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

October 30, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-Oct-30 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 30 October 2008 Jeudi 30 octobre 2008

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ PROFESSIONNELLE

ET L'ASSURANCE CONTRE

LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

VIOLENT CRIME

VIOLENT CRIME

VIOLENT CRIME

MANUFACTURING JOBS

VIOLENT CRIME

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

FUNDRAISING

POVERTY

SCHOOL FACILITIES

ONTARIO ECONOMY

SEWAGE SLUDGE

CHILD PROTECTION

DISASTER RELIEF

LABOUR DISPUTE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

COMMUNITY SAFETY

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

CHLOE BROWN

ROAD SAFETY

SEWAGE SLUDGE

KARIM HAKIMI

MUNRO HONEY AND MEADERY

KAWARTHA ETHANOL

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RED TAPE REDUCTION

POLICY ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LA POLITIQUE

DE RÉDUCTION DES FORMALITÉS ADMINISTRATIVES

STUDENTS AGAINST IMPAIRED

AND DISTRACTED DRIVING DAY, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LE JOUR

DES ÉTUDIANTS CONTRE

LA CONDUITE INATTENTIVE

ET L'IVRESSE AU VOLANT

PETITIONS

LOGGING ROUTE

HOSPITAL SERVICES

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

INNISFIL EARLY YEARS CENTRE

DRINKING AND DRIVING

HOSPITAL FUNDING

EMERGENCY DISPATCH SERVICES

HOSPITAL SERVICES

HOSPICES

BEER RETAILING AND DISTRIBUTION

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

ASSISTANCE TO THE DISABLED

AUDITOR GENERAL

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE VÉRIFICATEUR GÉNÉRAL

SAFER COMMUNITIES

AND NEIGHBOURHOODS ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ ACCRUE

DES COLLECTIVITÉS ET DES QUARTIERS

ASSISTANCE TO THE DISABLED

AUDITOR GENERAL

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE VÉRIFICATEUR GÉNÉRAL

SAFER COMMUNITIES

AND NEIGHBOURHOODS ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ ACCRUE

DES COLLECTIVITÉS ET DES QUARTIERS

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Please remain standing for the Lord's Prayer, followed by the non-denominational prayer.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ PROFESSIONNELLE

ET L'ASSURANCE CONTRE

LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 29, 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?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: Good morning; it is a beautiful morning outside.

I'm pleased to be able to get the chance to speak in support of Bill 119, which was introduced a couple days and ago and was debated almost all day yesterday. It's important to talk about a very important issue concerning the people of this province. I have been listening to the debate. I listened to the member from Sarnia–Lambton yesterday speaking against the bill. All he did was recite all the e-mails he got from small contractors in his region and showed their concern about this bill. He never spoke about the workers. He never recited any e-mail from any worker across the province of Ontario.

It's very important to create rules and laws and some kind of standards for people who work on a daily basis to build this province, especially the workers. When we are talking about tough economic times, many people want to find a job, want to work. They are not going to look much at the rules and the regulations; they're concerned first with how they can provide for their families, how they can pay the mortgage, how they can they put food on the table.

What happens is that they go to work with a small construction company, and they go on the assumption, as I mentioned yesterday, that they will be protected, will be covered if something happens to them. Can you imagine that on a daily basis we lose one worker in the province of Ontario? One worker dies on a daily basis in this province. Can you imagine how many people get injured in this province? Despite all the regulations and rules, and inspectors and safety measures we have been taking since we got elected in 2003, people still get injured and people still die in this province.

It's human nature that people make mistakes, and sometimes when you make a mistake, it costs your life or you get injured forever. That is why we have to have some kind of mechanism in place to protect those people. We have to have a law for the people who work in this industry, to create some kind of mechanism for the people who work for them, because those people, as I mentioned, go and work on the assumption that they are protected, and then they are injured and discover they are not protected.

I want to give you an incident that happened in my riding, London—Fanshawe. A gentleman came to my office. He was almost 55 years old. He was working in a construction site, and he was told everything was being looked after. What happened is, he got injured, and he came to our office after he had exhausted all other efforts and places. He came after discovering he was not being covered. He was being paid as a contractor. The construction company he worked for used to pay him on a daily basis. They labelled him as a subcontractor taking a job for them; therefore, he would not be able to be covered under the WSIB.

So this person has nowhere to go. He had a house, and he couldn't pay the mortgage. He has a family to provide for. He needed to find some kind of help and support, and he couldn't. What he did in the end—he's being forced to sell his house. Due to this economic situation, he got divorced from his wife, because when you're in a tough time the fights start within the family and sometimes cause the breaking up of the family. There are so many different stories across the province. I think we, as elected officials in this place, have to work in order to protect the workers in Ontario.

My colleague from Willowdale yesterday spoke about something very important. He was talking about the newcomers to this province. For some reason, those newcomers want to work anywhere just to provide for their families and be able to fit and integrate into this province. The easiest step to start with is working on construction sites. They don't care about the rules and regulations. They are concerned first to make some money and provide for their family, and then the problems happen, and they discover they are left alone with no support and no protection.

That's why this bill is very important for many people across the province. It will cover almost 90,000 individuals. I think it's important to step up to the plate and work hard in order to continue to be able to provide to our communities across the province of Ontario.

I heard the member opposite, also from the NDP, from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek speaking about this bill. I think he was supporting this bill, but he has some kind of concern about the technicalities, which is normal. I remember when we were discussing this in the caucus, my colleagues also had concerns about the bill. Not all of us are in agreement about the whole implementation of the bill, but this is part of our democratic process. We introduce a bill and discuss the bill in this place.

The bill goes to the committee, and we listen to many different stakeholders from across the province, whether they are construction companies, small construction companies or stakeholders or workers or people advocating on behalf of both sides. And then, in the end, we modify the bill and make it good for the majority of the people of Ontario.

It's a part of the nature of our job. Whatever we do in this place, whatever we talk about, it would be impossible to please the province as a whole, and it would be difficult to please all the parties from both sides. That's why I think we have to make a choice to be on the side of the people who work on a daily basis to provide for their families and also to continue to build this beautiful province.

I was listening to the Minister of Labour speaking yesterday when he introduced the bill and when he had the leadoff on this bill. He outlined the intent and the focus and the aim of this bill. The aim is clear: to create a safety net for the people who work in this industry. Some people think it's not going to be good for the small construction companies. I don't agree with that. In the long run, those construction companies will be protected. If anyone is injured in their company they don't have to pay from their personal assets or money.

The worker can go to the WSIB, because the WSIB protects them and gives them the tools, the financial support and the training they need to put them back in the workforce. It's a very important bill. I know we're going to talk more about this bill. I know this bill is going to committee and we are going to listen to many people. I hope that all the members on both sides of the House will support this bill.

Very often we talk about construction—about workers, about construction companies and about the economic situation in Ontario. I think it's important to pay tribute to and thank all the people who work in this industry. This industry is very tough. Can you imagine people working day and night in both cold and hot weather? It's happening every week. I go from Toronto to London and back from London to Toronto, and I choose to drive at night, most of the time, because there is less traffic on the highway. Sometimes I see people working on the highway after midnight. They're working 24 hours a day, seven days a week in order to continue to construct the province of Ontario.

Those people work very hard for us. From London to Toronto, you see people working on the highway, 24 hours a day, seven days a week in order to continue that job, despite the cold weather, despite the hot weather, day or night. I think those people go to work with good intentions: They want to work and help build the province of Ontario; they want to work because they believe strongly in their responsibility and duty to provide for their families. And they go to work on the assumption that if something happens to them, they will be protected. This bill will create some kind of balance between workers and construction companies.

Yesterday I heard the member from Sarnia—Lambton speak. He spoke eloquently and represented his party's view, but I don't agree with him. I don't agree with him, but he did a good job presenting his political view and his party's view. He said that his bill will force small companies out of business. I don't believe that. I know that if they don't have protection for their workers, it might cause them more harm, because they will have to provide support for the person if the person gets injured under their watch.

Therefore, I think this bill is very good for them if they go, in the first place, to some kind of safety mechanism for the people who work for them and pay their WSIB dues. As you know, the WSIB is a very credible organization in Ontario that provides financial support and training and looks after people if they get sick, if they have that protection.

It's a very important bill, and I hope it will be discussed very well when it goes to committee. We are going to listen to many different people from across the province of Ontario: We are going to listen to the construction people and their views; we're going to listen to the workers; we're going to listen to the unions; we're going to listen to different spectrums, a variety of stakeholders who will give us input that I think will be valuable in order to reshape our bill.

In the tough economic times we are facing in the province of Ontario and across the globe, I think it's a good time to refocus on many different elements that will help us to reshape the province of Ontario. I think this bill is one of those elements, one of the tools that give us the ability to reconstruct our vision and reconstruct our laws and rules.

I was listening to the Minister of Labour yesterday when he spoke about the consultation level. This bill has been under consultation since God knows when—almost 15 years. Many different ministers and many different governments have come to this place and discussed this bill. I think it's about time to pass this bill and implement it. We live in a technological era. We live in a sophisticated society; we don't live in a primitive society and in primitive communities anymore. We should be up to standard. We should be able to protect the people who work in this industry.

We should be able to modernize our lives, modernize our industries. I think this bill will force many different companies to be modern and to provide support and services for the people who work for them.

It's very important also to talk about a balanced approach. As you know, so many different companies in the province of Ontario have to pay WSIB to continue to work in the province of Ontario. Some other companies don't. So when they go bidding on different jobs, the company who does not have all the support and services will be able to make a lower bid and get the contract.

I don't think it's fair for many legitimate companies in Ontario that are working around the clock and trying to work under the rules and laws of the province, to be unable to compete because they have extra expenses, and other companies, because they do not provide the services, will be able to get the bid. In the meantime, we are penalizing the big companies that have all the services, laws and rules being applied, because they apply and make sure that the people who work for them are safe, while the others do not. I don't think it's fair.

So we have to create that balanced approach, because I think it's very important to reward the people who are trying their best to protect their employees, to protect their workers. We have to also convince the people who do not have any protection for their workers about the importance of creating some kind of safety mechanism for the people who work for them.

I thought about this bill. I read it many different times—the importance of this bill, the intent and the aim. I think it is a very important approach. It's about time, after the many years that we've been discussing this issue. I remember when the Minister of Labour came to the women's caucus—and the chair of the women's caucus is here with us today. We asked him many different questions: Why this time? Why do you want to do it in the province of Ontario? He said, "We in the province of Ontario are not alone in Canada. Many other provinces came before us and implemented it.

