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

September 15, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Sep-15 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 15 September 2009 Mardi 15 septembre 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

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

DE GAZ À EFFET DE SERRE)

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO LOTTERY AND GAMING CORP.

AGENCY SPENDING

TAXATION

AGENCY SPENDING

AGENCY SPENDING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

TAXATION

AGENCY SPENDING

TAXATION

ONTARIO ECONOMY

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

TAXATION

GREENBELT

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

ABORIGINAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TOWNSHIP OF NORTH FRONTENAC

L'ARCHE DAYBREAK

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

LAKESIDE STEEL

HURON CENTRAL RAILWAY

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

MEXICAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

CANADIAN JEWISH CONGRESS

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

PETITIONS

TAXATION

CANADIAN JEWISH CONGRESS

TAXATION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

TAXATION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

SALES TAX

SALE OF DOMESTIC

WINES AND BEERS

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

PENSION PLANS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

TAXATION

TAXATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

AND SCHOOL BOARD

GOVERNANCE ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009

SUR LE RENDEMENT DES ÉLÈVES

ET LA GOUVERNANCE

DES CONSEILS SCOLAIRES

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

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

DE GAZ À EFFET DE SERRE)

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 14, 2009, on the motion for second reading of Bill 185,

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

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

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

Mr. John O'Toole: I just remind members that the member from Renfrew–Nipissing—Pembroke was speaking, and I believe he is expressing quite accurately the views of our side—

Mr. Mike Colle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): My apologies on the rotation; the member from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke was the last speaker. The rotation moves to the NDP. The member from Parkdale—High Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was wondering there for a moment.

It is a pleasure to rise for the first time and to welcome everyone back from what might have been for some a summer vacation and what for many was working all summer. Welcome back to the chamber, at any rate.

This bill—I wish I could say it is a pleasure to talk about it. It's really not a pleasure to talk about it because there is not much of it. This bill is about a page and a half in length if you take away the

preamble and the translation etc. Simply put, what the bill says is, "We don't like greenhouse gas emissions." It's what I would call a primary prototypical example of greenwashing. This is a bill designed to send a little love letter out to the environmental community saying, "We like you." That's it. "We like you; we're not going to do anything, but we like you." "Don't you like us?" really is the inherent question there; "Won't you vote for us?"

The sad reality is that this is a state of crisis right now in the world. Right now in the world, we're looking at an environment that is going down, and going down quickly. It's interesting, because I remember as a teenager, what got me politically active in the very first place was the environment—way, way, way back then. I remember seeing a documentary, I think on CBC, about pollution.

We didn't talk about greenhouse gas emissions back then, but it was simply pollution: the fact that species were becoming extinct, that humans were encroaching on green space, that by and large we were making our biosphere uninhabitable, and certainly we're rendering the globe uninhabitable for our grandchildren. I remember watching that documentary and thinking, I've got to do something about this. I was a teenager. I remember thinking, and many of my generation thought, should we have children? Should we even have children? Will the world last?

Of course, we were also under the threat of the bomb back then—more about the nuclear issue later.

But, you know, certainly it was a call to action. And for me, as a teenager, I looked at the economic system in which we were embroiled, called capitalism, and I thought there's no way that this system, unchecked, will get us to the point we need to get to, that is, to an environmentally sustainable globe. Because it is inherent in capitalism and capitalist companies to grow—that's what they need to do. I was in business; I know this. You have to grow or you have to produce a profit. You have to churn out more consumables year to year to year. And so the world has gone.

In the intervening decades, that's what's happening, and guess what? In the intervening decades, the world, in terms of the environment, has become less and less and less inhabitable.

So now, all of a sudden, it's hip to be an environmentalist. Now, all of a sudden, it's mainstream to be an environmentalist. But really when you look at what has actually been accomplished over those decades, one has to shake one's head and say, "Very, very little."

Where does the blame lie? Does the blame lie with those who have been denying that there has been a crisis? That's the right wing. The right wing just simply denies there's a crisis: "We'll do nothing; we don't need to do anything." That's not where the answer lies.

But does the answer really lie with the centre—let's call it the dead centre—the dead centre that says, "We'll make sounds as if we're doing something, but we won't do anything either. We'll just make sounds as if we are." That's what this bill is. It sounds as if something's going to happen, but we know nothing is, because, in fact, in measurable terms, the situation in Ontario is getting worse.

We know that greenhouse gas emissions under McGuinty's reign have increased. They have not decreased; they have increased. So all the talk and all the nibbling around the edges of actual action, doing something, has led to this point. Greenhouse gas emissions are getting worse, urban sprawl is still occurring, and the McGuinty government is investing more in roads than they are in transportation. These are all provable facts. So again, we see in the last six years the increasing momentum of climate change both here and in the world.

Now, I listened with great interest to the member from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke last night, who suggested that no matter what we do in Ontario, it will make about a 1% difference, so we shouldn't really concern ourselves with this issue because, hey, it's all about China and India, and until China and India come onboard, there's not much we can do. To be frank, I can't take that position either. That's ridiculous. That sounds like and reminds me of Nixon. Remember the mutually assured destructtion, going back a few years: "We have to arm ourselves because they're arming themselves"? This leads to an arms race.

But we're in a pollution race right now, and somebody has to start stopping. Somebody has to start stopping greenhouse gas emissions, even if it's only 1%, even if it's only in Ontario. We have to do our bit, because if we don't, it's not going to help, and it's going to hurt, whether it's 1% or 10%.

And, yes, of course we have to act globally as well. There's no question about it—which, I have to say, the federal government is not doing. We have to act globally as well to combat it, and that means taking on the challenge that is delivered to us from developing countries in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. But, you know, this is not going to do that either, clearly.

So we know, factually, there was a 4% rise in greenhouse gas emissions between 2006 and 2007, negating two years of gains. Trust me, it could have been worse. We could actually have a vibrant economy where manufacturers are actually manufacturing and where people are not being laid off daily. In that case, the greenhouse gas emissions would have been worse. That's the kind of double bind we're in now.

What else has the McGuinty government done or planned to do? One of the things that they're planning to do, apart from investing in highways instead of transportation—greatly more money going into highways than into public transportation—is that they're going to be putting about 400-plus diesel trains on rails running through our neighbourhoods in the greater Toronto area. We know that in Parkdale—High Park, because they're going to be running through our neighbourhood. They're going to be running through Trinity—Spadina. They're going to be running through York South—Weston.

They're going to be running through a number of our neighbourhoods—one of the most polluting acts a government could possibly engage in. Out of a hundred different cosmopolitan areas, only Bangladesh is investing in diesel trains the way we are in Ontario. We should be absolutely ashamed of that. The response to that is, "It gets them out of their cars." Well, unfortunately, cars are less polluting than diesel trains. So, in fact, we're looking at an increase of pollution through many of our GTA neighbourhoods because of the actions of the McGuinty government.

If you want more information, folks, on that, don't trust me; check out the Clean Train Coalition and you'll get all the facts and figures you want. Because if you live within breathing distance of the tracks, not only will your lungs and your children's lungs and your health be affected, but your property values will too. We don't want to live in a rail ghetto in Toronto, and we don't want diesel trains. That's something that is extremely active that this government is pursuing, and that definitely will increase greenhouse gas emissions, there's no doubt, because the major increase in greenhouse gas emissions is from transportation in this province.

It's interesting, you know—it's not an even field. Should we all do something about greenhouse gas emissions in our own lives? Absolutely. But when you look at who the major polluters are, you're not looking at the cleaning lady who lives down on Jameson and takes public transit. No, by no means. This is a class—based issue. You are looking at wealthy Canadians who are by far the greatest polluters in this country and the greatest producers of greenhouse gas emissions. There's no doubt.

Canadian economist Lars Osberg studied this and found that if not for the rising incomes of the richest Canadians and the increased consumption that has gone along with their grotesque wealth—and "grotesque" is a good adjective to use there—Canada would be on track to meet its Kyoto targets.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, that means those who are driving their Hummers to their mansions in Rosedale, even if George Smitherman is standing in one of those mansions and talking about retrofitting the windows.

They are still polluting far and away greater amounts than the cleaning lady on Jameson who is taking public transportation; not to mention the CEOs of the oil companies; not to mention the tar sands; not to mention the fact that here in Ontario we still have Nanticoke, one of the greatest polluters in Canada, and it's still going; not to mention that here in Ontario we are still using coal-fired plants and every year that this government comes back to sit in this House, we hear a new date as to when they're going to be closed.

I remember when I was first elected it was supposed to be 2007, then it was 2011, and now it's 2014. The question is, how many children have contracted asthma as a result of this government's inaction since 2007 when those coal-fired plants were supposed to be—promised to be—closed?

This is all what's actually happening in Ontario, not what this bill says will happen in Ontario. What this bill says will happen, of course, has no backup. It simply says we don't like greenhouse gas emissions. It reminds me very much of the anti-poverty bill, the 25 in 5 that says we don't like poverty. That was a "We don't like poverty" bill, no plans as to how to combat that.

Here's a challenge. It will be interesting to see six months into that five-year span with the 25 in 5 program, if poverty rates have gone down—a challenge to the government, because I would bet anything they've gone up, not down. That's six months into the government's five-year program. And I'll bet anything that six months into this bill's passing, greenhouse gas emissions will have gone up too and that we'll still be polluting and polluting more.

It's not enough just to send a greeting card to a voting community. It's not enough just to send out a message, a symbol, that says we don't like greenhouse gas emissions. That message has gone out for over 50 years now and quite frankly the environmental community is not fooled. They see it for what it is. They see it as greenwashing, which is what it is. Just like the anti-poverty bill, it is an attempt to buy off a community with public relations instead of what that community is asking for—and that is action.

If this government were serious about acting on poverty there are a number of steps it could take, and it could take them immediately. One, raise the minimum wage over the poverty line. That would eliminate at least a million from poverty. Two, actually bring about housing instead of talking about it; actually build or retrofit the hundreds of thousands of housing units that we need; actually do something about daycare in this province, because we know women and children are the major sources of poverty figures in this province.

Those are actually concrete actions this government could take. It's not going to. It hasn't; it won't. All it will do is send out a flag, a PR symbol saying, "We want to do something. We think poverty is bad." Well, here we have an environmental equivalent: "We don't like pollution, we don't like greenhouse gas emissions, so we'll send out a signal—a PR gesture to that community saying, 'We don't like it. Yes, we'll do something.'" Everything—everything—is going to be left to regulation. Everything. I mean this is a bill of one and a half pages' length.

If you look at similar efforts in the United States, as has been discussed in this House last night, you'll see 1,200 pages dealing with the same issue. Why? Because obviously, if you are going to deal with something like cap—and—trade systems to combat greenhouse gas emissions, you can't just say, "We don't like greenhouse gas emissions." You have to actually put into place some kind of system, some kind of cap-and-trade system. That's not in this bill. There's nothing about a system of cap and trade in this bill.

