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

November 4, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-Nov-04 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 4 November 2008 Mardi 4 novembre 2008

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET MEASURES AND INTERIM

APPROPRIATION ACT, 2008 (NO. 2) /

LOI DE 2008 SUR

LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES

ET L'AFFECTATION ANTICIPÉE

DE CRÉDITS (NO 2)

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ PROFESSIONNELLE

ET L'ASSURANCE CONTRE

LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

MANUFACTURING JOBS

MANUFACTURING JOBS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

CHILD CARE

AMATEUR SPORT

MANUFACTURING JOBS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

SMALL BUSINESS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

WORKPLACE SAFETY

CHILD CARE

PROPERTY TAXATION

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

VISITORS

DEFERRED VOTES

BUDGET MEASURES AND INTERIM

APPROPRIATION ACT, 2008 (NO. 2) /

LOI DE 2008 SUR

LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES

ET L'AFFECTATION ANTICIPÉE

DE CRÉDITS (NO 2)

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SPORTS HALL OF FAME

EVENTS IN MARKHAM

SKILLS TRAINING

FUNDRAISING

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

ROAD SAFETY

SCHOOL SAFETY

CITY OF OTTAWA

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON SOCIAL POLICY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES ÉVALUATIONS

ENVIRONNEMENTALES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

CRIME PREVENTION WEEK

ADOPTION AWARENESS MONTH

TAKE OUR KIDS TO WORK DAY

CRIME PREVENTION WEEK

ADOPTION AWARENESS MONTH

TAKE OUR KIDS TO WORK DAY

TAKE OUR KIDS TO WORK DAY

CRIME PREVENTION WEEK

ADOPTION AWARENESS MONTH

REMEMBRANCE DAY

PETITIONS

GASOLINE PRICES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

EMERGENCY DISPATCH SERVICES

CHILD CARE

CHILD CUSTODY

TUITION

WORKPLACE HARASSMENT

HOSPITAL FUNDING

GASOLINE PRICES

PROTECTION FOR MINERS

LOGGING ROUTE

LONG-TERM CARE

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

OPPOSITION DAY

CHILD CARE /

GARDE D'ENFANTS

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

BUDGET MEASURES AND INTERIM

APPROPRIATION ACT, 2008 (NO. 2) /

LOI DE 2008 SUR

LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES

ET L'AFFECTATION ANTICIPÉE

DE CRÉDITS (NO 2)

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 29, 2008, on the motion for second reading of Bill 114,

An Act respecting Budget measures, interim appropriations and other matters, to amend the Ottawa Congress Centre Act and to enact the Ontario Capital Growth Corporation Act, 2008 / Projet de loi 114, Loi concernant les mesures budgétaires, l'affectation anticipée de crédits et d'autres questions, modifiant la

Loi sur le Centre des congrès d'Ottawa et édictant la Loi de 2008 sur la Société ontarienne de financement de la croissance.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 3, 2008, I am now required to put the question.

On October 27, Mr. Bentley moved second reading of Bill 114,

An Act respecting Budget measures, interim appropriations and other matters, to amend the Ottawa Congress Centre Act and to enact the Ontario Capital Growth Corporation Act, 2008. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded division being required, this vote is deferred to after question period this morning.

Vote deferred.

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ PROFESSIONNELLE

ET L'ASSURANCE CONTRE

LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 3, 2008, on the motion for second reading of Bill 119,

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

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Further debate? The member from Simcoe–Grey.

Interjection: Soon to be minister.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I could use the promotion but I'd rather be on this side of the House at this moment when we're debating Bill 119, because I'm sorry that I have to join in this debate this morning. It's an unnecessary bill. It's a bill that will require, basically, white-collar workers in small construction firms in Ontario for the first time ever to have to purchase or pay workplace health and safety—WCB we used to call it—insurance premiums. So the name of the bill is the Workplace Safety and Insurance Amendment Act, Bill 119. This bill, I say sarcastically, must be Mr.

McGuinty's way of welcoming in Small Business Month, which is this month. It's a shame that the way he has chosen to do it is certainly not cause for celebration.

Of my 18 years here in this House representing the people of Simcoe—Grey, and prior to that Simcoe West—we get a lot of correspondence, but the most correspondence, and you've heard me say this many times, that I've had from constituents and concerned Ontarians was when the German shepherd was dragged behind a pickup truck a couple of years ago and again when a dog in Toronto was hurt when his ears were cut to make him look more vicious; I think it was last year or two years ago also.

But this is number three, especially hearing from the small business community, in terms of the numbers of e-mails I have been receiving over the last two weeks. Now the letters are starting to come in. On the weekend we were in Port Hope listening to the folks at a town hall meeting. Many, many small business people were there and they wanted to know what this bill was about.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has done a good job of sending out a newsletter informing their membership of some 47,000 small businesses, I think; I'm not sure of the exact number. Clearly, those small business people are figuring out that for the first time ever they may have to pay premiums—or they will have to pay premiums—that on average will be up to $11,000 for small businesses. For many of those small business people that $11,000 will come out of the owner's salary or take-home pay because there's nowhere else to take the money from.

I'll read some e-mails here this morning, actual e-mails from my constituents that have asked me to bring their points to the government's attention in the hope that the government will listen. At the very least, they would like this bill to go to committee so that they will have more time to bring representation.

I just say to the government at the beginning, who wants this bill? Obviously, it's a tax grab at a time when, once again, Mr. McGuinty said he wouldn't raise taxes. It's the worst possible time in our economic history, of modern times in Ontario and Canada and North America, and indeed the world, to bring forward a tax grab like this.

Nobody wants it in the small business community. Absolutely no one that actually owns, or derives their income primarily from, a small business has said they want this. I mean, employees are already covered with the mandatory workers' compensation, or WSIB, premiums. Even if your company doesn't pay and then you get hurt on the job, the way the system works in Ontario is that you will receive insurance coverage anyway, and those benefits that you require to get you back on your feet or that you require to live.

Most small business operators, owners—corporate officers, as they are called—have had, just out of common sense, private insurance that gives them 24/7 coverage, 365 days a year, which is more coverage than they'll get when they pay the new WSIB premiums. And the private sector coverage is better coverage and less expensive.

So this totally is devoid of common sense and support. Again, I can't help but wonder why the government's doing it. I know the big unions and some of the big, big businesses like it, and I would hope that they're not just doing it for them, because it doesn't affect them; it affects the mom-and-pop shops, the electrical shop and the construction shop, where often it's a father and son or a family business.

The bill also imposes a requirement to obtain a clearance certificate. You pretty well always had to do that in the past. For those at home who don't know what that is, it's a proof that the companies you're dealing with, your subcontractors, have WSIB registration and they're complying with all their orders and paying their premiums. You have to get this certificate from your subcontractors before construction begins and you retain the certificate for three years in case of an audit.

Now, one good thing about this bill, I guess—because they really would be subject to the wrath of Ontarians if this bill were to apply to homeowners who retained contractors to do home renovation work, but so far they're exempt, but Big Brother is creeping in. I just moved seven houses, from one end of my subdivision in Wasaga Beach to the other end, and I've been trying to get electricians and carpenters and various people in. So far I don't have to pay their premiums, but you never know the way this government goes.

You're getting people where the most damage that's going to happen to them is paper cuts, because they are white-collar workers for the most part, the owners. As we see in a lot of the e-mails, site management is done by site managers and not often by the owners in these cases. You're requiring these people who already have insurance coverage to pay up to an $11,000 tax.

There are also very, very severe penalties for anyone who doesn't pay their $11,000-a-year tax to the government. They're dramatic new penalties that we hadn't seen before.

The government says that the reason they want the bill is to crack down on the underground economy. This will create a bigger underground economy. You're not going to pop your head up and pay anything or register for anything now that premiums have gone through the roof—unnecessary premiums. That just defies common sense. We've seen this happen before when governments got too tax-greedy; that's what created the underground economy in the first place. There's no way you're going to pop your head up under this new system. Your employees will be covered anyway.

You'll let the big businesses, who think the bill is going to do them some good and take the pressure off them—it's going to put more pressure on them. Where I come from, people usually offer you cash as it is now to build your deck or renovate your house. It'll just get worse. Why pop your head up? You'll be subject to inspections and audits and all kinds of things, and you won't make a living anyway, so you might as well take your chances in the underground economy. That's exactly what will happen.

According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, as I said, the average tax hike on small and medium-sized businesses caused by this bill will be $11,000 annually. They question why the government would do this, in this type of economy especially. The WSIB already has significant tools in the legislation to crack down on the underground economy in a legitimate way. If my party were in government, we'd encourage them, as we always did, to continue to do that the best they can. But bringing in a new tax will drive things in the opposite direction.

I'll just start to read some of the e-mails in the time I have left, just to emphasize how truly unpopular this bill is in my riding, and I suspect it's equally unpopular in Liberal members' ridings. In fact, in those Liberal-held ridings, constituents must be in complete bewilderment, because I'm sure you didn't talk about bringing in an $11,000 tax during the all-candidates' meetings in the election last year. I'm sure people wouldn't have voted for you if they had known this was exactly what you were going to do, especially after having two elections where Mr.

McGuinty has clearly broken his promises and brought in new taxes after each election. Here's another one. This time it happens to be in one of the government agencies—which is the government; the government controls the WSIB, sets all the rules and appoints the board and chairman. This is the government.

From Simcoe—Grey, the first e-mail I have is from Rick Fess of Doner-Hosley Insurance, which is located on Victoria Street, the main street of Alliston. Rick writes:

"Hi, Jim. Please do whatever you can to stop the current WSIB legislation now in second reading from going any further. This is just a disguised tax grab for the WSIB to further hurt small businesses. Ask the Liberals if they don't think enough jobs have been lost in Ontario already without this legislation taking money directly out of the pockets of small businesses. Thank you."

Maybe during the questions and comments part after my remarks, one of the Liberal members could answer Rick's question.

The next e-mail is from John McFarland, a master electrician at Nu-Tek Electric in Alliston, and I think he was president of our Rotary Club for quite some time.

"Hi Jim,

"I've been following the tactics for the Liberal government, especially Labour Minister Fonseca and how he has no regard for input in the matter of mandatory WSIB coverage from independent small business. All he can listen to is the large unions who fund their agendas.

"I urge you, Jim, to do all you can as opposition party and my MPP to stop the ramming of this bill down small businesses' throats. Send this bill to committee hearings to be fair.

"I have included a copy of CFIB's latest letter to its membership.

"Thank you for your consideration,

"John McFarland—Nu-Tek Electric, Alliston."

