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

September 16, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Sep-16 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 16 September 2009 Mercredi 16 septembre 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO LABOUR

MOBILITY ACT, 2009 /

LOI ONTARIENNE DE 2009

SUR LA MOBILITÉ

DE LA MAIN-D'OEUVRE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

TAXATION

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

TAXATION

AGENCY SPENDING

AUTISM TREATMENT

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

TAXATION

SCHOOL FACILITIES

TAXATION

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

AIR QUALITY

LOW-INCOME ONTARIANS

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LOUIS BRAILLE

WALK A MILE IN HER SHOES

TOWN OF THE BLUE MOUNTAINS

FIREFIGHTERS

TIM HORTONS

DOUGLAS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

BIOREM

TAXATION

RAMADAN

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PUBLIC SECTOR EXPENSES

REVIEW ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009

SUR L'EXAMEN DES DÉPENSES

DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT (ELECTRONIC

SEXUAL MATERIAL), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT À L'ÉDUCATION

(DOCUMENTS ÉLECTRONIQUES

À CARACTÈRE SEXUEL)

MOTIONS

APPOINTMENT OF

PRESIDING OFFICERS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

AGENCY SPENDING

PETITIONS

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

SCHOOL FACILITIES

TAXATION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

TAXATION

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

PENSION PLANS

TAXATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

HOSPITAL SERVICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

AND SCHOOL BOARD

GOVERNANCE ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009

SUR LE RENDEMENT DES ÉLÈVES

ET LA GOUVERNANCE

DES CONSEILS SCOLAIRES

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO LABOUR

MOBILITY ACT, 2009 /

LOI ONTARIENNE DE 2009

SUR LA MOBILITÉ

DE LA MAIN-D'OEUVRE

Mr. Flynn, on behalf of Mr. Milloy, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 175,

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

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It's a pleasure to rise this morning. With the Ontario Labour Mobility Act, 2009, our government is going to be strengthening the economic opportunity for our own workers, for other Canadian workers and for industries by making full labour mobility the law in the province of Ontario. If passed, the act we have before us is going to allow Ontario to meet its obligations under amendments to the Agreement on Internal Trade, the AIT, which was ratified by the provinces and territories on August 11 this year.

The amendments are intended to remove labour mobility barriers that certified workers in regulated professions and skilled trades in the province of Ontario and in Canada currently face when they relocate to another part of our country.

These changes will allow individuals to move freely across Canada. It will allow them to work where they choose, where opportunities exist and where their skills are needed. In Ontario, the changes will affect about 80 of the regulated authorities and about 300 occupations that Ontario citizens are engaged in. Those occupations are as varied as nurses, teachers, architects, engineers, mechanics and many, many others.

By providing full labour mobility for these professions and trades, we're going to strengthen Ontario's economy and our national economy by improving the productivity and competitiveness of both our economies. This act is going to help industries address changing labour market needs and is going to take advantage of opportunities in the growing sectors of our economy. It's going to support the right of Ontarians, and indeed the right of all Canadians, to live and work where they want in our country.

This bill springs from the shared commitment of all Canadian provinces and territories and the federal government to eliminate or reduce labour mobility barriers. In July 2008, at a meeting of the Council of the Federation, Canada's Premiers all recognized that achieving full labour mobility is critical to meeting the country's labour market demands. At that meeting, all the Premiers also agreed in principle to amend the Agreement on Internal Trade, whose acronym is AIT. The AIT is a national agreement.

It's been signed by the federal, provincial and territorial governments, and it commits all parties to work together to remove barriers to the movement of persons, goods, services and investments within our country.

The AIT is not new. It was signed in 1994. It came into effect on July 1, 1995.

Chapter 7 of the AIT focuses on removing labour mobility barriers within the regulated professions or the skilled trades. However, the 1994 agreement had only limited success, and that's primarily because it lacked strong enforcement mechanisms and because the commitments to labour mobility within the agreement at that time were not made clear.