Again, it's interesting, because the headlines are always, "McGuinty's going to do something cap and trade." Of course, as members of the New Democratic Party we're in favour of something like a cap-and-trade system—but actually a cap-and-trade system, not a public relations gesture; not an opportunity to greenwash the environmental community by simply saying, "We may do something, we want to do something about greenhouse gas emissions but, sorry, not in this bill. Maybe someday down the line, maybe in committee, maybe in regulations we'll do something." That's what this bill says. That's all it says.

It's sad; it truly is sad.

Let me give you some examples of what could happen here. Manitoba has this wonderful system where if you want to retrofit your house or if you want to put new windows on, you don't have to go out and spend $8,000 to $20,000 dollars of your own money that you don't have—because let's face it: Ontarians are in a recession. They don't have $8,000 to $20,000 to spend on retrofitting their house to make it greener. No, they will actually lend you the money, lend you the services, get the windows in, and then you pay them back in your energy savings. That becomes a revolving fund to help others do the same. Now, that makes sense.

What doesn't make sense is what we've now got in Ontario: a program where you shell out thousands of dollars, and after a great deal of red tape you maybe get some money back. That's the program we have right here. And that's only for homeowners. Then we're talking about tenants. Tenants, unfortunately, are caught between the proverbial rock and hard place in terms of the environment. Because tenants who pay their own heat, tenants who pay their own utilities, are dependent on their landlords actually doing something.

So all those high-rise towers that have leaky windows in my riding and ridings across this province, all those tenants who pay their own heat, there's no incentive, absolutely none, for those landlords to retrofit their buildings at huge expense so that their tenants can save on their utility bills. Think about it. Think about how much wasted energy goes out the windows and doors of most of the rental units in this province.

We could go on. We could talk about urban sprawl. We could talk about the secret deal, for example—this was in the Toronto Star—that they said the developers made with the Liberal Party to spawn yet more urban sprawl north of the greenbelt in the Bradford-Barrie area. This brings to mind that when you want to understand politics—and it doesn't matter what jurisdiction you look at—you look at who pays. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Come on, we know the Liberal Party in Ontario is vastly funded by developers and the nuclear industry.

And of course they want that money to keep rolling in so they can keep winning elections. They're going to have to dance to that piper's tune, and they are. They're making all the noises in the other direction—good camouflage—and then they're dancing to the developer's tune. That's clearly what's happening here.

This is not a problem for everyone, right? This is not a problem for everyone, in terms of producing greenhouse gas emissions. But it has overarchingly been industry, it's been the government's policy to make everyone feel equally guilty about producing greenhouse gas emissions.

I'm standing here as a New Democrat and saying, again, to use that woman who lives in one of the rental apartments down on Jameson and who goes on public transit because she can't afford a car, every day, who pays her utility bills despite the fact that she's leaking energy out the windows, it's not as much her fault as it is the fault of those opposite, as it is the fault of the developers, as it is the fault of all of those huge greenhouse gas emitters that we have, as it is the fault of the guy who drives his Hummer to his 4,500-square-foot house in Rosedale.

First of all, let's understand who we're talking to and who we have to curb here and what we have to do to actually make a difference.

Let's end on a positive note. I only have a few minutes left. There are many things we have to do, and one of them is not to get people to pay to pollute. Any system that says if you've got money you get to pollute is a system that we don't want any part of, as the New Democratic Party. Because then the rich get to pollute and the poor get to, again, live in their leaky-windowed apartments on Jameson. So pay-to-pollute programs—we want none of it.

What you need to do is you need finally to take some dramatic steps to stop greenhouse gas emissions. What does that mean? That means that we can't be cozying up to those folk who are destroying our planet. That means that we actually have to get energetic, that we have to get courageous, that we have to stand up to the piper who's paying for the tune and say, "We're not playing that tune anymore." If you're a developer and you're creating urban sprawl, you know what? That's going to be illegal.

If you are a manufacturer, if you are a greenhouse gas emitter, if you're producing SUVs, if you're driving SUVs, you've got to stop that. That won't be allowed in our constituency, in our jurisdiction. You've got to stand up and actually make a difference. Because if you don't—thinking back to when I was a teenager and watched that first program on CBC on pollution—we won't make a difference in this generation.

One should sit down with an environmentalist and listen to the forecast about what's going to happen for our grandchildren and their great-grandchildren, because they are going to pay the price. We've seen the increasing tornadoes and storms; we've seen the increase of natural disasters all due to climate warming and to greenhouse gas emissions. We know the result. We know that we're just at the beginning of the end, so to speak. Do we really want to sit and change tables on the Titanic, folks? Or do we actually want to change the ship? We've got to change the ship here.

I don't see anything in a one-and-a-half page bill, anything in a piece of greenwashing, anything that's really just an attempt to get votes from the environmental community that's going to change the direction of any ship, that's going to make any difference for any child any time soon in this province.

So, unfortunately, I'm not pleased to speak about this bill. What I'd like to see, instead of paper, is some action.

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

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: It's a pleasure to respond to the member prior. I want to suggest a couple of things. One, we have a long way to go when it comes to bringing our environment in line to what the people of Ontario expect. It's true; we do have a long way to go. But, also, it's worthwhile acknowledging some of the steps even before the cap and trade that we're talking about today. It's not just one flick of a switch, that we'll go from one direction to the other, as some members would suggest. It is truly a long-term commitment, and I think we need to reflect on how we begin on the long-term commitment to try to achieve some of those goals.

Speaker, you're aware—you were here when the province brought in legislation to create a greenbelt, some 1.8 million acres of what we have around the largest populated area in Canada. It's there to help protect the environment. At the same time, we allow those 1.8 million acres to be used as part of establishing, for the agricultural industry, a stable framework so they know that not only are we protecting the environment by creating the greenbelt, but also providing sustainable farmland that we can have close to home so we don't have to truck produce or agricultural products for miles and miles.

We're planting some 50 million trees by 2020. That's all part of the plan. I wish I had more time, but I just thought I'd point those couple of things out.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member from Thornhill.

Mr. Peter Shurman: I listened with interest as my friend from Parkdale—High Park talked about this bill, and in many respects, reflected my own views on the bill. She went pretty far afield, talking about pollution from Hummers and leaky apartments on Jameson, but that notwithstanding, they have a place. But they're very, very far away from a bill that, in substance, doesn't have much more to it, in fact, less than the average private member's bill.

Cap and trade is a complex subject. It's something that on some level I'm sure that I and my party would be happy to support, but we have to have some elaboration. We don't see, in this bill, anything whatsoever to do with targets. We don't see anything to do with jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of Ontario alone does not regulate climate. In concert with Quebec, it doesn't regulate climate. Perhaps in concert with Canada, it begins to, but you've got a number of divergent groups; for example, less than a dozen states and provinces called the Western Climate Initiative—good idea, but, again, it doesn't regulate.

We don't know from this bill whether or not we are talking about handing out credits on a free-of-charge basis to people or companies who have, of necessity, to put carbon into the atmosphere. So is that free of charge or is that at auction? The whole mechanism by which cap and trade works is dependent upon a modified tax system that, by necessity, forces products created by companies that do put out carbon in large quantities—to charge more for those products, and that comes back to people who purchase the products through the tax system, but we see no mechanism there either.

Let me be clear: I would support cap and trade on some level; I'm sure that my party would. We are not anti-environment, by any stretch of the imagination. We want to see something go through, but it's not simply for the children because the Minister of the Environment says so.

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: I listened to my colleague from Parkdale—High Park delineate a number of issues with this bill. I think she's quite correct that the greatest substance in this bill is its title. After that, it's pretty lean pickings. After that, one is left asking, "Where's the meat? Where's the substance?" This continues, I think, a tradition of the McGuinty government: Just put forward enough to get a headline and end it there. That is what we have here. Anything which will tell us where we're going to be five years down the road, 10 years down the road, 15 years down the road is absolutely missing.

What I do note, though, on the part of this government is that oftentimes when an industry shuts down in Ontario and 400 or 500 workers get put out of work, there are members of this government who will say, "This is good for the environment." It's the first time I've ever heard thousands of Ontarians losing their jobs being described by a government as good for the environment, but we actually have government members doing that. Paper mills shut down in northern Ontario and I hear members of this government say, "Oh, this is good for the environment."

Interjections: Name names.

Mr. Howard Hampton: When people lose their jobs, when you see electricity usage going down because paper mills are shutting down and steel mills are shutting down, that is not good news.

But I see I've touched a nerve with this government, and so I look forward to more debate on this in the days to come.

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

Mr. Rick Johnson: I appreciate the comments made earlier by the members from Parkdale—High Park, Thornhill and Kenora—Rainy River. This act, Bill 185, I believe is another responsible step on the road to a green economy. You combine this with the moves that our government has made on the Green Energy Act—businesses across Ontario are jumping in to invest now. In a perfect world, we could stand up and wave a magic wand and eliminate coal generation tomorrow, and we could find a way to dispose of nuclear waste tomorrow. But it involves us moving to a totally green economy, and this simply is not possible in today's world.

What we have, though, is the ability to take steps, responsible steps. There are businesses that are coming up in my area that are looking at solar generation. Part of the green schools act has allowed one company to move forward with a solar generation system that, put on the roof of a school, can generate money for schools right away. They're jumping into the green schools act, which is a very positive system. We have a company, CARMA Industries, which is moving to my riding and putting in monitoring for schools so that they can control their energy use.

Any smart business will go—in the cap-and-trade system, if you have to spend more money to be able to pollute, if I was running that business, I'd be looking tomorrow to make sure that I could cut back on my energy usage. This is a smart part of moving ahead in our economy.

This bill will stimulate businesses to move now. You combine that with the tax incentives that were in our last budget and it makes Ontario a great place to invest.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member from Parkdale—High Park has two minutes to respond.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and by the way, congratulations on your new role.

There are a lot of biblical passages about God, essentially, or the owner of land investing in a steward and telling that steward to look after and take care of the wealth. That's what we're asked to do here. We're asked to look after the wealth of the planet so that our children might inherit it. We don't need baby steps—I'm hearing a lot about, "Oh, well, this is a just a little baby step." What we need now, 40 or 50 years later, after we knew the problem existed, is quantum leaps; we need quantum leaps here.

What we're getting is a one-and-a-half-page document that says nothing, that does nothing and that is a prime example of public relations. "Greenwashing" is the term: That's what this document does.

Let's be clear: I suggest that anybody watching this go and look at the bill themselves, and they'll have a good laugh over coffee in the morning. It's one and a half pages long. It says nothing and it does nothing, and that is the hallmark of the McGuinty Liberals. The hallmark of the McGuinty Liberals is to say a lot, do very, very little, and make it sound very, very good. That's what they're good at.

