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

May 13, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-May-13 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 13 May 2009 Mercredi 13 mai 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINING AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES MINES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ANNIVERSARY OF

LEGISLATIVE STAFF

ANNUAL REPORT, INFORMATION

AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

ORAL QUESTIONS

AGENCY SPENDING

TAXATION

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

SPORTS AND RECREATION INFRASTRUCTURE

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

PUBLIC TRANSIT

LANGUAGE TRAINING

EDUCATION

TAXATION

GO TRANSIT

CITY OF VAUGHAN

WATER QUALITY

CORRECTION OF RECORD

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PORK INDUSTRY

NURSING WEEK

TOWN OF MILLBROOK

UXBRIDGE QUAKER MEETING HOUSE

TOURISM

ONTARIO POLICE MEMORIAL

TAXATION

WINE INDUSTRY

PORK INDUSTRY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON JUSTICE POLICY

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON SOCIAL POLICY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

AND APPRENTICESHIP ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR L'ORDRE DES MÉTIERS

DE L'ONTARIO ET L'APPRENTISSAGE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

SKILLED TRADES /

MÉTIERS SPÉCIALISÉS

POLICE WEEK

SKILLED TRADES

POLICE WEEK

POLICE WEEK

SKILLED TRADES

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE

CEMETERIES

TAXATION

ROAD SAFETY

SCHOOL FACILITIES

TAXATION

AIR QUALITY

EDUCATION

ONTARIO BUDGET

TAXATION

ROAD SAFETY

HOSPITAL FUNDING

TAXATION

CHILD CUSTODY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GREEN ENERGY AND GREEN

ECONOMY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR L'ÉNERGIE VERTE

ET L'ÉCONOMIE VERTE

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINING AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES MINES

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 4, 2009, on the motion for second reading of Bill 173,

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

Loi sur les mines.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member for Algoma–Manitoulin.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I'm pleased to join in second reading debate of the government's proposed Mining Act modernization legislation. We've heard from the Minister of Northern Development and Mines on the key ways in which the proposed legislation makes advances towards benefiting all Ontarians, balancing a wide range of interests and providing clear guidelines to the minerals industry. My colleague has detailed how the proposed legislation would ensure that our Mining Act reflects the values of today's Ontario, while continuing to promote sustainable mineral development stewardship for the benefit of all Ontarians.

Certainly, as we've heard, the entire province benefits from Ontario's minerals industry. Not only does the industry generate an enormous range of employment options for Ontarians; it produces the minerals that are used in virtually every aspect of our daily lives. In the minister's review of the proposed legislation now before us he has referred to the "balanced approach," which is one of this legislation's key aims. The minister spoke of promoting balanced development and modernizing the way that mining companies stake and explore their claims. It's also more respectful of private landowners in aboriginal communities—development that balances social and economic interests.

To amend the Mining Act to achieve this balance is a very complex challenge. Fortunately, the government has been working towards proposed amendments to the legislation for some time. We have not worked in isolation. We have been involved and consulted with a wide range of stakeholders and aboriginal communities in a focused way over a period of several years, to understand how the government has arrived at this groundbreaking legislation that would first help many of our communities realize their economic and social aspirations and, second, help ensure Ontario remains one of the best places in the world for mineral exploration and mining investment.

Let me take this opportunity to provide the House with a brief review of the important initiatives, some of which the minister has touched on in his remarks, that have been undertaken for the proposed legislation before us. Our government's formal work on modernizing the Mining Act began in March 2006, when we released Ontario's mineral development strategy, a blueprint for the future of mineral development in Ontario. In fact, we could make the argument that the work began with the drafting of a mineral development strategy, providing for some of the founding elements for what we are putting forward today.

The strategy commits us to sound management, effective stewardship and responsible development of the province's mineral resources. It speaks to our concern for the environment and recognizes the need for more rigorous environmental standards. It acknowledges the need for clear rules to reduce conflicts and build collaboration at a time of increasing pressure for alternate uses of our natural resource base. And it responds to court decisions that have assisted in clarifying our obligations with respect to aboriginal treaty rights.

By adopting a mineral development strategy, our government has moved to enhance the mineral sector's global competitiveness, while at the same time opening new economic opportunities for all Ontarians.

Ontario's mineral development strategy has been clear about the government's position on its obligation to consult with aboriginal peoples. It has reaffirmed our commitment to our responsibility to consult on activities related to the Mining Act.

If I could have just a minute, Mr. Speaker? The cold is really getting a bit too much.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): As long as you remain standing—is that okay?—the floor is yours. I'm just pleased I'm not in my place to catch that cold from you, that's all.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: You might get it yet, Mr. Speaker.

For the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, it involves continued collaboration with aboriginal peoples, the minerals sector and other stakeholders to develop and implement effective consultation processes. The strategy also speaks to the need to promote positive relationships with aboriginal communities. We seek to build stronger relationships between government and aboriginal peoples and to foster partnerships between aboriginal communities and the mineral sector. Ontario's mineral development strategy reinforces principles of relationship building by promoting a climate of co-operation and involvement.

Its goals are to optimize resource benefit opportunities for all people and to minimize unnecessary conflicts.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: To give our friend a bit of time, am I permitted to move my seat for a second?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Move your seat?

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: Or move myself to another seat?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): No. Why would you want to do that? Maybe you could explain it to us.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am partial to the suffering of our colleague here, and consequently we'll just give him a minute to prepare himself for his continued speech.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): With the agreement of the House, we can give him—

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The crisis is over.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): That wasn't a point of order. The member may continue, if he chooses.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: Thank you. I appreciate the intervention of my colleague. I think some better cold medication might be appropriate.

Back to the important matter before us: Throughout this outreach process, we engaged in more than 50 community-based dialogues in both northern and southern Ontario. Our aboriginal engagement teams met with tribal councils and political territorial organizations across the province to set the stage for more in-depth discussions. We sought advice through the Northern Table's mining technical table process. We engaged our mineral sector stakeholders at regional workshops and presentations and at talks with individual companies.

Other workshops brought together aboriginal and mineral sector representatives in an effort to clarify their consultation-related challenges and to begin identifying options to manage or resolve these challenges. In addition, the engagement process provided opportunities for First Nations, Metis and other mineral sector players to highlight their successes, allowing others to learn from and build upon them.

Throughout this undertaking, we listened hard and learned some important things. For example, in our discussions with the aboriginal communities and organizations, we heard that there is no single, generic aboriginal view toward consultation, accommodation benefit sharing and capacity building. Aboriginal communities are all different—

Interjection.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I'm receiving much help.

Aboriginal communities are all different, and no single approach can encompass the needs and outlooks of the more than 100 First Nations and Metis communities in Ontario. Our dialogues taught us that communities have different perspectives and understandings of mineral exploration and development. Communities need to know that they can participate in and support these activities if they choose to do so. The advice we received in our dialogues usually reflected the individual community's level of support for mineral activity.

Some communities support mineral activity. Their concerns often focused on how they can promote business relationships with mineral sector proponents and how the ministry can best support these relationships. Other communities are less ready for mineral development. They tend to focus on the impact of exploration activities. They want to know how the government, through the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, can take a leadership role in the consultation.

Communities also differ in their preferred approach to consultation and accommodation. Some are community-based in their outlook. They believe consultation, accommodation and benefit sharing should occur at the community level and the community should have the capacity to participate effectively. Others prefer a collective approach in which the tribal council or political territorial organization assumes a coordinating role. They tend to support a two-tier approach in which First Nations benefits are also shared across the larger community.

We realize that the government's aboriginal consultation framework would have to be flexible enough to accommodate all of these differences. At the same time, it would need to ensure that basic consultation requirements are always met and that investment would continue to be encouraged.

That initial process of engaging with aboriginal communities and stakeholders about the province's mineral industries prepared the government well for the extensive and comprehensive consultation we undertook to prepare for the Mining Act modernization.

I'm just going to skip to the end. The government wishes to continue with the consultation here in the Legislature, as we do across the province, and to continue to work with all our partners to ensure a bright mineral future for all Ontarians.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O'Toole: I extend my compliments to the member from Algoma—Manitoulin, the parliamentary assistant on this day. I do think he made his points rather well in the short time he took to make them. I hope he's feeling better today by seeing a doctor; we have such a good health care system in Ontario.

However, I think I'm really more interested in listening this morning to our member from Parry Sound—Muskoka, Mr. Miller, our member from the north, who has considered this to be an important move forward. But he does have, and I'm sure he will raise on our behalf, some well-considered concerns. We really understand the fundamental importance of the resource sector to our economy—that is not in dispute at all—and modernizing the Mining Act is certainly something that I heard from the association when we met with them earlier this year. So I commend the minister for moving forward.

As we all know, the clarity in property rights will fundamentally be an issue here that will have to be dealt with, moving forward. Those consultations that you often refer to are important. That being said, I believe that the deeper message—this is my own

interpretation—on the issues of sovereignty and resource sharing for the First Nations is pivotal. In fact, you might argue that the federal government is still wrestling with that sovereignty issue. I know that's a big mouthful in terms of trying to get it right or get it perfect, but at least you're trying, and I think that commitment to dialogue, the commitment to working with, would certainly be our strategy. I won't make any disparaging remarks to some of the other issues in Ontario where there are ongoing disputes that are being ignored to some extent.

So I look forward to the remarks of our member from Parry Sound—Muskoka. I'm sure we'll be much more enlightened, and our critic will bring those concerns that we have to your attention this morning.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

M me France Gélinas: I too want to wish the member from Algoma—Manitoulin a prompt recovery to health. I can't help but notice that our member from Timmins—James Bay and I think the member from Sudbury, as well as the member from Thunder Bay, seem to suffer from the same type of bad cold. I'm happy to say that the member from Nickel Belt so far is healthy, so maybe there are some patches of health in the north. Anyway, prompt recovery there.

As far as the comments from the member from Algoma—Manitoulin, he certainly went into some depth in describing the consultation that has taken place. This is certainly something that the New Democrats support. In order to bring a review to the Mining Act, a consultation needed to happen, and it did happen. It was exhaustive, and here we have the result in front of us.

I come from the riding of Nickel Belt. When people think about Sudbury, they think about mining, but you have to realize that there are no mines in Sudbury. The mines are all in Nickel Belt. There is a smelter operation in Sudbury and a mill related to the mining industry, but all of the mines really—and I could rhyme off a dozen of them—are located in Nickel Belt.

