our mortgage payments!" Why isn't the Premier listening to people like Lynn?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I look forward to the day when my honourable colleague stands in the House and says, "Did you know that 93% of Ontarians are going to get a permanent tax cut under the Liberal government's comprehensive package of tax reforms?" In addition to that fact, which my colleague omits, 90,000 people will no longer pay personal income tax in Ontario, and an average family with an $80,000 income will see a 10% tax cut. That means a family of four with an annual income of $25,000 will permanently save $1,040 every year.

We have worked hard to be fair and equitable and to ensure that families at the lower end of the income scale stand to benefit from this package of tax reforms, and I only wish that my honourable colleague would draw the public's attention to that from time to time.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Lynn is not the only Ontarian being ignored by this Premier. Mark Marcon from Windsor writes, "I am opposed to the HST.... This is absolutely the worst time." Carla Baird from Kenora says, "I ... do not support the HST. The HST will cost all a lot more money for such things as home heating [and] gas." And Heather Barr from Ottawa adds this: "Don't you realize that many people just took salary cuts ... because of [the recession]? How do you think people have extra money to be able to cover this?"

How much longer will the Premier ignore Ontarians like Heather, Carla, Mark and Lynn?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to, through my honourable colleague, reassure all the individuals whose names she has put forward that we are in fact cutting their personal income taxes.

I also want to speak to those people and all Ontarians who understand intuitively that our world has changed. We need to do something to build a stronger Ontario and create more jobs. They're not looking for strong champions and defenders of the status quo, which they will find on that side of the House. What they are looking for are people who are prepared to lead them into a bright and promising future, where we can secure a bright future for our children.

One part of our plan has to do with modernizing and putting in place a competitive tax system. That's what our package of tax reforms is all about. More importantly than anything else, it's about creating 600,000 more jobs. We will do everything necessary to move forward with this package of tax reforms and get in place those 600,000 jobs for the people of Ontario.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: There's a difference between new ideas and the really old, tired ones that the Premier continues to bring forward.

You know what? The Premier has a chance, though. He has a chance to show Lynn from Pickering and Mark from Windsor that he's at least willing to listen. The Premier can make sure that the committee that reviews the HST legislation travels across the province so that the people in Thunder Bay, Windsor, London, Ottawa and Kingston are heard. Will the Premier promise today, here and now, that the committee will visit communities across Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I can promise a fulsome debate. I would say that it has been the subject of some considerable debate and conversation for at least seven months, and I expect it will occupy much of the interest of the public for months, if not years, to come.

What I would also draw to my honourable colleague's attention are some of the recommendations that came from the NDP Fair Tax Commission in 1991. Recommendation 58: Ontario should exempt all business inputs from the retail sales tax. Recommendation number 60: Ontario should harmonize—

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: This pains them, but we must continue. Recommendation number 60 from the NDP Fair Tax Commission: Ontario should harmonize its retail sales tax with a national sales tax modelled on the federal goods and services tax.

Somewhere on the road to Damascus this leader lost her way. We have found our way. We are doing it the right way. We are going to create 600,000 jobs for the people of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I don't know how digging up two-decade-old policy is new, but the Premier seems to think that it's all new. I have to say, in all seriousness—

Interjections.

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

Start the clock. Please continue.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It seems really clear from the Premier's response that he's not prepared to listen to the people of Ontario when it comes to their opinions about the HST. Since he's prepared to ignore them, I'm going to give him some more views from the people of Ontario that we've heard.

Tanya Clancy from Stratford says this: "It has been difficult enough the past couple of years with job losses in our home, just to keep the bills paid."

Dave and Laura Goodwin say this: "In this recession, the HST is going to devastate all the families already hard-hit by layoffs."

These are the voices of the people whom we represent in this chamber. Why won't the Premier at least hear them out and commit to HST hearings across this province?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We obviously have heard those kinds of concerns, but there's another one that I would call upon my honourable colleague to listen to and try to find some way to answer. The question that is being put forward to us by Ontarians is quite simply this: What do we need to do to grow stronger? People understand that the old world is behind us and is not coming back. What they want to know is what we need to do to grow stronger, and that's going to involve some changes on our part.

This is not a time for champions of the status quo. It's time for us to find a way forward. One important way forward is for us to put in place a modern, competitive tax system. We've got to catch up to 130 other countries. We've got to catch up to four other provinces. It's time for us to take this step forward together and create 600,000 more jobs. If my colleague has a different plan to create 600,000 more jobs, we'd love to hear it.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Listening to people isn't an old-world idea but ignoring them is. That's what this Premier is prepared to do. Until the Premier starts listening, I am going to keep raising the views of Ontarians in this chamber.

Russ Horner from Oshawa says this: "I doubt that any savings will be passed on. The same thing happened with the GST some time ago. Consumers got screwed as usual."

Christine Prokulevich from Sudbury says: "My husband hasn't worked in over four months, and additional costs that we'll have to pay due to the HST will have nothing but a negative impact on our family and home. We're struggling now."

Mrs. Hodges in Thunder Bay adds: "My husband and I live on a fixed income. There is no way we will be able to make do with the proposed HST tax."

Why is the Premier preventing Mrs. Hodges and other Ontarians like her from having a say?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I fully expect that my honourable colleague will do a very good job at making those kinds of representations day in and day out in the House. What I believe Ontarians are looking for are just a few more ideas on the part of the opposition. We have worked hard and, I would argue, well in government to come forward with a package of tax reforms that involve tax cuts for individuals, small businesses and our larger corporations and moving forward with the HST. We know that will create 600,000 more jobs.

The opposition says that they are against these reforms. What we don't know is what they are for. If they have a package of reforms that they can guarantee will create 600,000 more jobs during the course of the next 10 years, then we would love to hear that, but to this point in time we've heard no such ideas, no such proposals and no such policies. We have a solid idea. We're moving forward on behalf of Ontarians.