Here is a perfect example: a $40,000 electric car that's being touted by the government—how many people in this economy can afford a $40,000 electric car?—and at the same time putting over 400 diesel trains on the tracks, the only jurisdiction outside of Bangladesh, running through our neighbourhoods. If that isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is. This bill is not going to address that.

Quite frankly, greenhouse gas emissions are up. Need we say more? Despite all the rhetoric, despite the paper, in this jurisdiction, in this province, the McGuinty government is failing on the environment and that stat proves it.

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

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I'm honoured to rise today and speak in support of Bill 185, our government's proposed Environmental Protection Amendment Act.

As this House heard yesterday from the Honourable John Gerretsen, Minister of the Environment, the climate change crisis is a battle that must be fought on many fronts. There are no quick fixes to this challenge, and Ontario is determined to be a leader in this fight. Bill 185 is a key piece of our strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and create a successful low-carbon society. If passed, it would place us further along the path to meeting the progressive, ambitious reduction targets laid out in our climate change action plan.

I want to remind the members of this House that these are among the most aggressive greenhouse gas reduction targets in North America. They are 6% below 1990 levels by 2014—the Environmental Commissioner has confirmed we're well on our way towards meeting that particular goal—15% below 1990 levels by 2020, and 80% below 1990 by 2050. But what really is the true importance of these targets? Well, for me as a physician, of course the paramount concern is human health. We're well aware that climate change has led to catastrophic weather events, floods, tornadoes, storms and drought.

These are all things that will take a toll on human health. But also locally, in Ontario, the Ontario Medical Association since 2000 has in fact been documenting the cost of illness from air pollution. This is premature death from smog, for which they have actually calculated the numbers. In 2008, it was estimated that some 9,500 premature deaths a year in Ontario were caused by smog. In my own region, York region, the number was some 590. I really want to commend the Ontario Medical Association for making this point over and over.

Of course, this is part of what has informed our government's actions to close coal-fired generating plants, and we are on track for 2014.

The proposed act allows for the development of a harmonized cap-and-trade system for Ontario that would link to a broad North American system. To reiterate, we believe that cap and trade is a fair and effective approach that is both economically and environmentally sound.

We support the development of a system that has absolute caps declining over time. It's consistent with other North American trading systems for linking purposes and will result in real and significant greenhouse gas reductions.

The system would also give Ontario businesses and industry the opportunity to compete and succeed in the new low-carbon economy, and it would provide an economic incentive to achieve emissions reductions.

We know that Ontarians support our goal of sustainable prosperity. More and more, we are hearing that people do not believe the environment and the economy are trade-offs. My constituents in Oak Ridges—Markham tell me that the economic downturn does not affect their expectations of decisive government action on climate change. In fact, this last weekend at the Kettleby Fair, in the heart of the greenbelt, in beautiful King township, upon discussing my new assignment as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment, a very vocal advocacy group in my riding—shared by you, Madam Speaker—the Concerned Citizens of King Township, reinforced this particular notion.

I think many members of the House will be familiar with a recent Canadian Press-Harris/Decima opinion poll that echoes these sentiments. Close to 67% of people surveyed put the environment and the economy on equal footing, saying that government should be prioritizing both.

I think it's wonderful that so many people in our country have come to this important understanding. It's also wonderful to hear, as I often do, of the various ways Ontarians from all walks of life are engaging to reduce their carbon footprint.

Our government's continued commitment to protecting the environment while building a green economy is right in step with where the future is leading. The framework contained in Bill 185 would allow us to build on the wide range of initiatives we have already undertaken in our fight against climate change, and a cap-and-trade system for Ontario is one of the most essential tools we need to get us where we need to go. Our collaborations with partners across Canada and across borders would inform the development of a broad North American approach.

I would urge all members of this House to review the discussion document, Moving Forward: A Greenhouse Gas Cap-and-Trade System for Ontario, that was released in June of this year along with Bill 185. It's very clear from this document that this government is considering all the policy issues and options that we've heard about since debate commenced yesterday.

The stakeholder comments that we have received are being reviewed very carefully to ensure that the system we develop would work for the province, is fair and equitable, and maximizes trade opportunities for Ontario businesses. We will continue to seek input from a broad range of stakeholders for these very reasons.

Cap and trade has many complexities and many details to plan out carefully, and it is our intention to do just that. But it is clear that Ontario is poised to play a vital and positive role in developing and implementing an effective system. Cap and trade presents us with incredible trading opportunities. Last year alone, the global carbon trading market was valued at approximately US$125 billion. Jurisdictions around the world have already implemented carbon trading initiatives, including the European Union and the northeastern United States. Australia, New Zealand and Japan are developing their own cap-and-trade systems as well.

We know that one of cap and trade's greatest benefits is its ability to spur the kind of innovation that results in improved sustainable industrial processes. It can help act as a springboard for technological innovations that propel us into a low-carbon future.

Moving forward on developing a harmonized cap-and-trade approach, one that links to other systems, will position Ontario as a centre for expertise. We stand to be at the forefront of the green technology development that a broad North American cap-and-trade system would depend on. A shift to a low-carbon economy means many business opportunities and the creation of a diverse range of new jobs. These are the green-collar jobs of tomorrow that will contribute to a green economic recovery for the province.

Ontarians expect us to do all that we can to protect the environment, build healthy communities and participate in the emerging green economy. By passing Bill 185, we would take our place as a leading jurisdiction in the fight against climate change and in realizing the goals of Ontario's climate change action plan, and it will help us to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the emerging green economy.

Ontario has the talent, the drive and the innovative vision to put us on the cutting edge of cap-and-trade development and implementation. Adopting cap and trade will encourage all kinds of new investment in our province. It will boost our competitiveness and reposition us to succeed in the global market.

Our work with Quebec and other like-minded jurisdictions across Canada and the US will help us reach a unified stance on an optimum approach to cap and trade. This will ensure a prosperous, sustainable future for Ontarians. The transformation to a sustainable green economy requires assured action, and Bill 185 is a crucial building block.

We know that a new green economy for Ontario means investment opportunities, innovative developments in processes and products and thousands of new jobs right here in the province.

For all of these reasons, I encourage all members to support this important step in protecting Ontario's interests, creating good green jobs and meeting our emissions reduction targets. It will help us to secure the kind of future for Ontario we all want, a future where the health and well-being of our communities are put first; a future where superior environmental protection measures have been put in place; a future with a thriving, sustainable green economy. Thank you.

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

Mr. Toby Barrett: The member did talk a fair bit about maximizing trade opportunities and made reference to incredible trade opportunities, I think referring to trade in carbon credits. On this side of the House, there is a very real concern with respect to trade and a concern with respect to trade in other commodities beyond carbon dioxide credits: trade in steel, trade in cement, petroleum products, energy, oil and gas.

And, as Mr. McGuinty himself has indicated, Ontario now has a concern with respect to the damage that cap and trade would do to Ontario's manufactured products that we do wish to export and produce. Mr. McGuinty was in the media indicating his concern with respect to the musings of Mr. Harper with respect to implementing cap and trade and how that would damage the trade with respect to our manufactured goods vis-à-vis other provinces. That's just within the Dominion of Canada.

Taking a broader perspective, which this one-and-a-half-page piece of legislation does not do, we realize there are no guarantees with respect to international trade or global trade. If anything, the concern, once we ratchet down the controls on our manufactured goods, is we would come to realize, unless this bill is reaching out to countries like China and India, that we are going to be flooded with uncapped imports.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Parkdale—High Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I listened with interest to my friend from Oak Ridges—Markham and what she described as the veritable Garden of Eden in Ontario. We want that, too. We want a cap-and-trade or cap-and-auction system, too, in the New Democratic Party. This bill doesn't deliver it. That's what this discussion and this debate is about. This bill is one and a half pages long. There's nothing in this bill to attest to what she's describing—nothing. This all sounds very wonderful. "Where is it?" is what we say. Where is it? Why isn't it in the bill?

And if it's not in the bill six years into the McGuinty term of office here, why isn't it in the bill? I mean, surely six years later one could have expected something with a little bit more substance than a one-and-a-half-page greenwashing public relations exercise, which is what we've got here.

Now, in committee—and I would suggest to anybody out there in the environmental community who wants to write in that they should be deputing and writing in; my goodness, yes—certainly there's hope. There's always hope. There's hope that this bill will eventually be expanded to cover all of the things that she's described. There's hope that the greenhouse gas emissions will go down in Ontario. The reality is, however, that they are going up. The reality is, however, that we are building more roads. The reality is, however, that we have more urban sprawl. The reality is that we are going nuclear.

And the reality is that this bill is one and a half pages long and it doesn't do any of the things that are reported by my friend from Oak Ridges—Markham.

So, we live in hope, absolutely. We certainly live in hope. Otherwise, none of us would be sitting in this Legislature. We live in hope that things will change, that things will get better and that we will live in a veritable Garden of Eden in Ontario, but unfortunately, it's not going to be through Bill 185.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments and questions? The member for Eglinton—Lawrence.

Mr. Mike Colle: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and congratulations on your new assignment.

Like you, the member for Oak Ridges—Markham knows full well that the real battle for fighting expanded carbon footprints is in York Region, where there's been incredible pressure to pave all of York region and forget about the incredible environmental resource that it is. That's why I think one of the most significant things this government has done, one that's been opposed by many in the opposition, is the 1.8-million-acre greenbelt. It is an incredible testament to the vision of the Premier.

This greenbelt means that there are finally lines drawn, that you can't pave everything north of Steeles, and that there is very good science, very good planning and very good investment in sustaining our farmland in York region, but also our green space. The member from Oak Ridges—Markham knows that. That's why the second part of that is to push public transit into York region, and that's why I've always been shocked by the NDP not supporting the subway going into York region. The member from Thornhill knows we have to have the subway going into the north—

Mr. Peter Shurman: I do, but that has nothing to do with this bill.

Mr. Mike Colle: It reduces your carbon footprint. The member from Thornhill doesn't understand that if you want to reduce carbon, you have to have people getting out of cars and getting into public transit. The subway is run on clean electricity. The $11 billion on new streetcar lines going across the GTA, the NDP opposed. This is what this bill is all about.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Comments and questions? The member for Thornhill.

Mr. Peter Shurman: I listened with interest to my friend from Oak Ridges—Markham, and first of all I would like to congratulate her on her new role as parliamentary assistant in this particular area of the environment. She paints an absolutely glorious picture of what Ontario would look like if we passed this bill. If she knows something—and I presume she does—that hasn't been shared with the rest of us, I wish she would provide it,

chapter and verse, in a bill that, as the member from Parkdale—High Park says, is a very scant few paragraphs and doesn't tell us anything about where this rosy future comes from.