The Mining Act, we all agree, needed to be revamped to take into account much of the development and exploration that's going on in the far north and some of the issues with exploration in the south on private land. We agree that the act needed an update. There is some concern about what is being put forward.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Well, it's certainly a reflection of the dedication and determination of my colleague from Algoma—Manitoulin and parliamentary assistant that he, despite not feeling well this morning, was here to make his remarks. The member for Nickel Belt is quite right: There are others who are suffering from colds as well, but northerners are tough. We just carry on. We don't give in very easily, and that's also the hallmark, may I say, of this legislation.

I am very grateful to the member for Algoma—Manitoulin for outlining in particular the extensive and quite remarkable consultation process that was undertaken with the Mining Act, and I'm also grateful for my colleagues supporting that extensive consultation process. An important part of that was that, although the formal consultations in terms of the Mining Act itself began in August last year, there was a process leading up to this, particularly with our aboriginal stakeholders, to determine the best form the consultations should take. That was also part of the mineral development strategy that our ministry put together in 2006.

So this was a tremendous process. Over 100 First Nations were involved: the Métis Nation of Ontario, the political confederacy of all the First Nations leaders in the province, the mineral industry themselves and environmental groups, all working together on a very, very close basis through what has been a complicated but, I think, a very positive process.

Our challenge, as I said many times, was to find the proper balance between maintaining a positive investment climate, being properly respectful of our aboriginal partners and recognizing the need to improve situations for private landholders. I think we accomplished that and I'm grateful to the member from Algoma—Manitoulin for outlining that today.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

The hardy member from Algoma—Manitoulin, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I first want to thank all the members for their advice on cold medications that I received in the interim and their best wishes for my speedy recovery. I would point out that many of us do seem to have a cold that came from northern Ontario. I don't think it's specifically about being in the north, but who knows?

This is an important piece of legislation. I appreciate the comments from the member from Durham, the member for Nickel Belt and the minister himself. It is a difficult piece of legislation which required an extensive amount of consultation with groups involved in the aboriginal communities, whether First Nations or others. It required a great deal of work with ministry stakeholders, whether they be prospectors, mining companies or junior companies, and with all Ontarians.

To get a piece of legislation that finds the correct balance between the interests of all of us is a tremendously difficult challenge for any government to undertake. I'm very proud of the consultation that the ministry did undertake throughout the entire province with all the stakeholders trying to understand the new and modern approach that we need to take to developing our mineral sector in a sustainable way. It is clearly a key to Ontario's prosperity.

As I mentioned in the speech, we use minerals in virtually every product we use today, whether it be nickel from Sudbury or any of the other minerals we have—salt; you name it, we use it. We produce much of it here in Ontario. We need it and we need to have those benefits for all the people of Ontario.

Thank you to my colleagues for all their advice on cold medication.

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

Mr. Norm Miller: It's my pleasure this morning to get an opportunity to comment on Bill 173, the Mining Amendment Act, 2009. I'd like to start out my comments by simply saying that I recognize and the PC Party recognizes just how important mining is to the province of Ontario. Mineral production in 2008 was some $9.6 billion. Toronto is certainly a centre for mine financing capital: 57% of the world's mining companies are listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Mining is important for development of the far north, for sure. It's one of the opportunities for economic activity in the far north. It's important for jobs in the south, as well.

I think back to just a couple years ago. I had the pleasure of touring the new mine being developed in Sudbury, the Nickel Rim mine, with our past leader, John Tory. When I was touring that mine, they had spent about $1 billion at that stage sinking the shaft down into the ground a considerable distance, and the mine hadn't started producing yet.

But when we were touring the property and looking at the various equipment being installed in the mine, it was pointed out that most of it came from southern Ontario and was produced in the Toronto area and various places in southern Ontario, whether it was the big winches—all kinds of different pieces of equipment. There's obviously a real importance of mining for the economy of southern Ontario, not just the north and not just the far north.

Of course, mining is very important for aboriginal communities. In fact, mining is the biggest employer for aboriginal communities. It's quite significant. They're high-paying jobs and jobs that require a lot of skill, so it provides opportunity for aboriginal communities. The newly opened diamond mine in Attawapiskat is a mine that is employing many of the people in the Attawapiskat neighbourhood, and First Nations people, so that's a positive thing.

But there are also conflicts in mining. Those sorts of conflicts are, in southern Ontario, between surface property owners who don't have ownership of the mineral rights, where the crown still owns the mineral rights. There have been some conflicts, particularly in eastern Ontario. And of course there are concerns about the environmental effect of mining as well.

I note that the government has done a pretty good job of getting the major stakeholders onside in terms of supporting the provisions of this legislation. They have groups like the Ontario Mining Association, and Chris Hodgson. They have the head of the prospectors' association making positive comments about the changes proposed. They have some environmental groups supporting the legislation, and some of the aboriginal groups. Grand Chief John Beaucage, of Anishinabek First Nation, and Regional Chief Angus Toulouse were also making supportive comments.

I would say that I'm generally supportive of what is being proposed in the modernization of the Mining Act, but it is my job as the opposition to point out those that are not 100% supportive of the proposed changes, and also to make suggestions for improvement to the Mining Act. So I will try to get on the record some of the concerns that have been raised with me, as the northern development and mines critic.

It has been 100 years since the Mining Act was first introduced in this Legislature. Much of the proposed act enables processes that will be detailed in regulation, which will be developed in the next few years. Those provisions deal with map staking, prospecting licences, staking claims, regional division for claims and dispute resolution with First Nations. In other words, some major parts, pretty significant aspects of this legislation, will be decided in regulation.

We've heard about the consultation that has gone forward to this point, where they say a thousand people have been involved and many First Nations. I would say generally, from what I've heard, the consultation has been quite significant. I just say to the government that, going forward, it's probably more important, because so much of this bill is being left to regulations, that they do that same sort of open consultation in terms of the regulations. Otherwise, it could be good or it might be an absolute disaster.

Obviously, and understandably, the act was due for some changes, as times have changed. I'd like to now look at a little bit of history. In Ontario, over the last 10 years, there have been some pretty drastic changes. Ontario was the engine of the economy of Canada 10 years ago. Now we're in last place. Ontario was first in the world for mining activity and it can no longer make that claim.

So what has changed? Well, to start with, the attitude of the government has changed. For example, under the PC government, Ontario created a positive climate for resource development. In February 1999, Northern Development and Mines Minister Tim Hudak received recommendations of the Mining Standards Task Force, a joint committee of the Ontario Securities Commission and the Toronto Stock Exchange. As a result, the PC government brought Ontario's geoscientists under a system of licensure that set out professional standards establishing a self-regulating body for geoscientists, to ensure that the information that was coming forward was accurate, reliable and reviewed by professionals.

In 2000, Ontario's mining sector contributed some $5 billion annually to the province's economy and sustained hundreds of communities across the province, particularly in northern Ontario.

Some 40% of the world's mineral capital was raised right here in the province of Ontario. The PC government of the day brought in programs like Operation Treasure Hunt, a record investment in geophysical and geochemical survey.

In the budget for 2000, we cut the Ontario mining tax rate in half, to make it the lowest tax rate in all of Canada. For new remote mines opening up in the province, the government created a 10-year tax holiday, and then a further reduction in the tax rate after that, to spur economic investment in the area. I would say that it had a lot to do with stimulating prospecting in the far north, and it is probably why we have a diamond mine west of Attawapiskat now.

As well, the PC government brought in an Ontario-focused flow-through share program to spur investment in grassroots prospecting and development, a move that spurred the federal government of the day to act on that initiative as well. These programs worked.

Let's take a look at the economic climate under the current government relative to mining. In March 2007, in the Liberal budget, Premier McGuinty announced he would impose a tax of up to 13% on profits generated by Ontario diamond mines. At that point we didn't have a diamond mine, but we had one just about ready to open. The minister has talked a lot about certainty. I agree, certainty is a good thing; certainty for companies that are going to invest billions of dollars to develop a new mine. They want to know that after they've spent the money searching for the mine, finding it, developing it and going through the process, the rules won't change. Unfortunately, the rules did change.

De Beers spent $1 billion developing this new diamond mine west of Attawapiskat, with lots of engagement with the First Nations, impact benefit agreements, getting ready to open the mine, and then all of a sudden the provincial government changed the rules: It tripled the tax rate. I simply say that is not fair. I know that at about that time the Ontario Mining Association was having its annual Meet the Miners reception here at Queen's Park. They feature a different company each year, and it just so happened that that year they were featuring De Beers.

They had some of the beautiful diamonds, the best in the world, that come from Ontario's north, on display there, but the representatives of De Beers just could not—they were trying to be polite, but they couldn't help but criticize the government for changing the rules just as they were about to open the mine. I think that's understandable, because certainty is something that the mining industry requires.

A 2005 Fraser Institute report on investment attractiveness of mining jurisdictions states that the key problem facing mining is uncertainty. The government has consistently signalled uncertainty to the mining community, and we have seen the results. Your Mining Act review has been under way for several years now, yet this act creates only a rough framework, with the detail to be happening in regulations. Depending on which aspect of the regulations we're talking about, it will be at least a couple of more years—up to five, I would say—before the regulations are drafted, reviewed, refined and in place.

On the map staking side, we're talking about a process that will take two to five years at a minimum, and it will be particularly challenging in the far north to implement.

What is the effect of the uncertain policies and regulations created by the McGuinty government? Well, let's see. We'll go back to December 27, 2001, and I'll read a press release of the day from the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.

"Ontario Soars to Top Ranking as World's Best Destination for Mineral Investment

"Ontario's hard work in support of the minerals sector has paid off in the form of a top-place finish in the Fraser Institute Annual Survey of Mining Companies, Northern Development and Mines minister Dan Newman said today. Ontario shared the spotlight with Quebec for the highest rank on the institute's overall investment attractiveness index.

"'I am delighted with our province's showing,' said Newman. 'This is a ringing endorsement from the mining industry for the Ontario government's efforts to build a favourable economic and regulatory climate that will nurture a strong, sustainable, environmentally sound minerals industry today and in the future.'

"Released December 18, the Fraser Institute's fifth annual Survey of Mining Companies interviewed 162 companies to assess mining jurisdictions in Canada, the US and other countries on their mineral exploration investment attractiveness. The ranking is achieved by comparing policy, regulatory and mineral potential factors that influence investment decisions.

"Both Ontario and Quebec scored 90 points out of a possible 100 in the 2001-02 survey. The other top 10 mineral investment jurisdictions were Australia, Chile, Brazil, Nevada, Alaska, Peru, Mexico and Manitoba.

"Last year, Ontario was rated as the best jurisdiction in Canada and third in the world for mineral potential and investment attractiveness.