TAXATION

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is for the Premier of Ontario. Why are you blocking public consultations in Kingston, Cornwall, Belleville, Windsor, London, Thunder Bay and North Bay? Why are you blocking public consultation across Ontario on the HST?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We will have the same public hearings we've had on other fall budget bills, and I will tell you they will be considerably more than that bunch had when they were the government. We announced this in March. Myself and my colleagues have had public meetings all over Ontario. I have had meetings in Windsor, London, Thunder Bay, Peterborough and Ottawa. The committee will have hearings as a result of this bill. They'll be the same as we've done on other fall bills.

We will take time to put out the full story: to tell people that they want to block an income tax cut, to tell senior citizens that they want to slow down property tax credits, to tell our business communities that they don't want them to have the most competitive taxes in North America.

We are behind this policy, as are Mr. Flaherty and Mr. Harper. We will continue to sell it. We will convince Ontarians and show them that this party, this government—

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: If he believes his rhetoric on the HST, I've got an energy centre in Windsor to sell him.

He tells us he's going to create jobs; he doesn't. He tells us he won't raise taxes, then he does. Yesterday we had 150 Ontarians here who wanted to speak out against the HST. What do they have to show for it? Nothing, because you are going to block Ontarians, hundreds of thousands of them, who want to speak in their local community and have their voice heard. You're denying them that right. Are you afraid to face the public on this greedy $3-billion tax grab?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The member and her party are going to vote against the broadest set of tax cuts for Ontarians ever presented. They may hide themselves in their rhetoric. They may want to ignore the advice of Jim Flaherty and Stephen Harper. They can ignore the advice of every major economist who's been talked to. They can wrap themselves in hyperbole; they can wrap themselves in false anger.

This government wants to create jobs. This government will create jobs. Unlike that member and her party, we're not content. We're not content to have unemployed auto workers in Windsor and St. Catharines. We're not content to see people lose their jobs in Brockville, North Bay and elsewhere. It's time for leadership, for courage, to listen to the experts, do what's right and create more than 600,000 new jobs. Stand up for—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. If you're going to have some of these cross-debates, I'd very much encourage the honourable members to take them outside.

New question.

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

Mr. Michael Prue: To the minister responsible for the OLG: Can the minister explain how the Windsor Energy Centre could be budgeted at $40 million, end up costing the public $80 million, and now, if the forensic accountants are correct and to be believed, could be worth absolutely, and I quote them, "nothing"?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: There are serious issues around the Windsor Energy Centre. Unlike the Conservative government, we are not going to close down Casino Windsor as a result of that, as Mr. Shurman indicated they would. Unlike the NDP, who voted against the initiative to create those jobs in Windsor, we are committed to ensuring the vitality and success of this enterprise.

We've taken a number of steps to deal with what transpired with respect to the Windsor Energy Centre. I would invite the member to look at OLG's statement of claim that was filed in court the other day, and I'd invite—

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

Mr. Michael Prue: The government of Ontario tells families that these are tough times. They should get ready for emergency room closures, fired nurses and other cuts, but when they turn on the news, they learn their government spent $80 million to build a power plant that may literally be worth nothing.

CBC reports that the minister couldn't even find the valuation report. Why does the CBC have more information on the Windsor Energy Centre than the minister supposedly responsible for it?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: There are, and have been, serious issues at the OLG, which is precisely why we have taken a number of the steps we have taken. There are questions on both sides of the issue.

Over the past five months, we have taken steps at the board level, at the senior executive level. We've put in a short-term operator at the Windsor Energy Centre to keep the lights on, and we've done a competitive RFP for a longer-term operator.

There's no doubt that the issues around the energy centre are troubling. We are committed to getting to the bottom of them. We are committed to defending the interests of taxpayers. That's what we've done to date. We will continue to do that, and we will continue to do it as part of our efforts to ensure that we create jobs and maintain jobs in the tourism industry, both in Windsor and across the province, with respect to gaming.

UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR

Mr. Bruce Crozier: My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. In my community of Windsor-Essex, health care continues to be a key concern for families. We're well aware that Ontario is in need of more doctors, and over the past several years, we've made great strides in training and recruiting more doctors, but I still hear on occasion from constituents who do not have access to a doctor. My constituents want to know that when they're sick, they have quick and easy access to a health care provider.

Some residents have expressed concern that they live in communities that are not adequately reached by health care professionals, and I know this concern is echoed in some communities across the province.

What is the minister doing to train more doctors so more Ontarians have access to health care providers?

Hon. John Milloy: That was an excellent question raised by the member. I think all of us recognize the need to train more doctors here in the province of Ontario, and I'm very pleased that our government has taken the initiative and invested in more medical spots throughout the province.

One of the approaches that we've taken is to establish new medical education campuses, satellite campuses, in a number of communities across the province that do not have medical schools. I know the honourable member comes from the Windsor-Essex area, and one of those, in fact, involves the University of Windsor. I'd like to take this opportunity to recognize those who are here today from the University of Windsor.

I'm pleased to report that, in partnership with the University of Western Ontario, the University of Windsor recently opened their doors to more medical students at the satellite campus. Last September, 28 new first-year students began their studies at the University of Windsor, and I think, as members know, studies have shown—

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

Mr. Bruce Crozier: Everyone in Windsor-Essex county is excited to see the effects of the medical school on our community. Windsor has been in need of a boost in the medical sector, and I know it will do just that.

While a new medical school is important for the university, there are a number of other programs offered by the University of Windsor that are just as important. I understand that the university works very hard to improve its programming each and every year, and recently I was pleased to see the university call for tenders for the construction of the centre for engineering innovation. I believe that this will not only help attract students from outside the Windsor-Essex area, but it will also encourage more of those living within the area to attend the university.

Through you, Speaker, again I'm asking that the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities share with this House how this government is helping to boost Windsor's ability to train and retain engineers by investing in the University of Windsor.

Hon. John Milloy: In 2007, the provincial government announced that we'd be investing $40 million to help the University of Windsor build the centre for engineering innovation, and I'm pleased to report that the federal government came to the table earlier this year through the knowledge infrastructure program. This 300,000-square-foot facility will focus on research and development and facilitate a direct connection between education, research and industrial innovation. The project is expected to create more than 1,600 jobs and have a total direct and indirect economic stimulus for Ontario and Canada of $270 million over three years.