I have in front of me a short paragraph that I would like to read into the record that comes from a document prepared some months ago by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce on the issue of cap and trade. It says, "A national cap-and-trade system would require the creation of new administrative and legal trading infrastructure, complete with new regulations and institutions to effectively enforce the system," including fines and sanctions, "and a national electronic registry for issuing, holding, transferring and cancelling permits."

That describes in a very few words the complexity that's involved in implementing a cap-and-trade system. You can't just do this at the provincial level by passing a bill that is as simplistic as this. You have to be more elaborate.

One has to presume, from looking at this bill, that we're talking about a fairly complex regulatory structure that we in the other parties have no way of knowing—in fact, I rather doubt that at this early juncture, you in the governing party really know—what the regulations are going to look like. We would look forward to that, but I can tell you that as this bill stands, it would be very, very hard to vote for it. Cap and trade, as I said earlier, on the face of it is a reasonable approach using monetary levers to control climate, but this bill doesn't tell us anything about the how.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member from Oak Ridges—Markham has two minutes to respond.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I'd like to thank the members from Haldimand—Norfolk, Parkdale—High Park, Eglinton—Lawrence and Thornhill for their comments. As I always like to emphasize the positive, I am so glad that apparently all sides of the House do share a common vision and the recognition that cap and trade is extremely complex.

However, some of the comments did seem to perhaps not acknowledge our government's firm commitment to this type of vision and the actions that we've already taken. I just want to remind the members that in fact, in relation to our goal to eliminate coal by 2014, we recently announced the closure of two units at Nanticoke and two units at Lambton by October 2010. Comparing carbon dioxide emissions between 2003 and 2008, those emissions have been reduced by some 33%—very solid achievements.

If we want to look at what we've done with our new Green Energy Act, we know that we're going to attract new investment in renewable energy. We have made some substantial progress as it relates to wind turbines. When we formed government there were some 10 turbines in the province; now there are over 670. That's an 80-fold increase, and we have signed contracts for another 1,170 megawatts of wind products. Just in 2008, wind power generation increased by 37%. These are substantial achievements.

My friend from Eglinton—Lawrence alluded to the green transportation plans that we have—the $11.5-billion investment in rapid transit for the greater Toronto area and Hamilton. These are documented initiatives of this government. The greenbelt, from which we both benefit, Madam Speaker, is another sterling piece of legislation achieved by this government.

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

Mr. Robert Bailey: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Before I start, I'd like to congratulate you on your new responsibility. It's about time.

It's my pleasure to participate in today's debate on the cap-and-tax scheme. I listened closely yesterday to the member for Haldimand—Norfolk. I think he's doing a tremendous job as our environment critic in pointing out the flaws in the McGuinty government's approach to this global issue.

I have to say I was disappointed, upon our return to Queen's Park, that instead of debating the issues that Ontarians, especially in Sarnia—Lambton, are talking about the most, like the Dalton sales tax or eHealth, we find ourselves discussing Bill 185, the Environmental Protection Amendment Act. As my colleague from Haldimand—Norfolk so effectively said yesterday, the McGuinty team, when desperate for a headline, will grab a green headline with ineffective, costly environmental legislation. In this case, this government has come forward with its local response to a worldwide issue.

Like him, I was also shocked when I saw Bill 185 and it was, as some other members have alluded to, just a page and a half long. By comparison, the most recent United States legislation, Bill HR 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, came in at 1,200 pages, with at least one 309-page amendment. That would be something you would expect for a national and international response to a problem that literally millions of pages and electronic blogs have been written about and that requires a solution on a world stage to be effective.

To be clear, Bill 185 is cap-and-trade legislation aimed at reducing carbon emissions through setting emission limits for business and industry, with those businesses unable to meet those limits having to buy carbon dioxide credits from those who are emitting less. This bill is an extension of Stéphane Dion's Green Shift. Although it's not strictly the green tax of the Dion school, it is an extension of this. Basically, as costs are downloaded, it becomes an extension of the Green Shift in the form of an indirect tax or, in other words, a hidden tax, hence my references to a cap and tax.

My main concern with this legislation revolves around the inadequacy of a local provincial response to a global question and concern that makes this bill more or less pointless. Quite simply, if some of the main producers of carbon are not going to be involved in this cap-and-trade gambit—for example, China and India—how can the McGuinty government change the climate? And how do we compete with their imports? Some people have even referenced this program as the cap-and-trade jobs-to-China plan.

When you consider that China, at 1.3 billion people, is the largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world, you realize the true nature of the carbon question on a global scale. Encouragingly, India, at over a billion people and the fourth-largest emitter of planet-warming carbon dioxide, has recently announced a cap-and-trade plan of their own.

So here we are, in the dog days of a recession, when yet again government has seen fit to bring environmental issues to the centre stage, grabbing headlines really quickly but doing little else other than pulling the rug out from under our manufacturers that have struggled through this tailspin of an economy.

So again, today, we have the opportunity to debate Bill 185, the Environmental Protection Amendment Act. In some corners it is better known as the cap and trade or, more accurately, cap and tax.

I think the example about China that the member for Haldimand—Norfolk used yesterday bears looking at again. As the member referenced yesterday, if Ontario or North America has CO 2 costs and China does not, then CO 2 regs become a massive wealth transfer to China. More importantly, it will lead to higher CO 2 emissions globally as they shift production from relatively more efficient North American plants to less efficient Chinese facilities.

Any thought that Ontario needs to lead on greenhouse gas regs and then the rest of the world will follow is naive. Consider the following: The People's Republic of China is the largest consumer of coal in the world and is about to become the largest user of coal-derived electricity, getting 1.95 trillion kilowatt hours per year, or 68.7%, of its electricity from coal, as of the year 2006, compared to almost two trillion kilowatt hours produced, or 49%, of the United States' power. Hydroelectric power in China supplied another 20% of China's needs in 2006.

With approximately 13% of the world's proven coal reserves, China has enough coal to sustain its economic growth for over a century or more, even though the demand for that coal is currently outpacing production.

China's coal mining industry is also one of the deadliest in the world. Coal production rose 8.1% in 2006 over the previous year, reaching 2.38 billion tonnes, and the nation's largest coal enterprises saw their profits exceed, in American dollars, $8.75 billion.

If China is not onside, if China is not part of this carbon trading scheme, we are more or less spitting in the wind, especially if we think that hampering industries in our province and a couple of Great Lakes states is going to make any dent in the amount of carbon emissions being sent into the atmosphere.

In my riding of Sarnia—Lambton, the province recently announced that they were going to close two electrical generators at the Lambton generating station, with the loss of over 100 jobs—I hear the government side laughing—by 2010, with—

Mr. Peter Shurman: They think job losses are funny.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Yes, they think job losses are funny. That's what I always want to know: What about the jobs? Everybody's talking about carbon trade, and cap and tax, but what about the real people, the lunch-bucket crowd who have to depend on these jobs every day to pay the bills?

The government would like us to think that they're striking a blow for clean air. I think they're wrong. They are doing this at a time when demand is down by over 20% and people are already losing their jobs. What happens when the economy does turn around and demand for electricity takes off? Where will we get that power then? They'd say, "Turbines." Well, I think that answer is still blowing in the wind; I don't think that has been proven yet.

In our airshed we have dozens of coal plants, mainly, in the United States, from the Ohio River valley, that aren't closing and in fact are being expanded. We are losing generation capacity in Ontario and we have nothing to replace it with. This is short-sighted on the part of this government and a decision they will come to regret.

I do remain hopeful regarding ongoing Ontario Power Generation's plans to implement biomass for possible future energy production and employment at Lambton and other sites. I will also work with the farmers and the OFA, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, to make sure that this offer from OPG is serious and not just something that will get their hopes up, and that won't end the way most issues in rural Ontario do: with the McGuinty government sticking it to them.

It's time for this government to look beyond this anything-but-coal narrow vision and consider the benefits that can be achieved through investment in new technology that keeps our air clean while ensuring a reliable and affordable power supply for the future. Instead of closing our coal-fired generators at Lambton and Nanticoke, they should be following the lead of the previous Progressive Conservative government in bringing in further clean coal technology so that they can continue to operate in an environmentally friendly way. This technology is already there.

It is widely used throughout the world and further investments are being made by the United States government, but this government refuses to look at it.

As for cap and trade, United States-India relations are important, and United States-China-Canada relations are key. Let's hope it's not cap and trade jobs to China.

As the member from Haldimand—Norfolk reminded us yesterday, the United States imported $337 billion of Chinese goods in 2008. According to the United States Department of Commerce, India exported about $21 billion in goods to the US. But according to Bloomberg News, "Global warming policies being considered by the United States and Japan risk provoking trade barriers, Chinese and Indian officials said in interviews." And it's been argued that cap and trade is another form of trade protectionism: It is an excuse to place trade barriers and tariffs on imports from countries by calling their products environmentally dirty. No carrots here; these are sticks.

We are a trading nation, and we should be very cautious when we take steps that may be considered trade barriers to some. This is why we have to understand the many sides that need to be addressed in developing an effective cap-and-trade program—a program that must be accepted globally and be led at the national level.

Again, to quote the member from Haldimand—Norfolk, this is "a global problem," and we should not get too tied up in developing moot local cures that hamper our business owners while failing to address the expansiveness of the disease.

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

Mr. Mike Colle: I appreciate the comments from the member from Sarnia—Lambton. The only thing I find a bit confusing is that the member is praising the use of coal-fired generation in Ontario, yet he's slamming it in China, saying how awful it is and that they're so reliant on coal. So I just don't quite get the axiom, the connection there and the contradiction.

The interesting thing is, the Conservatives, up until very recently, were climate change deniers. You all saw Stephen Harper—all of them. They all said, "There's no such thing as climate change." They had a group of scientists going around Canada saying that there's no such thing as climate change. So it's hard to take admonition from a Conservative, who up until very recently didn't even believe climate change existed.

The other thing is about China. Sure, there are some very scary things happening with the number of coal-fired generation plants that are being built there. It's something like two every couple of weeks, and that's worrisome. But then to say, "Well, the real problem is in China"—which is true in part. The real problem is that the real consumption of carbon, to an extraordinary amount, happens in the Western world. You don't find too many people in China living in 5,000-square-foot homes. They don't have air-conditioned homes in relatively cool climates. They don't drive around in SUVs all over the place.

Their carbon footprint—the average Chinese or Indian citizen—is 100 times smaller than ours here in North America.

So we have to do our part—that's the point. We can't say, "Well, we, on a gross basis, don't consume that much carbon." We do. On a per capita basis, it's scary how much carbon we consume, how much energy we waste, and how much we're overhoused, overheated, over-air-conditioned and overtransported. We've got to maybe learn some lessons from the Indians and the Chinese.