They found that it's a lot better, and it also creates some kind of safety mechanism for many workers working for them." Especially when you talk about the number: 90,000 workers will be covered under this bill. It's a huge segment of our society. He also spoke about the implications and importance of this bill and spoke about how we can talk about convincing small companies to come forward and be able to provide services and protection for the people who work for them.

Very often we talk about protection. Very often we talk about health care. Very often we talk about people dying at work and being injured at work. I think it's our responsibility to create those rules and pave the road for the people who work in this industry and make sure that those people are safe and protected.

I have a lot of friends who work in this industry and have small companies. The question has come up and I've been asked many different times, "What if I want to fix my own house?" I think the minister will talk about it: That will be exempt. If you want to help your grandmother, your father, your seniors, your neighbour, or if you want to do it one time, if you just want to help them and you don't want to use it as a profession on a daily basis, this bill will give you protection. You will be exempt. This bill is talking about many different elements and aspects of the job and the nature of the job.

I think it would be a very good approach to exempt certain people who want to do it one time in their lifetime, or if they want to help someone to construct their home.

The member from Thornhill is laughing about this stuff. I think he cares about seniors, because at one time he introduced—

Interjection.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: You want to fix the basement? Well, you can fix the basement without being licensed and protect the people who are going to help you. There are some kinds of exemptions from WSIB, some logical exemptions. I think that's fair in order to help your grandmother, or if you want to help your father, or if you want to help your neighbour who is not able to do the job by themselves. I think you'll be exempt. I think it's a very fair approach.

But if you want to do it as a career and you want to hire three or four or five people to wake up in the morning on a daily basis to go from point A to point B to perform certain jobs, I think your obligation and duty as a citizen of this province and this nation is to protect the people who are working for you. Because I think that it's not fair if something happens to them.

What are you going to do? Who's going to provide for their families and look after them if they get injured, especially if they lose a hand or leg or break their back—and we see this happening on a daily basis. We see people getting injured on a daily basis in the province of Ontario, despite the rules and mechanisms we put in place in this province. Despite all the rules and regulations, despite all the tools and the safety equipment we use on a daily basis, people still get injured.

So I think it is a part of our human nature, our obligation, our responsibility as a government, as elected officials, to create for the people of this province some kind of safety mechanism which protects the workers.

The small company that employs four or five or six, whatever the number, should be able, without harm, to go and register the workers and get them the protection they need. Because who's going to look after them? Very often, if they have no protection, they have to go to Ontario Works or go on disability. They move people from one spot to another. They dump the responsibility, which they make money from, on the government and the taxpayers. I think it's not fair.

This bill will be a great protection for the taxpayers and will also be good protection for the construction companies who hire those people. It will be good protection for the workers who are working on a daily basis on the assumption that they are protected if something happens to them. It will give them some kind of peace of mind, so if something happens, they will be protected: They will be able to get financial support; they will be able to get retraining, if they want to be trained again; and they will get some kind of relaxation and go back to work in full capacity for the company they have been hired by.

I think this bill creates a balanced approach, and in the end I wish all members of the House will support it. I'm looking forward to going to committee with this bill, with other members, and listening to many stakeholders from across the province of Ontario and seeing how we can fill the gap and fix it, if we want, and also make it approachable and logical, in order to create a balanced approach between the workers and the construction companies, because we need them all.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Questions and comments?

Mr. Peter Shurman: In response to the presentation from my friend from London—Fanshawe, I have a couple of questions and a couple of comments. The first comment is, while he hopes that everybody in the House will support the bill, I can tell you that this party won't be—not in its present form, in any event.

My questions are these: I wonder if my friend from London—Fanshawe has ever been in small business. Because some of us have; I certainly speak for myself when I say that. I also wonder if my friend from London—Fanshawe listened really carefully yesterday to the presentation from my colleague the member from Sarnia—Lambton. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, of which I have been a proud member for many years, and which has helped me over the years and helps all of small business—the engine of this economy, if ever there was one in Ontario—has sent a letter to all members of this House.

If you haven't gotten yours yet, ladies and gentlemen, you will over the course of the next day. What it says, in really no uncertain terms, is that this legislation is misguided at best because what it does is it hurts small business. There are a lot of people who work in small business who can't afford to see the business they work for get hurt in times where everybody is already hurting on a individual and a collective level.

This bill indeed does tilt the playing field. It helps the big guys, big labour. It hurts the little guys. If you've been in small business—I've mentioned the term "the 5 o'clock sweats" in this House before. If you are in small business, you get them. You wake up at 5 o'clock in the morning and say, "How am I going to survive when they pile yet another tax on top of me?" And make no mistake, what we are talking about here is nothing more than another cash grab from this Liberal government. This government has never imposed a tax increase in its five years, but my goodness, there are an awful lot more taxes to pay. A rose by any other name is still a rose, and this one stinks.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I too have a question for the member from London—Fanshawe. I really do appreciate your concern for workers, and injured workers in particular. The question I have for you: If you support your bill, as it appears you do, why is it that you are not making sure that this bill gets enacted and implemented as soon as it is passed? Why is it that the date of implementation is 2012, after the next election?

That puzzles me a little bit, because normally when you put up a strong defence for a particular bill, as you've done today, you and your party, it would seem to me that if you really believe in it and you feel strongly about workers and injured workers and that they're entitled to security and benefits and to coverage, you would argue strongly that as soon as it passed it will be enacted.

That's the way it should be, and that's the way I believe it should be, so I don't quite understand how Liberals could make an argument, "Yes, this is the right approach"—even, as Liberals say, "This is a balanced approach"—and then argue that it won't be enacted until 2012. Does that make sense for you, member from London—Fanshawe? Because I don't think you spoke to that particular part of the bill.

I'm looking forward to other Liberals speaking to this, because I know you spoke for 20 minutes—God bless—and it appears that a whole lot of Liberals are going to speak for 20 minutes. This is good, and I hope to have my 20 minutes—maybe not today, but soon—because I am eager to discuss this bill and eager to talk about the implementation date of 2012, because I find it inexcusable of any government, but particularly a Liberal government, that pretends to love injured workers and then says, "But you'll have to wait until 2012." Maybe if you get re-elected—I just don't understand it. You can explain that, please, for me.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Vic Dhillon: It's a pleasure to speak on Bill 119. The opposition side has been raising concerns about the fact that business owners, sole proprietors, have private insurance. There is a day-and-night difference between the WSIB and private insurance. First of all, the bottom line is totally different: Insurance companies measure their bottom line in dollars; the WSIB measures their bottom line in the number of injuries. There is a huge, huge difference, and it's not a good reason for them to say, "We already have 24/7 insurance."

I don't know if anyone in this House has ever had to make an insurance claim, but I have, and I know it's different. It's difficult, very difficult and you often have to get a lawyer—and there's another difference. With the WSIB you don't need a lawyer; it's a simple process. Yesterday I read an Ipsos Reid research report that was commissioned by the WSIB and I can tell you the level of satisfaction of people who have had to have WSIB claims was very high. In most cases the level of satisfaction was at least 70% and in a lot of cases it was 80% and up.

The other point I want to make is that the opposition has said that this is going to put a lot of small business out of business. I don't buy that. If this insurance premium is their make-or-break point, then I have trouble understanding the business practices of these businesses that will go out of business. It's a great bill, it's about safety, and it's a pleasure to support this.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Norm Miller: I'm pleased to add some comments to the speech from the member from London—Fanshawe on Bill 119,

An Act to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997. The member from London—Fanshawe criticizes the member from Sarnia—Lambton for reading e-mails from concerned small business people to do with this bill and their concerns, primarily about having coverage for owners of companies, especially when they, in many cases, have already got their own insurance. I would say to the member: Small business represents some 96% of all the businesses in the province of Ontario. Who do you think the businesses are that are creating the wealth of this province, that this government lives off? It's small business.

The member from Trinity—Spadina raises a very valid point: If they're so concerned about workers' safety, why are they waiting until 2012 to implement this legislation? He provided the answer. The answer is because it happens to be after the next election.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Do you want us to do it right away?

Mr. Norm Miller: To the minister across the way who is heckling me, it's after the next election. This is a payback bill to Liberal friends who supported—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): I just caution the honourable member: You can't imply a quid pro quo. Please modify your language.

Mr. Norm Miller: I will try to more fully explain the connections of the Liberal Party and organizations that might support the Liberal Party to this legislation in the 20 minutes coming up that I get to speak. I think that is a very direct connection, and I look forward to having time to further talk about that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The honourable member from London—Fanshawe has up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I want to thank all the members who spoke. The member from Thornhill wondered if I was in business. Yes, I was a small business operator for many years, and my family are still small business operators in the city of London. I worked on construction sites for many years. I know the implications and the dangers of working there, and the protections that are badly needed to protect me or other people who want to work in this industry.

The member from Trinity—Spadina raised a question about 2012. It's a good question. I said in my speech that some people agree with the direction of the minister and some people don't. This bill is going to committee, and we are going to listen to many different stakeholders. You have a right and the chance to say, "We want to implement it tomorrow," and then the committee will decide whether it's tomorrow or after passage or after two years; that's what they're supposed to do.

I want to thank the member from Brampton West, the parliamentary assistant to the Ministry of Labour, for outlining the intent.

The member from Parry Sound—Muskoka mentioned the member from Sarnia—Lambton. I said in my speech that he only recited e-mails from construction companies, which I respect and honour. I believe too that those small businesses provide good support for our economy; they are, as a matter of fact, the engine of the economy in the province of Ontario. But our aim and our goal is to protect them too; not just to protect the workers but to protect them too. In order to be protected, you have to follow the rules and regulations.

The rules and regulations are not just to protect the workers but also to protect the companies. If somebody in a company is injured, they have the ability to protect them through the WSIB. Private insurance, as the member for Brampton West mentioned, is not enough. WSIB cares only about protecting people, without any conditions.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

Mr. Norm Miller: It's my pleasure to enter the debate today on Bill 119,

An Act to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997. To the member from London—Fanshawe: I too will be reading some e-mails. I'm amazed at how many businesses and individuals are e-mailing me with grave concerns and making some excellent points about this bill, and I want to get their points on the record. This bill was just introduced a day or so ago and we've had only one day of debate, and there has been very little notification to the people of Ontario that it's even happening. So I'm just amazed at how quickly I'm receiving input to it.

I'd like to point out that discussions for these amendments began in October 2004, in much better economic times, with then-Labour Minister Steve Peters.