"Newman attributed Ontario's improved international ranking to a series of significant policy and regulatory measures that make the province more attractive for mining and mineral exploration. Over the past six years, the government has cut taxes, initiated one of Canada's most aggressive geoscience survey programs, funded mineral exploration research, reduced red tape and supported the activities of prospectors.

"'These positive measures have made Ontario a great place to do mineral sector business,' said Newman. 'We look forward to continue working with the industry to foster economic growth and job creation in the mineral exploration sector.'"

That was back on December 27, 2001, when Ontario was the number one in the world, tied with Quebec. Quebec is still in that number one position; however, Ontario is now sadly in 10th position. First to 10th is what has happened under this government.

What are some of the other negative impacts on mining development? According to the Canadian mining association, while global mineral prices are "a primary driver of investment, it is important to note that the industry does face a number of challenges...."

"— … a present and projected shortage of labour—skilled and unskilled....

"—Project approval times and costs are increasing and the industry faces cumbersome consultation and regulatory processes. Parallel issues, such as unresolved land claims, can add to these costs and delays."

While the government is proposing a dispute resolution process in this legislation, there is no detail available and no idea what time lines will be attached to this process; therefore, there is still no certainty for industry to encourage further investment.

I can tell you that in getting ready to speak today, I called the president of one of the major companies based here in Toronto—I won't name it—to get their feelings about the Mining Act, and they gave me some input. They also said they are investing in countries other than Canada right now. They pointed out to me that they just developed a mine in Russia. You'd think Russia wouldn't be the most stable place to invest; however, this president pointed out that they are looking for investment, and it took them three years to go from prospect to actually having an operating mine in Russia,

whereas it takes about 10 years here.

The other point this president brought up with me was the tax rates for investment in mining in Canada not being as competitive, and I'll get to that in a second.

While several other variables affect the competitiveness of an investment regime, members of the Mining Association of Canada identified three as being particularly important:

"Tax Policies

"Government tax policies should support a competitive and internationally active industry."

When you combine provincial and federal taxes in Ontario, we are less competitive than Brazil and Chile, who are two of our major international competitors for mining investment.

"Investment in Infrastructure…."

Ports, railways, highways and international bridges are required to be able to "reach global markets with competitively priced" goods.

"In rail services, for example, the industry contributes a significant percentage of the freight revenues of CN and CP each year. These two railroads enjoy a monopoly position in many regions and it is therefore very important that rail services be efficient and fairly priced."

In northern Ontario, "there is also a need for increased investment in transportation infrastructure to support economic development.... There is considerable mining potential in northern" Ontario, "where the interest of analysts and investors can be affected by the efficiency with which products can be moved in and out of prospective mine sites."

Their third concern: "Efficiency and Effectiveness of Canadian regulations

"In proposing projects, Canadian mining companies and domestic and foreign investors depend on" all levels of government "for a clear understanding of information requirements, approval processes, timetables and responsibilities."

Once again, this comes back to certainty, which I know the minister has spoken about.

Let's delve a little deeper into the issue of regulations. In Ontario, we already have examples of this government creating regulatory challenges. We need only to go back to the Endangered Species Act. I at that point was the Ministry of Natural Resources critic and did get to have input to that.

Throughout the legislative process, the Minister of Natural Resources and his government promised to recognize the Crown Forest Sustainability Act and honour the forest management plans that are Ontario's platinum standard and recognized as one of the most rigorous forest management frameworks in the world. I believe the minister was surprised when the government broke its word on that, because

section 55 of the Endangered Species Act was not an exemption from forest sector responsibilities to protect species at risk or their habitat; it was an exemption from duplication of process. But this government didn't care about breaking its promise to the forestry sector or the 230,000 working families that depend upon it. As the Ontario Forest Industry Association president and CEO Jamie Lim points out, this government instead moved to create a crippling process that further brought the forest industry to its knees.

This is just another situation where the devil is in the details and where we have to trust the government to keep its word, because much of what this current Mining Act is about is going to be in the regulations. Frankly, based on the track record to do with the Endangered Species Act, I just don't trust the government.

One of the changes proposed in the new Mining Act is a switch from ground staking, where you're physically on the ground, to map staking, where the staking is basically done from an office, based on a computer. That's the way many jurisdictions are going. Just to explain traditional staking, I at one point in my life did actually hold a prospector's licence. That was back in 1980, when—

Hon. Michael Gravelle: You were a child.

Mr. Norm Miller: —the minister says I was a child; yes, thank you for that—but when my good friend John Moses happened to be interested in prospecting and he needed another person to help him stake some claims. So in April 1980, I got my prospector's licence. There were a group of claims that were lapsing and coming open on April 1, 1980, I believe it was. So I was out in the bush at about 5 in the morning, ready for when they came open at 6:01 on April 1. I had snowshoes and had snowshoed out, and actually staked six claims for my friend and then promptly signed them over to him afterwards.

But the ground staking process is such that you physically go on the ground. So as I say, in this case I snowshoed out into the bush. Each claim is a quarter-mile-square claim. As I recall, and I might have the corner wrong, you have to cut down a tree on the northeast corner of the claim, I think it is, and you square it off and put your brass prospector plate on. You write your name on it with your prospector's licence and the times; it was like 6:15 a.m. on April 1. The six I did that day were staked by me. That's the way ground staking works: You physically have to go out on the ground and do the staking.

And then, to keep the claim up, you have to do a fair amount of line cutting, marking the boundaries of the quarter-mile-square claim and other work, or it would lapse, as these claims had lapsed.

So the proposed change is to go to map staking, and I think there are prospectors, certainly, who have concerns about that. I'll try to get some of their concerns on the record.

I would like to share some comments from an ad hoc committee that was formed by the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada. They point out that map staking will have a negative impact on stakers and line cutters. Fees for recording map stake claims will go to general revenue, with no benefit to either local stakers, communities or the mines ministry.

They point out that there are important benefits of physical staking in unsurveyed country, such as that there are usually claim lines and posts to enable one to find the claim. In areas of continuing exploration activity, many people earn a significant part of their income by staking claims. These people are also usually involved in the exploration sector at other stages, such as line cutting and prospecting. If they were to lose that part of their income earned by staking, they might get out of the industry entirely.

Map staking is much less conducive to identifying potential environmental hazards on the ground, and therefore the likelihood of acquiring a property with a potential environmental problem is increased, because with map staking, as I mentioned, as we move to that, you do that in your office via computer. You're not actually physically out there on the ground.

Ground staking puts people on the ground who establish a physical boundary and often gain valuable information about the geology, ground conditions etc. Ground staking also puts a constraint on the acquisition of huge tracts of land by one party. Map staking, the new proposed type of staking, can sterilize a large area very quickly, leaving most of the ground unexplored, but held by the transfer of work from small, key areas. Those are some concerns that were expressed by stakeholders, prospectors—and I do have some other prospectors that I will get to in just a second.

Other stakeholders: As I mentioned, there aren't a number of First Nations that support the proposed changes to the bill. The Nishnawbe Aski Nation has some concerns. I note that Stan Beardy, the Grand Chief, has issued a statement, and I would like to get that on the record.

"Grand Chief Stan Beardy acknowledges the attempts the government of Ontario has made to address First Nations concerns over mining in the Mining Act amendment bill introduced by the government of Ontario today, but is very concerned that the legislation might not fully recognize the rights of First Nations to decide on mining in NAN territory.

"'Our primary concern is that NAN First Nations must have free, prior and informed consent before any activity can take place in their homelands,' said Nishnawbe Aski Nation (NAN) Grand Chief Stan Beardy. 'That's the standard expressed in

article 32 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and that's the standard we expect Ontario to meet.'

"Some key areas NAN First Nations want addressed in the amended legislation include:

"

(1) Free prior informed consent: No prospecting, staking, exploration or mine development will proceed without a written agreement in place, at the discretion of the First Nation.

"

(2) Participation in regulations: All regulations under the new act must be made in consultation with First Nations in a government-to-government relationship.

"

(3) Spirit and intent of the treaties (No. 9 and No. 5): These agreements to live and work together will be recognized by any person exercising authority under the act.

"

(4) Environmental standards: The land, water, air and all living things must be protected—by the highest environmental standards with all exploration and development projects subject to the scrutiny of environmental assessments.

"

(5) Dispute resolution: An independent dispute resolution mechanism involving NAN Nation communities that respects the values and laws of First Nations people.

"

(6) Funding and capacity: A firm commitment to funding and technical resources to engage and respond to the project assessment process.

"

(7) Land use planning: An assurance that new legislation does not pre-empt the current process, that land use plans take precedence over mining rights, and clear indication that land use plans will be respected, and will not be trumped by mining tenure.

"

(8) Map staking and land designations: A commitment that consultation and accommodation obligations will be met and that capacity and technology will be provided to First Nations who want to participate.

"NAN has requested a commitment from the government of Ontario to a process that will see more meaningful participation by First Nations during the regulation and policy stages; detailed work that will be conducted following the implementation of the Mining Act amendment bill.

"'The government of Ontario did not allow enough time to conduct meaningful consultation with NAN First Nations in the development of this legislation,' said Beardy. 'We will continue to insist upon a mechanism through which NAN First Nations will be consulted and will have meaningful input into the decision-making process.'

"'We have a sacred responsibility to future generations to secure the protection of our homelands, which has been the basis of the survival of the people of Nishnawbe Aski for generations,' said Beardy. 'It is critical that any development of natural resources in the far north must respect aboriginal and treaty rights while supporting an environmentally sustainable economic future for our people.'

"Nishnawbe Aski Nation is a political territorial organization representing 49 First Nation communities in James Bay Treaty 9 and Ontario portions of Treaty 5—an area covering two thirds of the province of Ontario."

Mr. Beardy's speaking for the First Nations in a significant land mass part of Ontario, so I do think his concerns are to be noted.

As a sidebar, I had the pleasure of going with Grand Chief Stan Beardy on a flight late last August, once again, with our past leader John Tory. We visited Fort Severn, which is up on the Hudson Bay coast. As well, on the return trip—we had chartered a plane out of Thunder Bay to make this trip—we visited Webequie. I mention Webequie because, I guess, it's a community that's doing very well, and mining is making a real difference in the welfare of that community.

They're in the midst of what's called "the ring of fire," so there is all sorts of economic activity, diamond drilling, going on in the area surrounding Webequie. The chief was Scott Jacob. I understand that he wasn't successful in the last election, but he was the chief who was there when I toured last fall. I think they have a joint venture with a diamond drilling company called Cyr, and it's really providing some benefits for that community. It's an example of how mining can benefit First Nations communities, but obviously they do have concerns.