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: You know, it's interesting: We've got the Conservatives, who are saying we shouldn't do anything; we've got the Liberals saying, "We'll do something in the future." I think about, what is a horizon? A horizon is that imaginary line up ahead that, as you approach it, disappears completely. That's what we're dealing with when we're dealing with Liberal policies. And, of course, with the Conservatives, unless China or India acts, then there's no urgency to act for us.

The fact of the matter is the McGuinty government promised to close coal-firing plants by 2007. Then I think it was 2009, it was 2011, 2014. This is certainly an ever-disappearing horizon for coal-firing plants in this province. Although yes, true, China is building two new coal plants every three weeks, they're also making strides in China, unlike us here, to put some money and some serious effort into renewables.

McGuinty, again, talks about all of these wonderful things they've done. I come back to the simple, fundamental reality—and you compare this to some European jurisdictions where the reality is very different, where 20% to 30% of their power comes from renewables. Here, that is not the case. Here, greenhouse gases are up, urban sprawl continues, car traffic continues, and individual consumption and production of carbon is growing. Things are getting worse; they are not getting better in Ontario. We are laggards; we are not leaders. That is our current historic reality.

Do we need to do something? Absolutely, but not in the future, not in 2014; absolutely we need to do something right now. I think anybody who listens and who actually picks up this bill and sees it's one and a half pages of nothing will know that this isn't action, and it's certainly not action now.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments and questions?

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I'd like to take this opportunity to comment on some of the remarks being made in regard to the length of the bill. I think we need to understand that in Ontario we already have a lot of existing authority in the Environmental Protection Act and we only need amendments in specific areas, particularly around auctioning and linking to other systems, to carry out a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program for Ontario. More specifically, the proposed amendments support the distribution of greenhouse gas allowances by auction, free of charge, or by other means.

It more clearly sets out existing regulation-making powers with respect to establishing the scope of a cap-and-trade program; the creation, use, distribution and trading of allowances and offsets; establishing, monitoring and reporting requirements; and to support emission trading across jurisdictions. Apparently, to the opposition parties this does not sound like very much, but this is absolutely essential to move forward, and that's exactly what we're doing.

The discussion paper—I alluded to this earlier, Moving Forward: A Greenhouse Gas Cap-and-Trade System for Ontario—outlines in detail what we've been hearing, the considerations that need to be made and options for moving forward. We need to acknowledge that cap-and-trade systems are in fact emerging across North America, and in order to ensure our industries have broad access to trading with other jurisdictions, Ontario's cap-and-trade program and its design features need to be compatible.

Other jurisdictions will expect that all participants in the trading system face similar requirements to ensure a level playing field and prevent their industries from being disadvantaged. This is all what Bill 185 does.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments and questions?

Mr. Peter Shurman: One of the fascinating things about this place, and one tends to forget when we're on summer recess, is that we can be looking at a bill that is actually fewer pages and fewer paragraphs than the average private member's bill, and we're recording thousands and thousands of words on the record, and that is germane to this debate because I'm not sure what we're debating. We're debating an idea that seems to exist in the minds of the Minister of the Environment and his parliamentary secretary, but beyond that not very much.

And I also hear from some of my colleague members, particularly in the NDP, that the Conservative Party seems to be not in favour of anything. I said myself, as did my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton, that we're in favour of something but we have to be given some definition as to what that something is, and that's what this bill is lacking.

When I listened to my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton, I wrote down a phrase that he used. He said his main concern is "the inadequacy of a local provincial response to a global" problem, and he's absolutely right. This fits into an overall jigsaw puzzle that is worldwide. At the very least, we should be talking North America and we're not. "This is, indeed, a global issue," he said, and Ontario's questionable response is whistling in the wind.

The member expressed concern about the fact that this, as it stands, looks like what he called a "cap-and-tax" regime as opposed to cap and trade. Cap and trade is about using the levers of the tax system to control greenhouse gas emissions, and that we accept. But unless and until we find out how that is applied to the businesses of Ontario so that they, at the corporate income tax level, as well as citizens at the personal income tax level, can benefit from the rebates of the costs incurred by buying products coming from companies that emit carbon under this regime, we can't vote for a bill like this. We barely understand it.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Sarnia—Lambton has two minutes to respond.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I'd like to thank the members from Eglinton—Lawrence, Parkdale—High Park, Oak Ridges—Markham and Thornhill.

Yes, I was trying to point out in my remarks here that, as the member from Thornhill said, we're not against improvements in the environment, anything we can do to do that. What we were pointing out here is what we think are a number of issues in here that aren't addressed, and also the loss of jobs that are going to be created. It's more expensive for industry in this province to compete with their opposition and opponents that they do business with in the market.

Also, I'm reminded of the United States, where the great environmentalist—so-called—Al Gore lives in about a 10,000-square-foot home and flies around on a Learjet, yet he's supposed to be the leading environmentalist. Sometimes people's reputations aren't exactly what they are.

Mr. Jeff Leal: I can't believe you're slamming Al Gore.

Mr. Bill Murdoch: Only Liberals would defend Gore.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I'm surprised that the government members are defending Al Gore. I've hit a sore spot. I've obviously hit a tender nerve over there that they're defending Al Gore.

Mr. Bill Murdoch: Is Al Gore running here? Al Gore for Premier? Oh, boy. We've finally found a hero.

Mr. Robert Bailey: This may come as an inconvenient truth to the government members, but not everybody believes—

Mr. Bill Murdoch: I thought you guys had some principles.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Order.

Mr. Robert Bailey: As a famous wag said one time, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

I appreciate the opportunity to rise today and respond to those remarks, and I look forward to the rest of the debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate? Seeing none, and it being close to 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Introduction of guests.

Hon. John Wilkinson: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I want to join my colleague the member from Hamilton Mountain in welcoming Rob Hattin to the Legislature today. He is the president of Edson Packaging Machinery and the chair of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters' Ontario division. Thank you so much for being here today, Rob.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'll take this opportunity, on behalf of the member from Mississauga South and page Jacob van Wassenaer to welcome his mother, Violet, to the Legislature today.

On behalf of the Minister of Culture and page Jacquelyn McLaurin, we'd like to welcome her mother, Joanne, her sister, Grace, and exchange student Adé Dewavrin, who are joining us today.

On behalf of the member from Guelph and page Kaitlin Wagner, we'd like to welcome her mother, Johanna, to the Legislature today.

On behalf of the member from Willowdale and Hafiz Kanji, we'd like to welcome his mother, Nevin, to the Legislature today. Welcome.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd ask all members to join me in welcoming this group of pages and allow them to assemble for introduction:

Connor Ahluwalia, Beaches—East York; Samaa Bandi, Markham—Unionville; Kingsong Chen, Ottawa West—Nepean; Chantelle Colangelo, Halton; Alyssa Cronin, Huron—Bruce; Ava Doner, Durham; Megan Fernandez, Pickering—Scarborough East; Robert Hamel-Smith Grassby, Etobicoke Centre; Carlos Fiel, Etobicoke—Lakeshore; David Hemphrey, Brampton—Springdale; Tony Huang, Kitchener—Waterloo; Hafiz Kanji, Willowdale; Nicole Lachapelle, Hamilton Mountain; Helen Lee, Parkdale-High Park; Jacquelyn McLaurin, Barrie; Elizabeth Stulen, Brant; Gordon Sun, Oak Ridges—Markham; Jacob van Wassenaer, Mississauga South; Kaitlin Wagner, Guelph; and Mauricie Summers, Toronto Centre.

Welcome, pages, and enjoy your session. Please reassume your positions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO LOTTERY AND GAMING CORP.

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question to the Premier—further questions about his summer of scandal. After the eHealth scandal, troubles resurfaced at Ontario Lottery and Gaming. A couple of years ago, on Dalton McGuinty's watch, we had OLG scandal number one. Then, this summer, the Premier said he'd clear house. He severed the CEO and said he'd fight for taxpayers. Now, this summer, we have OLG scandal number two. And once again, the Premier has severed the CEO and said he's fighting for taxpayers.

Premier, your scandals are starting to have sequels. It's not the CEO, it's your ministers who are the head and have a responsibility. To which of your cabinet ministers do you extend most of the blame?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm pleased to take the questions coming from my colleague, but I hope at some point in time he will speak to jobs and the economy, an issue that weighs heavy on the minds of Ontario families. But if the opposition so chooses, then I will continue to speak to accountability issues.

We have a solid history of making the kinds of changes that improve our government's accountability for Ontarians, starting at the beginning, when we turned, under the ambit of the freedom-of-information legislation, organizations which had been excluded by the Conservative government—

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Like Hydro One.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Like Hydro One and OPG. We then gave the auditor additional powers so that he could look into our universities, schools and hospitals, something that the previous Conservative government had also refused to do. I think if you check the record, we have a long and distinguished record when it comes to improving accountability—

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

Supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: As the Premier knows, you gave the last CEO some $700,000 in severance. The latest one is suing for $8 million. Premier, taxpayers are going to have to win the lottery just to pay for your mismanagement at the OLG. There have been five different CEOs at OLG under your watch—five different CEOs—but not a single minister for that agency is gone, not a single minister has suffered any consequence. In fact, some have been promoted. Would the Premier explain to this House why, after two successive scandals at the OLG, not a single minister has been held to account?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I understand my honourable colleague's partisan interest in this issue, but I think what Ontarians expect of us is that we will take all necessary steps to ensure that they have confidence in their gaming system. That's why we have made specific and, I believe, appropriate changes. For example, there is now a barcode on the back of your ticket, should you buy a lottery ticket. There are many scanners available at our retailers so they can check that for themselves. We also require that if you want to have your ticket checked by a retailer, you have to sign it first.

And just yesterday, there was an announcement providing that if you are retailer, you cannot buy a ticket from your own particular agency; you have to go elsewhere to do it. These are all appropriate steps, I believe, to continue to maintain confidence in the people's gaming system.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Again, Premier, five CEOs have come and gone at OLG under your watch. Not a single McGuinty Liberal cabinet minister has paid any price whatsoever. Just like with your personal untendered contract with Sarah Kramer at eHealth, your hand-picked choice to solve the problems at OLG didn't last long. Just like with Sarah Kramer, Kelly McDougald was replaced under a cloud of scandal.

During his press conference, the Minister of Finance hinted at even more untendered contracts at OLG. Premier, was Kelly McDougald fired in part because of those untendered contracts, and when will you make them public?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My colleague knows that we continue to make the appropriate changes to enhance accountability. We've turned our attention more recently to our 615 agencies, boards and commissions. We have decided that the rules that we inherited from the former Conservative government were inadequate, so we have strengthened those. He will know, for example, that we have now banned sole-source contracts for consultants; we've deemed those to be inappropriate. We're also requiring that the Integrity Commissioner review the expenses of our 22 biggest agencies, boards and commissions.