As we move forward on this, we can look at some of the examples where many regulators still require out-of-province applicants to actually reside in the province before they can be certified. That means that somebody in Ontario who perhaps is moving somewhere else to practise their profession would have to move first and then become certified. Other examples of where restrictions lie today are those that impose requirements for additional material training, experience, examinations or assessments on out-of-province applicants, but those applicants are already certified by another Canadian regulator.

In other words, what's happening today and what we need to change is that if these individuals cross a provincial border to find work, they have to complete all over again the certification process they've already completed in another jurisdiction. It costs money, it costs valuable time and the recertification in an occupation or trade they are already fully qualified in may be absolutely unnecessary.

The issue is particularly important for new Canadians. We have to ensure that new Canadians who move to our country from other countries and who are already qualified to practise a profession in one province are not asked to recertify when they get a job in another province. Changes to the AIT that are included in this bill ensure that this protection is provided.

As of August 11, amendments to the AIT were ratified by all jurisdictions that commit the federal government, all the provinces and all the territories to removing labour mobility barriers that are currently faced by certified workers in the regulated professions and in the skilled trades. Amendments to

chapter 17 of the AIT that put in place stronger mechanisms that will allow us to enforce the agreement and resolve disputes are expected to be ratified later this year.

Under the amended AIT, jurisdictions can now apply for exceptions to labour mobility, but only when they protect the public interest in such areas, perhaps, as public security, the health and safety of their citizens, or for environmental and consumer protection. This is not a race to the bottom, however. This is about giving more people more opportunity to work where they're able to find that opportunity within our country.

Now, there are differences in some occupations between the jurisdictions that currently exist in Canada, and we're balancing our goal of full labour mobility with the other responsibilities that we have, one of those being the need to protect the public and consumers. The AIT is going to require that exceptions to labour mobility be published on a national website maintained by the Forum of Labour Market Ministers. In Ontario, that will mean that exceptions that are supported by the Ontario government would be posted on a website maintained by the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Exceptions must be posted on a website, and they can be challenged by the other provinces and territories in the confederation. Jurisdictions that fail to meet their obligations to remove these barriers to labour mobility face strong enforcement measures, and that's how it should be. Enforcement measures include penalties that range from a quarter of a million dollars for the smallest provinces and territories up to $5 million for the largest, Ontario being one of those.

The amended AIT also encourages provincial and territorial regulators to reconcile differences in advance in the occupational standards, but clearly maintain the ability of all jurisdictions to set standards that they deem appropriate–which means in the province of Ontario, control over the standards would still reside with the government of Ontario.

The importance of labour mobility in this can't be overstated. By endorsing changes to the AIT, all the Premiers in the country recognized that labour mobility will become an even more important issue in Canadians' economic lives and the country's economy over the upcoming years. This is certainly true in Ontario. I think all members would agree with that.

Demographic projections show us that Ontario's labour force is aging as we speak and will grow at a much slower rate in the future. Projections also show that through to the year 2030, Ontario's labour force will grow at less than 1% per year. That's half the growth Ontario experienced during the past 25 years.

Interprovincial migration is becoming more important as a means of meeting labour market demand in Ontario and in the rest of the country. But we need to make the process more efficient by lowering barriers to the movement of skilled workers, while still maintaining the integrity of the system.

Many occupations currently have a relatively high degree of mobility. By introducing this bill, we're going to make certification even more efficient for qualified and skilled individuals who want to move to Ontario to succeed in Ontario's changing and growing economy. Full labour mobility is expected to support labour market demand in the growing sectors of Ontario's economy, such as the health-related occupations.

If you look around the province of Ontario, if you look around the country, you'll see that many workers in skilled trades already enjoy full labour mobility, and that's thanks to what we call the interprovincial standards red seal program. The red seal program, for those of you who aren't familiar with it, sets common occupational standards across Canada for many of the trades. The standards are developed and endorsed by the industries themselves. Workers with the red seal can work anywhere in this country they want, anywhere their skills are needed.