I think all members recognize the importance of engineering as an area where Ontario needs to excel as we move forward to the jobs of the future, and I'm very proud that we could partner with the University of Windsor on this extremely important—

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

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is for the Premier. Congratulations, Premier, you've made The National. The McGuinty Liberals' answers to questions about the Windsor Energy Centre simply raise more questions.

First, you begin construction of a casino expansion without any mention of needing additional power. You say it will cost $40 million to build the energy centre, then you spend $81 million to build the energy centre—just what we needed: more hot air from Windsor.

Now, media reports reveal that you are sitting on a report that says the $81-million project may be worth nothing. Perhaps we need a public inquiry on that.

What are you going to do about this Dwight elephant?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I can tell you we're not going to shut down Caesars Windsor the way that member wants to. As I've said to the member in the past, there is no doubt that there are challenges at the OLG, and this is one of the biggest.

Here is what we have done in the last five months. First of all, we've replaced the board and we're in the process of replacing the CEO. We have a short-term operator in place at the centre, we've done a competitive RFT and we are defending the lawsuit that the contractor has filed. I would invite the member and his colleagues to look at the rebuttal to the lawsuit to get a better sense of what the position of this government is.

What I can tell the member is that we remain committed to building the tourism sector across Ontario, especially in southwestern Ontario. We remain committed to keeping those facilities operating, and we will deal with this in an appropriate fashion over the next weeks and months. But make no mistake; we're—

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

Mr. Peter Shurman: Since the energy centre was built, indeed since pledging no more sole-sourced contracts, you awarded a $15,000-per-day sole-source deal to Angus Consulting, as you've just confirmed.

On October 30, the Premier said that breaking a promise to end sole-source deals was necessary because you had to keep the lights on at the Windsor casino. But the Cole valuation report says the energy centre is not about generating power, so this can't be about the lights. I've been telling you this for months while you dodged and took cover behind lawsuits and police investigations.

Why did you say you awarded the contract to keep the lights on when you did not?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We did let a short-term agreement go in order to—and I think the member forgot the other answer I gave him, that in fact the centre is providing heating and cooling to the facility.

I agree with him entirely: It is not an ideal situation. I don't like what has given rise to this situation. What we are trying to do now is unravel this and make sure that that centre is competitive, make sure that it continues to employ 2,300 people in the part of this country that has the highest unemployment and ensure that this sort of situation never happens again. That's what we're doing, those are the steps we've taken, and that's what we're going to continue to do, in spite of whatever they may say or want to say. We remain committed to the operation and we will unravel this mess in due course.

PENSION PLANS

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Minister of Finance. On October 28 in this House, you made a perplexing statement. You said that the implementation of the Arthurs recommendation to protect monthly pension benefits up to $2,500 would result in "a massive increase in what employees have to contribute in order to fund the PGBF."

Again I ask: Will the minister stand in this House and admit that (1) employees do not pay directly into the guaranteed fund; pension funds do, and that (2) nowhere in the Arthurs report is it recommended that individual employees pay directly into the fund in the future?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Perhaps the member doesn't understand that if we increase the benefit, it's going to have to be paid for. Will the company write the cheque for the pension? Yes, but where is that money going to come from? It will have to be part of negotiations.

I know the member feels strongly about this, as do we. There are pension benefit guarantee funds in Ontario and the United States. Both of them are financially underwater. According to Mr. Arthurs's recommendation, we have engaged an outside actuary to give us an estimate of how much it would cost to provide that benefit and how it would be paid for. That will, I would say to my friend and colleague opposite, have a very meaningful and direct impact, potentially, on employment. Therefore, I think we have to look at this in the context of all the recommendations and work together to try to see what we can do in the—

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

Mr. Paul Miller: Again on October 28, there was a perplexing statement made. In responding to a question as to why Ontario wasn't following Quebec's lead in helping safeguard the pensions of Nortel employees, he said, "What the government of Quebec is doing is exactly what we would do in the same circumstances.... It would not be appropriate to characterize it as doing anything different than Ontario is doing."

Will the minister now admit that the Ontario government has not followed the lead of the Quebec government in offering a helping hand to Nortel employees and has neither guaranteed the capital of Nortel employee pensions in Ontario nor agreed to hold off on a wind-up plan and give the assets five years to regain their value?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In fact, we did that last December, and that's precisely the point. The way the Quebec response has been characterized—it was, in fact, a change of policy for the government of Quebec. However, it reflects steps that we have already taken. I will undertake to provide the member opposite with a more detailed response to that.

We have an enormous challenge with respect to post-retirement income here in Ontario and across Canada. Premier McGuinty has led the fight to get this on the national radar and to have a full national discussion. That will take place next year at the Council of the Federation.

These are difficult issues. Ontario will continue to move forward. Within the next two weeks, I'll be bringing forward the first piece of serious pension reform legislation, and we'll have an opportunity to debate those ideas and those thoughts. In the interim, we will work with employers and employees to help protect those pensions that are threatened now.

TAXATION

Mr. Jim Brownell: My question is to the Minister of Revenue. Many seniors in my riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry and across Ontario are living on fixed incomes. In these tough economic times, every cent counts.

Many seniors are hearing the fear tactics and scaremongering of those who choose to play politics with Ontario's future. What they haven't been told is that the HST is part of our comprehensive package that will see 93% of Ontarians receiving personal income tax cuts and also that 90,000 low-income Ontarians will no longer have to pay personal income tax. As well, low- and middle-income seniors will receive a permanent $260 sales tax credit, and the list goes on.

The Daily Bread Food Bank has been calling for more consideration of what the HST will mean for low-income Ontarians and those living on fixed incomes. Specifically, they were asking and looking for an exemption on prepared food under $4. What does this exemption mean for those on fixed incomes and businesses in my riding and in those ridings—

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

Hon. John Wilkinson: I thank my friend for the question. I want to say to seniors, and particularly those on fixed incomes, that starting in January we will be permanently reducing their income taxes and we'll be enhancing their tax credits in July.