That's a practice we've had in place for cabinet ministers, and we now believe that it would be appropriate to put that in place for our biggest agencies, boards and commissions. Finally, we are putting in place mandatory training on the issue of expenses for everybody in the OPS, as well as at our 22 biggest agencies, boards and commissions. We believe those are all positive steps forward.

AGENCY SPENDING

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier about his summer of scandal, like the announcement of the PricewaterhouseCoopers review of eHealth.

The Premier's hastily arranged announcement about the new mandate for the Integrity Commissioner to review expenses of agencies seems more about crafting a political shield for Dalton McGuinty and his ministers to hide behind. We called the Integrity Commissioner's office about their new role, Premier, and here's what they told us: The only thing they've been told is that they'll be responsible for reviewing expenditures and that everything else is "up in the air," that they are still waiting for direction from the Premier's office, and the mandate is yet to be written.

Premier, since you obviously did not consult with the Integrity Commissioner, perhaps you can tell us how many more staff they are going to need in that office to do the job people rightly expect your cabinet ministers to do.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm pleased to say we've had very lengthy conversations with the Integrity Commissioner herself and received some very strong guidance. We expect to be introducing legislation very shortly, and I look forward to my honourable colleague's support on the matter of that legislation.

What we are doing, of course, is a very simple matter, but we think it's practical and it will prove to be effective. As it stands right now, all ministers are subject to having their expenses reviewed by the Integrity Commissioner. What we want to do is impose the same requirement on our 22 biggest agencies, boards and commissions at the senior executive level. It has worked well for our government, and I fully expect it will work well for our agencies, boards and commissions, and I'll look for my honourable colleague's support in this regard.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Again, the Premier obviously has no clue how many more staff will need to be hired at the Integrity Commissioner's office.

Let's further examine his so-called plan. Your plan, Premier, as it stands today—what there is of it—is to make a staff of nine in the Integrity Commissioner's office track expenses of what the Canadian Press estimates is some 80,000 agency employees. With one expense report per month, that is approximately one million expense reports to be examined per year by nine people.

Premier, your plan is simply not credible. The Integrity Commissioner's office is going to have to become massive—more people, more space, a new building. Premier, how much more will Ontario families have to pay because your cabinet ministers aren't up to the job?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm not sure where my honourable colleague stands on this matter. Either he's in favour of more oversight or he's against more oversight.

Just to reassure Ontarians, we continue to have good conversations with the Integrity Commissioner. There are some issues associated with resources. We will make sure that the appropriate resources are in there. A lineman, for example, who's working at Hydro One is not permitted expenses, so it's not as if there are going to be tens of thousands of submissions on a monthly basis into the Integrity Commissioner's office. We're more focused at the executive level. We will continue to work with the Integrity Commissioner to make sure we put something forward that is practical, effective, affordable and enhances oversight.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, we simply disagree. Accountability doesn't lie with the Integrity Commissioner, accountability doesn't lie with the official opposition, accountability does not lie with the media. It rests with the Premier of this province and his cabinet ministers. It appears that the Premier has far more faith in the Integrity Commissioner than he does in his own ministers. What we learned in your summer of scandal is that your cabinet ministers are one sad, sorry lot when it comes to accountability for taxpayer dollars.

When will the Premier put a minister's head on the chopping block? Because I tell you, Premier, that will send a signal awfully darned quick to the rest of that gang to clean up their act real fast.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We've taken a number of steps. Again, I understand that my honourable colleague has a decidedly partisan perspective on this, but I think what we have to keep first and foremost in our minds are the needs and the values of Ontarians. My colleague says he doesn't believe that the Integrity Commissioner ought to assume this responsibility, but he was part of the very government that installed the Integrity Commissioner in the first instance and required that the Integrity Commissioner overlook the expenses of cabinet ministers. We thought that was a good idea.

We pushed for that particular approach. What we are going to do now is take it one step further and enlist the support of the Integrity Commissioner in helping us to deal with our 615 agencies, boards and commissions where there are tens of thousands of people working. We are in this together, we want to make sure that everybody understands the rules—there will be mandatory training—and yes, the Integrity Commissioner will play a role, but a very important role.

TAXATION

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Premier. In these tough times people want the government to focus on making life affordable and protecting jobs. Instead, this government's harmonized sales tax scheme will make life more expensive and stifle job growth. Yesterday the Premier claimed that the HST would, and I quote him, "create jobs." But a study sponsored by the chamber of commerce argues, "Sales tax reform will slow employment growth by between 10,000 and 40,000 jobs." How could this Premier have got it so very wrong?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I hate to break it to the NDP, but they have just got to get with it on this particular issue: 130 countries are there. Every single OECD country is there except the US. You can't get admitted to the European Union unless you are participating in a single value-added tax. Four other provinces are already there. When BC heard that Ontario was going there, they said they have to do it because they didn't want Ontario to get ahead. We have got to give our manufacturers in particular the same leg up they have in all those other countries.

My friend deplores what has happened to manufacturing in the province of Ontario, but he is not prepared to do what it takes to put them on a level footing with their competitors around the world. We have got to give them that advantage so they can create those jobs and help us support our families. It is as simple as that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Michael Prue: Back to the Premier. What I'm not prepared for is tens of thousands of people in this province not having a job. At a time when people are desperate for jobs, the Premier's reckless sales tax scheme will slow employment growth. The report is quite detailed and you've had a chance now, I assume, to read in it where the job growth won't be happening: 2,300 fewer jobs in manufacturing every year; 6,500 fewer professional jobs every year. Bear in mind that these statistics are from people who support the Premier's reckless scheme. Will the Premier reconsider his plan?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We're moving ahead with this. I understand that my friend has a responsibility to point out shortcomings in government policy. We will do our very best each and every day on behalf of the people of Ontario. We do nothing perfectly, and he has got a responsibility to point out imperfections. But on this one he is wrong and we are right. There is an overwhelming consensus among economists and business people, and when it comes to this package of tax reforms, we even have the support of poverty groups and food banks. This is not an easy thing to do but it is the right thing to do.

It's the right thing to do for our families, it's the right way to change the foundation of our economy, it's the right thing to do to ensure that we can create more jobs—not just for today but for tomorrow, for our kids—it's the right thing to do to ensure that we have the financial wherewithal to support our schools, our hospitals, our environmental protections and so on and so forth. It is not easy, but my friend knows in his heart of hearts that it is the right thing to do for Ontario.

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

Mr. Michael Prue: If I am wrong, then so is the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, because they are quite specific. If the Premier had read that report, he'd know that the HST will kill up to 40,000 new jobs each year, as they have detailed. He would know there will be 2,300 fewer jobs in manufacture, he would know there will be 2,600 fewer jobs in accommodation and the food service industry, and he would know that there will be 1,100 fewer construction jobs. The Ontario Chamber of Commerce was quite specific. How can the Premier possibly argue that the HST is good for ordinary Ontarians when it makes their life more expensive and makes it less likely that they're actually going to find a job?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I've answered a number of these questions and I look forward to answering many more, but I think Ontarians can appreciate my resolve and my conviction that this is the right thing to do. But there is a question that remains unanswered: If the opposition is so absolutely committed to opposing the single sales tax in the province of Ontario, if they truly believe it will wreak havoc on families and businesses and our economic future, then why will they not commit to repealing it when it's put in place? I think I know the answer.

The reason they will not commit to repealing it is because they know in their heart of hearts it's the right thing to do for our province and our future.

AGENCY SPENDING

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Premier. Over the past while we've been hearing instance after instance of untendered contracts being let out by OLG, eHealth, and the list goes on. You're saying that you're trying to deal with this. To us what it looks like is that you're really trying to deal with this after the facts. I've got a simple question: My leader asked you yesterday if you would release the untendered contracts to the public of Ontario. My question to you: Will you do so?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague knows that there is now a new rule in place. We've decided that the rule we inherited is inadequate and unacceptable and is not in keeping with modern public expectation when it comes to transparency and accountability, so we've got a new law in the books. It says that you cannot let out sole-source contracts to consultants. This is a step forward, and we think it's exactly the kind of thing that Ontarians want us to continue to do.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: You know as well as I do that you're still going to have this problem at the end of the day. There are all kinds of situations where untendered contracts have gone out, and the public has no means to take a look at the details. Our research department has written to the various ministries and agencies asking for those untendered contracts. One of them here has some 300 pages of untendered contracts, and they want to bill us $1,700 for us to get that information. We have another one with 500 pages of information on untendered contracts—$700; and the list goes on.

My question to you is simply this: The public has the right to know. Will you release this information and will you do so without charge?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: There is a freedom-of-information request process. My honourable colleague has access to that, as do the people of Ontario. I would be interested in learning, when he puts in those requests, how many reach back to their time in government, so that we might disclose the untendered contracts that were let at that particular time. What I can say is that we are changing the rules. Rules that were considered to be good enough for the NDP and the Conservative governments are no longer good enough for the people of Ontario. That's why we've changed them and we've banned those kinds of contracts.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Quite to the contrary, this is happening under your watch. You're the Premier. You're the one who's made the appointments to all of these various agencies. They're your people. So why will you not be held accountable for what was your own decision? I ask you again. You can come clear with this thing quite easily by making sure that the information is made public. We're asking you to release that information and do so forthwith, without charge. Why won't you do that?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, just to recap in terms of the changes we've been making to enhance transparency and accountability: In addition to expanding the ambit of the freedom-of-information request to include Hydro One and OPG, giving the auditor more power to look at, for the first time ever, universities, schools and hospitals, we abandoned those sole-source contracts.

We are giving new authority to the Integrity Commissioner—we will embody that in legislation in a bill shortly to be introduced in this House; we're making training, when it comes to expense claims, mandatory; and we're going to require for the first time ever in Ontario that we post online the expenses of not only cabinet ministers and senior executives in the OPS but also senior executives in our biggest agencies, boards and commissions. Looking at that altogether, it is impossible not to conclude that we have truly enhanced transparency and accountability in the province of Ontario.

AGENCY SPENDING

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is again for the Premier, and dealing with the expenses of the OLG board. The Minister of Finance is alleged to have ordered the former CEO to fire the chief financial officer and one other person of her choice. In her statement of claim, Kelly McDougald sets out that the minister says, and I quote, "Significant action representative of the accountability required."

Premier, why are the bureaucrats set to a different and higher standard of accountability than your own ministers?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Again, we would have appreciated a question on jobs and the economy from that party, and we will continue to talk. But on the issue of the accountability, the steps that the Premier has announced and the legislation we will be bringing forward do in fact deal substantively with the challenges that have been faced across a number of organizations and across a number of governments.

I remember when I brought forward the legislation to provide freedom-of-information coverage to Hydro One and OPG, for instance. All of the important information that the public got as a result of that helped us to develop these. I would submit, with respect, that any statement of allegations that's made with respect to the circumstances at OLG is just that, and we will vigorously defend the taxpayers of Ontario in a court of law.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: If he wants to start defending the taxpayers of this province, I'd say start with an apology and start by giving them their money back that you have mismanaged and misspent.