As I mentioned, John Beaucage from the Union of Ontario Indians called the legislation historic for marking a new way of doing things. He went on to say, "However, we have to move beyond basic consultation towards engagement and signing of impact benefit agreements between mining companies and First Nations."

I have spoken with some individual prospectors, as well, who have outlined their specific concerns. I spoke with Bill MacRae up in Timmins recently and he outlined—these are second-hand, so I hope I get his concerns correct.

He had concerns about provisions in the bill that allow companies to pay money instead of doing assessment work after a claim is staked. For example, after a claim is staked by a prospector in the future via map staking, there's currently a requirement to maintain that claim; that you have to do certain work, whether it's line cutting or geophysical work. The bill will change that, where a company will just be able to pay money to maintain that claim. The money would go to the government, so obviously the government benefits.

But that's money that's not going into work on the ground, so the prospectors won't be benefiting from it, plus you aren't getting the benefit of the work that would be done on the ground. He has concerns about that. He would like to make sure that the value is set high enough that there's still incentive to actually do the work versus just paying the fee.

He had concerns about the exploration permits, because there's going to be this new process put in place that, as more work is done, you require more complex permits. To do with flexibility, the example he gave me was if the permits and the plan you have to put forward is very detailed in terms of exactly where you're going to do diamond drilling, it could actually be negative, in that you might drill the first hole and have a very significant ore intersection and that would change where you want to do the next three or four holes, and if your plan is so restrictive that you can't make that change, he had concerns about that.

He also had concerns about uncertainty being created, wondering about timelines, wondering about whether the First Nations would have the capacity to deal with the new consultation requirements.

His fourth concern was just around the uncertainty in the period from when the bill passes, which I expect will be in the fall session of the Legislature, through to the point when all the regulations are actually finalized, which could be a couple of years at best and could indeed be longer—but I would expect it's going to be a couple of years.

Finally, the request that was made to me was that when this bill goes to committee, which I expect is going to be some time over the summer, places in the north be on the map, included for destinations for the committee to hold hearings. He very specifically said that Timmins should be a place where committee hearings are held, and I would think that Sudbury would be a natural spot as well.

I also had a number of suggestions that were passed on to me by another prospector, and I will try to outline some of those concerns as best I can. They had concerns about the prospector licence. There's going to be a requirement in this bill for awareness training. He said that the reaction they had at their prospectors' meeting was that a lot of the prospectors thought they were going to quit prospecting if they had to do an awareness training course. So I would simply say that the way this is implemented might be critical, so that we don't lose prospectors in this province, for one thing.

I would suggest that perhaps some of the prospectors who have been prospecting a long time might be grandfathered, or that they come up with a method where—he suggested that you mail out the course or requirements to all of the prospectors and perhaps they can do a self-paced course.

I'm a pilot, and in flying you have to maintain currency. The Canadian Owners and Pilots' Association mails out to people the required re-currency training course, which you can complete in your own time and then keep in your logbook to show that you've done the currency training. Perhaps that would be a way of getting compliance for the prospectors out there.

The new

section of the bill to do with surface rights—it was just expressed to me from the prospector. They don't like it, but it's not too big a deal for them. They do have concerns with cash in lieu of work, as I previously mentioned from the other prospector I was speaking with. On the map staking question, they actually had a vote amongst the prospector association and the majority of the prospectors voted that they preferred ground staking to map-staking. They're concerned about employment and want a level playing field, and there certainly are mixed feelings about that. They've brought up the director of exploration who's being proposed and simply said, "He'd better know his stuff."

Advanced exploration: They felt that it should be the government's responsibility to consult with First Nations and not the individual companies. It was pointed out to me that there is a model in Quebec where they actually have revenue resource sharing for First Nations based on mining activity. This actually incents the First Nations to want to have mining happening and encourages them to be involved and also encourages a time line, I guess you would say, through that model. It was pointed out to me from the prospector that if he's looking at doing something in a given area, there might be six different First Nations that he'd have to consult with and it's a very difficult process.

Those were some of the concerns expressed to me from a particular prospector. Sorry; to go on a little bit more—the powers of the inspector. They don't like the

section where—and I will read this section:

"158(1) For the purpose of carrying out his or her powers and duties under this act, an inspector may, without warrant, at any reasonable time, gather information and make inspections and inquiries and, in the exercise of that authority, may,

"(

a) enter into or onto any place, mining lands or other lands or premises connected or associated with any staking, exploration activity, mine, advanced exploration project, abandoned mine or mine hazard, other than a room or place actually used as a dwelling;

"(

b) make such inspections, examinations, inquiries, tests or photographic or other record considered necessary in carrying out his or her duties...."

It's the "without warrant" part which I think they don't like. He did raise in conversation with me just the general attitude of government inspectors. I've certainly raised this—not just connected with the Mining Act—but how I feel that we in this province need to change the attitude of inspectors so they aren't so much just the police but they're actually assisting people and businesses to meet the regulations versus only being the police.

I think we need to, as I've said in the past, make the rules clear, educate the people that they're going to affect and then have our inspectors actually provide some assistance to meet those rules versus the attitude of just coming down hard with a hammer and being the police.

On the far north planning section, where there is a plan in this act to have community—based land use planning, the concern expressed by the prospectors was that this may take many years. They're just concerned about timelines and how long it will take to actually be put in place.

Another noteworthy stakeholder: The Canadian Mining Journal's online poll gives an insight into other stakeholder reaction. Only 5% of poll participants wholeheartedly support the proposed changes to the Ontario Mining Act, 41% support a few of the changes, and 41% don't support the legislation at all.

There's another group that is looking for changes on the other side of the spectrum and that is the Coalition for Balanced Mining Act Reform. Dave Gill, whom I spoke with the other day, sent me information which I—it looks like I should have time, hopefully, to get onto the record. I'll read what they're saying:

"The Act to Amend the Mining Act of Ontario, Ontario's Bill 173 to amend the Mining Act is both unbalanced and unjust.

"The proposals that Minister Michael Gravelle has made to change Ontario's Mining Act will not bring Ontario's Mining Act into balance with other policies and priorities; with other legislation of the province, and with the rights and needs of the citizens of the province. Bill 173 fails to respect even the most basic requirements of equality, fairness and justice, and it will not bring peace to the province on mining matters.

The Coalition for Balanced Mining Act Reform ... is a broad coalition of citizens' groups, environmental authorities and municipal governments that has made three modest proposals to bring mining into balance with the rights and needs of Ontarians and with other priorities and policies of the province and its citizens.

"Those three modest proposals call on the government to overcome the serious negative effects that are caused by Ontario's overly permissive mining legislation by:

"(1) protecting all private landowners—equally;

"(2) allowing municipal planning procedures to determine where mining activities can take place with their local communities; and

"(3) requiring all mineral exploration activities to undergo a comprehensive impact analysis before the work is done, and to preclude mining activities if that analysis shows that the work will damage the environment or the economy or harm the rights, the health, the investments, or the jobs of other citizens of the province.

"Not one of those essential requirements is met by Bill 173.

"Thus the bill would continue to allow mining activities to cause immense damage: it would not bring mining into balance; and it would not stop the conflicts caused by mining legislation that is overwhelmingly biased towards the interests of mining firms. Instead, the bill proposes to make a few trivial changes, for example by requiring some consultation with some groups, by preventing claim staking on some private lands, and by requiring prospectors to take some 'awareness training' before they can enter onto public and private land, lay claim to the minerals, and proceed with invasive exploration activities including cutting the trees, and doing exploratory trenching and drilling."

He goes on, but obviously those three provisions are the key ones that the Coalition for Balanced Mining Act Reform are concerned about. To demonstrate why there is not unanimous support for the bill and for the process we go through, it will be important that they too get a chance to come to committee and make their suggestions known about this bill.

In the limited time I have left: It's obvious in the bill that the regulations are going to be critical. I would just like to go through a few more aspects of it.

Certainly, as it was pointed out, there was a lot of consultation in the drafting of the bill. I give the government credit for that. They had 1,000 people participate in public and stakeholder consultations and 200 written responses, and the feedback I have is that that was positive. But as I mentioned, so many of the details are going to be in the regulations that it's very important that that process continues.

Just to highlight some aspects of the bill: There's going to be map staking introduced; I've already talked about that. There's going to be a graduated regulatory approach for exploration activity. There's recognition of aboriginal treaty rights. There's a dispute resolution process as it regards to aboriginal concerns. Although, when I was being briefed on the bill and I asked specifically about the distribute resolution process, asking how it was going to work, I was more or less told, "We're not quite sure yet.

We're going to figure that out over the next couple of years." That's a pretty significant part of the bill that needs to be worked out, and that's why I keep coming back to regulations.

The bill deals with a mainly southern Ontario problem or situation: the conflict of private right interests relating to mining development and mineral rights versus surface rights. It also changes land use planning in Ontario's far north so that community-based land use planning will be required.

Maybe I'll go to the surface rights versus mining rights part of it. It's interesting that in this bill there are going to be different rules for southern Ontario versus northern Ontario. The boundaries of the south versus the north that are being used for this particular legislation are the French River, Lake Nipissing and Mattawa River. North of that is northern Ontario and south of that is southern Ontario. It's interesting that, speaking for my own riding's sake, Parry Sound is in the north for most northern programs but it isn't in the north in terms of the new Mining Act.

This relates mainly to the conflict of private surface rights versus crown mineral rights, because in the south the conflict has been, particularly in eastern Ontario, where cottage owners, for example, think they own all the property, including mineral rights, but discover after a claim is being staked that they actually don't. So in this bill, in southern Ontario the mining rights that are owned by the crown would be withdrawn from mineral staking automatically. That is in the case where there is not an existing claim, or if a claim lapses, then it will be withdrawn automatically.

In northern Ontario, it's kind of the reverse of that. In northern Ontario, owners would be able to apply to the minister for an order to withdraw the mining rights from staking. I think that will be positively looked at by those people caught in the situation in southern Ontario where they didn't realize that they don't own the mineral rights and where they find that they're in the midst of a mining claim. It's not so much an issue in northern Ontario where there's just a lot less development.

The far north land use planning that's going to be required in this bill: I view that positively from the perspective of what the McGuinty government has said, that they're not going to allow any development in the boreal forest. They will allow mining in the far north if there's land use planning going forward, and I assume community land use planning.

I assume that the First Nations will be the drivers of that community land use planning, and I view that as a positive way for the communities to benefit from economic development and the possibility of a mine being created, and them having some say over it as well. I think that is positive as long as, in all this, the process that's being put in with the permits etc.—as long as there are significant timelines so that it doesn't just become a very, very long process which will create uncertainty in development. I think community land use planning can be a positive thing.