I've got another e-mail here, this time from Collingwood. It's from Madeline Quinn; she sent this to all MPPs in the Ontario Legislature.

"To members of provincial Parliament:

"I would include 'honourable' but what you are doing has no honour in it.

"The WSIB mandatory coverage legislation is by far the most detrimental, least-thought-out, ill-conceived proposed bill aimed at independent operators and companies in construction. The additional cost (approximately $11,000 each) to owners, officers and directors of a small business may very well be enough to drive a lot of businesses further underground and/or out of business. What part of this do the Liberals not get?

"The state of the economy, currently being very volatile and shaky has people cutting back and rethinking what they will spend and how many persons they can employ going forward. What we definitely don't need is more pressure and costs to small business which would also add to unemployment if this bill goes through. WSIB, if anything, needs to be better regulated and not a self-governed monopoly. Perhaps you should spend more time checking the internal problems of WSIB and less time mandating small businesses with additional costs.

"I am a member of CFIB and thank God they are there to lobby on behalf of small business and not as is clearly the case of this proposed bill, by the Liberals that support big business and unions. This bill receiving first and second reading in two days smells really rotten. If you think no one is paying attention, think again.

"Madeline Quinn

"Assante Financial Management

"Branch manager

"Collingwood, Ontario."

I was careful to ask all of these people in my response to their e-mails whether I could bring up their e-mails and overwhelmingly everybody said yes; nobody said no. They wanted their e-mails read into the record and they want the government to listen.

I have another e-mail, from Don McLaren of Phelpston. He sent this e-mail to my colleague from Simcoe North, Garfield Dunlop, and me.

"Honourable members, please review again this letter from Judith Andrew, VP Ontario, CFIB, to Peter Fonseca.

"We don't need additional dues and red tape from WSIB in any sector in Ontario.

"As owners we have carried personal coverage for years and need to continue doing so for 24-hour coverage.

"Thanks

"Don McLaren

"McLaren Equipment Ltd.

"Horseshoe Valley Road

"Barrie (Phelpston) Ontario."

That's not all; I have more. This e-mail comes from a chartered accountant in Tottenham:

"Dear Mr. Wilson:

"I am writing to you as my MPP to ask you to address the matter of the WSIB mandatory coverage legislation that is presently being tabled by Honourable Peter Fonseca. The added financial burden of this legislation will make it increasingly difficult for small and medium-sized businesses to remain in business—especially in these (potentially) recessionary times."

That's Marino Vereecke from Tottenham, chartered accountant.

I have another e-mail here, from the Beild House Country Inn and Spa—a beautiful spot—in Collingwood. It says:

"Hello Jim:

"I have been urged by the Ontario Accommodation Association to contact my MPP with regards to current legislation before the Legislature regarding the extension of WSIB payments on behalf of owners and directors in the construction industry.

"While, of course, this would not cover our business now, it would over time no doubt expand to tourism. As you know, the tourism industry is hurting badly in this province at the same time that government is reducing funding in this area. This, in combination with the added costs that have been associated with the changes in government regulation with regards to fire codes, would be an additional burden our industry can ill-afford.

"I urge you to speak out loudly that this additional cost to business at this time is ill advised. I think we are overregulated as it is and do not wish to see more.

"Kindest regards,

"Bill Barclay

"Beild House Country Inn and Spa

"Collingwood, Ontario."

Just the last one for this morning, and I hope many more, if this bill goes to committee on the next reading. This particular e-mail is from Elmvale. It says:

"Dear Honourable Jim Wilson:

"As local business owners in your constituency, I would like to draw attention to the proposed reforms brought by the Ministry of Labour relating to workplace insurance. Our specific concern related to mandatory coverage through WSIB as small business owners. This directly affects our ability to continue to operate our businesses as it would require us to pay an estimated $22,000 every year. We operate a successful new home construction business in your constituency, and we already are seeing a decline in business as a result of the economy.

We already fully report and submit premiums for all of our employees to ensure that they are fully covered. We feel this proposed mandated legislation unfairly punishes those of us who operate our business completely aboveboard, reporting and remitting all of our payroll, income and sales taxes, where those who continue to evade their taxes in our industry still won't contribute their share under this legislation. This legislation doesn't consider that we already cover ourselves with private insurance, with much better coverage and lower premiums than WSIB is offering.

We also don't believe we would benefit from any mandatory coverage under the current system as we most likely wouldn't qualify for payouts as employers. If this legislation truly was for the safety and insurance purposes, they should allow owners to show proof of private insurance. Please consider carefully these proposed changes that would require us to have mandatory WSIB coverage as owners.

"Thank you for your attention to this important matter;

"Kerry and Brent Langman

"Advantage Homes

"Elmvale, Ontario"

If this bill is going to hurt small business so much, as we see from the letters I've just read from small business operators, who on earth benefits from this legislation? Well, it's not small business. The only people to benefit are big business and big unions, as I've said. We all know who the big unions are in this province. They're the ones who make up the infamous Working Families Coalition.

For those who don't recall, the WFC, the Working Families Coalition, was formed in 2003 with the primary purpose of defeating the then-incumbent PC government. It's an Ontario non-share capital corporation with a stated purpose of running a multimedia election advertising campaign, including television advertising, using the catchphrase in 2003, "Not this time, Ernie." Then, in 2007, the coalition grew to include 10 unions and once again attacked the PC Party, and this time the NDP, using an aggressive advertising campaign with the catchphrase, "You decide." This group's activities are an unprecedented third party intervention into Ontario politics.

The point being, these are the unions that will benefit from this. The people who will pay the $11,000—and in one case, in my riding, as the e-mail said, $22,000, because there are two business owners who will have to pay the new premiums—don't get additional coverage; they get worse coverage than they do under private insurance. They'll be paying two insurances. They're not even sure, under this legislation, whether, as employers, they'll ever be able to claim under the insurance. The only ones who seem to be benefiting are those who opposed the PCs and the NDP—the PCs in the 2003 election and the PCs and the NDP.

The Working Families Coalition—a nice, catchy title for a bunch of people who hate the PCs and the NDP, and who seem to be more often than not receiving legislation and regulations, especially the journeymen-to-apprentice ratio that I keep bringing up and my colleagues keep bringing up on this side of the House that needs to be changed in order to create jobs and apprentice positions for young people in this province. They're the ones, the Working Families Coalition, that benefit from the status quo. They raised $5 million for the Liberals in 2007, and they are sure making sure that they're getting payback at this time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It's my pleasure to make a few remarks on the speech by the member from Simcoe—Grey. I have to say that, although I understand where the member comes from, I look at this situation, this bill, from an opposite perspective. From my perspective, this bill is about bringing new opportunities for workers who are not currently covered by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board or the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act into the fold.

I'll have an opportunity to make more detailed remarks a little later on, but it is unacceptable that workers in the province of Ontario are in a situation where they are not covered by the no-fault insurance system, if you want to call it that, because, in fact, that's what it is. It takes away the workers' need to prove that the employer was responsible for an injury that was sustained on the job.

What this bill simply does is to say that there is a group of workers who currently are not covered by that system, in fact a small group of workers who are not covered, when you consider that some 30% of workers in Ontario are not covered by WSIB. New Democrats believe that those workers have the right, like every other worker, to be covered by an insurance system that gives them the basic right to claim benefits and opportunities for rehabilitation and to have the opportunity to get back to work once they begin to recover from their injury.

All of these pieces are what are currently denied to some 90,000 workers that this bill specifically covers. There are probably another 200,000 workers outside of these workers, or maybe more, that are still not covered by the WSIB, and we need to get at that.

We believe this is the right thing to do for these workers. In fact, we believe this is the right thing to do for all workers. I look forward to putting some more remarks on the record very shortly.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I'm really pleased to have the opportunity to enter into this debate, and specifically make some comments in relation to what the member for Simcoe—Grey has said, and also the member for Hamilton Centre.

I certainly concur with the member for Hamilton Centre that this is an important step forward. The health and safety of Ontario workers is our number one priority, and clearly with this bill we are taking steps to promote health and safety in the Ontario construction industry by proposing to extend coverage of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act of 1997 to individuals working in construction in categories currently not covered. So this is an important step forward.

It also levels the playing field. It puts those employers who play by the rules at a competitive disadvantage if employers that are not insuring coverage are also bidding for work in their community. So it's the right time to act, to help protect legitimate construction employers from unfair competition from the underground economy. Of course, we know that the WSIB is in fact losing significant revenue through the underground economy.

We also have considerable time to ensure that we get the proposed amendments right in terms of the fact that this act will not come into effect until the year 2012. So there will be a three-year period to allow time for the WSIB to discuss implementation with the important stakeholders.

The member for Simcoe—Grey has of course pointed out that home renovations are exempt, and we think that this is also a very balanced approach to this issue.

Therefore, I'm going to be supporting this particular bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mr. Toby Barrett: This new WSIB policy is a terrible policy. This bill has to be killed before it kills small business.

Just to follow up on the comments from Jim Wilson, the member for Simcoe—Grey, and the comments by our critic, Bob Bailey, the member for Sarnia—Lambton: We know that Ontario is now a have-not province and we're in the middle of an economic crisis. We have no business bringing in a job-killing policy right now, when small business needs all the help it can get.

The member for Simcoe—Grey read into the record a number of e-mails. I've received e-mails as well. This is from some greenhouse operators down Jarvis way who've written to me: "[T]he Liberal government is yet again at its little games to bankrupt this province by trying to take more from the small business.

"You must on our behalf"—referring to me—"insist that this legislation concerning WSIB ... must be put through due process with the people of this province. It seems that this notorious Liberal government has no regard for the very people who keep this province moving at the moment."

I received an e-mail from a large manufacturer up Princeton and Burford way:

"This is a terribly flawed piece of legislation. Small business owners all over the country, but in Ontario in particular, are being hammered by all kinds of additional expense, and we absolutely cannot afford to be mandated another cost such as this.... There must be hearings held to bring some common sense to the process."

I received an e-mail from a chartered accountant who represents a number of people in the construction industry—and I'm talking about small construction. It would be a fellow, his brother-in-law, they would have a labourer perhaps, who are doing roofing and interior doors. Perhaps the WSIB would be better off to ensure the validity of his current claims and benefit payouts.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): We have time for one last question and comment.

Mr. John O'Toole: The member from Simcoe—Grey has always paid very close attention to his constituents and to his riding and the area that he represents. I know in the recreation field and the quality-of-life homes that are being built there, he knows of the small business that will be threatened by this unnecessary tax on jobs.