This is about a double standard of the Premier and his ministers, it's about accountability, and it's about really tackling the runaway spending that we've seen under this government.

I'm going to ask the Premier again, will he put an end to the double standard and will he take "significant action representative of the accountability required" of his ministers?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The only double standard is the way the Tories conducted themselves in office and what they say now. The double standard is related to expenses on your watch at agencies like Hydro One and OPG and what we do now. The double standard is the degree of accountability that this government has brought forward over the last six years that was not only not adopted, but was outright rejected by that party in the past.

This government and our Premier have moved responsibly to enhance accountability for all Ontarians. We will be bringing forward legislation to implement those measures. We look forward to the opposition's support of that very important legislation, which provides much-enhanced accountability to taxpayers across Ontario.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Minister of Finance. A recommendation contained in the Financial Services Commission of Ontario's—FSCO's—five-year auto insurance plan review would slash insurance payouts for serious car crash injuries by 75%. This recommendation would lower the $100,000 cap on non-catastrophic injuries to $25,000. It would impoverish victims, push health care costs on to the taxpayer and enrich the insurance industry.

On June 4 in this very House, the minister said his response would take place by the end of June. It is now mid-September. Will the Minister of Finance stand in this House today and make it clear that he rejects that recommendation?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Our government engaged in, I think, perhaps the most vigorous public consultation around the future of insurance premiums since a previous government decided not to make auto insurance a public corporation. That yielded enormous good advice from a range of quarters that we have spent the summer analyzing and, indeed, having further meetings on. It was our intention to bring forward recommendations by the end of June.

We decided to take the summer and a little bit more time still to review all of the recommendations that we've had from a variety of stakeholders to ensure that we can continue to offer Ontarians the assurance that insurance premium rises will be kept modest. I'll remind the member opposite that premiums for auto insurance are still 4% below where they were when this government took office in 2003.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Michael Prue: If implemented, this would seriously damage the quality of rehabilitation services provided to accident victims in this province. To quote Dr. Peter Rumney, senior physician director of rehabilitation and complex continuing care at Bloorview Kids Rehab, "It is a huge step backwards. The proposed $25,000 cap for rehab services for 'non-catastrophic' claims would, in most cases, be exhausted in three months."

When will this minister start listening to the experts and not the insurance companies and make it clear that this government will reject this mean-spirited recommendation by FSCO?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In fact, we have listened to the experts from across a variety of stakeholder groups, including those involved in the treatment of catastrophic accidents. I'll remind the member opposite that in fact auto insurance premiums are 4% lower today than they were when we took office some six years ago.

What we know is this: The reforms we brought forward way back in 2003 in Bill 5, which led to this decrease, that member and his party voted against. I'll remind him, when they were in office auto insurance premiums over five years went up 20%.

I am determined not to make the mistakes that member and his party made. I am determined to continue to protect consumers, and we will come forward with a package of amendments and reforms—

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

TAXATION

Mr. Bob Delaney: My question is to the Minister of Revenue. Minister, in the by-election to be held on Thursday of this week, comments made by the Conservatives have raised some concerns for me, for the people in that riding and for my constituents in western Mississauga.

Renters are hard-working people. They don't like to hear their important contributions to their community denigrated by fearmongering and they don't need to have their intelligence insulted.

The Conservatives have been telling voters that the single sales tax, a part of Ontario's comprehensive package of tax reform, is going to be applied to residential rental fees. People understand that rental fees are not currently charged any GST and that items that are not charged GST will not be charged the single sales tax. Will rental fees be subject to the single sales tax?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank my colleague for the question. We are going to reform our tax system. We're going to drag it out of the 20th century, put it in the 21st century and create the jobs that we need for this province. We are not going to broach allegations based on misinformation. So that everyone in this House can be clear, there is no GST applied to rent and, as a result, when we harmonize our sales taxes, there will be no HST applied to rent.

Now, that said, it is important that we hear the whole story. It is true that there are some services that HST will apply to, and that's why it's so important that people across Ontario understand the other part of our reform package, how we're reforming the income tax system in this province. We know that businesses in the Atlantic provinces passed on the savings to their consumers in a highly competitive market. And in the province of Ontario, when it comes to rent, it is—

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

Mr. Bob Delaney: The Conservatives in Thursday's by-election piously claim that they're standing up for low-income renters and seniors. That is, for the record, the very same Conservative Party that voted against the Residential Tenancies Act, which regulates rent increases, and this is the very same Conservative Party that voted against any investments in rent banks and affordable housing units.

Our province is better off for our investment in affordable housing and for maintaining our existing stock. All Ontarians will continue to benefit as well, despite the opposition of the Conservatives to building and maintaining affordable housing.

Minister, the opposition is saying that Ontario's comprehensive package is going to harm low-income renters and seniors. Would you care to comment on that?

Hon. John Wilkinson: Those who understand the 2009 budget that was presented in March by my colleague Minister Duncan understand that over the next three years, we'll be providing some $15 billion worth of tax relief. What does that mean for renters? First of all, if a renter currently qualifies for the GST rebate, for example, that would provide a maximum of $240 a year tax free. Our proposals will increase that by an additional $260 a year, tax free, for every person in that household, whether adult or child—much more generous than the federal government.

As well, we're enhancing the property tax credit, particularly for seniors, and we have a series of tax credits that will make sure that people who can afford this the least will not bear the heavy load.

But it is important that we always remember that our number one priority here is to ensure that there are jobs in the 21st century in this province. There should be no doubt that we will—

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

AGENCY SPENDING

Mr. Norm Miller: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Minister, it appears the newest growth industry in the McGuinty government is the Integrity Commissioner sector.

Before the summer of scandal began, the Liberals were trying to tell us that the eHealth scandal was the exception to the rule. As we're seeing time and again, though, the message track keeps changing. Now the Minister of Finance tells us OLG expenditures are "just the tip of the iceberg." Can Minister Duncan tell us what he meant, or will we have to FOI that as well?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: This government and party are committed to the maximum accountability and transparency not only of the government and its ministers, but of its agencies, boards and commissions.

We have provided freedom of information to a range of institutions that your government, sir, did not want to do. In fact, you said you didn't want to do it; you opposed it.

We've taken steps over the course of the last several weeks to give greater accountability and greater transparency to those agencies, boards and commissions, and I look forward to the support of that member and his colleagues for the legislation our government will bring forward to further enhance that accountability and transparency.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Norm Miller: Well, I'll put this question to the minister: The FOI for OLG produced five binders and thousands of pages relating to the spending excesses of 40 executives. Liberal appointees travelled to California and Las Vegas to take limousine rides and eat steak and seafood paid for by the taxpayers. It's the minister's agency. When will he take responsibility and release all the information, including untendered consultant contracts?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We released the information with respect to expenses, and we will be releasing the information with respect to other aspects of FOIs that have been received, as I understand it, from a variety of sources with respect to OLG. That's what accountability and transparency is all about. That's why this government applied it to Hydro One and OPG. That's why the Premier took the steps that he did just yesterday to ensure still greater accountability and transparency.

I welcome your questions. I welcome your interest in that transparency and accountability and I particularly welcome the strong initiatives undertaken by our Premier and our government to further improve accountability and transparency for all agencies, boards and commissions in the province of Ontario.

TAXATION

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the minister responsible for seniors. Over this summer, I spent a lot of time meeting pensioners across this province. Wherever I went, I heard opposition to the government's harmonized sales tax grab. Seniors know they'll be hit especially hard. Most are on fixed incomes, but they'll be paying 8% more for some things like home heating and hydro, 8% more for something as simple as a visit to the hair salon, 8% more for a cup of coffee, 8% more for end-of-life planning.

How can this minister allow her government such callous disregard for the financial plight of Ontario's seniors?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: I'm going to refer this question to the Minister of Revenue.

Hon. John Wilkinson: Thank you to my colleague and thanks to the member for the question.

It's important that seniors understand that they have been hearing one side of the story. They've been hearing but one side of the story. On our side of the House, it's important for us to tell people the entire story.

I want to say to seniors, particularly, that we understand your concerns, and if you have an opportunity to see the budgetary measures that we have proposed, you will see that we have taken special care to ensure that seniors on a fixed income, those who can afford a new consumption tax the least, will receive the greatest benefit, and that for many seniors, they will actually be put into a better position.

Despite what my opponents are saying, we've decided on this side of the House that we must modernize our tax system to ensure that we have a vibrant economy that supports the services that seniors value the most—

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

Mr. Paul Miller: Minister, your $1,000 won't cut it for the next 40 years.

The minister ought to know that seniors are mobilizing against your government's tax grab. The Canadian Association of Retired Persons has launched a campaign against the HST. Thousands of Ontario seniors have already signed on, and they don't believe the minister's line that they'll be better off. They won't be. They know it. I know it. Everybody else knows it. The HST will cost seniors more each and every day for the rest of their lives. When will this minister finally withdraw it?

Hon. John Wilkinson: On this side of the House, we will modernize our tax system, and we will ensure that it is fair, particularly to seniors. That's why we've included so many permanent income tax cuts. I can say to seniors that on the first $37,000 worth of their income, we are lowering it. I can say to seniors today who receive the GST rebate that that will be substantially enhanced. I can say to seniors who are tenants or own a house that we are more than doubling the Ontario property tax credit. All of those things will benefit seniors.

They will come, but understand that in the first year, this will be a year of transition. We have secured a historic agreement with the federal government to allow in that first year additional money to help seniors, and all of us in Ontario who qualify, get used to this new system. But that is a new system that we need to have so that we have a vibrant economy to support the public services that seniors care about the most: public health care.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Jeff Leal: My question is to the Minister of Finance. There have been a lot of reports, certainly reports from my riding of Peterborough, regarding the economy lately. Some economists have been suggesting they we are reaching or have just recently reached the low point. Jobs data has been positive for Ontario over the last few months. While large gains have not happened, there is a small trend developing. What is the outlook for Ontario at this point in providing an update of where we stand today?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I want to thank the member for asking the question about jobs and the economy, particularly a question that's important to unemployed Ontarians, who have experienced the worst of the global economic downturn.

There is no question that the last year has been difficult for economies around the world, and continues to be. We are beginning to see positive signs in the economy of real growth, but I remind the member from Peterborough that there tends to be a lag in job growth and government revenues when growth returns to the economy. There is some question as to how quickly that will return.