What that means, and I would say with all due respect that is the whole story, is that it is vital that we pass our fall budget bill. We need to do that because we cannot provide some $10.6 billion worth of income tax relief for individuals over the next three years and some $4.5 billion worth of tax relief for our corporations over the next three years unless we get that bill passed.

There are some who are opposed to some $15 billion worth of income tax relief in the province of Ontario. On this side of the House, we know it's important, as we move forward with our tax modernization, that we get the piece about reducing income taxes into law as quickly as possible. That is what the seniors, particularly those on fixed incomes—

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

Mr. Jim Brownell: Again to the Minister of Revenue: As we face the current global economic recession, one of the most pressing questions people face is, will they have a job or how can they find a job? No one chooses to struggle in supporting their families. However, we can support Ontario families by helping people get back to work.

Telus says that the HST will mean more investment in the province and more jobs. The Canadian Chemical Producers' Association says that the HST savings will help to preserve jobs in Ontario and allow companies to grow in the future. The Railway Association of Canada says that a single sales tax will save jobs. Jack Mintz estimates the HST will create over 590,000 jobs. Should Ontarians believe those who are playing politics with Ontario's economic future or should they believe in Canada's leading employers and economists?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I say, with all due respect, there are those on one side of the political spectrum who think that what we should do today is slash and burn. That is something they did to this province before. There are others who think that we should just increase taxes for everyone. But what we've said is that it's important for us to reform our tax system, to modernize it. What we need in the province more than anything else is more jobs—more people paying taxes to support our public services and fewer people who have to draw upon that pot for the common good.

That is the route for us to restore Ontario to vibrant economic times. That will lead our tax reform to an increase of some 590,000 more jobs, $47 billion worth of more investment. On this side of the House, we're embracing a growing economy by reforming our tax system. On that side of the House, the twins of the status quo over there, status and quo—

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

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question today is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Before I get to the question, I want to welcome all the members of the Police Association of Ontario here today and give my full support of Tim Hudak and the PC caucus.

Minister, you are responsible for the police services in this province, and of course, many of them are here today. You are aware that the director of the province's special investigations unit reports directly to your colleague the Attorney General. As the minister responsible for police, are you satisfied that the director of the SIU, Mr. Ian Scott, is performing his job in an objective and non-biased manner?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Obviously this is a very, very important issue. Let me say, on behalf of the people of Ontario, that we have every confidence in the structures that we've set up. We've set up structures to ensure that oversight is independent. We've set up structures to ensure that police officers and the public have equal rights of protection. We have set up a system whereby there can be no question about the integrity of our police officers in their actions.

Independent oversight is important. Independent oversight is good. I have to say that this is a government that clearly supports its police officers and the important work they do in the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Well, maybe you can begin by answering the question.

Minister, comments made by the director in an SIU press release of September 28 involving a police shooting incident in northern Ontario and more recently in a Toronto Star

article of October 31 would indicate that the director sees fit to inject his personal opinion. His opinion casts a wide swath of doubt with respect to police in general.

The police community, both front-line and administrative, are outraged and believe that the director has lost his ability to remain objective and clearly has a bias against our police officers.

Minister, if the director oversees the actions of the police, who oversees the actions of the director? And what is being done to correct this abuse of the power of this office?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: The member knows full well that this minister or any other minister in this government cannot comment about individual cases.

But let me assure the people of Ontario, let me assure the police officers of Ontario, let me assure everyone in this chamber, that we value the work that our police officers do. We respect the work that our police officers do.

We will put the resources in to ensure that our police officers have the ability to do what they have to do in order to protect the people of Ontario. We will not be like previous governments and put half-measure programs in place that deter community safety rather than enhance it.

We are about community safety and our partners. We are proud of that partnership.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. All management and unionized staff at children's aid societies and children's mental health agencies across Ontario will be wearing blue ribbons on National Child Day on Friday. The blue ribbon indicates that the McGuinty government has failed children at risk, as the agencies that help them prepare their layoff notices and teeter on bankruptcy and outright closure.

On behalf of the children who depend on these vital agencies, I ask, will the Premier commit that no children's aid society will cut services, lay off staff or file for bankruptcy?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I'm pleased to have a chance again to speak in this House on this critically important issue with respect to finding a pathway forward for the sustainability of children's aid societies. I have told this House before, it is our commitment to the kids that drives us to find a sustainable pathway forward for children's aid societies. Children's aid societies do some of the most important work, but they also must work in partnership in the communities in which they operate to make sure that we are able to put kids first and find the best outcomes for kids.

We are actively working right across the province with respect to the work being undertaken in our regional offices, to work line by line through budgets and to find a sustainable pathway forward. At the same time, we will be making some announcements shortly with respect to the individuals who will be on our commission to promote the sustainability of children's aid societies.

I look forward to working with our partners across the province to find—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The children of this province do not need another commission. They need their children's aid societies to be there for them when they need them. The only pathway this government is preparing is a pathway to bankruptcy and closure of children's aid societies.

Payukotayno James and Hudson Bay Family Services has issued layoff notices already; so has York Region CAS. Native Child and Family Services of Toronto faces a $1.4-million shortfall. Chatham-Kent children's aid society is preparing for bankruptcy as we speak. The children's aid society in Kenora can't meet the $600,000 monthly cost of protecting high-needs children and will soon be unable to make its payroll.

When management and unionized staff at these agencies sound their blue ribbon alert on Friday, what will this government do to ensure no layoffs, no services are cut, no closures at any—

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

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: One of the things that we need to do is work within communities across the province. If the member opposite had an opportunity to talk to those who are out in communities, she would well know that this ministry is working at the regional level to manage cash flow, to work with agencies, to find that partnership.

Let's be clear on the facts in this case. Children's aid society funding has gone from $500 million to $1.4 billion in the last 10 years. That level of increase is not sustainable. We need to find a way to do better and we need to find a way to deliver more services and better outcomes to the kids.

I can tell you that every single day, my focus is on the children of this province, finding a way to deliver services to them and being open to the fact that we need to find a better and new pathway forward. The old way will not be the way of the future. We need to continue working with—

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

POLICE

Mr. Rick Johnson: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Minister, police officers perform a vital role in our communities by working to ensure the safety of all Ontarians. Every day, police officers selflessly place themselves in dangerous situations without hesitation. It is because of the serious and often dangerous nature of the job and the importance of community safety that our government must ensure our police officers have the resources they need.