It can be positive for those far north communities.

I know there are other provisions and I'm going to take some time to try to talk about them also. Another provision of this bill, and I know it was raised by Chris Hodgson, the president of the Ontario Mining Association, is the fact that the penalties for non-compliance have changed significantly, so there's now actually a part of it which is an imprisonment clause for a couple of violations of the act. It was stated to me that that would certainly get the company's attention and that they would want to be in compliance with the laws so that they are not obviously faced with that prospect of prison time. That is another significant change in the bill.

Interjection.

Mr. Norm Miller: The minister was saying something I didn't quite catch.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I want to be able to comment—

Mr. Norm Miller: He wants to be able to comment. Okay. Well, I look forward to that, because I'm just about out of time.

I will wrap up, then. There are some other specific, smaller details that I did want to mention, but I'll give the minister an opportunity to comment. I would simply reiterate that regulations are going to be key to this. It could be a disaster or it could be positive, depending on how those regulations are implemented. Full consultation on that going forward will be important and we look forward to significant committee hearings travelling around the province, particularly in the north, and real input from those committee hearings.

With that, I will conclude my comments.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

M me France Gélinas: It was most interesting to listen this morning to comments on the changes to the Mining Amendment Act. Certainly the member was able to touch on some of the core and key issues of what the bill is trying to do. The bill is trying to bring a level of certainty when dealing with exploration, or any other mining activity, on traditional First Nations land.

His reading into the record of the letter that Chief Beardy from the Nishnawbe Aski Nation sent, following the release of the bill, speaks volumes. The First Nations want to see amendments to the act. They want to see certainty for them for revenue sharing when there is mining exploration and mining activity going on in their territories. They also want to see land use planning. The bill does not go into any certainty on those critical aspects for First Nations.

He also talked about another area of the bill that is very contentious, which is this great south-north divide, where a different set of rules will apply to land use in southern Ontario versus northern Ontario. For him especially, it's sort of interesting that he's not in the north anymore and is now part of the south. So certainly this is something that I will be going into in further detail when it's my turn to talk about the bill.

Generally, there is a consensus out there that the Mining Act needs to be revamped. The actors have been identified. Not all of them are happy.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I do want to compliment the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, the critic for our ministry. Certainly he put a lot of effort into the comments, and I appreciate them.

But I do think, when you look at the large extent of his remarks in terms of outlining some of the concerns expressed by various stakeholders and interested people, it only shows us what a challenge it is to find the balance. That's what it really does reflect, in a very clear way. So indeed, I appreciate it, and I will follow up specifically on some of the cases or issues he mentioned, because I think we can clarify those rather quickly.

But you're certainly right about the drafting of the regulations. They are going to be a lot of work, and they are very significant. I must say that we don't anticipate them taking nearly the amount of time that you suggested they will. We also believe that as we go through certain aspects of it, they will become part of the act immediately. In other words, we'll do it in sections. But our goal is to move forward on this in a good way.

And may I say we are very committed to having the process of drafting of regulations be a consultation process as well. We've made a very clear commitment—in fact, a written commitment—to our aboriginal stakeholders, that they indeed will be part of that process. I was speaking earlier this morning at a mining industry breakfast and made the same comments and commitment to them.

I think that the important thing is that we are now, generally speaking, on a very positive track. Despite some of the concerns—I wish I had more time to talk about the map-staking issue, because I think that there are some very positive ways of looking at the process as we move forward.

Thank you very much. I appreciate your comments, as I do those from all the members. We're going to work very closely and together on this as we move forward in the process of drafting the regulations. I recognize how important it is. Again, I look forward to working with all my colleagues in the House.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O'Toole: I listened to, and in fact I had to leave the room and watch, the remarks by the member from Parry Sound—Muskoka. It's reassuring to see that both the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and the parliamentary assistant are here this morning to take note of the comments and observations made by Mr. Miller, because I know that he also takes the time to try and find that balance.

We, on the one side, are completely in support not just of modernizing and improving, if you will, the relationship component of this legislation, with all the stakeholders, but also of getting it right. We remain very concerned, as Mr. Miller pointed out, about the regulations. The devil is in the details, and this is where we're troubled.

The history here, working not with this particular minister but with other ministries—I think of the Ministry of the Environment in the regulations with respect to the cosmetic pesticide act, which was sort of bumping up against the federal PMRA, the pesticide management regulatory authority. So we have the province, on the one hand, making up these fancy regulations which really don't work, from my understanding, in many cases, with the federal agency which regulates what comes into and out of the country and between jurisdictions. So we want to get the regulations proper and correct.

But I always think of the simple things in terms of that challenging of the balance. I think the comments made with respect to the stability are also important. When there's heavy investment—and we know the case of the Attawapiskat diamond mine and changing the rules in the middle of the game, adding a new tax or some regulatory burden or secondary oversight—I remain concerned that this does not provide the stable framework that a long-term investment relationship requires to, again, bring Ontario from 10th back to first place.

That's what we're looking for: the right rules at the right time in the right place, to make Ontario the best place to do business and create jobs and wealth.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr.

Howard Hampton: I was interested to hear my colleague from the Conservative Party, and I was particularly interested to hear him read from the statements of NAN First Nations and point out that while the government was patting itself on the back when it held its press conference here at Queen's Park and when it introduced the legislation here at Queen's Park, it was very clear that where the majority of mining exploration is taking place in Ontario and where the majority of mining interests in Ontario exist, the very people who live there, NAN First Nations and their political representatives, were not at the press conference.

In fact, they issued a statement to the media indicating their dissatisfaction, indicating their disappointment.

I think that's a very salient point that my colleague from the Conservative Party has pointed out for the government, because I think we need to be clear: The mining interest isn't in Toronto; the mining interest isn't in Hamilton; the mining interest isn't in London. The mining interest is north of the 51st parallel in northern Ontario. The mining interest is in a part of Ontario where the vast majority of people who live there belong to the NAN First Nations. I think it is very telling that not only did the legislation that has been presented not satisfy NAN First Nations; it very much disappointed NAN First Nations. I'll have more to say on that in a moment.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. Norm Miller: I thank the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and the members from Nickel Belt, Kenora—Rainy River and Durham for their comments.

I would like to, in my couple of minutes here—one aspect of the bill I didn't really talk about too much is that they're bringing in a graduated regulatory approach for exploration so that plans will be required for low-impact exploration, and permits for higher-impact exploration. I say, as with other aspects of the bill, this could be a good thing if it's done in a reasonable timeline and adds certainty, or it could be a negative thing if it becomes mired in bureaucracy and is a very slow process. So that's another example of how the regulations will be so important.

The point the member from Kenora—Rainy River makes certainly is important, that two thirds of the land mass of the province is under the Nishnawbe Aski Nation and Grand Chief Stan Beardy, who have an interest in it, certainly. They are not completely in favour of the proposed changes, so that's obviously an important consideration.

Although the member from Kenora—Rainy River said mining is very important to the north—and obviously it is—as I pointed out in my speech, it's also very important for southern Ontario, where so much of the equipment is manufactured to be used in the mines that are created from the exploration. So mining is very important for all of Ontario, and that's why it's so important that this bill be done in a positive fashion and be good legislation that does work so that that healthy mining industry can go forward and be successful in the province.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 8, this House is in recess until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1020 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: I'd like to introduce the family of page Timothy Swampillai. They're in the east gallery: his dad, Bruno; his mom, Jenita; his sister, Preyanka; and his brother, Jason.

Mr. Bill Mauro: I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce, visiting from Thunder Bay and the GTA for page Emily Sellner from my riding of Thunder Bay—Atikokan: her mother, Lori Marshall; grandparents Joanne and Bob Boyce; and Mary, Dirk and David Becker, aunt, uncle and cousin, along with Andy Griggs, their uncle, sitting up in the Speaker's gallery.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: In the west members' gallery from the great riding of Oak Ridges—Markham we have Mohan Pandit.

Mr. Robert Bailey: It's a great pleasure for me today to introduce the parents of Cameron Tomlinson in the west gallery: Scott, Christine and Madison. We welcome them to Queen's Park today.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I want to introduce Dominic Pasqualino, who is here from Thunder Bay in the east members' gallery.

Mr. David Zimmer: It's my great pleasure to introduce Albert and Eileen Schwartz from the riding of Willowdale—very distinguished citizens in Willowdale. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Jim Brownell: I'd like to introduce William Hennessy and Shawn Boudreau, two students from Trent University completing their Bachelor of Education program this week.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: Today I'm delighted to have with us Wilma Jeffray, who's the chair of Ontario Pork and an Ontario pork producer. Along with her is Mary-Ann Hendrikx, who is the vice-chair of Ontario Pork. They are here today because they are hosting a luncheon. It's entitled "Put Ontario Pork on Your Fork" and it's to raise consumer awareness about the safe and high-quality pork products we have here in Ontario. All members of the assembly are invited to room 247 today from 11:30 till 1:30 for a pork luncheon.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I have the pleasure to introduce to you the director of the North America division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cuba, Mrs. Josefina Vidal Ferreiro, and the consul general, Mr. Jorge Soberón.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: Thank you for this opportunity on a point of order. I'm very happy to present to the Premier of Ontario the jersey of the Windsor Spitfires, the Ontario Hockey League champs. On behalf of Dwight Duncan and myself, both representing this great riding and this great team, the Ontario champs—they're headed to Rimouski for the Memorial Cup and a very special presentation of the Premier of Ontario.

Mr. John O'Toole: It's a pleasure to welcome, from Ontario Health Food Awareness Day, three people I spoke with: Franco Salituro, as well as John Ferris and David Freeman, who are with us today.

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to welcome a co-op student from Unionville High School, Sin Logaranthan, to the House.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would like to welcome students from Regina Mundi secondary school in my riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London who will be in the Speaker's gallery later this morning.

ANNIVERSARY OF

LEGISLATIVE STAFF

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I also would like to take this opportunity to ask all members of the House to congratulate Gloria Richards, the Speaker's apartment coordinator, who today celebrates her 35th anniversary of service to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Congratulations, Gloria.

This is a reminder to all members that today at 12:30, in rooms 228 and 230, there will be a members' pension information session. I would encourage all members to be in attendance.