The McGuinty government wants to persuade the public that this bill will increase worker safety, as well as reduce the number of unsavoury companies out there that have an unfair advantage, thereby levelling the playing field. Let's take a closer look at those claims.

Minister Fonseca says that mandatory coverage will fight the underground economy. That statement seems to suggest that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board is incompetent and unable to enforce the laws and regulations already in place to deal with lawbreakers. The government and its legion of inspectors have considerable resources, so it's hard to believe that a few simple amendments will rid us of these cheaters.

Minister Fonseca says that mandatory coverage will make workers safer. This claim defies logic. Legislation by itself doesn't protect workers; inspection and compliance to workplace safety rules do that. In fact, if this amendment is really about worker safety, then why did you wait to bring forward the amendments, when you first started looking at this in 2004? Why wait until 2012 to fully enact the legislation? I think the member from Trinity—Spadina just pointed out that happens to be after the next election, so that very well might be why.

The minister says the WSIB needs this time to make the necessary technical and administrative changes and to speak with stakeholders about how to implement the changes. Perhaps he meant that the WSIB would need time to staff up to fully implement the amendments, and those new revenues they'll be raking in will make that possible.

The minister also claims that since everyone in the sector will be paying premiums, the playing field will be more level. But really, the impact on independents and small businesses will be both disproportionate and devastating. It will amount to little more than a tax on the smallest units of business, a tax whose proceeds will flow to the larger players in the sector. The estimate of this burden is about $11,000 per year for each affected small business.

Yesterday, Minister Fonseca mentioned that he was sure his colleagues had heard stories in their constituency offices "of some independent operators in construction who unfortunately have been injured on the job and did not have insurance coverage and now find themselves without assistance. If they could turn back the clock, many would gladly have paid the WSIB coverage in order to be eligible for compensation and provide support for themselves and their families. Insurance costs money but it provides peace of mind." That's what the minister said yesterday.

Well, Minister, I have had many calls to my constituency office about the WSIB but not one describing the situation that you outlined. Usually, the calls are from business owners, frustrated that the WSIB doesn't properly investigate fraudulent claims—I've had that many times—or from injured workers who are frustrated with WSIB doctors who contradict specialists, or from injured workers who can't get a return phone call from the WSIB, or from injured workers who are ordered to attend retraining programs despite being in pain. Those are the stories that I hear in my constituency office.

In fact, a CFIB survey—that's the Canadian Federation of Independent Business—found that Ontario members rated the WSIB the worst agency to deal with. That's quite a claim.

The minister claims that WSIB coverage includes a sophisticated prevention component, return-to-work training and other services provided by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and that private insurance has no place in Ontario. It sounds like a huge government job creation program to me. Of course, another reason to pursue extra revenue for the WSIB is to cover unfunded liability.

So what does the other side of the argument look like? I want to take a minute to review what business organizations have to say about these amendments. First of all, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business says that the consultation process was poorly publicized, with nothing but a news release, an Internet posting and interested groups like theirs spreading the word.

The problem with that is that the vast majority of businesses don't belong to business associations, so in fact thousands of businesses had no idea about the so-called consultations, and many are only now aware of what the government is proposing. In fact, my own press releases are making businesses aware of the amendments, and I'm hearing from owners who had absolutely no idea about your proposed changes. With the cost of business being so high, I would have hoped that the government would have made more of an effort to reach out and to listen to those small businesses affected.

By the way, the CFIB isn't buying your claim about eliminating the underground economy. Quite the opposite: They say your amendments will serve to push rule-breakers further underground while punishing legitimate small businesses. Worse yet, they say many small businesses won't be able to withstand the additional costs, causing them to shut their doors and take jobs out of Ontario's failing economy.

In a letter to Minister Fonseca dated October 28, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business describes your legislation as "seriously misguided." They say your amendments won't make "one iota of difference on health and safety." The Canadian Federation of Independent Business vice-president, Judith Andrew, writes: "What is unprecedented about your actions today is the level of betrayal of small and medium-size business.... Your seemingly cocky, uncaring attitude to 25,000 action alerts ... from our members was distressing....

"Most politicians we know are genuinely interested in doing their best for Ontarians. There may be disagreement on what the best is, but at least their motives are pure. We believe that your motivation, on behalf of your government, has far more to do with political opportunism than it does with the policy at hand."

I think we only need to take a look at the implementation date of 2012 to see the politics of this legislation.

No doubt the government will argue that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business's comments are sour grapes about the lack of consultation. Well, let me share some of the e-mails and letters I have been receiving, both as the representative of Parry Sound—Muskoka and as small business critic.

A construction business writes:

"Dear Mr. Miller,

"It is my understanding that there is a proposed change to the workplace safety act that would make it mandatory for all owners to be covered with workplace safety insurance. Presently owners are exempt from this coverage unless they opt in to be covered with this insurance.

"We are very much opposed to this change and hope that you will not support the proposal. We do not know any employer who is in favour of this change and we have talked to at least 20."

I will just break from this letter to add my own opinion and ask the government, what is the logic for including owners in this coverage? Because I can't see any logical reason. The owners in many cases have their own insurance or don't want coverage. The only possible reason is that they are looking at getting more money—as I say, a tax grab—to cover unfunded liability.

I will go back to the letter:

"Everyone that I have talked to agrees that workplace safety insurance for employees is a good idea. It is our understanding from conversations with WSIB employees that all workers are automatically covered whether or not their employer pays the premiums. The problem then is not that workers are not covered; it is that many employers do not pay the required premiums. Requiring employers to pay the premium will not then solve the problem of the underground economy; it will only amount to a cash grab for those employers already playing by the existing rules.

"There are many people calling themselves contractors or subcontractors who work for themselves and then hire out to other contractors as subs and who are really employees. These workers are clearly breaking the existing rules, working without WSIB coverage, probably then also not paying employment insurance, Canada pension, GST and the rest. These are the underground workers who undercut the rest of us who play by the rules and who steal from the rest of the tax-paying public by not paying their share.

"We have often reported these illegal workers to the WSIB, but to little or no avail. We have been told by WSIB employees that they are short-staffed and only have time to keep track of the registered employers. It seems then that an easy way to collect more money is to increase premiums for those of us who are already paying too much, instead of making the effort to enforce the existing rules.

"The rules already require that either one works for an employer and the employer pays the premium or the worker register with the WSIB and obtain either an independent worker status or register and get a clearance certificate. The problem from our point of view is that WSIB do not enforce that rule and that fact puts everyone who plays by the rules at an unfair disadvantage. They are at [an] unfair disadvantage because the WSIB premiums alone, without the other taxes, amount to almost 10%. That is 10% less than the unregistered worker can charge less than the registered contractor and still break even.

"We believe that if the WSIB hired more workplace inspectors and tracked down unregistered employers that they could likely double the number of registered companies within one year. You can check it out yourself. Simply pick up the phone book and start calling advertised service providers and ask them if you hire them can they provide a clearance certificate from the WSIB. Do not call just the large companies, because they probably are already registered. Try the smaller companies who employ 15 or less. You will be surprised what you learn. Keep in mind there are dozens of employers in Bracebridge alone that are not even listed in the phone book, and now you know why.

"Please do what you can to encourage our government to enforce the rules and regulations that we already have as compared to taking the easy road to more unfair premiums on employers who are already paying more than their share because only half of the employers are playing by the game.

"In our opinion it is totally fair and reasonable that all employers be given the option of opting in or out of WSIB coverage for themselves. It is totally reasonable and fair that all workers are covered and that their employers be responsible for making sure that this happens. However, in our opinion it is totally unfair and unreasonable to mandate that any employer be required to opt into this coverage with no choice."

Further, from another small business owner:

"The purpose of this letter is to inform you that we vehemently oppose the government's proposed legislation which would make WSIB coverage for owner-operators of small business mandatory.

"Having read Mr. Fonseca's proposed amendments it would appear that he is trying to make two points: Number one, the passing of this legislation will be a step forward in fighting the 'underground economy'; number two, the passing of this legislation will make Ontario a 'safer place to work'.

"I do agree that WSIB coverage should be mandatory for all employees. This would ensure that all construction companies are playing by the same rules.

"We are very happy to provide both a liability insurance certificate and WSIB clearance for work performed when asked for by a general contractor or homeowner. If all contractors employing sub-trades and individual homeowners requested WSIB clearances when having work completed, this would greatly diminish the underground economy the government keeps going on about.

"Mr. Fonseca states that individuals who exclusively perform home renovation work and are retained directly by the homeowner, family member, or occupant of the home will be exempted from this mandatory coverage. Yes. An individual should be exempt as the owner-operator of a small business. However, often this is the guy who may have one or two helpers who does not pay WSIB, EI, or other payroll taxes, and probably does not have any liability insurance. This is the underground economy.

I would imagine that often it is the individual homeowner, trying to get the lowest price, who does not think about how a particular company is cutting corners to provide that lower price, who contributes to the underground economy. Until the individual homeowner is willing to pay for a reputable company to perform work, you will always have companies that do not play by the rules.

"Passing of this legislation will not be a step forward in fighting the underground economy. It is a blatant money grab from legitimate businesses. Rather than fighting the underground economy, this legislation will make it more desirable for legitimate businesses to go underground.

"It is my understanding that if an employee is injured on the job, they are eligible to receive WSIB whether or not the company they work for pays WSIB. Therefore, passing of this legislation will not make any difference in how safe a place Ontario is to work."

A Parry Sound—Muskoka—Haliburton franchise holder writes:

"I wish to advise you that the pending proposal to make WSIB coverage mandatory for business owners will most certainly affect my business negatively. We operate three businesses that contribute to the WSIB, employing nine people, with the other two firms supporting three more people. The impact of course will be financial ... not to mention the clerical impact. It is difficult enough to keep the bottom line in the black without the pending changes. Our rate is in the 10% range, which applied to what I take as a salary will be the best part of $10,000.

Removing that much from the bottom line would make me rethink the viability of these businesses. Please do your best to let the government know the dire impact a move such as this would have on many businesses in this area."

From another business owner:

"Unbelievable ... we work so hard to provide jobs for people as well as a living for ourselves and to be hit with this. We have completed a work-well audit, address any health and safety concerns that are brought to us by the staff, are commented on regularly what a safe place this is to work from outsiders and yet now ... we will have to pay additionally to the monopoly of WSIB, something which we cannot elect out of, for coverage of ourselves. We make sure not to take risks that would affect our health and safety and choose not to have ourselves covered with the WSIB.

In addition, the secondary accident insurance is far less expensive than WSIB. I cannot stress enough how difficult times are amidst fuel increases and more stress on workplace safety and regulations and lost markets."