They are highly employable because employers already know in advance, as soon as they see that red seal, that they've got the skills and the knowledge the employers need to get the job done. Ontario's ongoing commitment to the red seal program is specifically mentioned in the proposed legislation that we have before us today.

The amended AIT and our proposed legislation both support the red seal program as a model for achieving the full labour mobility we want to see, and also for achieving the national standards of excellence for training and certification in the skilled trades.

Workers who currently have red seal certification will continue to enjoy the full labour mobility that they enjoy today. But the AIT amendments go further than that. They also provide labour mobility to certified trades and workers in non-red-seal trades that have been matched across jurisdictions.

Here in the province of Ontario, our government has been working through the industry advisory committees that exist for these trades to determine matches, where feasible, acceptable and desirable.

The Ontario government is going to continue to support industry in maintaining and expanding the red seal program as the Canadian standard of excellence for training and certification in the skilled trades, and we should be especially proud of that.

Our labour mobility provisions attempt to strike a balance between ensuring full mobility for all certified workers in the skilled trades through the AIT and the red seal program, while supporting and preserving the very high standards that we have for certification right here in the province of Ontario.

For Ontario workers in the trades that have been matched under the AIT process—and some of those would be automobile transmission technicians, autobody repairers—the changes are going to provide them with a mobility that they don't currently have today. It's going to provide them with new mobility to pursue those same employment opportunities and increased opportunities throughout the entire country.

Ontario's support for full labour mobility also extends to the economic partnership agreement that was just signed with the province of Quebec on September 11. That agreement includes a labour mobility chapter. Both the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec agreed to remove labour mobility barriers for certified workers that are consistent with the amended AIT. This agreement builds on the 2006 construction labour mobility agreement that was signed between the two provinces. But it also includes something expanded. It includes a new process that's designed to expedite complaints and head off any potential labour mobility disputes between the jurisdictions.

The elements of the legislation, I think, should meet with the favour of this House. I'd like to describe some of the key elements of the proposed legislation. If Bill 175 is passed, it will establish a labour mobility code to guide how Ontario's regulators will support full mobility for out-of-province workers who are already certified by another Canadian regulator in another jurisdiction in the confederation.

The bill is going to establish in law the fundamental principle of the AIT; namely, that subject to limited exceptions, a worker certified to work in a regulated profession or trade in one province or territory in the confederation will also be certified in that same occupation in Ontario without having to complete additional material training, without any additional experience, without any additional examinations and without any further assessment.

The bill will also allow certified workers to apply for certification within the province of Ontario without having to be a resident of the province of Ontario at that time.

The bill is very clear. It sets out the standards, and it's going to recognize the authority of Ontario's regulators to set the occupational standards that are considered appropriate to protect the public interest in our province. But it's also going to encourage regulators to work with their colleagues across our country to reconcile any differences in standards that exist and to clear them up and mitigate them where possible. The bill would allow the responsible minister to review the responsible practices and take all necessary steps to ensure that those practices indeed comply with the labour mobility code.

The bill requires that any changes to training standards or to the scope of practice by a jurisdiction must also be communicated to all other jurisdictions within the country. This process is going to enable other provinces to determine whether or not changes that are made in other jurisdictions comply with the respective training standards within their own jurisdiction and, for the purposes of this bill, within the province of Ontario.

I mentioned earlier that strong enforcement measures are very important, and this bill is going to establish those strong enforcement measures. Some of the enforcement measures that are being strengthened would include giving the Ontario government the ability to impose administrative penalties on non-compliant regulators. It would provide the Ontario government with the authority to comply with a dispute resolution process that is already established under the amended AIT.

It would establish the province's right to recover any penalty imposed by an AIT panel against Ontario resulting from non-compliance by any one of the regulators. The bill is going to amend Ontario's existing laws to conform to the labour mobility code.