In fact, if you want to look at the thrust of the bill, the sentiment of making sure that every employee is covered by some sort of insurance in the tragic event that they could have a workplace accident is something where we're proud of our record on that file. But this is small independent operators who do much of the work—and many of them are skilled tradespeople and have coverage of their own—who now are going to be mandated.

This mandate is going to override any other requirement, and the certificates that are necessary to have are clearly the Liberal solution to job creation, but in fact it's job destruction. Because the more red tape you introduce and the more tax burden you introduce for small people—and the member for Simcoe—Grey mentioned it—the more you drive much of the economy underground. That's exactly what we don't want.

If you look at the evidence in the economy today, many of their policies and strategies—and it's not just the health tax that we like to talk about often; it's the over-burdensome regulation and the bureaucratic implementation of these things, a lack of consultation. And yet they like to claim that they consult with people. But clearly, I am on the side of the member for Simcoe—Grey, and the opposition's position is, let's make sure that the people that are required to pay, pay, but let's not start putting more tax—$11,000 on small business is going to kill that business.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): I will return to the member for Simcoe—Grey, who has two minutes to reply.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I agree with what my colleague Mr. O'Toole has just said in terms of, why at this time? Why even worry small business at this time, and medium-sized business, if you are not going to enact it, as the member for Oak Ridges—Markham reminded us, until 2012? This is not the time to be adding additional stress to the people that make up over 80% of the jobs in the province of Ontario—the mom-and-pop shops on our Main Streets with less than 10 employees. That's who you are making pay here. Most of them already have insurance coverage.

My father ran a tavern along with his father, Bill Wilson, and a small grocery store and gas station in Loretto, Ontario, in the south end of my riding. Prior to that, my father owned Jack Wilson Appliances in Barrie, Newmarket and Alliston. He was the owner and he wouldn't qualify for a payout from WSIB, or WCB as it was called back then—even though you are now going to make him pay premiums—if he were still alive and in business. That's disgraceful.

First of all, he'd freak out. He always sort of wondered why I was in government anyway after he went through about his 10th provincial sales tax audit and they always owed him money; he used to hate that. But at the end of the day this overburdened, overregulated—why worry them at this time? If anything, make it optional. If it's such a good thing for them, as the nanny state people around me seem to believe, then make it optional.

If the WCB insurance for owners for getting a paper cut is better than what they can get on the private market and gives them the 24/7 coverage they can get on the private market at lower premiums right now, 365-day-a-year coverage, not just when they're at work—if your insurance product is better, give them an option in this legislation rather than mandating it. Obviously, it isn't better. It's Big Brother, it's nanny state, and so you have to make it mandatory and shove it down their throats.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Pursuant to standing order 47(c), there having been six and a half hours of debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 119, this debate stands adjourned.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to order 8(

d) there is no further business this morning.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): As such, this House is in recess until 10:30 am.

The House recessed from 0936 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I would like to welcome Robert Wood to the House this morning. He is the chief financial officer for Trojan Technologies, a London-based company that is receiving the Ontario Chamber of Commerce Large Business Award tonight. Welcome, Mr. Wood.

Mr. Paul Miller: I'd like to introduce, in the west gallery, grandparents raising grandkids: Bernadette Eaton, Sandra Schoenfeldt, Tina Bachand, Donna Bush and Betty Cornelius. These are just some of the many grandmothers who will be joining us later today.

Hon. John Milloy: I know all members would like to join me in welcoming representatives of Skills Canada-Ontario to Queen's Park today, and the seven Ontario students who will represent Canada at the WorldSkills Competition to be held in Calgary. Students with us today are Scott Blair, Stacey Dubois, Andrew Marcolin, Jamie Feenstra, Jud Tofflemire, Brian Martin and Dan Van Holst. They're also joined by representatives of Skills Canada-Ontario, Gail Smyth, Linda Barton and Gary Cronkwright, and I wish to invite all members of the assembly to a special reception at Stop 33 at Sutton Place from 3 to 5 today, to wish our Ontario competitors the best of luck.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I'd like to introduce Rosemary Frei. She's the aunt of our page Willem.

Hon. Gerry Phillips: I'd like to introduce the mother and the brother of a page from my area: Julie Shen, who's the mother, and her talented young brother Philip.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the member from Simcoe—Grey and page Emily Heffernan, we'd like to welcome her mom, Carol, and her father, Craig; her friend Wendy Kellam, her friend Jack Kellam and friend Sasha Kellam. They are in the east gallery. Welcome to Queen's Park today.

As well, on behalf of the member from Bramalea—Gore—Malton and page Shaukat Khan, we would like to welcome teacher Priya Parekh, principal Dawn Addison and teacher Mrs. Eckle. The teachers and the principal are from Morning Star Middle School and will be in the public gallery today during question period. We welcome those guests as well.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is to the Minister of Finance, and it's regarding yesterday's historic announcement that for the first time in Ontario's history we are now recipients of financial support from other provinces, through equalization. In essence, in five short years, your government has taken the engine of Canada's economy to the back of the train; we're now the caboose.

Minister, do you and your colleagues accept any degree of responsibility for the embarrassing position this province is now in: asking Newfoundland for financial help?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The state of Ontario's economy has been challenged over a number of years. We have an equalization formula that basically recognizes those who have oil versus those who don't. Over a number of years we have constantly talked about the flaws in that formula. Those flaws have been pointed out by a number of analysts. We recognize the importance of investments in fairness and working together with other governments to ensure that what continues to be the engine of the Canadian economy, Ontario, continues to be strong.

We will continue to make the investments that we have made to work through these challenging times, and we look forward to working with all levels of government to ensure that we do get through these challenging times in a stronger and better fashion than we went in.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Newfoundland's Premier said he doesn't mind helping out his poor cousins in Ontario. While we appreciate the sentiment, it's hard to swallow the concept of being Newfoundland's poor cousin. That's the place you've taken us to.

You've increased program spending by nearly 50%, you've consistently spent way beyond what you've budgeted, you have the highest tax burden on investment in Canada, your effective tax rate on capital is higher than the worldwide average, and on and on. Minister, why can you not recognize, let alone acknowledge, that your policies have contributed to putting our province in this embarrassing position?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: As the headquarters to most Canadian companies, as the largest exporter in the country, as the largest growing labour force in the country, as a whole range of other factors point out, equalization doesn't reflect, in our view, the totality of the great strengths of this province. I don't think any provinces, given the circumstances that the country and the world find themselves in, should be gloating over an equation that essentially reflects resources, oil and natural gas specifically—an equation that is, in our view, fundamentally flawed.

We will continue to make the investments; we will continue to invest in our strengths to ensure that Ontario comes out of the current global challenges stronger and better than it went in.

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: The minister still has the blinders on. You and I, Speaker, know that Ontarians are a proud people. The largest province in Canada, we're used to being breadwinners in Confederation, always there to help others, not welfare recipients or whiners.

Minister, your government, during the past five years, has made deliberate choices that placed Ontario in this position, or certainly contributed to placing Ontario in this position.

Minister, instead of negotiating the amount of the welfare cheque, when will you accept responsibility and do what's necessary to put Ontario back on the road to prosperity?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I remind the Leader of the Opposition that we'll be paying ourselves. Ontario's net contribution to the federation is $20 billion. We need a recognition on a range of issues, and hopefully the member opposite and our new 106 federal members will stand up for Ontario in terms of a fair health care transfer, equal per-capita funding, which the federal government has acknowledged is below the rest of the country. Hopefully, they will stand up and speak about the flaws in an equalization system that has yielded the kinds of results it has over the years.

There's no doubt that there are enormous challenges in the Ontario and Canadian economies. We will continue to build the vital public services that will see us through this. We will continue to invest in the Next Generation of Jobs Fund. We will continue to train our workforce to respond—

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

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: That it's our money is surprising and disturbing. Ontarians have always been Canadians first.

Back to the Minister of Finance: What we saw yesterday from the finance minister was a disheartening sight for Ontarians—a complete lack of leadership and abject surrender. Leadership is not about admitting defeat and looking around for the consolation prize; leadership is about refusing to admit defeat, coming up with a plan to win the race and showing resolve to get there.

Minister, where is your plan to get Ontario back on top? Where is your plan to get Ontario back to its rightful place in Confederation?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We've laid out a plan that invests in infrastructure. We've laid out a plan that invests in skilled trades. We've laid out a plan that invests in innovation. And we've laid out a plan that continues to make Ontario's tax base more competitive.

There is much more to do. There is an industrial and manufacturing sector that is threatened throughout North America. This government is responding. We will continue to respond to build on our initiatives to date. There are challenges in Ontario's economy and in the global economy, more importantly, that impact on Ontario. Our government has had a plan. That plan works. We'll adjust it as times adjust, and Ontarians will be better, stronger and prouder Canadians when we come through this, stronger than when we went in.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: The message seems to be, "Deny, deny, deny the reality." You can't win the race running in the wrong direction. That's the reality. Having the highest taxes in North America on investment is going in the wrong direction. Having the highest apprenticeship ratios in Canada is going in the wrong direction. Having a jobs plan that no one qualifies for is going in the wrong direction. Bringing in a new tax on small business during an economic slowdown is going in the wrong direction. Minister, when is your government going to admit that you've made some mistakes? Take some responsibility. Do things that you can do to get Ontario back in the race.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: First of all, to suggest that Ontario has the highest corporate taxes is fiction. It's just not accurate. Number two, we moved last March to raise the small business threshold to the highest level to allow more small businesses than anywhere else in Canada to qualify for the lower tax rate, and what did that member and his party do? They voted against it. This is a complicated and challenging world environment. Ontario is caught, as are other Canadian provinces, and that will become more evident, as time goes on, in a very difficult circumstance.

The plan we've laid out is the right one. We invested, last year, $9.9 billion in infrastructure. That's employing people. That's getting liquidity into the hands of the corporations that employ those people and it builds our productivity.

These are challenging times. The plan we've laid out is the right plan. We'll continue to work on it. We'll need a federal partner to make that a complete plan.

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Repeating that tired refrain is like the hare scratching his head, wondering how the tortoise crossed the finish line ahead of him. That's the reality in this situation. A winning plan means a job creation strategy that actually brings investments and jobs back to Ontario. You haven't done that. A winning plan means refusing to tax small construction companies when they can least afford it. These are just a few examples of the many things this government could be doing to put Ontario back on top. Why are you not doing it?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I'll remind the remember that in spite of the global economic challenges, Ontario has created more than 100,000 net new jobs this year. That speaks to the real strength in our economy, which the member wants to talk down. It speaks to the diversified nature of our economy. It speaks to the new industries that are springing up in new sectors. It speaks to the investments we've made to keep existing industries competitive in spite of the enormous challenges in the world today. There is no doubt that there are challenges.