ANNUAL REPORT, INFORMATION

AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I beg to inform the House that today I've laid upon the table the 2008 Annual Report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AGENCY SPENDING

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is to the Premier. Premier, an FOI request which was filed by the official opposition reveals that between 2003 and 2008, the Smart Systems for Health Agency spent at least 26 million tax dollars on consultants' fees. This is the agency the Premier quietly reorganized, I guess, last year, after it had wasted 647 million tax dollars, the agency the Premier apparently doesn't want the Auditor General to investigate.

Premier, can you explain why the Smart Systems for Health Agency relied so heavily on consultants despite the fact that, according to a Toronto Sun article, it had 166 staffers earning over $100,000 a year?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. David Caplan: I thank the member for the question, because our government is committed to modernizing Ontario's health system by harnessing the power of information technology to improve safety, quality and access to care. E-health requires expertise from some very highly technical individuals to develop and implement these kinds of projects and objectives. There is, I acknowledge, a high cost to attract the kind of talent that we need to make these projects a reality.

I just want to put it into some context for the member opposite. President Obama and the US government have identified a sum of some $50 billion over the course of the next five years to be able to deliver electronic health records for all citizens in the United States. When you put it in that context and you look at the investments that we're making and at the results that we've achieved—I disagree, by the way, with the premise of many of the elements of the—

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Speaker, I don't know about you, but I didn't hear anything in that response that related to my question with respect to waste. In the 2007 election campaign, when the Premier was asked about reducing taxes, he responded, "No, I need that money." I think maybe the actions of this agency that your government has had the responsibility for, for—what?—six years now, is a pretty clear indicator of why you always need more taxpayers' dollars: to feed your inept oversight of agencies and ministries within this government. This is an agency that spent $373,000 on lavish catering and $1.7 million on travel.

Minister, this morning in a scrum, your Premier said that we need to ensure "that we get value for money." That's exactly what we're asking you to do. If you and your colleagues truly believe that and you support what your Premier said in the scrum today, why will you not call in the Auditor General?

Hon. David Caplan: In fact, my predecessor did even better and ordered an operational review of Smart Systems for Health, which yielded important information. In fact, I took very quick action to ensure that we have a new agency, led by president and CEO Sarah Kramer and chaired by Dr. Alan Hudson, that is very much on track and on target to deliver, as we have indicated, an electronic health record for all diabetic patients within the province of Ontario by 2012.

Just yesterday, I had the opportunity to be at the University Health Network to talk about the next move as far as an e-prescribing system for the province of Ontario. We have two pilot projects, one in Collingwood and one in Sault Ste. Marie, working incredibly well, yielding good information in their first few weeks alone.

As well, the member says that nothing was yielded, but 7,000 secured network sites: all hospital sites, public health units, satellite offices, family health teams and other physicians, continuing care agencies—

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Well, I guess we can't assume anything with this government. The minister should be aware that in his health Results-based Plan Briefing Book it says, "Ontarians are entitled to know what they are getting for their money.... The government will not spend where measurable results are not evident." That's on page 2, if you care to look it up. Your Premier preaches transparency, but as in so many other areas, his actions are quite different from the words. He's refusing, and you're refusing, to open the books on this agency to the Auditor General.

I think taxpayers have a right to be concerned with respect to millions of their hard-earned dollars still being spent on fees, flights, food and hotels for consultants—an organization that already has a staff with 166 of them making over $100,000 a year.

Minister, I ask you once again: Do you have a fundamental problem with opening this agency up for review by the Auditor General, to let the taxpayers know where their money is being spent?

Hon. David Caplan: In fact, the information that the member presents to this House, some of which is correct and some of which is not, was the result of a freedom-of-information request by the official opposition. Of course that information is public, and we do want Ontarians to know the hard work that this agency is doing in order to deliver electronic health records—a transformative strategy to be able to link physicians, pharmacists, nurses, dietitians and many other health professionals with consumers themselves, to be able to manage their health care, to be able to transform health care.

Ask a mother in Sioux Lookout if she sees the value in being able to get advice from a specialist at the Hospital for Sick Children without having to travel to Toronto. Ask a doctor in London in an emergency department if she sees the value of being able to look up the medication list of a confused or elderly patient who can't tell her what drugs she's taking. Ask the librarian with failing sight in Ottawa if she sees the value in wait times information—

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

TAXATION

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Back to the Premier. As you know, and we all know, the Victoria Day weekend is almost upon us—the unofficial launch of vacation season. It's intended to be a weekend of relaxation and fun for Ontario families: camping, cottaging, boating and fishing with friends and family, and relaxing at home. I suspect that most families in this province are unaware, as the Premier suggested a week or two ago, of the heavy costs lying ahead for them when they plan future vacations.

The government has been anxious to hide the real reach and extent of damage of the new McGuinty sales tax grab coming into effect July 1 of next year. We know it's going to cost Ontarians more money for an unending list of things they'll be using and doing on future Victoria Day weekends.

I ask the Premier, if you're so certain that increasing taxes on Ontarians is the right thing to do, why are you so committed to withholding the truth about the reach and cost of this massive tax hike?

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Premier.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In fact, Ontario needs a tax transformation that includes major tax cuts for families, businesses and small businesses. We're working with the tourism industry, providing additional funds as we transition to the new single sales tax. The times call on us to take bold measures, balanced measures that reduce the overall tax burden for all Ontarians. We are confident this is the right course of action to take. It will help Ontario get through this downturn, and when we get through it, our economy will grow faster and become bigger and stronger than when we went into it.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Since this is clearly a day of rest for the Premier, he won't need a long weekend. I'll go back to the minister.

The Premier and his minister want to keep the facts hidden from view, and I'll just go over a few of the long weekend vacation items that will be hit with your new 8% massive McGuinty tax: rest stops for coffee and doughnuts, gasoline, campsites, firewood, boat rentals, dock slip rentals, boat launching, fishing licences and fishing charters, golf fees, air travel, train fares, boat cruises, even postage stamps for our grandparents who want to send a postcard home—all taxed by Dalton McGuinty. Minister, try to fill us in on what I've missed.

Do you or any of your colleagues have any appreciation of just how damaging your new sales tax will be to struggling Ontario families who want to take a break from the stress on a long weekend?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: What the member missed is a large personal tax cut, he missed a large corporate tax cut, and he missed a large small business tax cut, all of which will mean that when the entire tax reform package is implemented, Ontario will have a more competitive tax system and 93% of Ontarians will pay less in overall taxes. We'll have a more efficient tax system, one that will help this economy grow in the future.

I say to the member opposite, if he and his party feel that strongly, are they going to undo all of this in two years' time, in spite of what they've said up until now? This is a tax reform package that benefits all Ontarians and will create jobs in the long term.

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Speaker, I don't know about you, but that sounded like an admission of defeat. We're ready to take over right now and deal with this issue.

A couple of organizations: Camping in Ontario is a group representing 67,000 campsites in the province. It says that the new McGuinty sales tax "would see most camping-related fees increase by 8%," and that "our members could potentially see a decrease in business as consumers decide they can't afford an 8% increase in their camping costs."

From the Nature and Outdoor Tourism Ontario website: "The move to a harmonized tax will result in a significant tax increase to our guests."

Minister, you're ignoring the concerns of groups who know the tourism industry and the importance of advocating for consumers. Your new massive tax grab is putting jobs at risk in a tough economy and punishing vacationing families. Once again, I ask you, why have you—

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Businesses will save costs as a result of a single sales tax, and I have confidence that those businesses will pass those savings on to consumers.

What I find particularly interesting—the member opposite said just a month ago, speaking of a harmonized sales tax, "In principle, we think it's something that should occur." That's Bob Runciman on March 25, 2009.

The next day—he had 24 hours to think about it—he said, "We've supported the principle of harmonization." That's Bob Runciman, again.

The times call for decisive action. The times call for a plan that will make the Ontario economy more competitive. We've offered that plan. It's the right plan. It will create jobs, improve the economy and help Ontario grow to become bigger—

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

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question's to the Premier. As this government asks auto workers to make unprecedented sacrifices to keep companies like GM and Chrysler alive, as this government asks taxpayers to fork over their hard-earned tax dollars to prop up some of the world's largest corporations, New Democrats believe that the senior executives at these corporations must be required to make some sacrifices as well.

That's why I introduced yesterday the Capping Executive Compensation Act, a bill that would place a ceiling of $400,000 on compensation packages for senior executives at large corporations receiving government bailouts. My question is a simple one: Will this government support my bill?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the effort made by my honourable colleague and the sentiment that informs the bill that she's presented. But, no, I can't support it, and I'll tell you why. I think, ultimately, our responsibility is to find ways to enter into partnerships with businesses that serve the public interest—a partnership that serves the public interest. What we want to do is find ways, through these partnerships, to strengthen the economy and create jobs. If we are achieving that aim, if our partnerships strengthen the economy, if it creates more jobs, then we are satisfied.

I'm not looking for a kind of incidental or collateral benefit, so to speak, to reach in and interfere with salaries awarded to executives.

Again, our objective is to achieve more jobs in a stronger economy, and if the partnerships achieve that, I think that's what the public wants us to do.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I'm trying to understand the choices that this Premier is making. He introduces legislation that removes its obligation to the pension benefits guarantee fund, he forces auto workers to reopen their collective agreements as a condition of their employers receiving provincial aid, and he asks taxpayers to fork over billions of dollars to some of the world's largest corporations. When will he realize that high-flying executives at corporations on the public dole also have a role to play, and it starts with a limitation on their pay and on their perks?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I do agree that executives have a responsibility to lead by example, but I don't enthusiastically, on the part of our government, embrace interference in the private sector through our partnerships. What I do embrace and what I sense the responsibility to do is to find ways to enter into partnerships that serve the public interest. Again, that's all about creating jobs. It's about finding ways to strengthen the economy. It's about giving our families more reasons to be hopeful for themselves and their children. Those are the criteria that we apply, and I think that's what families want us to continue to do, and that's what we will do.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The public interest is served when everyone shares in the pain, I would submit to this Premier. In fact, President Obama recognized that with his financial services bailout, where he capped corporations' executive salaries at $500,000. It's something this Premier could do as well. Plain and simple, it's about fairness. Hundreds of thousands of workers have lost their jobs, and the pensions of tens of thousands more are in danger. These workers and pensioners are making tremendous sacrifices. Corporate executives must start making sacrifices too, with a cap on their pay and with a cap on their perks. Why doesn't this Premier agree?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, we will do what is necessary to ensure that when we do enter into these partnerships, they serve the public interest, create jobs, strengthen the economy, give our families reason to be hopeful.