If Bill 175 is passed, the following provisions will take effect immediately upon the act coming into force. The act will override any other provisions in any other act, regulation or bylaw that are in conflict with the labour mobility code. The act will apply to applications for certification made on or after the day the act comes into force or to any other application that has been applied for but where a final decision has not been made. To ensure transparency, the act will require regulators to publish on their websites all of the certification requirements that workers already certified elsewhere in the country must meet in order to work in our province, right here in Ontario.

Since last summer, our government has been working with the provincial regulators, with industry and with stakeholders to discuss the changes under the amended AIT and to help them to meet their new obligations. Through these discussions, Ontario has been able to eliminate or reduce barriers to labour mobility and keep possible exceptions to an absolute minimum. Discussions with the regulators about implementation will continue during the legislative process and over the coming weeks and months.

The Ontario Labour Mobility Act, if passed, would make full mobility for certified workers in the regulated professions and skilled trades the law in the province of Ontario. The act would allow Ontario to meet its obligations under an agreement approved by all Premiers and the Prime Minister. It's aimed at removing mobility barriers across this country. Ontario needs full labour mobility to strengthen our productivity, to strengthen our competitiveness and to address the changing labour market needs that we all know are coming.

I would urge all members of this House to support the economic opportunity that's contained within this bill. It's going to support Ontario's improved productivity and competitiveness. It's going to support the right of all Ontarians and of all Canadians to live and work where they choose in our great country.

By supporting Bill 175 in this Legislature, all members will be supporting a bill that is going to mean increased productivity, increased competitiveness for our own economy, and increased opportunities for Canadians who currently reside in the province of Ontario, those who reside outside of the province of Ontario and those immigrants who are considering moving to this great country to be part of the economic growth that we're experiencing.

I would ask all members of the House to give this bill strong consideration and give it their support.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments? The member for Nepean—Carleton.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say congratulations for once again being in the chair. I hope you had a lovely summer, and it's wonderful to see you again.

It is a pleasure to be able to add comments to Bill 175, the Ontario Labour Mobility Act. It's a good thing that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is here, of course. He and I are on the boundary of another great province in this confederation, the province of Quebec, so I think it's significant that he is here to listen to the concerns of the Progressive Conservative caucus on Bill 175, the Ontario Labour Mobility Act.

Of course, the position of the PC Party is that we support this legislation in theory, but the key issue in this bill is on the exemptions that this bill allows that have yet to be established. I think that is critical if we are to move forward in this Legislature to deal with the labour mobility inequalities and equities between our two provinces. This bill is to fulfill Ontario's labour mobility obligations under the Agreement on Internal Trade.

This bill would recognize certification in other provinces in which apprentice-journeymen ratios are 1 to 1, despite the minister refusing to revise those ratios in Ontario. That is something that you will recall we have been raising on this side of the chamber for literally the last couple of years. It is one of those big issues of concern that we have for our apprenticeships and journeymen across this province.

Of course, I am very proud that in Nepean, which I share with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, we have probably one of the greatest trade centres coming online at Algonquin College. We are very, very proud, regardless of political party or stripe, in the city of Ottawa to have such a great training ground for tomorrow's journeymen and skilled tradesmen and women.

I just want to point out in the few seconds remaining that Ontario is the first province in Canada to introduce this legislation, which will essentially open up our borders to workers from other provinces before they open up their borders to our workers. This is a serious piece of legislation, and we will continue to—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you. Questions and comments? The member for Beaches—East York.

Mr. Michael Prue: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and indeed it's an honour to see you back in the chair as well.

I listened intently to the member from Oakville as he outlined the government's position. I think New Democrats feel that this is a very complex bill and are urging some degree of caution as it works its way through to make sure that we get it right, because there are some potential pitfalls that we know may ensue. We know that this bill is similar to the provisions set out in NAFTA and how that has impacted the provinces as well as the federal government.