The plan we've laid out involves more than $3 billion in corporate tax cuts, every single dollar of which that member and his party voted against. Those were the specific cuts we were asked to do first.

There are huge challenges in the world economy. I expect that those challenges will become more difficult in the days and weeks ahead. We will continue to implement our plan and we will continue to address the new challenges—

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

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is for the Acting Premier. Last week, the Automotive Parts Manufacturers Association released an open letter stating that unless governments come up with $1 billion in short-term loan financing, thousands of auto sector jobs will be lost in Ontario. Today we learned that October auto sales in the United States dropped by a further 35% year over year, putting more auto sector jobs at risk in Ontario. The McGuinty government had an opportunity to respond to this in its economic statement, but there was no response, simply a "You're on your own" attitude.

My question is this: Why does the McGuinty government continue to refuse to provide short-term loan financing to Ontario's auto parts sector when you know that your refusal will put thousands of Ontario workers on the unemployment line?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Deputy Premier.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Michael Bryant: the letter that the member refers to is to the federal government and the provincial government. Today, there was a letter from the Canadian Manufacturing Coalition to the Prime Minister.

There's no question that the industry is looking for government partnerships where it's appropriate. I think the member would agree with me that taxpayer dollars are not the bank of last resort, but rather, we establish a program that invests in innovation. We are doing that. We are doing that through the advanced manufacturing program, one that has been in existence for some time now. It has been successful, it has leveraged more investments in those companies and it's created more jobs. But to the member's point: We will continue to work very closely with all members of the industry, whom I meet with on a regular basis, to do everything that is appropriate for the government.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: Once again, the McGuinty government continues to talk about same old, same old. The auto parts sector is not asking for an innovation strategy. They're very clear. What they require is short-term loan financing because people cannot get credit; the small manufacturers cannot get credit to carry on their operations. Instead, we get more of "You're on your own, you're on your own." This is the problem. This is going to kill more jobs.

The specific question again: Instead of talking about an innovation fund, instead of talking about something you announced three years ago, when is the McGuinty government going to provide some short-term loan financing? Or are you going to put in place a situation which results in the loss of thousands more jobs in the auto parts sector?

Hon. James J. Bradley: A month ago, Howie was against it.

Hon. Michael Bryant: It's true. One day, the leader of the New Democrat Party and other members of his caucus are against the loan program, and then the next day—now—they are suggesting that there be an open loan program with no criteria. I don't agree. The member says that the industry, in fact, is not interested in innovation. You're wrong, sir. The industry is interested in innovation because there is certainly the knowledge that driving the capacity from innovation into the businesses' core business is the way in which businesses are going to get through this challenging time. The government is there to partner with them where the criteria is met and where it's in the public interest.

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: Once again, the McGuinty government wants to talk about everything other than the issue, and the issue is short-term credit. The issue is short-term financing so that manufacturers can continue to stay in business. The open letter from the Canadian manufacturers and exporters' association underlines the same theme: The letter urges governments to guarantee loans and lines of credit so that otherwise credit-worthy businesses facing the prospect of a sharp economic downturn and a sharp downturn in demand can survive.

I ask again: When is the McGuinty government going to stop talking about what it announced four years ago, which hasn't succeeded, or what it announced three years ago, which hasn't succeeded? When are you going to come to grips with the point? There are lots of manufacturers who need short-term loan financing; otherwise, they're going to go out of business and we're going to lose thousands of jobs. When are you going to respond to that issue?

Hon. Michael Bryant: Again, the member is late in the game. The government has been responding to this issue. It has a repayable loan program for up to 30% of the total eligible costs of the project, to a maximum of $10 million. These loans are interest-free for five years, provided the company meets agreed-upon job and investment targets. It is there and it has been there. It didn't arrive today, when the member received a letter from the Canadian Manufacturing Coalition.

By the way, the letter is to the Prime Minister of Canada. The letter is not addressed to the Premier of Ontario or copied to the Premier of Ontario or to the Minister of Finance, and it is because the manufacturing industry understands well that this government has already been in the process of assisting and enabling innovation within the industry through its loan program and through the Next Generation of Jobs Fund. We will continue to do that and we look forward to seeing what the members—

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

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Howard Hampton: Again: to the Acting Premier. I guess we have the answer from the McGuinty government. At a time when the auto parts sector needs short-term loan financing, the McGuinty government once again says, "You're on your own."

But I want to ask about some of the other things that have been happening. New Democrats proposed, some time ago, a Buy Ontario strategy, which would mean that subway cars, streetcars and buses that are used by municipalities in Ontario continue to be manufactured in Ontario. The McGuinty Liberals have said that you're not interested in a Buy Ontario strategy, at least not one that's effective. Now that a recession is truly here and thousands more manufacturing jobs are truly at risk, would you reconsider the issue of an effective Buy Ontario strategy, or are those manufacturing jobs on their own as well, according to the McGuinty government?

Hon. George Smitherman: I would think that on the matter of the honourable member's encouragement of transportation projects, he might acknowledge that the first thing you need to do is support them in the first place. This is the honourable member who opposed the extension of the subway to York University and beyond, to York region, referring to York region's one million people as sparsely populated.

The Premier, on this point, has been very clear to say that as we move forward with the investments through the Ministry of Transportation, at least 82% of all those projects will enjoy domestic content. This is a strong recognition that as we invest in infrastructure, we invest in the opportunity in local communities to deliver these projects, and that certainly holds true for transportation-related projects.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: Once again, the McGuinty government misses the boat. In the United States, if there is one penny of government money in a purchase of streetcars, subway cars, buses, then 50% of the manufacturing of those transit vehicles has to be done in the United States. It sustains jobs. But the McGuinty government doesn't get it.

The other issue is this: We have proposed, over and over again, a refundable manufacturing investment tax credit. Just last week, the Minister of Finance said it wouldn't be a bad idea. What I want to know is this: When are we going to see a refundable manufacturing investment tax credit in Ontario to help sustain jobs, or is that another good idea that the McGuinty government isn't going to implement?

Hon. George Smitherman: Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The member is correct that that type of tax credit does have some benefit. I'll again remind the member what we decided to do. The reason we didn't do that in the last budget or in the last fall statement is the timing of the cash flow to the manufacturers—they still wouldn't have money, even if we did it in March. It's acknowledged through the Canada Revenue Agency and those—what we chose to do instead was eliminate retroactively the capital tax, which put money into the hands of manufacturers this past July.

The choice we made by making that investment, which was more than $300 million and yielded, by the way, more money than his idea would have, was to get money into the pockets of our manufacturers when they needed it.

While that idea has merit and was promoted by a number of people, we felt ours was the better plan under the circumstances.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: What the McGuinty government neglects to mention is that the people who got most of the money from the reduction in the capital tax are banks, insurance companies and oil companies—the very outfits that need it the least.

What the McGuinty government refuses to recognize is that provinces like Manitoba that saw the loss of manufacturing jobs coming implemented a refundable manufacturing investment tax credit five years ago so that companies and workers have been able to benefit from it over five years.

Once again, the McGuinty government continues to talk about what it did yesterday and misses the boat on what should have been done and still should be done. When are you going to provide the short-term loan financing so we don't lose more auto parts manufacturing jobs? When are you going to bring in a refundable manufacturing investment tax credit so, once again, we don't lose more manufacturing jobs? When are we going to see an effective Buy Ontario strategy so, once again, we don't—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Again, when one analyzes what the leader is proposing, it doesn't, first of all, acknowledge what we've already done. Number two, in terms of the manufacturers' credit, I explained to him—and I'll explain it again—that the vast majority of that money went directly to manufacturers at a time they needed the cash flow.

Sir, there are enormous challenges in the economy. We have been dealing with the automotive parts folks. We need a federal partner on the automotive and automotive parts sector. One need look no further than Washington to see what is going on down south.

We will continue, as the Minister of Economic Development has said, to implement policies that are real, effective and help manufacturers today, not just talk about ideas that may or may not work. That has been the plan. It will continue to be the plan, and we will continue to work through these challenging times with all sectors in the Ontario economy.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question to the Minister of Finance: Ontario families are still shocked that for the first time in history Ontario is receiving equalization payments and that your failed tax-and-spend policies have put Ontario on the equivalent of the welfare rolls of Confederation. What's even more shocking is there seems to be no shock on that side of the floor. There seems to be no regret. There has been no call to arms by you or the Premier to say that we're going to grow ourselves out of a have-not province. There has been no statement that come hell or high water will you allow Ontario to stay a have-not province.

Minister, when will you and the Premier call together all of your ministers to say, what are we going to do to turn this around to grow our province and to make sure we're not an equalization province anymore?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The seriousness of the challenges in the world economy today, particularly as they relate to the United States as our major trading partner, are enormously challenging. We have laid out a plan that we believe is the right plan. I don't agree with you that giving corporations tax cuts is going to cure this. In fact, Mr. Courchene, the Queen's economist, said today with respect to equalization, "The essential point is that if you have a sizable amount of energy royalties entering the equalization formula ... at a sufficiently high energy price, no formula is going to prevent Ontario from" achieving this.

These are enormously challenging times. They require full partnership with a federal government that has been absent—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: This is what is particularly shocking: that the minister just seems to pocket the equalization handouts, that we're now a have-not province, and then says, "We're going to stay the course." Minister, I don't think you appreciate this. For the first time in the history of this great country of Canada, our tremendously strong province is now receiving equalization payments from other provinces, handouts to the province of Ontario for the first time in history. Where's the regret? Where's the sorrow? Where is a plan to turn our province around? Where is the call to arms to say that we will not allow Ontario to remain a have-not province?

Minister, you increased taxes through the roof, you outspent in such a way it would make Bob Rae blush, and you've chased talented Ontarians out of this province. Where is a new plan? When are you going to turn things around? When will you pull Ontario out of have-not status?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We will be paying ourselves equalization this year. I guess the more important issue is, when will the opposition come to terms with the reality in the world economy? When will the opposition put aside the histrionics and the yelling related to an equation that basically recognizes who has oil and who doesn't? When will the opposition recognize what their leaders and they said when they were in government with respect to equalization?

Sir, the challenges in our economy go well beyond equalization. The amount of money we're paying ourselves has nothing to do with all of the great strengths that still exist in this economy. What we need is help with the automotive sector. What we need is a federal government that's fully engaged. We have laid out a plan that will get Ontario—

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

CHILD CARE

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister has repeatedly said there was no change to temporary care assistance eligibility rules until last week when she admitted that there was a redefinition, making "temporary" mean "short-term," which changes the eligibility rules by any

interpretation. In a response to the minister's recent letters to the editor, one grandmother, Bernadette, wrote, "The temporary care system has never been short-term." This grandmother has been receiving TCA for 12 years. She's in the gallery, along with Betty, who has been receiving it for 11 years, and Sandra, who has been receiving it for 10 years.