What we do know is this: The policies we are pursuing with respect to tax reform, which will lower taxes for Ontarians, which will encourage investments in jobs, are the right policies to pursue, and I look forward to the member's supplementary to address the question of how to get this economy moving in more detail.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Jeff Leal: While there seems to be very little consensus, there's been talk about stimulus spending and how it has helped the economy: Have measures that we have put in place been effective? Have we done enough stimulus? And what other measures have we put in place—and I know this program has helped tremendously the citizens in my riding of Peterborough.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The member for Peterborough is right: We have invested $34 billion in short-term stimulus, including $32.5 billion in infrastructure—almost 3% of our GDP, which was more than the amount recommended by the International Monetary Fund. These investments are extremely important. They've benefited Peterborough, and I congratulate the member for his good work on a range of projects that went into Peterborough. Without his insight and advice, we couldn't have made those important investments.

The times call on governments to take bold moves to ensure growth in the future. Our stimulus and infrastructure is about the short-term, the tax reform package—the right package to create jobs, to create investments, that economists like Hugh Mackenzie have applauded. These are the right policies to create jobs for our grandchildren and children, the right policies for a brighter future.

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question is on jobs and the economy, and it is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, you are aware that the primary reason slot machines were allowed to be placed into Ontario racetracks was to enhance the racing industry, which in turn would improve agriculture and the economy of rural Ontario. Some 65,000 men and women work in the racing industry in Ontario.

Over the past three years, we have seen a decline in racing dates in Ontario. For example, this past January and February, no racing dates took place at Georgian Downs, but the slot machines remained open seven days a week, 24 hours a day. The horses still have to be fed and trained, and the stables have to be maintained.

Minister, will you commit today to reversing this reduction in racing dates policy and work to improve the racing industry and the economy of rural Ontario—which of course, in fact, means jobs for farmers in rural Ontario?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker—

Mr. John Yakabuski: We ask for hay, and what do we get? Manure.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I ask the honourable member from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke to withdraw that last comment, please.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Withdraw.

Interjections.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I take it that it's a laughable matter for members of the Tory caucus.

We think that the income—and I appreciate the member's question—generated from the operation of slots into rural Ontario has been a successful and important program, and we will continue that.

We will continue to work with the horse racing industry. I've met with representatives of the industry as well as the riders and those in rural Ontario who benefit from this. We will continue to work with them to ensure that at this difficult time in the economy, at a time when revenues are down in many quarters, that this successful program continues to operate. I look forward to that member's input into this, and we'll continue to work with the industry on this very important program.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: First of all, I'm very disappointed that the Minister of Agriculture didn't answer this question.

We have now learned that the operators of Georgian Downs and Flamboro Downs have applied to the Ontario Racing Commission to have no racing dates for six months of the year and to reduce and condense the racing dates to 100 racing dates per year.

For example, Georgian Downs racing dates have been reduced from 130 days per year three years ago. Under the new application, they want to go to 100 racing dates. At the same time, Georgian Downs has increased the number of slot machines from 451 to 1,000. That was Ms. McDougald's last day on the job, I believe. Flamboro Downs racing dates have been reduced from 225 days per year to 100 racing dates under the new application.

Minister, these changes are having a very negative impact on the racing industry. Will you commit today to increasing the number of racing dates in proportion to the number of slot machines—

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We will continue to work with the industry to maximize the benefit to local communities, particularly the rural communities, from this important program. There is no question that revenues are under pressure. There is no question that horse racing has been under pressure for some years.

I think the member knows that there is no easy answer to the challenge there, but this government remains committed to working with the horse racing industry to ensure and help sustain that important component of income for Ontario's rural communities. We are committed to that, we continue to work with them, and we look forward to the member opposite's participation in that discussion.

TAXATION

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Minister of Housing. Everyone knows that the HST will drive up rents; even, apparently, the Liberal candidate in St. Paul's. The Liberal candidate has promised to protect tenants from increases caused by the HST, but the McGuinty government contradicts him. Will the government commit to protecting tenants, or is their candidate making a promise he has absolutely no intention of keeping?

Hon. Jim Watson: Well, I was actually out in St. Paul's with Dr. Eric Hoskins, who is going to be an excellent member of provincial Parliament come this Thursday. Because the people out there are not being fooled by the misinformation of the NDP; they know full well that when the NDP were in power, the average rent increase over a five-year period was 27%, and under Premier McGuinty's government, the increase has been 14.4%. The highest increase by party in the last 20 years was the NDP at 6%.

The people of St. Paul's are going to—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I would really appreciate it if the honourable members on the government side wouldn't shout down their own ministers when those ministers are answering.

Supplementary.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: The Minister of Housing makes some very compelling reasons not to support the Liberal MP Bob Rae—we don't intend to—but he didn't answer the question. The government's HST scheme will hit tenants hard. The government's candidate is promising to protect tenants from rent increases, but the government refuses to make that commitment. The NDP candidate, Julian Heller, was ready to talk about this at two all-candidates debates this week. Your candidate didn't even bother to show up.

The minister can clear this up today. Will he commit that no tenants will face higher rents thanks to his HST scheme or not? Or will he admit that his candidate is making promises that he has absolutely no intention of keeping, as I asked?

Hon. Jim Watson: As I was going around the riding of St. Paul's, I noticed the signs for the NDP. They're so faded. This candidate has been recycled so many times in that riding that people are going to say enough—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I would say to members on all sides that I do recognize that there is a by-election going on, and it would be nice to have that not debated in this chamber. We've seen questions from both sides of the House, so we can't accuse one side or another. There have been questions. I'm going to move on to a new question.

GREENBELT

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I've got a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. It's nearly five years ago that the Greenbelt Act was proclaimed into law. We all know it protects 1.8 million acres of green space all across the greater Golden Horseshoe. Since this time, the plan has received several awards of recognition, including the Canadian Institute of Planners award for planning excellence in 2007, and that was in the category of environmental planning. This distinction, along with countless others, is a testament to the forward-thinking and comprehensive nature of this act.

In my riding of Oakville, many residents enjoy the recreation and the culinary offerings the greenbelt has to offer, so I'm extremely proud of the plan.

Minister, as you know, the Greenbelt Act requires a review of the plan every 10 years to determine whether it needs to be revised or updated. We're approaching the halfway point. Could you please update the House on the progress and the achievements of that greenbelt plan to date?

Hon. Jim Watson: I think all members of the Legislative Assembly should be very proud of the greenbelt and the legacy of the greenbelt. This February will mark the fifth anniversary of the greenbelt legislation protecting 1.8 million acres of green space in perpetuity.

The David Suzuki Foundation, for instance, has estimated that the greenbelt is providing approximately $2.6 billion per year in ecological services and benefits, costs that would otherwise be carried by the taxpayers to clean water, scrub emissions going into the air and artificially pollinate crops.

We are committed to doing the 10-year review, but one thing is certain: Under the leadership of Premier McGuinty and this government, we will not be shrinking the greenbelt. The greenbelt is here to stay in perpetuity because it provides such great resources from an agricultural, economic and cultural point of view. We're very proud of the greenbelt and we encourage all members to support and promote the greenbelt in their communities.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It's clear that the hard work of that ministry has paid off. The implementation of the greenbelt, I think by all accounts, has been extremely successful. However, the needs of this area, the greater Golden Horseshoe area, over the coming years are going to evolve as that region grows. As a result, the greenbelt plan is going to need to evolve as well. Municipalities need help as they plan for growth while at the same time they want to continue to protect and be a part of the greenbelt.

You've already mentioned, Minister, that your ministry is going to help municipalities bring their official plans into conformity with the greenbelt. I'd like to know what else you're going to do to ensure that both municipalities in our region and the greenbelt can continue to grow in a responsible manner.

Hon. Jim Watson: I thank the honourable member, who is a great defender of environmental initiatives in his own community of Oakville.

Applause.

Hon. Jim Watson: He deserves that applause.

Before implementing any new infrastructure or adding to existing infrastructure, a public consultation and thorough environmental assessment would take place. These would ensure that social, environmental and economic impacts are minimized and that they serve the overall objectives of the greenbelt. The Greenbelt Act allows us to expand the area to protect land outside the existing greenbelt and ensure the best possible decision-making with regard to the land we protect. We'll thoroughly consult municipalities, the Greenbelt Council, ably headed by Dr. Robert Elgie, aboriginal communities and the public.

Further to this, the act does not allow for the total area of the greenbelt to be reduced. We've received two requests from municipalities to grow the greenbelt since 2007, and I look forward to working with those municipalities to protect Ontario's natural landscape.

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Mr. John O'Toole: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. Minister, private issuers of licences and vehicle registration offices employ 1,300 people and perform 90% of the vehicle-related transactions in Ontario. Your government is rapidly closing an estimated 65 to 70 of these small businesses that provide a vital service to Ontario. In many cases, you're terminating services provided efficiently by small business over the last 100 years. Local licensing offices in communities like Whitby, Peterborough, Lindsay, Pembroke, Hearst, Cochrane, Kapuskasing and many others will be closed.

This summer, the member from Leeds—Grenville was first to alert his community to the closing of vehicle licensing offices in Brockville.

Minister, why are you rushing to terminate these successful small businesses in rural and small-town Ontario?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: Let me thank the member for asking this question, and I also welcome him to his new role as well.

Let me tell you what we are really doing. We will continue to provide high-quality customer service to Ontarians by streamlining and modernizing the way we offer services. By December 2010, the Ontario government will provide one-stop shopping for expanded services such as health cards, drivers' licences and vehicle licence services, through ServiceOntario centres, under one roof. What will that do? Ninety-five per cent of all Ontarians will have access to expanded services within 10 kilometres. Over 18 months, access to health cards will expand from 27 OHIP offices to about 300 ServiceOntario centres. In rural communities—

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

Mr. John O'Toole: Minister, you can use all the terms, "streamlining," etc. It's diminished services for the people of Ontario. Revelations about the spending at eHealth and OLG have shaken the public's confidence in your government's ability to spend taxpayers' money wisely. Spending is so badly out of control that your multi-million dollar sales tax grab is another example of a failed plan.

Minister, is your commitment to cancel this scheme? Why would you not stand up today and say that you will take your time before you kill these small businesses in rural and small-town Ontario?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I used to be the Minister of Small Business, and I'm now into the new job, so I'm very much aware of the contribution that small businesses make to this province. But this is about improving service, and we are absolutely determined to do that. The facts will speak louder than what they are saying.

In rural communities right now, access to health card services will expand from two locations to 163 locations. In northern communities it will increase from six locations to 67 ServiceOntario centres. We are expanding services, and a private-issuer network is an integral part of what we are planning to do. Two thirds of all service centres in Ontario will still be private, and I will be the first one to say they provide outstanding service to Ontarians. We will continue to use their talent as we move forward.

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Mr. Gilles Bisson: A follow-up question on the same issue to the same minister: In Kapuskasing, they were advised on July 23 that their particular office would be closed so services could be delivered through ServiceOntario. They don't like it, but they've accepted the decision. The chamber of commerce of Kapuskasing tried to stop it; your governme