We are urging some caution because the member quite correctly said that the provisions of this bill "will override any other law." We are cautious about this because the laws that have been built up in the province of Ontario are designed to protect workers in the province of Ontario or designed to protect the public and the public interest of the people of Ontario. To have a bill such as this that which will override virtually every other law, we need to make sure that we get it right.

The member from Oakville also talked about how this will guarantee the right to live and work anywhere in the country. Well, I don't think this bill is going to do that. The Constitution of Canada already provides that right. Any Canadian citizen, any permanent resident, any person who is resident in Canada has mobility and is free to travel from one end of this country to the other without let or hindrance. The only thing this is going to do, quite frankly, is to possibly extend the constitutional right to allow people to take their credentials with them.

As I said, we need to be very cautious and proceed with some considerable care as this bill works its way through.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

Mr. Jim Brownell: It's a pleasure to take

part in this debate for even a few minutes. Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry being a border constituency with the province of Quebec, this is certainly a bill that is of great interest to the constituents in my riding. When I think of the comments that I've heard in the past, and being closely associated with my good friend from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, his being a border community too with the bridge at Hawkesbury, there have been problems in the past.

It was certainly exciting last year to hear that this was on the agenda of the Council of the Federation when the Premiers met and agreed to amend the Agreement on Internal Trade, which would reduce the barriers to those in regulated occupations who wished to work in other provinces.

This agreement, originally signed in 1994, has had a number of problems over the 15 years. With this agreement and with this act, Bill 175, we're hoping to create opportunities that will reduce those barriers and, as the member from Oakville said, give all citizens in our province equal opportunity, especially when I think of new immigrants and the barriers they face as they come into our province. For those immigrants who are skilled, who have the knowledge, who have the understanding, they will be able to get into the workforce and be part of the economic recovery and the economic success of our province.

I certainly support this and look forward to its passage.

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

Mr. John O'Toole: I'd like to commend you, Mr. Speaker, and it's good to see you back in the chair. I don't know what all the fuss is about; you've been there for, some would say, too long.

Laughter.

Mr. John O'Toole: But anyway, the real issue here is that labour mobility is an ideal state. Certainly the member from Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry mentioned a timely issue, which is the mobility of Quebec to Ontario, but the lack of mobility of Ontario to Quebec. That's really an important issue. In fact, we had a piece of legislation when we were in government that was called Fairness Is a Two-Way Street. I can remember Minister Flaherty standing on the bridge between Quebec and—

Hon. Jim Watson: It didn't work.

Mr. John O'Toole: It didn't work, quite honestly. I'm being very honest. What I'm saying here is that this won't work either. This won't work because this bill here—it says the bill will not affect labour mobility with Quebec, although the government is currently working on negotiations. They've been talking about that for 20 years.

Now, I'm not trying to be disparaging of the bill. That's not my point. Let's deal with the facts the way they are, the way they exist. Let's not have illusions here that are not founded in fact.

I think this Agreement on Internal Trade is a perfect state, but what we've got to be worried about is the issue of standards and quality. We cannot be seen to be, or even in reality, lowering standards. I'm going to mention two. The CAs, the chartered accountants of Ontario, are a unique brand of accounting. We don't need to lower standards in public auditing and accounting—so other provinces don't have those standards?

The other that I'm aware of at the moment, and I'd encourage viewers to call me because I'm genuinely interested because I have a degree in this area, a labour economics degree—but opticians as well. Opticians in BC have four months of training; in Ontario, they have four years of training. They are able to do refractions and other kinds of medical procedures which could cause—this is where we'd like to end up, but this bill doesn't get us there.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Oakville, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It is a pleasure to respond, and thank you very much for the comments from the other members, specifically those from Nepean—Carleton, Beaches—East York, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, and I believe the member from Durham was actually supporting it in his comments, I think. I took his comments to be constructive. In his crusty, usual demeanour, I think he was trying to be nice, and I think I'll take that as being a constructive comment.