Will this minister commit to these grandmothers that she will reverse her definition of "temporary" and reinstate TCA to all grandchildren now?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: First of all, let me take a moment to personally thank the grandmothers who are here, all of those in Ontario who are taking care of their grandchildren and also all of those adults who are taking care of their children.

What the member is saying is not true. The definition has not been changed. It was always "temporary care assistance," so it's temporary. This short-term program is designed to provide stability for families while child custody status is determined. These situations are different in different families. We left a lot of flexibility to the administrator of the program because—

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

Mr. Paul Miller: If a caregiver is related to a child, such as these grandparents in the gallery today, their only means of financial assistance is $231 a month through the temporary care assistance program. However, if these grandmothers were not related to the children, they would qualify as foster parents and receive $900 per month.

Taking the minister's lead, her own caucus believes that there are other programs for which the grandparents are eligible. Other than welfare, for which they don't qualify, and the Ontario child benefit, which gives them a whopping $50 a month, can the minister enlighten her own caucus and this House on what Ontario programs are available to these grandparents who are in the gallery today?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Again, this program is a temporary program, and the grandparents or any adults taking care of a child have other programs that are available to them, like the Ontario child benefit, for instance, and the national child tax benefit. So all these benefits are available to adults or grandparents who are taking care of their children.

What the member is talking about is the program under the CAS, and with the program under the CAS, there's no decision by the minister who will qualify. It's a decision from the court. It's offered to the grandparents also, but it's a decision from the court, not from the minister. This temporary care assistance is temporary.

AMATEUR SPORT

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My question is to the Minister of Health Promotion. As a member from our nation's capital, it is of great concern to my constituents in Ottawa Centre when an athlete's career is impeded by lack of funding from governments. I'm referring to an Ottawa Citizen

article from the summer about a badminton player by the name of Mike Beres, whose funding was terminated by the federal government. "He lost his federal funding of $1,500 per month through Canada's athlete assistance program." According to the article, "coincidentally, 2007 was his best season in 13 years on the national team."

Minister, how is the McGuinty government supporting athletes like Mike Beres and the other individuals from my riding and across Ontario who need support from the community and all levels of government to achieve their full potential?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Today I am privileged to rise in this House, particularly on this historical day, a day on which the first person of colour, Barack Obama, is poised to become President of the United States of America.

I want to thank the member from Ottawa for his question. Our government recognizes the sacrifices that Ontario athletes make. High-performance athletes are role models that inspire all Ontarians to live healthy, active lives. I'm happy to say that the athlete mentioned received funding in the amount of $7,200 through our government's Quest for Gold program. In 2006, when we launched the program, it was the first time that high-performance athletes received direct financial support from the provincial government in 20 years.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you, Minister. I'm glad to hear the individual from Ottawa did receive significant funding through the McGuinty government. I know this funding will play a very supportive role in Mike Beres' career and the careers of all recipients in the Quest for Gold program. But, Minister, again and again I hear from organizations in my riding about the lack of sport infrastructure in and across the province. I hear of stories about athletes training in other provinces because Ontario does not have the proper sport infrastructure.

I am also aware that Ontario is working hard to bring the Pan American Games to Ontario in 2015. Sadly, Ontario has not hosted a multi-sport international event since the Commonwealth Games in 1930 in Hamilton. That was 78 years ago.

Minister, what investments has the McGuinty government made in sport infrastructure and to what extent will the 2015 Pan Am Games assist in the building of sport infrastructure in Ontario?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I could not agree more with the member from Ottawa. Indeed, athletes do need outstanding facilities to train in. After many years of underfunding under the government opposite, we are making strides to establish training facilities.

Earlier this year, I made an important announcement about a partnership between our government and the University of Toronto. This $2-million funding will provide high-performance athletes across the country with access to new, state-of-the-art facilities and sports medicine services at the University of Toronto's Varsity Centre. And, yes, we do know that we need more. That is why we have launched our bid for the 2015 Pan American Games. If we are successful in our quest for the games, we will have an increased opportunity for more sport infrastructure in this province. The games will leave a long-lasting legacy of sport—

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

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, to the Minister of Finance. The McGuinty government has presided over the decline of Ontario's manufacturing sector for a number of years now to the point where it's in crisis. While the government can't control global events, the government can control its fiscal policies.

In February of this year, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce wrote to the minister with a warning and a very specific request. On behalf of 57,000 businesses from all sectors of the economy, the chamber asked the McGuinty government to implement a made-in-Ontario policy that would require the use of domestic-based suppliers for public expenditures on infrastructure projects.

Quebec implemented a policy that adopted a 60% Canadian-content threshold for provincially funded transit projects. This government responded with a 25% content.

I would like to ask the minister this: Would the minister explain why Ontario manufacturers don't deserve the same—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. George Smitherman: I do want to thank the honourable member, and I agree that—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Renfrew.

Hon. George Smitherman: —there are opportunities for us to look at the profile of government expenditures and to seek the best opportunities to influence, that they have the strongest impact in the economy of Ontario. In fact, in a meeting yesterday with Hydro One I had this very same conversation.

On the matter of transportation, which the member raised specifically, I do think it's important to note that when you combine all the costs for transportation, including engineering, site preparation and the acquisition of rail cars or one form of car or another, you're looking at more than 80% Ontario domestic content in those transportation projects. I think that's a very high standard, and we should seek across the breadth of other investments—look for opportunities to improve on that even further.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: Len Crispino, the president and CEO of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, could not have said it more clearly, and I quote from his letter to the minister: "Hundreds of millions of dollars that should be creating jobs and economic benefits for domestic manufacturers and suppliers are instead exiting Canada (and Ontario) to create jobs and economic benefits in foreign countries." That is not because of global economic factors, it's because of the policy of this government. It has failed to do what other jurisdictions have done.

Quebec, as I said earlier, adopted a 60% Canadian content. All G7 nations plus China, where the Premier is today, have implemented policies that set mandatory domestic content. The United States imposes strict regulations for all local content.

I would ask the minister this: Why is the McGuinty government not willing to use its regulatory authority to level the playing field for Ontario's—

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

Hon. George Smitherman: With frankness, the honourable member loses some sight of the fact that the province of Ontario is one of the most export-oriented jurisdictions in the world.

He said "a level playing field" at the conclusion of his question, but it actually sounded more like, "Let's look for policies that tilt the playing field in a particular area." There are opportunities to do that. We should pursue those.

As I mentioned earlier to the honourable member, I gave a specific example where I've had that conversation of late. But we should keep in mind that an extraordinary amount of employment in the province of Ontario is for people in some of these very same sectors that are manufacturing products here in Ontario that are being distributed to other jurisdictions. We should seek to ensure that we move forward in a way that recognizes that we also depend upon ongoing access to foreign markets.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My question is to the Minister of Education.

Last month, at Metcalfe Central Public School, near Strathroy, 90% of parents kept their children home for one day to protest the closing of their school. Adelaide Metcalfe Mayor John Milligan says, "The ... committee was a process we went through that didn't mean a whole lot. It was supposed to be a community consultation but the results were determined beforehand and that never changed despite the recommendations that were made."

Closing and selling schools to sustain this government's broken funding formula is short-sighted. When will this minister and this government start respecting the wishes of parents and stop closing schools until the promised review of the funding formula in 2010?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the member opposite realizes, because he is very well informed on education issues, that in this province there are 90,000 fewer students in our system now than there were in 2003. I know he knows that fact.

I know he also knows that school boards at the local level need to be able to make decisions that are in the best interests of their whole boards. They need to look at the whole student body. They need to be able to deliver programs according to the students' needs, and that sometimes does mean they have to go through a process, and schools do close.

We have put guidelines in place. School boards are in the process, and have always been in the process, of consulting with their communities since we have been in office to make the determinations that are in the best interests of program delivery for their students.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: If the minister isn't going to listen to parents on the accommodation and review committees, there is no point in having them.

Parents at Norwich District High School, école Madeleine-de-Roybon in Kingston, parents from Brantwood, Linbrook, Chisholm and New Central schools in Oakville know that accommodation review committees are a sham. School boards are doing the government's dirty work, selling schools to make up for inadequate funding.

You can't blame declining enrolment for your lack of foresight. Why won't the minister declare a moratorium on school closures until her own working group on declining enrolment has issued a report?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I look forward to the recommendations of the declining enrolment work group.

We have done a number of things since we've been in office to protect school boards against having to close schools. So we've put into the funding formula a school foundation grant that moved a billion dollars out of the per pupil amount into a school foundation amount that guarantees a principal and a secretary for every school.

The reality is that we did freeze school closures, put a moratorium on school closures, for two years. Boards said to us, "We need to get on with the business of rationalizing our systems." Because of declining enrolment, they needed to be able to deliver programs, so we've put the guidelines in place.

I know the member opposite understands that it would be irresponsible of us to tie the hands of local school boards. The consultations that happen do influence the decisions of boards, and it's also true that when a school has to close or schools are consolidated—

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

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: My question is for the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure. Minister, you have been clear that as part of the IPSP, the government is planning to keep the nuclear capacity in Ontario at approximately 14,000 megawatts. This capacity includes the two new units that are in planning to be built at Darlington, in Durham region.

You'll know that citizens in my riding and neighbouring communities are supportive of a new nuclear facility at Darlington. The existing facility has provided many Ontarians with highly skilled and good-paying jobs. The new nuclear units that are in planning to be built will also help provide more jobs in the community, a welcome move after some troubling news that we have received lately. Can you tell me whether you are still planning to announce the winning bidder by March 2009?

Hon. George Smitherman: I do want to thank the honourable member and note the support of the good people in Durham region with respect to being good, strong, willing hosts for nuclear power.

No. At present, we anticipate that at March 31, 2009, we'll be reviewing the proposals that have come in from the various proponents and moving towards announcement of a preferred vendor later in the spring. We're giving the proponents a short extension beyond December 31, recognizing the volatility of the times and also that we have asked them for some additional information.

This large project is complex, it's very important to Ontario's long-term economic interests, and we're offering just a little bit more time because we've asked for additional information—recognizing the circumstances—and driving forward to achieve a result that is the very best result for all of the ratepayers in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: Minister, you are correct. This certainly is a very complex and important infrastructure project for Ontario, and I understand the need to get it right, especially given the continued volatility in the global markets. I'm sure my constituents will be pleased to hear that you're still as determined as ever to make sure this plan is a success.