Yet another business owner writes:

"This is unbelievable. We will never make it through an increase in cost like this. This is government so out of touch, the increase in red tape is breaking us. I just returned from a trade show in the United States; you really get the feeling that the people and the government support business owners there. This Ontario government is going to break us. This is not a case of levelling the playing field—it is a case of ruining it—if they keep this up there will be no players left. That should lower accidents—nobody works—nobody gets hurt."

It really is unbelievable that the McGuinty government would move ahead with this legislation when small business is already straining under the weight of red tape and the global economic crisis.

I just received a couple of more e-mails that I wanted to get on the record. One I just received:

"Dear Norm,

"You may not remember me but I have met you from time to time at our Rotary Club in Gravenhurst. I'm writing to respond to the current legislation that has been tabled regarding mandatory legislation for construction-related owner-operators and officers. My brother and I own and operate our company"—I won't name the company—"and we do so from our office. We are in the construction business but rarely set foot on our sites because we have site managers for that.

Forcing us to pay a very high rate to WSIB is like forcing the owner of a factory or any other type of business to pay WSIB when truly they are office workers. We see this legislation as unfair and cost-prohibitive as it appears that the construction industry has been singled out over all other industries in this regard.

"Please do your best to intervene in this unfair legislation."

I would just warn this owner that probably other businesses will be expanded upon, based on this government's track record.

Another e-mail: "I'm sure you are already aware of this legislation but from my point of view, I think it is imperative that owner-operators of pretty much any business have the option to opt in or out of WSIB at their choosing. This gives them the freedom to have private coverage, or no coverage or the standard WSIB coverage at their choice, and I think they should be allowed to make this choice, not have it made for them."

Still another letter: "Still, it is clear that this minister doesn't care about small business, being so much in the pocket of the construction unions and their big business buddies. The bill received first reading on October 28, second reading started October 29, and it appears the Liberals intend to ram it through third and final reading....

"Members outside of construction should note that their exempt status could change with the stroke of a legislative pen. The briefing package says, 'Independent operators, sole proprietors, partners in a partnership and executive officers of corporations that carry on business in an industry other than construction, under the WSIA, would retain the option of applying to the WSIB for voluntary coverage.' WSIB has long wanted to enlarge its public monopoly to currently-uncovered sectors and individuals, and if they get their way in construction, who knows what's next." A very good point.

I have a lot more I'd like to say, but I'm running out of time. I think the most obvious thing is that this government is just bringing forward what is, in effect, an $11,000 tax grab on small business, at a time when the economy is struggling and business can least afford it. Small business—96% of the businesses in this province of Ontario, the wealth creators, the businesses that this government lives off and collects their taxes from—are going to be very badly hurt by this legislation. I hope the government listens to the many e-mails we've received so far, and that's just the beginning.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Questions and comments?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I want to start out by saying that I totally disagree with what has been said. And I also want to totally disagree with what the government's said, and I'll explain that in my speech a little bit later. This is not going to cost the business sector a dime. Why? Because this legislation is not going to be enacted until 2012. I make the point that Mr. Marchese, the member from—

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Trinity—Spadina.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: —Trinity—Spadina, makes, which is, if the government is in support of extending workers' compensation rights to workers, why are you waiting until 2012 to do it? It'll be after the next election. You won't even be the government, possibly, at that point. So don't tell me that Liberals care about workers and that Liberals are going to extend rights to workers to be covered by compensation in areas that are presently not covered. You're saying, "Oh, we're going to do it, but we're going to put it off until after the next election," knowing full well you may not be the government and that this whole thing could be for naught.

Then you've got the false debate on the side of the Conservatives, who say, "Oh, God, this is going to bankrupt the business sector." Hang on a second: 2012. It won't cost anybody a dime. This legislation will not have cost a dime to anybody because it's not enacted. As I make the point, if after 2012 the Liberals aren't elected and—by God, let's hope not—the Conservatives are, we know it's not going to cost anybody a dime. That's why I would argue that the right response is the position that we put forward as a party.

We understand and we agree with the intent of the legislation, that workers who are not covered by workers' compensation should be covered. A worker is a worker is a worker. If you're earning a wage, you should be covered by workers' compensation. I have argued that for years, along with my party leader and other members within the New Democratic Party, and from the perspective of business it's only fair. It levels the playing field.

The problem we currently have in the construction trades is that you have people who are utilizing the existing exemptions as a way of basically undercutting other contractors who are law-abiding businesses, who are paying their taxes, who understand they have a responsibility to do so and are saying, at the very least, level the playing field so that we all play by the same rules.

So I say to this government, I say to this minister, if you were really serious about this legislation, you should have put an enactment date after third reading. You didn't do that, so you ain't serious about this whatsoever.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and comments?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I listened very carefully to the speech made by the member opposite and I've got to tell you, the fact is that there are workers across this province on construction sites who currently aren't receiving the coverage they should get and there are employers getting away with not paying the premiums to support and protect those workers.

Somebody in this Legislature has to stand up for those injured workers, those construction workers who should be receiving these benefits. It's obvious that the member opposite's party never stood up for injured workers when they were in office. In fact, they presided over a pullback of benefits for injured workers, to the point where we've had to play catch-up for the last number of years in increasing benefits for those injured workers. The NDP didn't help either when they were in power, because they brought in the Friedland formula that the Tories made even worse. That's the reality.

So maybe we shouldn't be too surprised when the Tories are not standing up for workers across this province. They never did when they were in government and they never did when they had the chance to do it. But now I find it hard to believe that the member opposite would advocate a policy not to stand up for these workers, not to ensure that these workers have coverage, not to ensure that employers are paying the premiums that they should be paying for these workers.

This party, this government, is also standing up for those employers that are paying the benefits. They are legitimately paying benefits to ensure that their workers are protected. But they are not only paying the benefits for their own workers; they are also subsidizing those employers that are not paying their fair share.

It's time to level the playing field. The NDP member who spoke earlier was absolutely right. This does not take money out of the economy. It makes sure that those who are paying premiums pay their fair share, and those who are not will now have to pay their fair share. It shifts it. It takes no dollars—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you. Further questions and comments?

Mr. Peter Shurman: I just heard the comment from the former labour minister that this takes no money out of the economy. Where does $11,000 for small business come from? That's the economy. Where does it go? Basically, into the tax coffers. That's how it works, and he knows it.

I've heard a couple of comments in response to the speech by my colleague from Parry Sound—Muskoka that I agree with. First of all, on the part of the member from Timmins—James Bay, I absolutely agree with you on one thing that you said: that it's unlikely there will be a Liberal government in 2012, and thank God for that. And as far as standing up for workers, standing up for workers means you stand up for workers now, not in four years, so I'll give him that.

However, what I want to point out and underline is that this is nothing more than a new tax, and the Liberal Party has perfected the ability to bring in new taxes under any other name. I said that before and I'll say it again. This amounts to approximately $11,000 per small business in the province of Ontario. As my colleagues on the other side know and as my friend from Parry Sound—Muskoka has said, small business drives the economy here, an economy that even on the part of the Premier of this province and the finance minister of this province right now is sputtering, for whatever reasons.

We can debate those on some other level. But at this point you have to ask yourself, what does $11,000 represent to a small business? It represents oftentimes, and I speak as a former small business owner-operator—I would like to think my former employees would say a good one—$11,000 is often the difference between making a payroll and not making a payroll.

You can't say this is levelling the playing field; it's not. It's tilting the playing field at an obtuse angle. "Obtuse" is an appropriate word, I must say. You're looking at things like unfunded liabilities on the part of the WSIB. You're looking at things like shifting the burden from yourselves as the government onto the backs of people whose backs are already bending under the strain.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): We have time for one more question and comment.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I want to commend the member from Parry Sound—Muskoka for his rendition of the fallacies, shall we say, in this bill, and they are many.

The comments from the former Minister of Labour suggested that this is just going after money that people should be paying and aren't paying, so it isn't going to cost anybody any money. In costing money, it's about people paying more money to government, and this, Mr. Minister, is people paying more money to government.

The suggestion is that it's going after people who should be paying anyway. It would seem to me, and I've been involved with a lot of issues with compensation, that the Workers' Compensation Board actually goes after employers who don't pay on all their employees. That's an obligation. Not only are all workers in Ontario covered under the act, but all employers must pay for those workers, so we don't need a new bill for them to go after situations where people are not paying the appropriate compensation for workers in the construction industry.

The bill is really about making people who are presently exempt from compensation payments now have to pay compensation payments. In fact, that is a new tax on those small businesses. This wasn't about me as an employer paying for the people that I was paying for. This is supposed to be about collecting it from people who haven't been paying it, but that's not who you're going after. You're going after legitimate business owners who were exempt from it before and are not going to be exempt anymore. It's a new tax on small business. I don't know how the government, at this time in our economy, could be doing such a thing.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The honourable member from Parry Sound—Muskoka has up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Norm Miller: It's my pleasure to respond. First of all, to the aboriginal affairs minister: I don't think he was listening to my speech, because if he was, he would have heard me say that we have to apply the existing rules, and that would deal with many of the things that this bill purports to deal with. To the member from Timmins—James Bay: Yes, I think he makes a good point that the 2012 implementation date makes you question the politics behind this move—and I hope he's right that the PC Party is elected when the next election rolls around in October 2011.

I think the group I'm hearing most from to do with this bill are the owner-operators, the owners of businesses that don't want to be covered and aren't currently covered by WSIB legislation. I have a difficult time seeing any logical reason why the owner of a business should be covered. In fact, I see a conflict: an owner-operator of a small business working, getting into the fall, business doesn't look that great, and all of a sudden their back starts hurting, so they decide that they're injured and should take the winter off until business picks up in the spring. There's absolutely a conflict there.

But more than that, those owner-operators, the owners of the businesses, don't want coverage. They're quite happy with the scenario they have right now.

What this is more about is a tax grab, an $11,000 tax for the average business. The McGuinty government said they weren't going to bring more taxes in; this is an $11,000 annual tax for the average business in the province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I'm absolutely delighted to have an opportunity to speak to this bill. First of all, I just want to say again that I disagree entirely with what the Progressive Conservative—I don't know why they put the word "Progressive" in that—caucus has to say on this, and that is, "It's a tax grab." Let's be clear: There are no taxes being grabbed here because this bill is not going to become law until 2012.

Now, I'm not saying that's a good thing; I'm saying it's a bad thing. But the argument that all of a sudden businesses in Ontario over the next couple of years are going to flee because all of a sudden there are going to be workers' compensation rights applied to workers who are currently exempt is totally off base, because this law is not a law until 2012.