I think all members of the House, and certainly all those who have spoken, myself included, recognize that we live in changing times and that Ontario is really not immune to some of the pressures that affect our economy. It wouldn't be unusual, and I think when you look at the demographic trends of the future, it's not unusual to think that we're going to have to attract a number of workers to this province because we have an aging workforce.

Also, at the same time, I can think of a number of my own colleagues, and probably any one of us around the House today could think of people who have moved to other parts of the country, either permanently or on a temporary basis, to achieve economic opportunities in those jurisdictions.

What this bill is, it's an aid to allow the passage of that to happen in a much more coherent and much more efficient way than it's happening right now. Other places, for example, in other trades, you may have to move to a different province, then set up a residency, then apply for certification, then take an examination, then perhaps take extra training, when really, in effect, you had the qualifications to begin with. We need to put an end to that sort of inefficiency in the mobility of skilled labour and otherwise in this country. This bill goes a long way towards doing that.

I hope we can work out some of the differences that may exist between some of the comments that have come forward and allow this bill to move forward.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate? The member for Sarnia.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Again, I echo others' comments; it is a pleasure to see you back in the chair again this morning.

It is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak on Bill 175, the Ontario Labour Mobility Act, 2009. First, unlike other bills that have been debated this week, at least this bill is substantial. It amends six different acts and comes in at a whopping 32 pages. I think the climate change bill only had a grand total of three pages, and that represented the McGuinty government's attempt to stop global warming.

However, in regard to Bill 175, our party has some significant concerns with this bill, and I would urge the government to fill in some of the blanks before we move much further on this bill. Having said that, we want this bill before committee because we want to hear from the stakeholders what they think of it and the ways that the government could make this bill better.

Make no mistake: The Ontario Progressive Conservative Party is the party of free trade. We will support any government action that reduces barriers to trade. We believe that if we want to grow the economy, we need to stay away from protectionist feelings and embrace free trade in every way. We are concerned that this bill is just a ruse when it comes to free trade. This bill could actually create more barriers to trade.

I think it is fair to say that we want to support this bill. This will help lower internal trade barriers, and that is a noble goal. However, the cart seems to be coming before the horse on this. We understand that this proposed piece of legislation will support Ontario in meeting its labour mobility obligations under the Agreement on Internal Trade. Everyone in this House will know that the Agreement on Internal Trade is an agreement between the provinces, territories and federal government.

One of our concerns with this piece of legislation is that if passed as it is, it would establish a labour mobility code for regulatory authorities in Ontario. The code, according to the bill's compendium, will govern how regulatory authorities treat applications from individuals already certified in the same occupation by a regulatory authority in another province or territory.

According to the material provided by the government, this bill would set out the core rule that, subject to some exceptions, an individual certified in an occupation in one province or territory is to be certified in Ontario in that same occupation without requiring additional material training, experience, examinations or assessment. This bill, if passed, would recognize certification in other provinces in which apprentice-journeyman ratios are 1 to 1 despite the minister's refusing to revise those ratios in Ontario. This will put Ontario apprentices at a disadvantage in trying to find skilled trade jobs.

This seems to fly in the face of everything this government has said about apprenticeship training. For years now our party, the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, has wanted the government to reduce the apprenticeship ratios from 3 to 1 to 1 to 1, like most of our other competitors. These are the people to whom, with this bill, we are opening our borders. Now, whenever we say that the government should reduce ratios so we are competitive, they say we would be sacrificing quality and safety and it just can't be done. We believe it can be done and that it should be done so that our workers can compete on a level playing field with workers in other jurisdictions.

We understand that Working Families seems to have some Svengali-like hold on the government of the day when it comes to lowering apprenticeship ratios, but if we don't change, we run the risk of not being able to meet the labour demands of the future. I would hope that for once this government will ignore their friends at Working Families, embrace a reduction in apprenticeship ratios and tell their friends it's the right thing to do for our young people and the right thing to do for Ontario.