Bruce Power has also made an announcement about going forward with an environmental assessment, with plans to build a new facility at Nanticoke. What does this mean for your plans to keep nuclear at or around the same level that it is today, and what does it mean for the future of the coal facility at Nanticoke?

Hon. George Smitherman: Firstly, we must recognize that Bruce Power is an inordinately powerful, important and good, strong player in the Ontario energy sector. We note, of course, that they've taken an interest in trying to expand the horizons of nuclear opportunities to other parts of the province.

Our plans remain very, very firm: 14,000 megawatts of installed nuclear, representing just about half of all the power that we use in the province in any given year. Nanticoke is not part of those plans, but a company can take on these initiatives on their own resolve.

With respect to the coal plant at Nanticoke, we're not going to be using coal in the province of Ontario beyond 2014, but I've been working very closely with Ontario Power Generation to encourage all prospects and working, as well, with the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Natural Resources to see what opportunities there are for biomass, for waste agricultural or forestry products that might allow some of the investment in these existing coal-fired plants to be—

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

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr. Robert Bailey: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Minister, Bill 119, your bill that would impose punishing new taxes on small business—in fact $11,000 estimates by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business—was introduced one week ago today. This morning, the deputy government House leader effectively shut down debate on second reading of this bill, even though more opposition members wanted to speak to it. Why are you afraid of a debate on this bill, Minister? Why will you not allow a full debate on this bill?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: The McGuinty government is making historic investments in infrastructure, investments in our schools, in hospitals, in roads, in making sure that we have strongly built communities.

Now, who does that work? Our hard-working construction workers, and we want to make sure that their health and safety are taken into account, that we protect them. Now, that member may feel that he doesn't want those protections in place, that we shouldn't have benefits for those construction workers. We feel differently. We feel that the construction industry is a high-risk industry. Many people do get injured every year in construction. We want to make sure that if they do get injured, they're protected, they have benefits—

Interjection.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Withdraw.

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

Mr. Robert Bailey: Seeing as the minister doesn't want to hear any more opposition to second reading, I assume he is going to severely limit the ability of small business owners to voice their opposition to this bill at the committee stage.

Minister, what are your specific plans for the coming time allocation motion? Will you allow this bill to go to committee, travel the province to hear from the people who will be affected by this bill, or will you continue to silence the Ontarians who are afraid of this punishing new tax on small business?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Our number one priority is the health and safety of Ontario workers and our construction workers. A principle that we also live by is fairness, and what this proposed legislation will do is to even the playing field. I want to tell the member again, from his neck of the woods, Sarnia, here is what Doug Chalmers had to say: "Congratulations. Absolutely brilliant. This will make Ontario a safer workplace and improve the quality of life for all of us." We're working with all businesses. Doug Chalmers gets it. I hope that the member would understand the importance of this legislation.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The latest information we have shows that only 12% of housing units built through the affordable housing program rent for $500 a month or less. That means that affordable housing isn't actually affordable for those living on minimum wage, Ontario Works or ODSP.

Can the minister tell this House exactly how many of his so-called affordable housing units rent for $500 a month or less?

Hon. Jim Watson: I am particularly pleased with the work that we've done in implementing the affordable housing program agreement that we signed with the previous federal government: 6,301 units have been built; 2,063 are under construction; 3,650 are awaiting planning approval at the municipal level; and 8,737 are with local service managers in the preplanning stage. We've also got enormous take-up on the ROOF program, rental opportunities for Ontario families, which provides $1,200 in rent supplements. To date, with other rent supplement programs, over 35,000 residents of Ontario are receiving rent supplements thanks to the McGuinty government.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I didn't actually hear an answer to the question. The question was, how many of those units rent for $500 or less? The minister is quick to list off numbers, but the question is whether low-income Ontarians can actually afford his so-called affordable housing. Most of the units under the affordable housing program cost more—way more—than $700 per month. That's over half of a minimum-wage earner's income. It's more than somebody on OW actually makes in a month.

Rather than just spouting off numbers from his briefing book, why won't the minister admit that his affordable housing program isn't actually affordable?

Hon. Jim Watson: Once again, the NDP are on the wrong side of this issue. Let's look at one of the most important aspects of renting in this province, and that is the annual rental increase allowed by the province of Ontario. When the New Democrats were in power, their average increase under their last three years was 4.82%. Under the McGuinty government, it is 2.05%. Secondly, when we brought forward a very progressive, balanced residential tenancies agreement, who voted against it? Who turned their backs on tenants? The New Democrats did. Finally, the rent bank has helped 15,500 individuals so far.

When we brought the rent bank program forward, who voted against the rent bank helping some of the most vulnerable people in our community? The New Democrats. Shame on your—

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

WORKPLACE SAFETY

Mr. Bill Mauro: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Minister, of late, there have been some members of this Legislature suggesting ministry inspectors are being overzealous in their inspections and enforcement of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Our government has been accused of bringing forward an undue regulatory burden through our inspections of these workplaces. Every day, about 715 workers are injured in this province; that's one every two minutes. In 2007, 100 workers lost their lives in our province. Minister, can you tell us about the real cost to businesses when a worker is injured or dies?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I want to thank the member for Thunder Bay—Atikokan for his interest and advocacy for the hard-working people of his riding. There is no greater priority for our government than the health and safety of our Ontario workers. Yes, members from across the floor spoke yesterday about the cost to business of the Ministry of Labour inspectors performing their jobs to ensure the health and safety of our workers. We support those inspectors. Unfortunately, across the aisle, that previous government cut inspectors. We don't believe that's the way to go.

Let me turn this around. When we talk about the cost to businesses who don't pay attention to the health and safety of their workers, for every lost-time injury, on average, the incident costs a business $98,000. That's bottom line. We want to make sure that we can stop that human suffering of those—

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

Mr. Bill Mauro: I want to thank the minister for that information and commend the ministry for the work they are doing to ensure that Ontario workers are safe at work.

There are many other business advantages as well. Organizations that can recruit and retain the best people have a competitive advantage. Research shows a link between satisfied employees and satisfied customers. The healthy workplace can also create shareholder value as investors scrutinize how organizations fulfill their responsibility to society. Bluntly put, a good health and safety record leads to a good business record.

Minister, can you please tell us what the ministry is doing to build a strong health and safety culture throughout Ontario's workplaces?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: The member is quite right. It makes good business sense to invest in health and safety. This past June, we launched our new strategic plan for health and safety in the workplace. It's called Safe at Work Ontario. It's a broader approach to safety inspections that affords our inspectors flexibility, and they can strategically go in and target businesses where there is high risk, where their history of compliance to health and safety regulations has not been a good one.

But we've also taken a proactive approach. We want to work with those businesses to make them healthier and safer places. That's why over the last four years, we hired an additional 200 health and safety inspectors to go out there into the field, work with businesses, make sure that we have a strong and prosperous Ontario and make sure that all those businesses—

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

CHILD CARE

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Treasure Island Daycare Centre has operated out of the OPP general headquarters since the building was opened to support the 1,200 employees who were relocated to Orillia. Today it serves over 120 clients, with another 100 families on a waiting list. Recently they were notified that they would have to vacate the premises by January 31 due to a provincial security review. The day care is having a very difficult time finding affordable space in a completely unrealistic time frame.

If forced to close, there will be a child care crisis in the city of Orillia area, making it difficult for families to go to work.

As minister for the lead ministry occupying the general headquarters, having provided the original capital funding for the day care service, what resources do you intend to provide to assist with the forced relocation?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: To the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am aware that the ORC will not be renewing the lease for this child care centre. Obviously there are security issues, and I can't comment on that, but in the supplementary I may refer it to my colleague.

We have been in continuous contact with the child care centre and the county of Simcoe. We are working with them to develop a relocation plan for these kids. We absolutely value children having a place to go, a safe place to go, but the safety of the children is paramount for us. We will, I can assure you, continue to work with the child care centre and with the county of Simcoe every way we possibly can.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Well, I've talked to the administrator and it's not working very quickly. I can tell you that right now.

Minister, are you aware of the Management Board Secretariat's directive 1-12, mandating the development of child care services by ministries and agencies of the Ontario government? It was under this directive that the child care centre was built to support employment in the Ontario public service sector at the OPP general headquarters. Due to this directive's standing today, do you not agree that your ministry has a moral and legal obligation to provide the funding and realistic time frames for the Treasure Island Daycare to relocate? Is this not just another example of this government making it harder for people to go to work by removing access to day care?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure Renewal.

Hon. George Smitherman: I just do want to say very sincerely to the honourable member that the threat assessment was not something that we brought up; it was the experts that are in the building. You know these folks well and you respect them very much. I think the question goes a little bit down a path that isn't fully appropriate.

The Ontario Realty Corp., which I have some responsibility for, has offered to be of assistance to the daycare. To the best of my knowledge, they've said no, that they weren't interested in that. Instead, they've used a real estate agent. But I'm very happy to work with the honourable member and to circle back and try and make sure that the necessary skills and resources are brought to the fore so that the daycare can continue to be an important presence in the community of Orillia, albeit in a setting that experts don't deem to be a security threat.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Mr. Minister, after years of paying modest property taxes in a much larger building, the Sisters of St. Joseph of London have been hit with a property tax assessment on a much smaller and energy-efficient building that could result in a tax bill as high as $400,000 a year. The move triggered a reassessment based on existing law that says that places of public worship are exempt from property tax, but where a religious order prays and lives a life of religious devotion is not. Minister, I can't believe that that was the intent of the law, and it simply makes no sense.

Will this government change the law so that properties where religious orders practise their religious life are treated the same for property tax purposes as they were in the past?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I had the benefit of being educated by the Sisters of St. Joseph and the Sisters of the Holy Names, and I appreciate your raising the issue with me. I haven't had a chance to consider it. You've raised a number of good points in the past. I undertake to look into it and hopefully work with you to address the situation.

Mr. Michael Prue: We bring these to the attention of the Minister of Finance. This is the second time I have done so. It seems to me that there are a number of problems within the bill itself, and I welcome the fact that you will be looking at this, because I do believe that it is wrong, what is happening here, where a religious order moves into a new building, tries to make it energy-efficient and then gets whacked with a huge potential tax increase.

I wonder if the minister would commit himself to doing a thorough review of the legislation related to impact, because this is two that I have now brought forward. There might be potentially others, and I think we need to have a good, solid look at all of them.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Again, I applaud the member for his good work on other files and I look forward to working on this. I'm reminded by Minister Matthews that we had a chance to meet with the Sisters of St. Joseph in London last week at our pre-budget consultation. They offered us wonderful insight on the poverty agenda. We didn't talk about this specific issue, but again, the member raises a very good point. I appreciate that and I look forward to talking to him more about this. Hopefully all of us in the Legislature can work together to help these wonderful members of the order right across Ontario.