I come back to the point that the member from Trinity—Spadina made, and I think he's perfectly right. I ask the Liberal government this: Do you agree with this legislation, yes or no? If you say, "Yes, I agree with the legislation," then enact the law after third reading. Workers are going to continue to be injured, they're going to continue to not be protected under workers' compensation, and the travesty will continue. So either you support your bill or you don't—and I would argue you don't.

Here's the politics of this—and this is the point: This is all about politics. The Liberals want to be seen in Ontario by the labour movement, and specifically the construction trades, as, "We Liberals, we love you workers and we want to be nice to you. We understand your pain. Oh, yes, we do. We understand that you work hard every day and that you're going to be injured in the workplace, and we want to protect you and we want to give you the rights that, oh, you so deserve."

So they have a law, they bring this law forward: "Here it is. We have a law, we're going to pass it, and it's going to give the workers of this province," say Dalton McGuinty, Mr. Fonseca and others, "the rights to workers' compensation that they deserve," and workers stand in the street and they applaud. Then all of a sudden, they have an accident in the workplace, they go lining up at the Workers' Compensation Board and they say, "Mr. Workers' Compensation, I hurt my back, I broke my leg, I hurt an arm," or maybe somebody was killed and the family is trying to get benefits from those workers.

The Workers' Compensation Board is going to go, "Denied," and the worker is going to say, "Why? What do you mean, 'denied'? I heard Mr. Fonseca. I heard the Premier. He says he loves his workers, he wants to help workers in the residential trades, he wants to help workers in the construction trades—and that I'm going to be covered by compensation. I saw the debate. I saw the Premier stand and say he was going to pass this legislation. In fact, I know there was a vote. I was watching on TV or I went to the Legislature and I saw the Hansard.

Yes, there was a vote in favour of the law, not only at second reading but third." Then you'll have to read the fine print, because the bill's going to say, "This is not a law." It is not worth the piece of paper that it's written on. It's not enacted until 2012.

Why is that significant? First of all, workers will continue to be denied their rights under compensation for another four years. Tell me how that's protecting workers. It doesn't do nothing to protect workers. It continues the status quo for four years.

But then the worst part of it is, they say, "Until 2012? Oh, isn't that after the election of 2011? We have fixed election dates. We know there's going to be an election in October 2011." They're basically passing the ball to whoever the next government's going to be, and it might not even be them. I would argue it probably won't be. So they're thinking now, "If we lose government in 2011, we'll be able to stand there and say, 'Protect those workers. We passed the legislation. Oh, bad NDP or Conservative government.'" They'll be able to stand there and be holier than thou, and all the time they would have done absolutely nothing to protect an injured worker.

I say, shame on Dalton McGuinty, shame on the Minister of Labour and shame on the Liberal caucus for trying to dupe workers when it comes to their rights—

Interjections.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I withdraw, Speaker. "Dupe" is unparliamentary, and before I'm told I'm out of order, I want to withdraw the words "duping the workers." I apologize. But I want to say that the workers are not being served by this Liberal government.

Now, let me tell you how it goes from the perspective of the worker. Some of us in this Legislature, on all sides of the House, had to work for a living before we came to this Legislature. I worked in the construction trades; I'm an electrician by trade. The first job I had was working as a labourer on construction sites, so I understand what it is. I've lived it, I've walked it, I've breathed it, and I've seen the injuries and I've seen the death, as many workers in this Legislature probably have as well. I don't have a monopoly on that.

Here's the problem—and you see it also as members in your constituency office—the worker goes to work one day for a contractor who's not covered by workers' compensation, who doesn't cover him under workers' compensation. The worker has a slip at work and all of a sudden—I've got a good example. I'll use his name: Monsieur Boulanger, a guy I'm dealing with right now on a compensation claim in my riding.

He hurt his foot as a result of an accident on a construction site where the ground was uneven. He tripped and twisted his ankle, and he has been having problems ever since. His problem was that he worked for a contractor who didn't have compensation because he was part of a subcontractor group. So this worker who had a problem as of 10 years ago with his ankle has been trying to get workers' compensation to cover his medical expenses, cover the brace he needs and the other things that he needs in order to continue working.

This gentleman has not lost a day of work as a result of the injury, but has had to work with pain ever since. He came into my office about three years ago and said he had filed a compensation claim and had been denied. Since the original injury, he has been reinjured, and as a result of that, the original injury was compounded. So now you know where I'm going.

That worker now has a second compensation claim for a reinjury of the same pre-existing condition. The Workers' Compensation Board is having a problem determining which injury caused the compensable accident and whether it's compensable at all, so we're having to go to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal on this one. The Workers' Compensation Board has taken the position, "No, because there was a pre-existing condition, we at the Workers' Compensation Board will not grant rights to the worker for medical aid." He's not even asking for lost time.

All he's saying is, "I want my medical aid, as far as braces and other things that I have to take, painkillers and others, and that my day be paid when I need to go see the specialist." That's all he wants. This man wants to continue working. He's a proud, hard-working Ontarian, as we all are, but the Workers' Compensation Board says, "No, no, no.

You have a pre-existing condition; therefore, we deny you." So I'm going to waste all kinds of my time, my staff's time, this gentleman's time, the Workers' Compensation Board's time, to go to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal, WCAT, in order to make the argument that his condition, although it is related to the first part of the injury that was not covered by the Workers' Compensation Board—he still, nonetheless, has been reinjured and should be compensated. That is why you have to insure all workers.

I don't care where you were injured the first time or the second time; the fact is you were injured, and we need to recognize that under the act.

Here's what's worse. Is this bill going to give workers any rights to retroactivity on these injuries? If this bill was to say, in the case of my constituent, that it will recognize pre-existing injuries, when he was injured at work with the injury that came from the time he worked for a contractor who was not covered by WCB—it won't even do that. So I'm still going to have this problem. If this bill should pass and we were to change the date to enact it now, I'm still going to have the darned argument that the injury had happened on a work site where compensation wasn't applied the first time.

So I say to the members across the way, this is not a service to workers whatsoever. Clearly, you're saying the right thing, and I give the government credit for saying the right thing. Clearly, you're doing the right thing: You've drafted a bill. Again, you did the right thing: You introduced it in the House and we're debating it. I presume we're going to vote for it. But clearly this bill will do nothing for workers, because there will be no protection until 2012 for any workers on any of these sites.

The other thing I want to say is, the Liberal government is not treating all workers the same. They say they are and that this is about levelling the playing field, as Brian Mulroney used to say, so that workers, no matter where they work, can be covered by workers' compensation. Well, that's not the case. We're still going to have the problem on a residential construction site. Do you think that residential construction is not a big business in Ontario?

There are thousands and tens of thousands of people who work on residential construction sites, and we're still going to allow contractors to basically sub off the work to a one-person shop or a two-person shop where workers' compensation will not be paid and the right to a workers' compensation claim won't be granted. So we're not really doing anything here that's going to help people in a residential trade.

So I say again to the members across the way, the Liberal government, my God, why didn't you just call this what this is? We should retitle this bill, "A bill for the Liberals to say to workers that we really love you, but we're not going to do anything bill." Because that's with this is really all about; let's not kid ourselves.

Let me just say this other thing. Part of the difficulty I have when we get in these debates around workers' compensation is that it's all about incrementalism. I got into politics as a result of my work with diseased miners who worked underground in the gold mines of northern Ontario. People—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Sorry to interrupt the honourable member. You will have the floor again when this order is next called.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): It is 10:15 of the clock. This House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Ted Arnott: Mr. Speaker, I don't have any guests in the chamber at the moment, but certainly this afternoon I will have a number of guests in the chamber who will be here to listen to my private member's ballot item, which I'm looking forward to discussing. I'll be introducing them at that time. So thank you very much.

Hon. John Wilkinson: To follow up on the precedent of my friend for Wellington—Halton Hills, I can say that our page Cole Maranger from the great riding of Perth—Wellington today is being joined by—and they've arrived—his parents, Peter and Beverley Maranger of Stratford, and a Brazilian Rotary exchange student, Thomas Almeida. We welcome them here today to the Legislature.

ORAL QUESTIONS

VIOLENT CRIME

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is to the Attorney General. It was very surprising to learn that the Attorney General was unfamiliar with the judge's decision to release Nathaniel O'Brien back into the community, where he allegedly went on to kill his two neighbours, both women. So I ask you again today, Attorney General: Have you now read the decision, and what instructions have you given to your crown lawyers in response to that decision?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Actually, my answer to the question was that, for reasons the member knows full well, I can't speak to the facts of that case. My speaking to it would not change that terribly sad tragedy, it wouldn't bring people back, but it might undermine the prosecution, and that would undermine public safety. Let's be clear: We're all saddened by the terrible tragedy. We're angry at those responsible and we are determined to make sure that we do whatever we can to prevent these tragedies from happening in the future.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Regrettably, you continue to hide behind the excuse of, "The issue is before the courts" etc., but as you know, this whole issue of Mr. O'Brien's bail, which is what I'm asking you about, is not going before the courts again. The only things going before the courts are the actual charges that he's facing.

The judge's decision to release Mr. O'Brien—who, as you know, may well be a serial rapist and a murderer—is extremely disturbing. His alleged victims were all females and apparently all strangers to him.

I would like to ask you again, Attorney General: What message does your failure to appeal this decision send to female victims of sexual assault?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I don't have the luxury of addressing facts when accused persons are before the court; I wish I did. A lot of people would like answers, and I wish I could speak to those issues directly, but that would undermine the prosecution; that would undermine the very public safety we are all trying very hard to protect.

Be clear on our determination: We are going to prosecute to the full extent of the law, as we do. We are working with our chiefs. My colleague and I will be meeting with Chief Blair and Chief Davidson I expect next week. We're going to do whatever it takes to protect the public interest.

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Again to the Attorney General: Yesterday, your Minister for Children and Youth Services acknowledged November as Woman Abuse Prevention Month. She stood in this House and she said, "We will continue to work toward ending women abuse in Ontario." My question to you is, when will you personally demonstrate through action as opposed to empty words to do that? When are you going to stand up for the hundreds of women who every year in this province are sexually assaulted, and appeal the judge's bail decision? Do you know how hard it is for a woman to come forward? When are you going to show victims of violence that you personally are going to do what you can?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Personally, I would stand up for my wife and my children every minute of the day; personally, we all have.