I know that today we have many esteemed representatives from police services across the province at Queen's Park to discuss issues of concern to their profession, including members from my riding of Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock. I hope that our government continues to listen to them and give them the support they need to perform very important duties—namely, keeping our loved ones safe. Minister, how does this government support our police officers?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I want to thank the member for the question and for his commitment to community safety. I'm proud that our government values the relationship with the police officers of Ontario. That relationship is very, very important because of their valuable input, their on-the-job experience and their sound advice. It's a partnership that is truly working.

Let's look back at the history since 2003, briefly: $93 million for our guns-and-gangs strategy. We just didn't have $93 million and we decided we'd put it somewhere; we listened to the police officers of Ontario, who told us, "That's a wise use of money." Then the police officers told us that we have to invest in the Toronto anti-violence intervention strategy, and so we invested $25 million. Why? Because they said it was important. Then they said it was very, very important that we invest in—

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

Mr. Rick Johnson: I know that one of the concerns of our police services is that they have adequate funding in order to have enough officers in Ontario communities. Being able to increase the number of officers in our communities is one of the most important things we can do to ensure safer communities. Police officers play a number of important roles when it comes to reducing crime. Not only do they remove criminals from our streets, but the presence of officers is also a major deterrent. In many Ontario communities, the involvement of officers in community programs is a key factor in deterring at-risk youth from becoming involved in criminal activities.

Minister, given that increasing the number of police officers offers so many benefits, can you tell me what our government is doing to increase the number of police officers in our communities?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Again, another very, very important question. We, the government of the day, the government of Ontario, under the leadership of Premier McGuinty, understand that it is very, very important that we put more police officers on the streets. So we have committed $68 million every year to put 2,000 new police officers on the streets.

One of the items on the Police Association of Ontario's agenda is that we lobby the federal government for the police officer recruitment fund, for them to live up to their commitment. I want every police officer here and those police officers across Ontario to understand that Premier McGuinty and this government will do all we can to ensure that the federal government lives up to that commitment to put more police officers on the streets of Ontario.

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Minister of Government Services. Minister, with the introduction of the "support our troops" licence plate, which was initiated by my colleague from Simcoe North, Garfield Dunlop, you waxed on about your support for our troops and the men and women of our Canadian Armed Forces and your gratitude for the great work that they do. If the minister truly means what he says, then he will surely not continue to ignore the request of Lieutenant-Colonel Keith Rudderham, the commanding officer of CFB Petawawa—Ontario's largest military base.

Lieutenant-Colonel Rudderham wrote you on August 31 on the issue of access to licensing services for the people on base Petawawa. To date, you haven't even shown him the courtesy of a reply. Why won't you respond to the base commander? Or are your words simply empty rhetoric?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: Let me tell you, I think the yellow licence plates that we're issuing are in support of our troops. I'm very proud of the work that our troops do outside the country and inside the country, and anything that we can do to acknowledge their contributions—that's exactly what we are doing by issuing these yellow plates.

We have worked very closely with the Canadian Armed Forces, and they're very pleased with the arrangement that we have come up with. This is not a political issue; this is an issue that is right for the forces. It will help them to move forward with some of the assistance they can provide to the armed forces personnel.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: I wrote to you and had it hand-delivered to you on October 13, supporting the lieutenant-colonel in their request for an urgent meeting so that they could make their point to you about the importance of licence services to the over 11,000 personnel and family members who live and work on base Petawawa. You have not even shown me the courtesy of a reply in a month—no reply.

Talk is cheap, Minister. Talk is cheap. You stand up in this House and talk about how you support our troops and their families and the great work they do, but you don't even acknowledge the fact that they've written you. That is shameful. That is, I dare say, nothing but hypocrisy.

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

Interjection.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Stand up for our troops.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: We are standing up for our troops; you are not.

The changes we are making actually are going to improve the public service in this province, and I'm very proud of those changes. In fact, right now, we're offering only the driver licences and the car licences in certain locations, but going forward, we will offer to the public a package of services which will include the health care card services as well. There will be 300 locations. It will consist of both the private offices and the government offices. It strikes a good combination to provide the services that we need in this province, and they are very well being accepted by the public as we move forward.

HIGHWAY 407

Mr. Peter Tabuns: A question for the Minister of Transportation: Recent articles in the Toronto Star have shown that hundreds of Ontario drivers are being shafted by Highway 407 toll collectors. Out of the blue, drivers are receiving poorly documented bills for long-passed travel with thousands of dollars of added interest charges. Bills are being sent to people who are deceased, people who have not owned a car for years, people who are living

Hon. James J. Bradley: Unfortunately—that's a good line; I'll give him that—as you may know, first of all, your government was involved in the privatization of Highway 407—step number one. Step number two, this government completely sold it, and they wrote rules into the agreement with 407 that allows 407 to do almost whatever it wants.

I share the member's concerns about some of the tactics that are being used. But of course, our government went to court to defend the very people you are talking about. Unfortunately, the courts ruled against us and in favour of the corporation that runs Highway 407 because they signed a very, very lucrative deal with the Conservative government that preceded us in office.

Mr. John Yakabuski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Government Services, in not answering my question, accused me of not supporting our troops. Now—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. I would just say that if the honourable member is dissatisfied with an answer, he has the ability, as I am about to read, to file a late show for clarification.

NOTICES OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Pursuant to standing order 38a, the member for Nepean—Carleton has given notice of her dissatisfaction with the answer to her question given by the Minister of Finance concerning public consultations on the HST legislation. This matter will be debated at 6 p.m. today.

Pursuant to standing order 38a, the member for Thornhill has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Finance concerning the Windsor Energy Centre. This matter will be debated at 6 p.m. today.

Pursuant to standing order 38a, the member for Simcoe North has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services concerning the SIU and the oversight of the director. This matter will be debated at 3 p.m. today.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): At 6 p.m.

DEFERRED VOTES

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We have a number of deferred votes.