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: My question is to the Minister of Research and Innovation. As part of our five-point plan for the economy, I certainly support the role that the Ministry of Research and Innovation is playing in fostering Ontario's most creative thinkers.

Incredible innovations are being developed in rural Ontario. For example, VanEngelen Dairy Farms and Hog Tied Farms of Thedford in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex installed Ontario's first on-farm 250-kilowatt windmill to supply power for the dairy and hog operation as well as to supply the grid in our community.

Often my constituents hear announcements being made in urban Ontario. While no one can deny the research strength and economic challenges in urban areas, we certainly know that as our economy slows, rural Ontario has faced similar problems. So I would ask the minister: Is the ministry making sure that rural innovations are given the same opportunity as those in urban areas—

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

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank my friend and neighbour, the member, for the question. The world is struggling with the concept of how we become sustainable, and I can assure the member that the solutions to that will come, indeed, from rural Ontario.

I would highlight for the members the investment that we just made recently in your riding, at the University of Western Ontario at their experimental farm just north of London, in the Institute for Chemicals and Fuels for Alternative Resources, an institute called ICFAR—an investment of some $7.5 million, doing two things, but particularly in your riding at a very large dairy operation, Stanton Farms where we've invested, of the $7.5 million, some $2.5 million in advanced research in regard to the use of anaerobic digestion, which is a source of renewable power. It allows us to have fertilizer that is pathogen-free, and that and the other investments that we're making—

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

VISITORS

Hon. John Milloy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I wanted to let members know that the Ontario competitors in the World Skills Competition I introduced earlier have arrived, and I know they will want to—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. We do welcome the guests, and we're very proud of the guests, but I'd remind the minister that that was not a point of order. If there are issues regarding introductions of guests, take it up with the House leaders, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order.

DEFERRED VOTES

BUDGET MEASURES AND INTERIM

APPROPRIATION ACT, 2008 (NO. 2) /

LOI DE 2008 SUR

LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES

ET L'AFFECTATION ANTICIPÉE

DE CRÉDITS (NO 2)

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We have a deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 114. Call in the members. This is a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1136 to 1141.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Mr. Bentley moved second reading of Bill 114. All those in favour please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

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

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 56; the nays are 30.

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

Second reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 3, the bill is ordered referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: This morning in the debate, there was some discussion about the timing of the debate stopping on Bill 119. There are a lot of members of the opposition still wishing to speak to that. I would like to ask for unanimous consent to continue debate on Bill 119.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): That was not a point of order. The member seeks unanimous consent to continue debate. I heard a no.

There being no further business, this House stands recessed until 3 p.m.

The House recessed from 1145 to 1500.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: I want to welcome the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers to Queen's Park today. With us in the gallery we have Edwina McGroddy, executive director of the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers Centre of Engineering Excellence, and Gina van den Burg, manager of public policy and recruitment.

I also want to remind all members of this Legislature to drop by the legislative dining room this evening to meet and mingle with the engineers and listen to my wise, sage remarks.

Mr. Paul Miller: It's my pleasure to draw members' attention to the west members' gallery and the west public gallery. We have grandparents from several locations all over Ontario here today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We have with us today in the Speaker's gallery, as part of the Remembrance Day tribute later this afternoon, friends and family of Charley Fox: Sue Beckett, his daughter; Cheryl Fox, his daughter-in-law; Todd Fox; Ryan Beckett; Andrew Wallace; Fred Banwell; David Nudds; Gerry Nudds; Americ Sordi; Alan Meredith; Chuck Hill; Don Harris; and Ted Barris. Welcome all to Queen's Park today.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SPORTS HALL OF FAME

Mr. John O'Toole: It's an honour to rise today and recognize outstanding citizens of the riding of Durham who have joined their local Sports Hall of Fame, marking their contribution to our community.

Joining the wall of fame in Scugog township were Bill Davidson, champion motorcycle sidecar racer; John McClelland, honoured for coverage of local sports for many years in community newspapers; David Porter, Olympian and ice dance champion, with his partner, Barbara Berezowski; Jim Zoet, Olympic team member and college basketball star; and the 1965 Port Perry Squirts, all-Ontario softball champions.

Joining the Clarington Sports Hall of Fame are Garry Bachman, who 86 years old and recently won five gold medals at the 2007 world masters track and field championships; Jack Brough, a 91-year-old who is a six-time winner of the Ontario men's double badminton championship with his partner, the late Al Osborne; Lori Glazier, the Olympic snowboarder; Sommer West, a member of the Canadian Olympic women's softball team at the 2000 Olympics and also a star hockey player—I believe she played in the Olympics as well; and also members of Splash aquatics facility, who are outstanding contributors to staying fit in Ontario.

EVENTS IN MARKHAM

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I recently attended an event at the Markham Museum, hosted by the Markham Lions Club, to celebrate its receipt of an award from the Ontario Trillium Foundation in the amount of $71,700. A researcher and a videographer will be hired to create a permanent exhibit, promoting volunteerism and showcasing the Markham Lions Club's 65-year history and myriad achievements.

The Markham Lions Club has been central to our community. Club activities include canvassing for the Salvation Army, performing vision screening at schools, transporting donated eyes from hospitals to the University of Toronto eye bank, fundraising for other associations, and volunteering at charity barbecues and the Markham Fair. The club also provides volunteer work opportunities for high school students, runs programs at Markham schools and participates in the annual Markham Santa Claus parade.

One aspect of our Lions Club that makes me particularly proud is that the immediate past president, Grace Nedland, is the first woman to serve in that capacity.

The exhibit will be located at the Markham Museum in my riding of Oak Ridges—Markham. Last year, it welcomed 50,000 visitors.

I want to thank the government of Ontario and the Ontario Trillium Foundation for recognizing the efforts of the Markham Lions Club and the Markham Museum.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Jim Wilson: I rise again today in recognition of College Week and Skilled Trades Awareness Week.

As a follow-up to my statement yesterday, I first want to thank Patricia Lang, the president of Confederation College, who was obviously the only president listening yesterday, because she sent me an e-mail to thank me for my remarks. So thank you, Pat.

Colleges across Ontario have planned several activities throughout this week and next to bring recognition to the opportunities available in the skilled trades. This week, high school students will be touring colleges to learn about career opportunities in the skilled trades. With the retirement of baby boomers and the shortage of skilled-trade workers, it's critical that students and parents be aware of these opportunities.

Today, Colleges Ontario, Skills Canada—Ontario, Connect and OCAS will be hosting a reception at Sutton Place; it started about five minutes ago, at 3 o'clock. It was to be, members may note, in the committee rooms here, 228 etc., but it's been moved to the 33rd floor of Sutton Place. The reception is between 3 and 5. All are welcome, including your staffs. We certainly encourage you all to come and to congratulate the skilled competition competitors. These are seven students who have demonstrated outstanding skills during their time at college, and they will be congratulated during the reception.

I also want to let the good people of Simcoe—Grey know that Georgian College is having its open house on November 15 in Barrie. Parents and students can come and meet the faculty and thank the president at the president's tea at 11 a.m.

FUNDRAISING

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Across our ridings all over Ontario, it's the time of year when groups are out there trying to fundraise much-needed dollars in order to keep their organizations afloat. We have them in our communities: the francophone club, the Polish club, the Italian club, hockey, sports leagues and others who are working hard in order to have the money they need in order to keep a roof over their heads and provide the services that they do within the community.

But we all know that it's getting tougher and tougher for them to raise money, not only because there's less money out there, but because some of the rules that have been established both by this Legislature and the gaming commission have really restricted their ability to raise the kinds of monies they have to.

I'll give you an example. The police association in our community has a fundraiser—they've been doing it for at least 30 years—a lobster day, when people can come and buy lobster for a ticket of $100. All of that money goes back to charitable organizations in our community. After all, these are the cops who are running it, so it's got to be pretty legit. But they can't get a licence. Why? This government has said, "You can't do it because you're not allowed to play cards at these particular events."

I would just say that people have been doing these types of activities for years. The government is hoarding millions and millions of dollars on a daily basis by way of their casinos and other gaming activities, but they certainly don't want to allow local community organizations to do charitable events that would let them do that. I say that this is something that needs to be changed, and I think this government should be shamed into doing it, because they're restricting those clubs.

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Mr. Kuldip Kular: It gives me great pleasure to rise today to acknowledge the McGuinty government's many initiatives to recognize foreign credentials and retain skilled workers.

This government recognizes that we must promote and retain the talents and skills of newcomers who arrive in Ontario every day. We also recognize that in the global economy, when our newcomers succeed, Ontario succeeds, and have forged partnerships and initiated bold investments to provide newcomers with the tools they need to succeed.

Some of the highlights include:

—signing the first-ever Canada-Ontario immigration agreement with the federal government. This agreement will quadruple federal spending on language training and settlement services over five years;

—the passage of Bill 124, the Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act, that breaks down barriers and helps newcomers find work sooner and in their own field of expertise;

—investing $85 million in 145 bridge training programs that will help more than 2,300 newcomers learn the language of their field, land jobs and excel in their workplace.

These investments show the McGuinty government's commitment to reducing barriers to credit—

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

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr. Toby Barrett: It's sad to hear of Canada's new world order, where Ontario is now a have-not province while Alberta, Saskatchewan, BC and even Newfoundland now carry the province and offer Premier McGuinty a hand up. Here in Ontario, we're now one of Canada's welfare cases.

Dalton McGuinty has announced a made-in-Ontario deficit of half a billion dollars, and he previously hit us with the largest tax hike in the province of Ontario. This government spent like drunken sailors in the good times and failed to save for a rainy day. They didn't bat an eyelash when the federal government reduced equalization payments nationwide by $2 billion. Your lack of planning and inaction have cost us $1 billion.

How could you be blindsided? We saw the train wreck approaching. We warned you.

As media reports indicate, Canada is now divided into three classes: provinces that make things happen, those that watch what happens, and those that sit back and wonder what the hell just happened. Ontario fits into the latter.

This Premier now has the dubious distinction of being the first Premier to steer Ontario into have-not status. When will you accept responsibility? Will you not show any regret, any remorse, for this have-not status?

Leadership is all about having a plan. What is your government's plan to get our economy off its knees?

ROAD SAFETY

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I rise in the House today on a positive note to speak to the latest initiative in the McGuinty government's ongoing commitment to improving driver safety across Ontario.

Our government has made significant progress in improving road safety through things like repairing aging infrastructure, enacting tough street racing legislation, and establishing aerial enforcement of 400-series highways.