For the protection of women, we brought in the domestic violence action plan. For the protection of women, we've made sure that there are additional police investigative services, that there are additional victim/witness services, that there are quick responses, that there are additional funds for more shelter supports and more shelters so women can get out of a place of danger and make sure that they are safe.

This government has demonstrated its commitment to the assistance of those who are victims of violence and will continue to demonstrate its commitment by building on those supports.

VIOLENT CRIME

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is to the Attorney General as well, and it relates to comments that he's made in the wake of Bailey Zaveda's murder last weekend and the information that her accused killer was on the street due to a plea-bargain deal his crown made and a break on sentencing due to pretrial custody credits awarded by the court.

The accused killer of Ms. Zaveda, Kyle Weese, had his sentence reduced by almost two years as a result of custody credits. Minister, you've said that you oppose such credits. Can you advise us if your crown opposed the pretrial credits given to Mr. Weese, the accused shooter, and if not, why not?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: For the reasons my friend knows, I won't address the details of the case—he knows that. But he addresses a very important point, a point that we've spoken to as a government at federal-provincial-territorial conferences. There is virtually unanimous agreement among the provinces and territories across Canada that when an accused is sentenced, the sentence should be reflective of the facts and should not be automatically reduced by two-for-one or sometimes more-for-one credits.

For decades, the law has suggested that there should be an acknowledgment of pretrial custody, but it has increasingly become embedded in the law that it's virtually automatic. We oppose it wherever the law allows. We take the very tough position. We believe a legislative change is going to be—

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: You know, the families, the victims, have to be terribly, terribly upset by this Attorney General and his lack of responses. I asked him a specific question—did they oppose the custody credits given to Mr. Weese, the accused killer?—and he gets up with bafflegab after bafflegab. That's not interfering in any court case, not at all.

We're talking about his crown. Did they oppose those pretrial custody credits being awarded? You have said you oppose the credits, but a check of the record indicates that you support a reduction and not a removal.

If the minister is sincere about his opposition, he must have issued a policy directive to his crowns asking them to oppose credits, especially for violent crimes or crimes involving a weapon. If he did issue such a directive, can he indicate when, and will he table a copy with this House? If he didn't, will he explain why?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: We've spoken often at federal-provincial-territorial conferences and other places about the need to change the law with respect to the virtually automatic reflection of two-for-one and more-for-one credits. We try, on the front lines, to reduce the acknowledgment of those credits in sentencing. We ask for longer sentences to make sure that the sentences reflect the facts of the offence. We are bound by the law in court, and that's why, when we can't change it on the front lines, we ask for a legislative change, not just in Ontario but across the country.

Federal, provincial and territorial ministers have asked the federal government unanimously to change it and we look forward to continuing that discussion, while continuing to ask for the tough sentences that are necessary—

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I guess that non-response answers the question about the minister's sincerity in terms of wanting to address this situation.

We know the Liberal opposition in both the federal Parliament and the Senate significantly delayed—and, in some respects, weakened—much-needed justice reforms that were before the federal House in the last session. Minister, the official opposition is prepared to join you in co-signing a letter to all members of Parliament and senators asking for a prohibition on pretrial custody credits for individuals found guilty of violent crimes, crimes with a weapon or breaches of bail. Will you today join with us in this constructive, non-partisan effort to improve public safety?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: We're ahead of you. All the provinces and territories have joined together in calling for the end to the two-for-one. Let us be very clear: We stand and will speak for the people of Ontario. We did that pushing for reverse onus bail; we did that pushing for mandatory minimums. We spoke to all federal members, including Liberal members, and told them we wanted them passed.

We want further legislative changes, and we'll continue to do so, but that will not change our determination, right here within our jurisdiction, working with the police and other justice partners, making sure that we prosecute to the fullest extent of the law and making sure that we do whatever we can to protect public safety and the public interest.

VIOLENT CRIME

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is for the Attorney General. As we've already heard, the McGuinty government seems to have a lot to say on crime issues; the issue is, they don't seem to "do."

I want to quote the former Attorney General from just two years ago, where he said, "We absolutely fully prosecute gun crimes to the fullest extent and oppose bail on gun crimes. We already do that." Then he said, "There is going to be zero tolerance for gun violence." Two years later, in the wake of the senseless shooting death of Bailey Zaveda by a repeat gun offender, these words from the McGuinty government sound awfully hollow.

My question is this: When will the McGuinty government stop merely talking about its commitment to the safety of Ontarians and actually demonstrate something?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: In fact, that's exactly what we have been doing and what we continue to do. We prosecute to the fullest extent of the law—a law that we do not write. We cannot dictate how the judges apply the law that exists to the cases. So we take the tough position on gun crimes, and when our front-line experience says, "The law's not tough enough," we move to toughen bail laws and toughen mandatory minimums for gun crimes. That's done. We take the tough positions, both at trial and sentencing, on pretrial custody, and when the law is not tough enough, we say, "The law needs to be changed."

We will always act to protect the public interest. We're tough on gun crimes, have been since my predecessor was the Attorney General, and continue to be.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Howard Hampton: Once again, we hear these fine words, but some of us have actually had the opportunity to review some of the transcripts, and in fact what we often see is plea bargaining on gun offences and gun crimes.

I want to again quote the former Attorney General, from less than a few years ago, who said that confidence in our justice system "plummets when someone accused of a gun crime is back out on the streets the next day."

The gun violence we witness in Ontario under the McGuinty government's watch, where innocent lives are being lost by people who have already been convicted of a gun offence, destroys people's confidence in the justice system.

So my question is this: When will the McGuinty government stop trying to pass the buck, stop trying to blame someone else and live up to your own words?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: We're all angered by the tragedy, saddened for the families and determined to do whatever we can to prevent tragedies in the future; determined to prosecute to the full extent the law allows; determined to take what is the next step that will prevent tragedies. That's why we're going to be meeting with the chiefs to discuss what the next steps are. That's why we've got 72 more crowns to target gun crimes: six new anti-gun-smuggling crowns; eight new high-risk-offender crowns; 13 additional OPP weapons unit enforcement officers; 12 new victim services staff to support the victims and the witnesses.

We build on what we've done. We're not satisfied with where we've gone, and we're determined to do whatever it takes to make sure that serious crimes are prosecuted to the extent that they must—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: Well, I would say the people of Ontario have heard all this from the McGuinty government before.

Let me quote the Premier from just a couple of years ago: "Should they make the wrong choice—should they choose to become a criminal with a gun—then we will work as hard as we can, together with our police, our prosecutors and our courts, to arrest them, to prosecute them and to jail them for a long time."

Let me tell you, I've looked at some of the transcripts. Your crown attorneys are not only doing plea bargains on the offence, but they're doing deals on the sentencing. That is the reality of what is happening under the McGuinty government.

Once again, the McGuinty government says something to the public—says it over and over again—but does something altogether different. When is the McGuinty government finally going to move on to the "do" rather than just the "promise" and the "say"?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I would say that some of those comments are unfortunate in light of the fact that he actually was an Attorney General and should know.

We take gun crimes very seriously—all serious crime. We have taken the steps, but we're not stopping there. We're working with the chiefs to find out what we do next to prevent these tragedies from happening—an answer that we all want and are determined to get. Where our front-line experience says the law needs to be changed, we're going to push to change it, no matter who's in power anywhere. We won't rest until we are confident that we have dealt with issues which will prevent tragedies from happening in the future.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is for the Acting Premier. About a week and a half ago, the McGuinty Liberals found the money to give to AbitibiBowater of Thunder Bay $1.16 million. At the same time, Abitibi was reducing work hours at its Thunder Bay sawmill and laying off some of those workers. This has now been followed with a shutdown of that operation, and an additional 150 logging workers are now out of work, not to mention that people at both the pulp mill and the paper mill at AbitibiBowater in Thunder Bay are taking downtime.

We saw how the McGuinty government had a lot of money for General Motors as General Motors was laying off thousands of workers. How could you do the same thing in Thunder Bay without getting job guarantees for the workers there? How could you hand out the money and not get job guarantees for the workers?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: I would like to thank the member for his question. Obviously, all of us are really disappointed that this in fact has occurred. Having said that, our responsibility is to work with AbitibiBowater, wherever possible, to ensure that there's some viability to their situation, not just in the short term but in the medium and long term as well.

We have been working very closely with them, as you know, and the member will know that we have supported their cogeneration plant in Fort Frances—Rainy River. Hopefully, that will be up and going in the next couple of weeks. We put a significant amount of money into it, along with AbitibiBowater themselves, investing in Ontario. When we gave them the $1.6 million for the kraft pulp mill, they themselves put in an additional $10 million. There's no question that there are market conditions that are difficult, but having said that, our responsibility again is to work with—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: What is obvious is that the McGuinty government continues to hand out money without getting any job guarantees. And the story continues elsewhere. Sterling Trucks in St. Thomas is closing its truck plant early, throwing another 2,000 workers out of work, and the McGuinty government has no plan; it sits there. The auto parts sector says that tens of thousands of workers may lose their jobs in the next few months because they can't get short-term loan financing, and the McGuinty government sits there and says it's not going to provide short-term loan financing.

My question again—we are losing jobs by the tens of thousands. When are we going to see a jobs plan? When are we going to see some job guarantees? When is the McGuinty government going to do something useful on this front before we lose tens of thousands more jobs?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister.

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: Since that question is not directed to natural resources, may I refer to the Minister of Economic Trade and Development, please.

Hon. Michael Bryant: I just say to the member that he's described a set of facts that are inaccurate. He may not know, but he should know, that obviously all the economic ministers in this government are speaking every day, and several times a day, to the very businesses and the very manufacturing leaders—in the case of manufacturing that you mentioned—and the various industry leaders to see ways in which we can use our existing programs, which I'll happily talk about in the supplementary.

I'm talking about billion-dollar, multi-hundred- million-dollar programs there to assist businesses and workers and ensure that they're being used in a way to help those businesses and help this economy during this troubling time. We are, I assure the member—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: I'm not mistaken about the facts at all. It is part of the public record that tens of thousands have been laid off in the forestry sector in northern Ontario, tens of thousands have been laid off in the auto sector in southern Ontario, and the McGuinty government trots out the same old line. Well, everything you've talked about is not going to help the auto parts sector with their short-term financing.

The other part of your line, that your so-called Second Career program is a wonderful solution, is also not working. In fact that program is so ill-conceived that it forces laid-off workers to pound the pavement to get rejection letter after rejection letter from employers who say, "We don't have a job for you," before the McGuinty government will do anything to help them.

When are we going to see a meaningful job strategy from the McGuinty government? Only after we lose tens of thousands more jobs in this province? Is that what it's going to take?