There will be some cases where it's appropriate for us to introduce the kind of capping that my honourable colleague talks about. In fact, we did that in the Chrysler deal. There is a cap in place on executive pay. In some cases, it will be appropriate and it will be possible; in others, it will not. But we will not be motivated by a sense of some kind of class warfare that sometimes inspires my colleagues opposite in the New Democratic Party. We will try to be fair to people on all sides, regardless of their income levels.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Premier. Ontario's eHealth system is shamefully lagging behind other provinces and jurisdictions, yet the price tag keeps growing and growing. This morning, the Toronto Star is reporting that Ontario's eHealth agency has spent more than $67 million on consulting fees just during the past two years. This comes hot on the heels of a recent revelation that eHealth Ontario wasted hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. Why is this agency being allowed to burn through taxpayers' dollars like there's no tomorrow?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. David Caplan: I again repeat for the member, and I hope she understands, that this is an important, transformational and expensive undertaking. Connecting 280 hospital sites, 69 public health units and satellites, over 1,600 family health teams and other physicians, almost 1,500 continuing care agencies, over 3,000 pharmacies, and of course Cancer Care Ontario, Cardiac Care Network, Trillium Gift of Life, air ambulance operation—50,000 health care professionals linked together and using the system. The member, I would hope, would want to understand the importance of this kind of work and the value that it delivers.

The member in her very first question talked about President Obama and the efforts south of the border—$50 billion that he has earmarked. Here in this province, we've earmarked $2 billion. We think that's an important investment—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This government is not only wasting precious health care dollars, but it's creating an eHealth system that simply doesn't do the job. The earliest we will see a province-wide system of electronic health records is 2015, and even then the province's public health electronic records system, Panorama, will not be compatible with the system currently used by physicians. There won't be something as simple as coordinated vaccination records. This could have grave implications if a pandemic were to break out. Why are Ontarians being forced to wait so long and spend so much for a system that won't even meet our basic health needs?

Hon. David Caplan: Unfortunately, the member is quite incorrect and I don't think she knows what she's talking about. The electronic Child Health Network has been in place for many years, where all pediatricians and physicians are linked together. In fact, we will have a diabetes registry for people living with diabetes in Ontario by 2012 and an ePrescribing system by 2012. Yes, we have talked to Ontarians and have set an end date of 2015 for electronic health records, but I do believe that we can accelerate that timeline.

As far as having all of that information, I can tell you that if you ask a physician in Belleville who checked best practice guidelines online if our investments and technology have value to him, that physician would say, "Absolutely." What has happened in Ontario has led to that transformation.

I disagree with the member opposite. I don't think she understands what she's talking about, and I think she should speak to medical—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock for a second. I just would caution the honourable member. Yes, there is room for healthy debate here, but not for making comments in the manner that he has been making those comments.

Please continue.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: You know what? There is a growing crisis in health care. Hospitals are regularly running at full capacity, nurses are being laid off and patient care is suffering. And what does this government do? Pour hundreds of millions of dollars down the eHealth drain and into the pockets of private corporations, with very little to show for it. How much health care money will this Premier waste before he pulls the plug and admits his eHealth experiment has been a spectacular and expensive flop?

Hon. David Caplan: The only thing that's been a flop is the rhetoric of the member opposite.

We're hiring nurses in Ontario. If you go to the Workopolis site today, you'll find that in the last two months, 400 positions have been listed for Ontario nurses. If you look at the record of this government, you'll see a 45% increase in health spending in the province of Ontario.

Quite frankly, I'm not surprised that the member doesn't understand the importance of eHealth in transforming our health care system, since there were no steps taken under NDP governments. We're seeing others around Canada which point to similar kinds of experiences. I believe, and medical experts are telling us, that these are some of the most critical investments that we can make in order to fuel the transformation in health care.

I know that around the world—if you look, as I say, south of the border, President Obama has earmarked $50 billion over the course of the next five years. I think he understands, as this—

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

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is to the Premier, and it has to do with some comments he made a week or so ago related to the failure of the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Education to respond to the concerns of two women who worked as caregivers for a Liberal member of Parliament and her family. You said at the time that the perception was bad; it didn't look good. You tried to slough it off by saying that apparently the ministers had a tin ear.

That would clearly suggest to any objective observer that you felt they should have acted, that they should have responded to the stories of abuse from two vulnerable women, that the fact that the allegations involved a powerful and prominent Liberal reinforced the bad perception. So despite your fine words, Premier, about defending the downtrodden, when push comes to shove, protecting a Liberal, the queen of mean, takes priority—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm not sure what the question was in there, but it is an opportunity for me to speak to this issue again. I think that both ministers acted responsibly and honourably in the circumstances. They made themselves available. I think pretty well in each and every instance for all those women, it was their very first opportunity for them to meet with persons in positions of authority. They had an opportunity to tell their stories, and those stories were listened to. My colleagues did not interfere with due process. They provided information to the women who were present there.

It's now an opportunity on their part to follow up with that. I think that was the appropriate thing to do. I think it was the honourable thing to do. I think it was the right thing to do in the circumstances.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: The question was related to the comments the Premier made to the media. He said this does look bad—this does look bad; there's no question about it—but then he comes into the House and starts defending the ministers for something that looks bad.

Even Jim Coyle in the Toronto Star, not friends of the Conservative Party for most of their history, described the conduct of your ministers as a shameful act—a shameful act. Most Ontarians who are viewing these proceedings and wondering about the meaning and sincerity of the words of you and your colleagues have to share that perspective.

Under the Employment Standards Act, the Minister of Labour has the ability to exercise a power and perform a duty even if he or she has delegated to a person under this section. He failed in that responsibility.

I have to ask you, Premier: What happened to the principles you proudly stood for when you were in this chair, when you were in this seat? What happened? Why did they—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I would like to think that those principles remain intact. I understand where my colleague comes from on this particular score. He sees an opportunity here and he seeks to exploit that. You might even argue that's his responsibility, Speaker, but I see things differently on the right side of your chair.

I think our responsibility is to ensure that we're being fair, in particular being fair to the people of Ontario, and in particular, being fair to the women who were present that evening. I think fairness also extends to any allegations and accusations made against ministers of our government. I think they behaved appropriately in the circumstances. I think they acted fairly. In fact, we heard yesterday in testimony on Parliament Hill that the two women complainants in question took advantage of the hotline that we had put in place. I think the process is working. I think we have a shared responsibility to follow due—

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

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Premier. Did the Minister of Labour actually ask his employment standards investigators to examine the 30 cases of allegations of abuse made by nannies on April 25?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I failed to hear the last part of that question from the member, but what I can tell you, as the Premier has just said, is that when we have reached out to the community, as we continue to do, we have heard stories from these caregivers. We've done it in a dignified and respectful manner but also in a professional and fair manner, where we have provided information to them.

As you also heard from the Premier and the testimonies by these two live-in caregivers yesterday at the standing committee in Ottawa, those individuals did avail themselves of the 1-800 hotline and are receiving professional help from our ministry officials. That's the right approach. We will continue to move forward with that type of approach because that's one that is—

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: To the Minister of Labour: What he says is that these women used the 1-800 number. He certainly didn't respond to their call. In fact, the only reason the public is now aware of the abuses around caregivers in the province is because of the bravery of Magdalene Gordo and Richelyn Tongson to tell the stories to reporters and a federal committee. That is the only reason we know of them. Telling their story to the current labour minister got them absolutely nowhere.

Why won't the Premier do the right thing and replace this labour minister?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: What I can say to that member is that all of the individuals who have participated in the round tables, and in that one in particular, were very thankful—very thankful—to have that forum to be able to speak to elected officials, receive support, and let them know what we're doing as a province and what control we have. What we're doing is, we're going to be banning those fees.

But to that member, I have to say, who has been challenged with her own labour issues, I will not take any lectures or lessons from that member.

SPORTS AND RECREATION INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr. Khalil Ramal: My question is for the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure. Minister, we've heard lately a lot about various funding for infrastructure from both budgets, provincial and federal. Also, my riding of London—Fanshawe is especially interested in the announcement you made on Monday about the new Recreational Infrastructure Canada program in Ontario and the Ontario Recreation program with Minister Clement and also my colleague the member from Mississauga—Brampton South.

Can you tell us, Minister, what this announcement means to Ontarians about creating jobs, stimulating the economy and also supporting communities?

I'll be happy in the supplementary to talk about more of the criteria that will allow communities to rebuild their recreation infrastructure.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: It's important for the city of London because we have a lot of facilities that belong to the city, whether they are hockey arenas or soccer fields etc. But so many different communities support facilities, like the Marconi Club, the Portuguese Club and also the Boys' and Girls' Club. They are wondering if they are eligible for those supports and funding. If they are, can you tell us how they can apply and benefit from this infrastructure?

Hon. George Smitherman: It is an excellent question, as I think that the member's question allows us to highlight one thing about this program which is particularly noteworthy. Most of the infrastructure programs that we've been speaking about over the last month or two have been focused on municipal applicants only, but in this case a broader array of communities, like First Nations communities and also not-for-profit organizations, will have an opportunity to apply. We'll be looking forward to working with the Ministry of Health Promotion in helping to evaluate these processes, keeping in mind that the focus is on the renewal of recreational facilities.

In addition, the program is open for receiving applications. Applications will close by May 29, and we want to encourage people to take a look at the program. It's a joint-intake application process for these funds. There are no limits to the number of applications that people can make, and the commitments are that these projects would be substantially completed by March 31, 2011, therefore providing important—

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

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: To the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Minister, there appears to be little support for your reverse Reaganism amongst economists: "I have no faith in the Ontario government's ability to conduct this kind of industrial policy. It hasn't worked in the past, and the world has not gotten any simpler or easier to predict since then." That's a quote from William Robson, CEO of the C.D. Howe Institute.

Also, "I freely admit that we are living in unusual circumstances, but that doesn't mean we should throw out decades and decades of what we've learned in one fell swoop": That's from Doug Porter, the deputy chief economist of the Bank of Montreal. And the list goes on.

Minister, it seems that the economic community is lining up against you. Can you provide any examples of economists who agree with your plan? Can you please indicate any recent instances where a state-run economy has succeeded?

Hon. Michael Bryant: Let me talk about a success, a company called Roxul. I know that the company is in the member's riding, and I know when I asked him yesterday in estimates whether or not he supported the investment in Roxul, I didn't get a yes out of it. It is surprising that the member would not support an investment in his riding.

But here's what's happening: With the support of this $10-million loan from the advanced manufacturing investment strategy, Roxul was able to not only increase the number of employees from the original 135 employees, but it has recently gone from 200 employees to 300 employees. It is because of the investment made by the government—a loan that was repaid—that this great Halton company could expand, that more people have work in that member's riding—

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

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I didn't hear one economist who supports your proposal. I don't believe in state subsidies in my riding and I don't believe in state subsidies in Ontario. I think that you're headed down the wrong path.