TIME ALLOCATION

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We have a deferred vote on the amendment to the amendment to the government notice of motion number 142 by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1146 to 1151.

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

Ayes

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

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 24; the nays are 61.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.

We have a deferred vote on the amendment to government notice of motion 142 by the member for Kenora—Rainy River.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1154 to 1159.

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

Ayes

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

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 24; the nays are 64.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I declare the amendment lost.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We have a deferred vote on government notice of motion number 142.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1203 to 1208.

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

Ayes

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

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 64; the nays are 31.

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

Motion agreed to.

TIME ALLOCATION

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We have a deferred vote on the amendment to government notice of motion number 141 by the member for Halton.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1212 to 1217.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members please take their seats.

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

Ayes

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

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 23; the nays are 64.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I declare the amendment lost.

We have a deferred vote on government notice of motion number 141.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1220 to 1225.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Ms. Smith has moved government notice of motion 141. All those in favour will please rise one at a time and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

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

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 64; the nays are 30.

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

Motion agreed to.

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

The House recessed from 1229 to 1500.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I'm very pleased to welcome two groups from York South—Weston here today. Welcome to Guidance of Canadian Somali Youth; and from York Memorial high school, welcome to the students and their teachers. Both groups are here to enjoy a tour of the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd like all members to join me in welcoming Mr. Harry Danford, the former member from the riding of Hastings—Peterborough in the 36th Parliament. Welcome back to Queen's Park.

Mr. Kim Craitor: I wanted to introduce some special guests we have here from the Ontario Korean Businessmen's Association. The president of the association, Mr. James Kang, is here. I don't have all the business cards from the other representatives, but a number of the executive officers are here as well from the association. Welcome.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NEUSTADT SEWAGE LAGOON

Mr. Bill Murdoch: I rise in the House today to recognize the good work of the Honourable John Gerretsen, Minister of the Environment, who has laid to rest years of fighting over the Neustadt sewage lagoon. Unlike his predecessor, Laurel Broten, Minister Gerretsen got the job done.

The former minister, Minister Broten, was at times inept at her job, but most of the time she just bullied and refused to help, once going as far as to encourage the municipality of West Grey to sue if they didn't agree with her orders.

Unfortunately, the same can be said of the Ministry of Natural Resources, whose minister failed to protect the Saugeen River when he refused to recognize that rivers were under his ministry's mandate.

For all these years, the municipality and I fought these ministries, trying to prove to their ministers that it was their job to fix the lagoon and their job to pay for the $2.5-million project to prevent a sewage spill into the river. Without the erosion control, there was grave concern that the lagoons would be breached and cause an environmental disaster for communities and waterways downstream to Lake Huron. In the end, a federal-provincial COMRIF grant covered their share of the tab, and Minister Gerretsen helped the local municipality cover part of their share.

The lagoon site is now a beautiful park space. So, thank you, Minister Gerretsen, for getting the job done, and thank you to the municipality of West Grey for hanging in there all these years.

BRIAN COCHRANE

Mr. Paul Miller: On behalf of the Ontario New Democratic Party, I wish to pay tribute to the life of Brian Cochrane, past president of CUPE Local 416, who passed away last weekend. It is always a difficult thing, affecting more than family, when someone who has dedicated their life to a cause passes away.

Brian Cochrane was the first president of CUPE Local 416, which was created when the city of Toronto was amalgamated. Prior to amalgamation, he represented workers in the former city of North York.

As anyone who has had to work through an amalgamation knows, it is very difficult and all these years later still not complete in Toronto. Navigating through the bureaucracies that were trying to find their place was to understand the internal workings of seven municipalities—not an easy task for even the most experienced bureaucrat.

Brian Cochrane was a strong leader for his outside workers through this extremely difficult period and through an equally difficult strike in 2002. My caucus was proud to work with Mr. Cochrane to hammer out the details of the back-to-work legislation, ensuring the fairest deal possible for his members.

Brian Cochrane will be remembered as a strong and dedicated labour leader, who was lost to us much too soon.

On behalf of the NDP, I extend our condolences to Brian's family and his union brothers and sisters.

WINTER FESTIVAL OF LIGHTS

Mr. Kim Craitor: The Christmas spirit was in the air in my riding of Niagara Falls with the 27th annual opening of the Niagara Winter Festival of Lights. On hand were Minnie and Mickey Mouse as well as Daisy Duck, live from Walt Disney, to help officially launch this spectacular event.

Proudly, this festival is Canada's largest and the premier light festival in North America. This is due in large part to the hard work of Dino Fazio, his hard-working staff and the numerous volunteers who pour their hearts and souls into ensuring that visiting families have a great experience.

Over 1.3 million visitors are attracted to this festival, which boasts over 120 animated displays, including the famous Enchantment of Disney displays and the ever-popular Zimmermann light fountain display.

The festival also includes a calendar of festive events, including concerts by Loretta Lynn, the Gatlin Brothers and Ronnie Prophet; weekly fireworks performances; and Canada's largest outdoor New Year's Eve party.

This year, the festival includes Rink at the Brink, an outdoor ice rink that will offer public ice-skating right at the brink of the Horseshoe Falls. This spectacular setting will offer breathtaking views and a magical outdoor Niagara Falls ice-skating experience.

For a thrill of a lifetime, I urge everyone, including all my colleagues on both sides of the House, to skate at the Rink at the Brink and enjoy Niagara's spectacular Winter Festival of Lights together with their families in Niagara Falls. Have a great time.

CANADIAN YOUTH

BUSINESS FOUNDATION

Mrs. Julia Munro: Last night, I was pleased to attend the Chairman's Awards Celebration at the Canadian Youth Business Foundation Youth Entrepreneurship Summit. The CYBF is a national charity dedicated to championing tomorrow's entrepreneurial nation-builders. They point out that this is particularly important, as 71% of small business owners will retire within 10 years, with 41% retiring within the next five years.

CYBF invests time and money in aspiring young entrepreneurs aged 18 to 34 who have a great business idea but find it difficult to obtain financing or mentoring through traditional sources.