Hon. Michael Bryant: In fact, the McGuinty government has had in place a job strategy to grow our economy, to build on our strengths, and to create new clusters for years—for years. The automobile strategy brought, in fact, thousands of new jobs to Ontario. The Next Generation of Jobs Fund has brought, and will bring, thousands of jobs to the province of Ontario.

It is investments in productivity with other companies, leveraging new businesses and growth of businesses to create new jobs; it is $90 million already spent by the advanced manufacturing fund to, again, leverage and grow businesses that otherwise wouldn't have that money. That's why Buzz Hargrove said that Premier Dalton McGuinty's government has been active and supportive, recognizing the importance to the whole provincial economy—

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

VIOLENT CRIME

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Back to the Attorney General again, and dealing with the actions of his crown on a sentencing matter two years ago—not something that's before the courts today—and that's the sentencing of Kyle Weese, the accused killer of Bailey Zaveda.

Mr. Weese was granted an almost-two-year break in terms of pretrial custody credits. If that hadn't been awarded to Mr. Weese, he would still be in prison and in all likelihood Bailey would still be alive.

I asked you a specific question, nothing to do with matters before the court, trying to match the actions of your crown with the words that we've heard from you over the past number of days.

I ask you again: Did your crown oppose the pretrial custody credits awarded to Mr. Weese?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I know the member knows that I can't, and won't, speak to it. I don't have that luxury, because what he wants to ask me about is a matter that we expect may well end up before the courts. So I won't endanger the public safety, which it is our duty and responsibility to uphold.

We have spoken long about the end of the automatic two-for-one remission credit, an automatic credit that is firmly embedded in the law, which is why all of the provincial and territorial ministers have unanimously called upon the federal government to change it; we have for years. The resolutions will continue. We apply the law as it exists. Where it's not tough enough, we seek to change it. That's what we're doing.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I suggest that people have to really question the credibility of this minister. He can't, or won't, explain whether or not his crown opposed custody credits for Mr. Weese two years ago in a sentencing. He won't answer questions about whether he issued a policy directive to his crowns with respect to opposing pretrial custody credits.

These are not matters before the courts, respectfully. If this minister can't answer very basic questions, it suggests he's trying to hide something from the public, he's not fulfilling his responsibilities to victims of crime and to the public at large, who are very concerned about public safety.

Why will you not answer those basic questions? And if you can't, or won't, you should step down.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I say to everybody who wants the answers to prevent these tragedies from happening in the future that I would like to speak to some of the facts that I've been asked about. It would be wonderful to do that, but that would endanger your safety, and I won't do that. That would endanger the prosecution and the investigation, and I won't do that. But be clear on our determination to do whatever it takes to make sure these tragedies do not happen in the future.

We are going to work with the police and our crowns to do what we can. That action has started immediately and will continue, and we will prosecute those responsible to the full extent of the law.

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Municipalities are only beginning to see the impact of the economic downturn on their budgets. Increasing unemployment and harder times are driving up the costs of provincially mandated programs. For example, higher costs for social assistance in Waterloo region are taking hundreds of thousands of dollars away from other priorities.

Why won't the minister assure municipalities tomorrow, Friday, in his report, that his government will commit absolutely to take back full responsibility for Ontario Works at the very least by the fall of 2011?

Hon. Jim Watson: I know that the honourable member is anxious and is probably having difficulty sleeping at night in anticipation of the provincial fiscal and service delivery review. But, as I indicated yesterday, we have an agreement with our partners—we respect our partners—that tomorrow we will release the document together.

This is a partnership that Premier McGuinty is proud of, that started in 2003 when, in fact, we started turning the page on the downloading of the Harris government and brought in initiatives such as the gas tax, which has brought hundreds of millions of dollars to the municipal sector; uploading the Ontario drug plan; uploading the Ontario disability support program; uploading costs of land ambulance; as well as public health. So it's a track record we're very proud of, and we will build on that when the report is released tomorrow.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, I've certainly been having trouble sleeping myself, as well as most of the CFOs and the treasurers of municipalities across the province, because of the nightmares we're having in terms of what this economic downturn has been doing to municipal budgets.

Waterloo Regional Councillor Tom Galloway told the Waterloo Record that high social service costs from recent job losses "may result in councillors considering drastic measures, such as cutting programs and freezing hiring."

Provincially mandated social services cost municipalities over $3 billion. The economic downturn will force these costs even higher, and the minister knows it. These costs simply should not be on the property tax base.

The fall economic statement failed, and we all know it did. It failed municipalities by signalling even less transfer payment dollars. Will tomorrow's announcement make municipalities true partners by providing immediate and significant down—

Hon. Jim Watson: The fact of the matter is, since the McGuinty government had the honour of forming government in 2003, we went from $1.1 billion in operating dollars, net dollars, to $2.8 billion in 2011.

The fact of the matter remains that the municipal sector is very pleased with the work that we have done. That will come to fruition when the entire panel, which has been working diligently with the Minister of Finance and I over the last two years, appears at the press conference and releases the document, which we're particularly proud of.

We've said from the very beginning, the report has to be affordable, it has to be a consensus report and it has to move the markers forward. I'm very confident that when the report is released tomorrow, it meets those objectives, and we look forward to partnering and working with the municipal sector, not downloading and not taking cheap shots at them, like the NDP do every time we bring forward a measure.

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: My question is also for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. As a former mayor, I understand the importance of a strong relationship between Queen's Park and municipalities. As a mayor, I witnessed the deterioration of that relationship during the Harris-Eves years. The problems were passed down to municipal governments and the dollars stayed at the provincial level. The Tories tried, unsuccessfully, to balance budgets on the backs of municipalities.

The city of Pickering and Durham region, as a result of these downloaded programs, had great difficulty during the Tory years and were forced to pass these costs on directly in the form of increased municipal taxes. Can this minister stand up and tell us how Durham is better off now than it was five years ago?

Hon. Jim Watson: I'm delighted, because we are so well-represented on the government side by the dynamic Durham duo of Joe Dickson and Wayne Arthurs, standing up for the people of Durham after years of neglect by the Conservatives and the New Democrats.

We've uploaded 50% of land ambulance; 75% of public health; 100% of the Ontario drug plan.

Let me quote Roger Anderson, the regional chair: "What they announced this morning is far better than I anticipated," because we delivered, literally, $53 million in infrastructure funding to support projects and priorities of the people of Durham.

I'm very proud to have people like Wayne Arthurs and Joe Dickson, both with great municipal backgrounds, standing up for their communities and delivering for the people of Durham region.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: I want to thank the minister for his response and for acknowledging my colleague from Ajax—Pickering. This funding is, no doubt, helping Durham with its infrastructure needs. It's more help than I ever received from a provincial government when I ended my time as the mayor.

This government is not the only player in this Legislature that talks about funding for municipalities. We hear from my colleagues on the other side of the House all the time. The opposition parties like to talk about improving municipalities, and they like to question this government's motives and priorities. So, Minister, what's the difference between our government and what the oppsition parties offer?

Hon. Jim Watson: The difference is really quite stark. When you look at the track record of the two opposition parties and the damage they did to the municipal relationship, it's really quite remarkable. You look at the downloading of public health, transit, roads, Ontario Works, land ambulance, and many other different services.

The fact of the matter is that our government has taken a completely different approach. We respect the municipal partnership that we've developed with the city of Toronto and AMO through the MOU process. The other fact is that we have worked collaboratively with the municipal sector to come forward with a landmark report that I'm particularly proud of that will be released tomorrow.

The fact is that when you look back on the track record of those two parties, every single time we brought forward an initiative to help the municipal sector, whether it's infrastructure funding or uploading services, they have voted against it. Shame on the NDP and the Conservatives for turning their backs on the municipal—

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

FUNDRAISING

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, I'm hoping you can explain to this House why you're hosting a $350-per-ticket fundraiser with the Minister of Labour for the Liberal Party on November 18 at the Ontario Sheet Metal Workers Training Centre in Toronto.

For those who don't know, in June 2007, this particular union training centre received almost $270,000 through a program run by the minister's ministry. Also in June 2007, the unions' Oakville training centre received over $615,000 from the very same ministry program.

Minister, is this now the "in" place to hold Liberal fundraisers: in swanky union halls built with money doled out by the taxpayer through your ministry? Isn't this a disgraceful conflict of interest?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister of—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Sorry. It was to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. John Milloy: I apologize, Speaker. I thought you were consulting the table.

I am very happy to answer the honourable member's question. I think members on all sides of the House are involved with fundraising for their parties and they follow the laws that are put forward by Elections Canada and by the Integrity Commissioner. What I am not pleased with, however, is the insinuation that the money that was given to union training centres under a program, the STIP program, was not done in a transparent way.

The program was introduced by my predecessor. There was a request for proposals and there was a fair and transparent process put in place. All approvals under this program were delegated to the deputy minister, who had the final say. It was done under a transparent program. To suggest otherwise is wrong, and I invite him to say it outside the House. That kind of insinuation is beneath him.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: Minister, I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm just pointing out some facts and asking about your better judgment. This is equivalent to holding a partisan political fundraiser in the cafeteria of Toronto General Hospital. It's the same thing. This training centre is a certified training delivery agent for your ministry, which means it qualifies for and receives government funding. And while Mr. Bentley, the Attorney General, held your portfolio, his riding association received $1,000 from this union, and his 2007 campaign got over $1,100.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would just remind the member of standing order 23(

i) regarding imputing motive.

I'm going to go to a new question.

POVERTY

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Thousands of Ontarians are born with developmental disabilities. These Ontarians struggle to live with dignity and to participate as best they can in their communities, but they do so always from a position of poverty because they receive an inadequate disability benefit of less than $1,000 per month—that's the maximum. If they succeed in the difficult challenge of finding a paying job to supplement their meagre income, the government chooses to claw back half of their earnings.

My question to the minister: How much money is the government making on the backs of these struggling community members born with a developmental disability?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think the question that the member opposite is asking is actually appropriate for the Minister of Community and Social Services, but let me talk about supports for people with disabilities. I think you are talking about adults, not children, but you can correct me in the supplementary if I've misheard the question.

People with disabilities have enormous abilities, and too often we focus on the disability and not often enough on the ability. That's why we've changed the rules so that people with disabilities, people collecting the Ontario disability support program, actually not only keep more of what they earn, but they also get $100 a month, any month they have earnings, to help them with the costs of work—transportation, clothing etc. We are absolutely committed to allowing and encouraging people with disabilities to actually use their enormous abilities.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Michael Prue: I listened intently to the minister and she never denied that half of the money that a person on disability earns is clawed back by her government.