Our government also recognizes, however, that a leading cause of collisions is distracted driving, so I'm pleased with this government's bill that bans the use of electronic devices while driving. We will now join the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec, and Nova Scotia. We recognize that inattentive drivers are something we need to do something about, and attentive drivers are the first step in reducing traffic accidents and fatalities.

Our legislation also recognizes the multitude of electronic devices that are currently on the market and will extend the ban to include all electronic devices. That includes BlackBerrys, PDAs, and hand-held GPSs. This makes this legislation truly groundbreaking. These devices can be utilized once the driver is parked, pulled to the side of the road, or by passengers in the vehicle.

This legislation is yet another example of the bold moves taken by the McGuinty government to increase driver safety on our roads. We'll continue to work hard so that people arrive home safely to their loved ones every time they leave their house in their automobile.

SCHOOL SAFETY

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast: The safe schools strategy has been in my portfolio for over 20 years, both as a high school teacher and as a high school administrator in my riding of Kitchener—Conestoga and in the greater Waterloo region.

I'm proud to say that this government understands that a safe learning environment is essential to academic success. Students have a right to feel safe and to be safe in their schools. This government has invested $135 million through our safe schools strategy to ensure that there are serious consequences for violence while focusing on preventing violent acts before they occur.

Some highlights of this strategy include: amending the Education Act to include bullying as an infraction for which there are consequences; putting more adults in schools by hiring 170 psychologists, social workers, youth workers and attendance counsellors to work with at-risk students; and training front-line staff, by providing bullying-prevention training to 25,000 teachers and almost 7,500 principals and vice-principals to ensure an effective response.

I continue to work as a member of the safe schools action team, along with my colleague Liz Sandals, who chairs the team, to continue to bring forward recommendations to keep our schools safe and secure.

The government is dedicated to providing a safe learning environment for all Ontario students. We will continue to work with teachers and school board staff to prevent violence and increase safety.

CITY OF OTTAWA

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: It's with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to share with my colleagues and all Ontarians how the McGuinty government is partnering with the city of Ottawa to build a stronger national capital region. The nation's capital has benefited from a strong relationship with the McGuinty government that stands in stark contrast to the confrontation and downloading of the previous government.

I hear on a weekly basis from my constituents in Ottawa Centre about how important it is to work in partnership to address the lingering effects of the early 1990s. Since the residents of Ottawa Centre entrusted me as their representative, we have worked diligently to bring to Ottawa much-needed financial investments. This year alone, Ottawa has benefited from $8.2 million to repair social housing units; $14.6 million for roads and bridges; $20 million from the municipal infrastructure investment initiative for the central archives and the Ottawa library technical services facility; and $77.3 million from the Investing in Ontario Act for municipal infrastructure projects.

Yesterday we heard from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, who pointed out that as a result of the consensus report released last Friday, the people of Ottawa, by the time the plan is fully implemented, will save $122 million per year. With these investments and the $200 million that are still on the table for Ottawa's transit plan, our government will continue to partner with Ottawa to improve public services in the years to come.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON SOCIAL POLICY

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: I beg leave to present a report on the review of the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004, from the Standing Committee on Social Policy and move the adoption of its recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Mr. Qaadri presents the committee's report and moves the adoption of its recommendations. Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: No, Speaker. I'll move adjournment of the debate, but will send it to you by way of page Shaukat, my nephew.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Mr. Qaadri moves the adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Debate adjourned.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES ÉVALUATIONS

ENVIRONNEMENTALES

Mr. Balkissoon moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 123,

An Act to amend the Environmental Assessment Act / Projet de loi 123, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les évaluations environnementales.

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

First reading agreed to.

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

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: The bill provides that certain municipal proponents may only apply for an approval of an environmental assessment if the environmental assessment relates only to lands wholly situated within the territory of the municipal proponent. Joint applications by more than one municipal proponent are permitted where the environmental assessment relates to lands within the boundaries of the joint applicants.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

CRIME PREVENTION WEEK

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I rise in the House today to remind all honourable members that this week is Crime Prevention Week in Ontario. This week, we celebrate the partnership between law enforcement and the people of Ontario in helping to keep our communities and neighbourhoods safe. The theme of this week's event is Invest in Your Future: Prevent Crime. While the emphasis this year is on youth crime prevention, I hope the message will resonate with all Ontarians.

The McGuinty government continues to play an active role in preventing crime and keeping Ontario's neighbourhoods safe. We continue to put more police officers on the street, including the single largest increase in OPP officer strength in well over a decade. Our government permanently funds 2,000 police officers under our Safer Communities—1,000 Officers partnership and the community policing partnership program, so that municipal and First Nations police services can strengthen their front line, secure that these officers are permanently funded.

Last month, we announced an agreement with the federal government to administer a $156-million fund that will put up to 329 additional OPP, municipal and First Nations police officers on the streets. The money is welcome, but this funding falls considerably short of the federal government's original commitment of at least 1,000 new police officers. Also, these funds are not permanent and will expire in only five years.

For over a year, I and the McGuinty government have been urging the federal Minister of Public Safety to address this important matter, and we will continue to do so with the new federal minister, Peter Van Loan.

In addition to partnering with our communities to add police officers, our government is also investing in our community-based initiatives. Since 2003, we have invested more than $2.1 million in local community-based crime prevention programs through our safer and vital communities grant fund. This year, we doubled provincial funding for the successful Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere, or RIDE, program to $2.4 million in 2008-09.

No one group holds a monopoly on crime prevention—not the government, not law enforcement, not the courts or probation and parole officers. We are all partners in crime prevention, and this is what Crime Prevention Week is all about. Ontario businesses, school boards, community groups, police, and probation and parole officers are working together to protect our neighbours, prevent at-risk Ontarians from becoming first-time offenders, and stop first-time offenders from becoming repeat offenders.

This week, I encourage all honourable members to take

part in Crime Prevention Week activities and to send a clear message that in Ontario we stand united in our fight against crime.

ADOPTION AWARENESS MONTH

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I'm honoured to rise in the House today to mark the launch of national Adoption Awareness Month. At the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, we are working to help—

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. We very much welcome guests coming to the chamber. We encourage you to watch and listen to the proceedings. But, unfortunately, the rules that I preside over do not allow you to participate in proceedings.

Mr. Peter Kormos: It was laughter. That's a reflex action.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I thank the honourable member from Welland for his armchair-Speaker advice, but I will not take his advice, and I remind everyone of the rules of the House. Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: At the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, we're working to help every child in Ontario succeed. We all know that the love of a family in a home is the foundation of that success.

I want to take a moment to thank the thousands of generous men and women, brothers and sisters who have opened their hearts and their homes through adoption to children who needed a family. They are our neighbours, our child's teacher, the people we run into at the supermarket on any ordinary day. But make no mistake: There's nothing ordinary about the place they hold in the heart of their adopted and chosen child, or the difference they make in that child's life.

We must also take time this month to remember the hundreds of children in Ontario who are still waiting for an adoptive family of their own. These are children who are currently in the care of Ontario's children's aid societies. Some of them are older kids or siblings who want to stay together in an adoptive family, and some are children with special needs.

We're guided by the principle that children don't suddenly stop needing the love and guidance of their family when they leave care. That's why—

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd just remind the guests—and I'm speaking specifically now to the guests who are joining us in the west gallery—that hand motions and head motions are the same as participating in here. I know it may be challenging at times, but I do just ask that you listen and not express your views either visually or with your hands.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you, Speaker.

As I was saying, we are guided by the principle that children don't suddenly stop needing the love and guidance of their family when they leave care. That's why finding permanent homes for children in care is so important, not just for their today but for their tomorrow, for our tomorrow. These kids have so much to offer the right family, and the benefits and blessings are not the child's alone; they are absolutely that for the family too.

I've had the honour of meeting numerous families who have adopted children with special needs. Let me tell you that the love these adoptive families have for these precious children would inspire any of us in this House.

In 2006, our government made changes to the Child and Family Services Act to help more of these children settle into permanent homes more quickly. We brought in more openness so that a child can be adopted without severing ties to their birth family. We brought in reforms to make it easier for relatives to provide permanent homes for children.

On average, more than 800 children are adopted through Ontario's children's aid societies every year. Think about that for a moment. That's more than two children every day who find a permanent, loving home. There are two kids in Ontario who, today, are starting a new life, who now have a permanent bedroom of their own and a permanent place at the kitchen table. Our changes are working. Fewer kids are coming into care, and more are finding loving, permanent homes.

At the same time, just as there are children waiting for families, we know there are families waiting for children. Roughly one in 10 Ontarians is riding the emotional rollercoaster of infertility. In July 2008, I was pleased to announce an expert panel on infertility and adoption to help find solutions for people who are trying to start or expand a family. Led by Dr. David Johnston, this panel of experts will report back next year on ways to facilitate timely adoption so that more children who cannot remain with their birth parents can become part of families more quickly.

We're pleased to work with partners like the Adoption Council of Ontario, whose executive director, Pat Convery, said, "The adoption community will welcome recommendations that will help to address barriers to timely placement of children in families who are able to care for them."

In conclusion, as Ontarians, when we think of our larger collective family, we must include the children who are in the care of our children's aid societies. During national Adoption Awareness Month, I'm asking all Ontarians to take a moment to think about whether they can find room in their hearts for a child who, today, has no home to call his or her own.

TAKE OUR KIDS TO WORK DAY

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I'm pleased to address the Legislature about tomorrow's Take Our Kids to Work Day. Thousands of grade 9 students across Ontario and across Canada will learn what it means to go to work. Let's make sure that they also learn what it means to be safe at work.

It's up to us as employers, parents, teachers and legislators to teach our youth about health and safety on the job. In my ministry, health and safety in the workplace is one of the first things we talk about when we host students for Take Our Kids to Work Day. I encourage all employers to do the same. Students visiting workplaces tomorrow, and indeed all young workers, should receive a comprehensive health and safety orientation when they first enter the workplace.

We have to encourage our young workers to ask questions when they start a new job. There is no such thing as a stupid question when it comes to workplace safety. Our young people need to know that it's their right to say no to unsafe work.

Young worker health and safety is a priority for this government. We're keeping our young workers safe in a number of ways. We're teaching our youth about health and safety in the workplace before they get a job. We've made it mandatory in the curriculum for all grades. Teachers now use the Ministry of Labour's Live Safe! Work Smart! resources to help students approach work with a safety-first attitude.

We have a website, WorkSmart Ontario, that makes information on occupational health and safety and employment standards more accessible to youth and their parents. Our ministry website also has a portal designed espe