I was very inspired last night seeing the confidence of the many young entrepreneurs I met, along with their mentors and supporters. These young Canadians are our future. They are the ones who will be creating the jobs and prosperity Canada needs. What we must do as legislators is help them create Ontario's wealth by cutting taxes, red tape and regulations. Government cannot create prosperity; only healthy businesses and entrepreneurs can do that. The young men and women I met last night will help build prosperity. Government just needs to get out of their way.

BRAMPTON BOARD OF TRADE

SANTA CLAUS PARADE

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey: There is nothing more magical than Santa Claus to the hearts of many children and their families. Being part of putting that special smile on the faces of literally thousands of children is one of the nicest feelings.

This year marks the 15th anniversary of the nighttime version of the Brampton Board of Trade Santa Claus parade. On Saturday, November 21, around 5 p.m., the parade will start along its route, past children of all ages who will have been lining the route for hours.

The modern-day Brampton Board of Trade Santa Claus parade was revived in 1986, and in 1995 the parade became one of the first of its kind to be a nighttime event. Annual attendance is estimated to top over 150,000 people, and we in Brampton believe that makes it the highest-attended nighttime parade in the province, and possibly in Canada.

The parade consists of over 40 floats, 12 bands and 200 costumed characters, as well as hundreds of volunteers lighting Santa's route through downtown Brampton. As this is the 15th anniversary, we expect it will be the best community parade ever. There are many along the parade route who believe that Santa's arrival begins at the North Pole and is planned by elves, but in reality all great events and activities begin with an idea and are carried out by dedicated organizing committees, a group of incredible volunteers who meet year-round to organize and plan this magical evening of entertainment.

The success of the Brampton Board of Trade Santa Claus parade would not be possible if it were not for the generous financial, material and advertising support of the sponsors. Please join me in recognizing and thanking the hundreds of volunteers, including my staff, like Barbara Tait, who donate their time and efforts for the children of Brampton.

TAXATION

Mr. John O'Toole: First, I would like to recognize the Ontario Korean Businessmen's Association. Thank you for being here today as we debate the issue of the HST.

This government proved the harmonized sales tax is indeed a bad idea when it announced last week that it would remove the tax from food and beverages under $4, saving taxpayers almost $400,000 for this simple expense. If this tax is wrong for coffee and muffins, it's equally wrong for home heating, electricity, exercise classes, kids' recreation, physiotherapy, cable television, Internet services and 8% more for almost everything we purchase.

The citizens of Ontario can't be bribed with a tax-free coffee and a muffin. Ontario knows the truth about the HST: It's simply a $3-billion tax grab from the people of Ontario. The National Citizens Coalition estimates the tax will cost the average citizen—listen up—$800 to $1,000 per year. That's the truth of this tax.

I urge the government to listen to the wisdom of the people of Ontario. It's time to go beyond chopping the tax on coffee and muffins; it's time to simply halt this tax. In this climate of small business, they are the first customers of the people of Ontario. They are the interface with the taxpayers of Ontario. They're going to be tax collectors for the province of Ontario. It's shameful. You people should be ashamed of what you're doing.

FIREFIGHTERS

Mr. Dave Levac: In Ontario, there are 19,000 volunteer firefighters and over 200 part-time firefighters, along with 46 fire investigators on active duty today. All of the firefighters of Ontario deserve our gratitude and support for the work they do day in and day out. They risk it all, even their health and their lives, to keep our health and lives safe.

On November 5, in the riding of Brant, I was honoured to join the Minister of Labour, the Honourable Peter Fonseca, along with my colleague Leeanna Pendergast, the member from Kitchener—Conestoga, to announce that our province's volunteer and part-time firefighters, along with fire inspectors, will be covered by our progressive presumptive legislation. It's been an honour to work with all of the stakeholders to achieve this important coverage. The support from all sectors, stakeholders and colleagues from all sides of the House is a testimony to our collective respect and understanding of the dangers that firefighters face every single day.

This historic coverage was announced in Paris, Ontario, where over 100 years ago the very first firefighters' organization was founded and formed. I said on the 5th, and I say it now: These great firefighters, and especially their families, can rest just a little easier as of today, thanks to Bill Burns, the president of the FFAO, and Dave Thompson, the past president, and all of the stakeholders inside of the firefighters. We salute you and thank you for dedicating your lives to firefighting.

TAXATION

Mr. Bob Delaney: Ontario seniors have heard too much opposition bafflegab about the province's tax reforms. The opposition may oppose 600,000 new jobs and tax cuts for seniors, but seniors themselves kind of like the idea.

In 2010, provincial income tax for seniors will go down permanently. The senior homeowners' property tax credit will double—permanently—from $250 per year to $500 per year. Each senior will receive a refundable sales tax credit of about $260 a year, permanently. To ease the transition to a harmonized sales tax in Ontario, single seniors will receive $300 and families $1,000, paid in three instalments. Next year, those credits will pay all the HST on more than $18,000 worth of purchases that may not be taxable today.

Empty-nesters who sell their homes will find that the HST is not applied to the sale of existing homes. For new homes, the first $400,000 of the price of a home is free of PST, and that covers more than 75% of all Ontario homes.

Seniors want their children and grandchildren to have the same opportunity to get—

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

ONTARIO KOREAN BUSINESSMEN'S ASSOCIATION

Mr. David Zimmer: I want to recognize the Ontario Korean Businessmen's Association. It was established in 1973 and it now serves 2,500 small business owners. It's a registered non-profit organization, and it provides membership services as well as group purchases. Its estimated annual sales volume is about $2 billion a year.

Within its membership, 75% of its members—that's almost 1,900—are convenience store owners. These establishments represent approximately 25% of all convenience stores in Ontario. There are 21 regional chapters scattered across Ontario. These stores are open long hours, seven days a week. Profit margins are small. Ninety per cent of the stores are operated by families. This is their entire livelihood.

Koreans started getting involved in convenience store operations in the late 1960s, as they started to migrate to Ontario. The stores have become the grassroots of the Korean community ever since, and the OKBA is a symbol within the Korean community. They employ 10,000 people across Ontario, and they're responsible for the livelihoods of 30,000 family members.