The minister said on Monday how impressed she was with the enormous strength and potential of people living in poverty. She said, "All they want is the opportunity to put that potential to work." On that point, she was absolutely right: People in poverty, including people with developmental disabilities, want the opportunity to work and to be fairly recognized and compensated for that work.

So what kind of a policy is it that the minister has adopted that takes away half of what these people earn, just when they might finally pull themselves out of poverty? Why is this government continuing with the clawback on ODSP earnings of our most vulnerable citizens?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Again, this question is really appropriate for the Minister of Community and Social Services, but I will do my best to answer today.

As I said in the initial question, we are absolutely committed to giving people with disabilities the opportunity to increase their income through employment. We're working with employers to improve the opportunities for people with disabilities. There are some great champions, employers who understand that hiring people with disabilities is a good business decision. It's not just a good thing to do from a moral standpoint, but it's a good business decision. So getting more people with disabilities working and putting their abilities to work is a focus of our government work, and it is something in our poverty reduction strategy that we will be addressing.

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Mr. Mike Colle: To the Minister of Education: The worldwide economic meltdown is impacting all Ontarians and impacting all areas of government. As the Minister of Finance maintained last week, just like families and businesses across Ontario, we are looking for ways to curb our expenses and defer non-urgent costs.

My constituents in Eglinton—Lawrence know that publicly funded education remains a key priority for our government. However, some of my constituents are concerned that deferring maintenance for schools may negatively impact on our students and their future success. Minister, is it not better to defer investments in other areas rather than in maintenance?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I certainly agree with the member for Eglinton—Lawrence that governments across the world are taking a hard look at their expenditures, and our government's no different.

For the Ministry of Education, what that's meant is that we have had to revise our plans, and we've done that in a way to minimize the impact on students and classroom learning. So we've reduced the school renewal grant line for the 2008-09 school year, but boards will retain 80% of that grant line. What that means is that they'll be able to continue to fund urgent school capital projects, but we're asking them to make those a priority ahead of some of the minor and less urgent projects. So it means that a non-urgent window repair might have to wait, but a new roof or boiler would be able to go ahead.

It's true that some people have claimed that we should have done something else, that we should have increased primary class size, for example. We disagree. That suggestion would have meant widespread disruption across the province in all our elementary—

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

Mr. Mike Colle: Certainly, I agree: We shouldn't be increasing class sizes to where there were 35 students in my schools. As you know, Minister, I have some of the finest schools in Canada: John Wanless, Allenby, Blessed Sacrament.

What I really want to know from you is, is there a list of various investments that we are making, despite the paring back of these maintenance projects? Are there ongoing investments we are making in our schools to ensure that our children are in the best facilities possible? Could you give us a list of some of these investments we're making, certainly in the Toronto schools, but also schools all across Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: When we came into office in 2003, one of the things we did very quickly was begin to invest in capital renewal, because there had been neglect for years. There was a huge backlog, and we knew that our school buildings needed to be upgraded. In fact, one of the reasons that we're able to defer some of the non-urgent repairs at this point is because there has been such a substantial investment. We increased student renewal by 31% since we came into office, and our Good Places to Learn grant, a $4-billion strategy, has funded almost 11,000 school repairs, renovations and new construction projects.

We've also allocated funding to replace 147 schools that are in the poorest shape. For example, the Toronto District School Board has had $371 million in Good Places to Learn investment funding—1,635 construction projects. The Toronto Catholic board has had $74.5 million in—

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

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question to the Minister of Finance: Minister, your economic statement of last week contained no new initiatives to stimulate job creation or to help Ontario families and seniors struggling to make ends meet in Dalton McGuinty's Ontario. In response to similar economic challenges, BC's Premier Campbell brought forward a 10-point plan to stimulate their economy and to assist families. Saskatchewan did much of the same and we expect a similar plan in Quebec on Tuesday.

All we got from Dalton McGuinty was the same old high-tax, high-spending, no-jobs policy that is causing Ontario to fall further and further behind and back into deficit. Minister, we've now seen your made-in-Ontario deficit; where is your made-in-Ontario jobs plan?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: On March 23 of this year, I laid out a budget that had a five-point plan. In that plan, we budgeted $3.9 billion in infrastructure. In addition, we provided an additional $1.1 billion, creating 100,000 jobs, and that member and his party voted against it. We committed $1.5 billion for retraining to help workers who have lost their jobs fill some of the 100,000 jobs in Ontario that are unfilled due to the fact that the skill sets didn't match, and that member and his party voted against it. We have hired nurses and teachers. We have invested in health care and education in record ways, because those jobs are important. That member and his party voted against it.

This government has laid out a plan. The plan is working in the context of a global—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: The only thing that seems to be working with your so-called plan is that some 200,000-plus well-paying manufacturing jobs have now fled our province. Ontario is now last or next to last in economic growth and job creation.

Minister, another major omission in your economic statement are the medium-term economic outlooks that typically show if we expect surpluses or deficits for future years. That page is simply missing altogether from your 2008 economic statement. When I open my 2007 statement, it's right there on page 81; 2004, 2005 and 2006 all contain this vital table. Clearly, this is your attempt to hide your projected massive deficit for the next fiscal year.

The TD report is predicting that Dalton McGuinty will run a $4-billion to $5-billion deficit next year. Minister, is TD correct?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The member opposite would certainly know a lot about hiding deficits. When we came to office, his party had left a deficit of $5.5 billion, having presented a balanced budget.

As I said in the fall statement, we are faced with dramatic times. We are responding with the best information available to us. Somebody yesterday said, "Long-term damage ... can result from misguided attempts to balance the books during an historic global downturn." Jim Flaherty said that. You are out of touch with your own federal cousins, and I would recommend—you had supported him against Mr. Tory in the leadership, I know. I would suggest that you have a long chat with Mr. Flaherty about the challenges that governments are having. I've been doing that. I'll be meeting with him—

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

SEWAGE SLUDGE

M me France Gélinas: My question is for the Deputy Premier: Why is this government continuing to allow the use of sewage sludge on Ontario farmlands, despite the fact that it has no information on the health effects of such a practice?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Affairs.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: This is a very important issue, indeed. What is under way right now, actually, is that our government, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and the Ministry of the Environment have worked very closely to review the practice of spreading biosolids on farmland. This is a practice that has been in place in the province of Ontario for 30 years. We are committed to a science-based approach to dealing with this.

As a result of our work, we have posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights registry draft regulations that will regulate the spreading of this product in the province of Ontario. We are absolutely committed to ensuring the health, safety and well-being of people in our communities. That is why we are now, in our process, out consulting the public on the draft regulations that are—

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

M me France Gélinas: How can this government say that it's protecting the health of the people of Ontario when we don't know the health effects of sewage sludge on the health of Ontarians? Each and every day across Ontario, sewage sludge is spread on our farmland, yet there is no systematic monitoring of the impact on our health. It's not in the mandate of the health unit or anybody to look at the health effects.

The minister shouldn't just take my word for it. Farmers, doctors, environmentalists, health care activists—they're all raising the alarm bells. Here's what Grant Robertson from the National Farmers Union, Ontario division, has to say: "We know that there are many toxic residues present in sewage sludge and until we can remove these toxic residues, the National Farmers Union believes the spreading of sewage sludge should be prohibited."

My question is, would the minister commit today to a moratorium on the use of sewage sludge on farmland, or—

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

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I think that we are taking a very balanced approach; we are taking a science-based approach. We have been consulting with our partners right across Ontario.

But I think that it's important to correct some of what has been presented by the honourable member. OMAFRA has participated, conducted and funded a number of environmental studies with respect to this issue, as well as the Ministry of the Environment, and it will be with that body of evidence that we have put forward draft regulations. We are inviting the public to review those draft regulations and offer us their comments on those as well. I would also like to identify that local health units in Ontario have investigated complaints about adverse health effects from land application, and they have—

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just remind the guests in the gallery that you're welcome to watch the proceedings, but not participate in the proceedings.

Minister.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: This is a very serious issue, and that is why we have taken, in my view, a very responsible, comprehensive and inclusive way to deal with this. We look forward to the input that we will receive as a result of the past posting—

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

CHILD PROTECTION

Ms. Laurel C. Broten: My question is for Minister of Children and Youth Services. October is Child Abuse Prevention Month, and during this month of October, attention is brought to bear that by working collectively each and every day, we can prevent child abuse.

Preventing child abuse is the goal of my private member's bill to make reporting of child pornography mandatory. From the work that I've done in this area, I know from those involved in child protection that it has a huge emotional impact. It's rewarding when a tragedy is prevented, but just as often, it's incredibly heartbreaking.

Can the minister please tell this Legislature what she's doing to recognize the crucial contributions made by those involved in child protection, and what actions she's taking to support their work?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: First, let me thank the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore for her tireless work in protecting children from abuse, including raising awareness of child abuse in the form of online child pornography.

October is Child Abuse Prevention Month and I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the workers who work in this field. It's a very demanding field and they do an extraordinarily fine job.

Yesterday, I joined the four children's aid societies in Toronto here in the Legislature to recognize Child Abuse Prevention Month and to honour the extraordinary contributions made by Dr. Jim Wilkes, winner of this year's Stand Up for Kids Award. Dr. Wilkes is a child psychologist. His work includes advocacy for children's rights, counselling and mentorship. His work has helped thousands of children across this province overcome the trauma of abuse and neglect.

Child protection is currently undergoing—

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

Ms. Laurel C. Broten: I too would like to echo the minister's thanks to our child protection workers. There's an organization in my community called The Gatehouse, with which I've worked for more than 10 years. They continue to work with youth who are survivors of child abuse to heal and to better their lives.

Because those individuals haven't had the same opportunity as other kids early in life, research shows that youth formerly in the care of children's aid societies are up to three times more likely to be unemployed and up to three times more likely to drop out of high school, and that's simply unacceptable.

What is our government doing to better support these kids and give them a better chance at a successful future?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Giving crown wards the opportunity to be the very best they can be is a goal not only for my ministry, but of the whole government. We have been working together to improve opportunities for kids in care. I'd like to talk about a couple of those.

This past spring, we announced the extension of the Ontario child benefit, the equivalent amount to kids in care. This funding will help them participate in learning and recreational programs to support their healthy development. The Ministries of Training, Colleges and Universities, Education, and Children and Youth Services have been working together to develop crown ward education championship teams that bring together government, CASs, school boards, colleges and universities, and community members to help crown wards complete high school and pursu