There are a few problems with the minister's theory. First, it's theoretical. He cannot point to a shining city on the hill, because there isn't one. Secondly, businesses will spend more time on applications and lobbying and less time on innovations and production. Thirdly, it begins a vicious cycle: More and more companies will expect handouts. Fourthly, it forces non-subsidized companies to pay their competitors with their tax dollars.

There's another and better way to partner with businesses, Minister: lower taxes, reduce red tape, train a skilled workforce and maintain a fair marketplace. Healthy competition naturally leads to the success of the best companies.

Given your government's track record, Minister, how can we be sure that your choices will be—

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

Hon. Michael Bryant: I'll tell you something: If this government has a choice between walking with the workers or riding with the economists, we're going to be walking with the workers.

As a result of the investment that this government has made in companies in that member's riding, jobs have grown. As a result of the investment that this government has made in companies, hundreds of millions of dollars—in fact, over $1 billion has been leveraged. We—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Mr. Bryant: I think I hit a nerve over there.

How about this economist: "I understand the need to partner with industry and to leverage investment, and I value GM as an important Ontario employer"—Mr. Ted Chudleigh, the member who just asked the question.

I stand with Mr. Chudleigh and the workers. Mr. Chudleigh and I will continue to make investments in Ontario on behalf of those workers, to leverage those jobs, to grow that economy—

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

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. If this government is supportive of public transit, as it claims to be, why is the Premier refusing to fulfill his government's one-third share of the funding for the Toronto Transit Commission's new Bombardier streetcars?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure.

Hon. George Smitherman: It would be appropriate for me, in the presence of the mayor of Thunder Bay, to welcome her to this Legislature. We had a chance to meet on this and other subjects today.

The first thing is to do the necessary work here, which is to remind the honourable member that her party is on record as having opposed the expansion of public transit, ridiculing an $800-million investment in a new transit line in the city of Toronto as going to the "unpopulated" York region. These are the comments by a past leader of that party.

No one over here on this side quarrels with the necessity of finding a way to work with the city of Toronto and to support the acquisition of additional streetcars, but we do think it's important that people have the necessary support in place before such announcements are made. At present we're evaluating a stimulus application on the part of the city of Toronto for eligibility—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This streetcar contract represents new hope for Bombardier workers like Dominic Pasqualino, who's here in the House today, and hundreds of Thunder Bay workers just like him. It will make it easier for commuters to get around Toronto, it will get more people out of their cars and on to transit, and it will help Ontario—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I think some people are very anxious to have a long weekend. The member from Thunder Bay—Atikokan, I'd appreciate if you would listen to the question from the honourable member.

Leader of the third party.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Thank you, Speaker. As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, it will help Ontario meet our climate change objectives. The McGuinty government either supports public transit or it doesn't. When will the Premier stop playing political games and pony up the cash so we can get the streetcars on the rails?

Hon. George Smitherman: The honourable member says you either support public transit or you don't. Why did that party stand in this Legislature and criticize the advance of a subway line to York region, calling York region sparsely populated? The same applies to the honourable member. And wasn't it this Premier, not two weeks before the story about streetcars, who stood with the mayor of the city of Toronto and committed an unprecedented $9 billion in the greater Toronto area towards the Metrolinx projects?

Did the honourable member notice that on that day, this Premier committed the province of Ontario not to one-third funding for those lines, not to 50% or the historic 75%, but to the new, history-making situation in the province of Ontario where the province steps up to the plate and commits to fund 100% of the Metrolinx projects in this city?

LANGUAGE TRAINING

Can the minister share with us what our government is doing to support these valuable programs?

The McGuinty government is proud of its record in welcoming newcomers to Ontario. This is why, since 2003, the McGuinty government has invested over $600 million in settlement services, and in particular $60 million annually in language training.

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

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey: The region of Peel is expected to exceed 1.5 million people in the next 25 years. When I meet with newcomers in my riding of Brampton—Springdale, I often hear about the importance of these programs and how vital it is to access high-quality language training programs in order to better integrate and find success in their new communities.

Would the minister share with the members of this Legislature how the government is ensuring that these important language programs are meeting the labour market needs of today, as well as addressing the labour needs of tomorrow's newcomer?

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to thank the honourable member for the question. I also want to thank her for her hard work for newcomers while serving as parliamentary assistant to my ministry.

The McGuinty government understands newcomers are vital to a strong and vibrant economy, because when newcomers succeed, Ontario succeeds.

EDUCATION

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: To the Minister of Education: I would like you to listen to your education policy in the cold light of day: "If a student misses a test (whether they skip class or are sick) or if they cheat then the evaluation is not valid and they must not be given a zero. The student must have an opportunity to be re-evaluated on the material.

"Assignments can have a due date but if the student does not hand it in on the due date a zero cannot be assigned. The student must be allowed to hand in the assignment late without being penalized."

Minister, how do you expect to prepare our students for employment in the business world, an environment that does not tolerate this kind of behaviour, when you refuse to enforce any discipline in our schools?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The current evaluation and assessment policy has been in place since 2000. We're in the process of actually consulting on that policy and looking at how it might change.

But the real point of this issue is, do we believe that our schools should be sorting mechanisms that say, "There are certain kids who are going to succeed and there are certain kids who aren't going to succeed, and we're just going to write those kids off"? Or should we change the culture in our schools and have a culture that says, "We are going to find a way to put programs in place that are going to help every student succeed, live up to his or her potential and be a part of this society and this economy"? That is what we're trying to do in this education system.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: Minister, certainly you of all people should understand the importance of creating clear consequences for actions or for failing to act for our students.

Over 5,000 parents, just to this point in time, have signed an online petition asking that you take this matter in hand and toughen up these policies. We cannot expect our students to succeed in a competitive global marketplace when you proceed to move them through school without any consequences for late assignments, cheating or skipping class. This is not preparing our students for the challenges of the real world.

Minister, will you take action to correct this policy now and ensure that our children have the life skills they need to be successful in the real world?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It is exactly what we are doing to make sure that our students have opportunities to develop the skills they need to succeed.

In the real world—now, I challenge the notion that school is not the real world; I think it is the real world. But in the working world, when people make a mistake, employers work to help that person to achieve and succeed. It is in no one's interest, whether in school or out of school, to have what that party had, which were zero tolerance policies that don't give people a second chance, that don't help people learn from their mistakes, that don't help people learn the skills they need to get on.

What we have done is put in place programs so that there are consequences. There is no policy in our government manuals that says that there's no policy for consequences. There are consequences, but there are also programs that help kids to learn—

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

TAXATION

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is for the Minister of Finance.

I've been contacted by yet another small business person, Janice Bowden. Janice will be yet another victim of this government's wrong-headed tax grab, the HST. Janice is worried that her wilderness fishing resort in Haileybury will lose substantial business during its short season as a direct result of the tax grab. In her letter to me, she writes, "In July 2010, it will cost a family of five $396 more to come to Red Pine."

The HST will hurt families and businesses alike. Why is this government making it harder for families to take a hard-earned break in Ontario's great outdoors by charging them an additional 8%?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Again my colleague opposite doesn't paint the entire picture. He neglected to respond to his constituent that, in fact, Ontarians will be getting a personal tax cut, which will help them adjust to this new tax regime, which will create jobs and help this economy improve.

Every OECD country, save and except the United States, as well as four of our sister provinces have a single value-added tax. It is an efficient tax. It is the right way to tax consumption versus income. We're lowering his constituent's corporate taxes. We're lowering other constituents' personal income taxes. It's the right reform package that will help Ontario get through this very challenging time. When we come out of it, and we will, we will be bigger, we will be better and we will be stronger as a people.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: Quite the contrary. This tax grab will punish Ontario businesses and Ontario families alike. The HST will not create jobs. At Red Pine Wilderness Lodge, it will kill jobs. Janice Bowden's business is already feeling the effects of this recession. With guest numbers down for this summer, she says, "In 2007 and 2008, we employed eight summer students—this year we can only afford to hire three." The HST tax grab is bad for her business, bad for hard-working families and bad for students who desperately need summer jobs.

My question: Why won't this government listen to Ontarians like Janice Bowden who are fed up and scared for their future, and simply axe the tax?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The member opposite, in fact, makes the case for a bold policy that will help rebuild this economy as we come out of the downturn. The member opposite does not want to face the future. By the way, that member opposite and his party suggested increasing the PST by 1%, a billion-and-a-half-dollar tax grab.

We brought forward a package of tax changes that will assist small business; that ensure that 93% of Ontarians pay less tax; that we have a fairer tax system that taxes consumption, not income. That's why a range of business organizations, individuals and others have come to support this and see that it is the best way to build this economy, to get new jobs, to make our exports more competitive. It's time that member and his party joined the 21st century.

GO TRANSIT

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation.

Mr. Minister, you've said on a number of occasions that transit is really a high priority for this government, and indeed we've seen announcement after announcement on funding to improve public transit in the greater Toronto area, in Hamilton, across the province. We've seen shovels in the ground already on projects like the Toronto-York subway expansion and improvements on various transit stations.

My question today is about one of the more controversial improvements GO Transit is currently undertaking. As you know, work is being done at the west Toronto diamond to separate the current Canadian National railroad and Canadian Pacific railroad tracks. I realize that this is important work for GO Transit, since the current criss-crossing of the lines affects the on-time reliability for those who travel along the Georgetown corridor. That being said, I have heard from a great number of constituents in my riding about the effects of this construction on the local residents. Minister, can you share with this House, please, what you're going to do to ensure that this—

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: I've heard from the member for Davenport on numerous occasions on this issue, as well as other provincial and federal members. I appreciate that the work being done on the Toronto west diamond is certainly disruptive to some of the residents in the area. I also understand that it's very important work needed to increase and improve service for thousands of commuters. The work being done there is one of the most critical pieces of track infrastructure that GO needs to build.

It is important to note that there will be long-term benefits to the local community, including the elimination of scheduling conflicts between freight trains and GO trains. This means less idling, less pollution from stopped trains, and less noise. Currently when trains pass over the diamond, every car's wheel set makes a loud pounding noise; these are frequent noises comparable to the sound of piledriving. When the work is complete, those noised will be eliminated.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: Thank you very much, Minister, for clarifying how crucial this work really is in the west Toronto diamond, both to our neighbours on the tracks and for those who take the GO train every day.

I'm fully supportive of getting people out of their cars and onto public transit. However, I'm still h