There are one or more Korean stores on almost every corner in our large cities in Ontario. Convenience stores are the centre of their community geographically, politically and socially. We welcome the Ontario Korean Businessmen's Association here today.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

SOCIAL POLICY

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: I beg leave to present a report from the Standing Committee on Social Policy and move its adoption.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 177,

An Act to amend the Education Act with respect to student achievement, school board governance and certain other matters / Projet de loi 177, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'éducation en ce qui concerne le rendement des élèves, la gouvernance des conseils scolaires et d'autres questions.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1517 to 1522.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Mr. Qaadri has moved the adoption of the Standing Committee on Social Policy report regarding Bill 177. All those in favour will please rise one at a time and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Opposed?

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 36; the nays are 14.

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

Report adopted.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

JUSTICE POLICY

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: I beg leave to present a report from the Standing Committee on Justice Policy and move its adoption.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 196,

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

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1525 to 1530.

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

Ayes

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

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 39; the nays are 17.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I declare the report adopted.

Report adopted.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I beg to inform the House that pursuant to standing order 98(c), a change has been made to the order of precedence on the ballot list for private members' public business such that Mr. Sergio assumes ballot item number 54 and Mr. Dhillon assumes ballot item number 63.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd like to ask all members to join me in welcoming a delegation from China, the census and statistics delegation, led by Mr. Li Tianyuan and his guests, located in the west gallery. Welcome to the Ontario Legislature today.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EHEALTH ONTARIO SPENDING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR L'OBLIGATION

DE RENDRE COMPTE DES DÉPENSES

DE CYBERSANTÉ ONTARIO

Mr. Chudleigh moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 220,

An Act to provide for a public inquiry to discover the truth about Ontario's Electronic Health Records Initiative / Projet de loi 220, Loi prévoyant la tenue d'une enquête publique pour découvrir la vérité concernant L'Initiative des dossiers de santé électroniques de l'Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member for a short statement.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: The bill requires the Lieutenant Governor in Council to establish a commission to inquire into the report on the spending relating to Ontario's electronic health records initiative and to make recommendations directed to the avoidance of unaccountable spending in other agencies in similar circumstances relating to Ontario's electronic health records initiative. The commission has the powers of a commission under a public inquiry. Once the inquiry begins, the commission must make an interim report in six months and a final report in 12 months.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

POLICE ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Today I rise to pay tribute to the Police Association of Ontario and its members as they join us for their 11th annual legislative day here at Queen's Park. I would especially like to acknowledge the Police Association of Ontario's president, Larry Molyneaux, and chief administrative officer Ron Middel. Their leadership is impressive, and I can say first-hand that they are certainly effective in their roles.

The Police Association of Ontario is here today to meet with members from all three parties to discuss issues important to their organization. As members of the House know, the Police Association of Ontario is the official voice of Ontario's front-line police personnel. More than 33,000 police officers and civilians serving in police services throughout Ontario make up its membership. These are the people who put their lives on the line, day in and day out, to ensure our province remains safe, secure and prosperous.

We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the members of the Police Association of Ontario for all they do for our communities. They work with passion and commitment, not only as police officers upholding the law but also as coaches and mentors, helping to guide our young people and working to build a stronger Ontario. PAO lobby day gives members of the Legislature, on behalf of the people of Ontario, the opportunity to say thank you.

On a personal level, I am grateful for the collaborative efforts our government has enjoyed with the Police Association of Ontario, which has been key in helping us shape and execute community safety initiatives. This past September, I had the honour of introducing in this House Bill 203, the Interprovincial Policing Act, 2009. That proposed legislation, if passed, would make it easier for police to carry on their investigations in Canada across provincial and territorial borders. I wish to take this opportunity to thank the PAO and its leadership for their support and their contribution as we developed a legislative proposal on cross-border policing.

In addition to their work on the provincial cross-border policing legislation, we continue to benefit from the contributions of the PAO in a variety of ways. The Police Association of Ontario provides valuable assistance and advice to me and to my ministry on an ongoing basis as a member of the policing standards advisory committee. Their participation as members in this committee gives us the valuable perspective of active-duty police officers in our policy deliberations.

Their valuable input has also been critical in helping us develop and execute initiatives such as the Safer Communities—1,000 Officers and the community policing partnership program. Our police partners' advice was key as we allocated approximately $30 million annually for five years through the federal police officers recruitment fund to hire more than 300 officers.

This government stands beside our policing partners as we continue to lobby the federal government to make the funding for this program permanent and to provide Ontario with its fair share of the promised 2,500 police officers.

Police officers are a valuable and essential component of our communities. They pound the pavement on our streets, they patrol our neighbourhoods and they respond to our calls of distress. The McGuinty government is grateful for the hard work, honest feedback and healthy dialogue we have been able to maintain with the Police Association of Ontario. We will continue to do our part to ensure that our partnership continues to thrive.

Today, I am pleased to salute the dedicated and hard-working people who make up the Police Association of Ontario. I am confident that all members of this House will join me in expressing our sincerest thanks to the PAO and its membership for helping us make Ontario a stronger and safer place in which to live, work and play.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING /

LOGEMENTS ABORDABLES

Hon. Jim Watson: This Sunday, November 22, National Housing Day will be celebrated across Ontario, and in fact across Canada. It's a day that gives us an opportunity to recognize the combined efforts of many dedicated individuals and organizations that are working together to advance affordable housing solutions.

Here in Ontario, our government continues to improve access to adequate, suitable and affordable housing. Last June, our government signed a new affordable housing agreement with the federal government to deliver a range of new housing to the people of Ontario. In total, our government is investing $622 million to match the same amount that the federal government is contributing. That's a combined $1.2 billion in new funding for affordable housing, something I think we can all be very, very proud of. In fact, that is a record amount of money for that period of time in the history of Ontario.

Ce programme vise aussi des gens comme Delphine, qui a perdu l'usage de ses jambes. Elle utilise maintenant un triporteur pour se déplacer dans son logement accessible et abordable.

In total, with this $1.2 billion in new funding, we will be renovating 50,000 social housing units and building 4,500 new affordable housing units. I know the member from Cambridge is interested in this figure because some of those projects will go into his