If the government changed the ratios so that it took one journeyman to train one apprentice, it would immediately open up thousands of apprenticeship positions and would open the door for good, high-paying jobs for our young people. Currently, Ontario's ratios are far behind most provinces, including British Columbia, Alberta, New Brunswick and Manitoba. We are near the back of the pack when it comes to fairness for skilled workers. The Premier and the minister should stop catering to special interests and unions at the expense of providing opportunities for young Ontarians.

This government continually talks about how important skilled trades are for young people, yet they obstruct every employment opportunity through these unfair ratios. Not only does this affect people who want to go into the trades, but it hurts small businesses across Ontario, not hiring the skilled employees needed to replace retiring workers or to meet growing workloads. Under Bill 175, those jobs will be filled by out-of-province workers who will have unfettered access to our market. Our workers could compete if the government would let them.

Here we are now debating a bill that will make it easier for tradespeople who have been trained in other jurisdictions, with different work ratios, to come in and get high-paying jobs at the expense of Ontario workers. This situation exists because this government has chosen to take no action on the reduction of apprenticeship ratios. Since this bill was introduced in the spring, many stakeholders have come forward with some fairly significant concerns.

Our self-regulating health providers, such as optometrists, have indicated that they will have to seriously look at how they train new optometrists so they can compete with jurisdictions that don't have as rigorous a training program. They have told us that in British Columbia, for example, optometrists are fully trained in their jurisdiction after only six months; in Ontario it takes four years.

We need guarantees from this government that as we open the door to trained individuals from other provinces, that doesn't start a race to the bottom, where you have to accept only minimal standards. Given that this bill opens the floodgates, our party is hopeful that it is a sign they will be reducing the punishing apprenticeship ratios under which our apprentices have to be trained. That way, the playing field can be levelled and we will be able to compete.

I should point out that Ontario is the first province in Canada to introduce this legislation that will essentially open up our borders to workers from other provinces before they open their borders to workers from Ontario. One of the questions we need answered before we proceed much further with this bill is, what commitments does the minister have from his counterparts in other provinces for their enabling legislation? What are their time frames? I think we would want to proceed in a fashion that opens all jurisdictions at the same time.

As it is written, Bill 175 would make it illegal for an Ontario regulatory authority to require that an applicant who is a resident of another Canadian jurisdiction be an Ontario resident as a condition of certification. Additionally, a municipality could not require that an individual reside in the municipality's geographic area as a condition of eligibility for employment. This is something, obviously, that makes sense if you're only truly interested in the free mobility of labour. However, this bill does throw up some fairly significant roadblocks to the free mobility of labour.

We are not the party of picking winners or losers; that's the group on the other side of the House. This provision tries to pick winners and losers, in our opinion. Let the market decide. Accept the credentials, regardless of language. This highlights why we are concerned about this bill. We believe that under the guise of fair trade the McGuinty government may be throwing up more barriers, not removing them. With the right kind of amendments, our party could support this bill.

There are provisions in Bill 175 that ensure that credentialed individuals from other jurisdictions have to be in good standing in those jurisdictions. For example, the act specifically states that an Ontario regulatory authority would be able to refuse to certify an individual or impose terms, conditions or limitations on the individual's certificate if deemed necessary to protect the public interest because of complaints or proceedings relating to competency, conduct or character—otherwise, the three Cs.

The regulatory authority would also be able to impose an equivalent requirement or refuse to certify an individual who has a certificate subject to a practice limitation, restriction or condition. The details on how the government intends to enforce these still need to be worked out, and we hope that by the time this bill reaches committee, the government will come forward with a plan to protect the public.

With many of the McGuinty government bills, they ask us to approve them pending regulations that will come at a later date. That is a concern to us. The minister, or his or her designate, will monitor and be authorized to review the regulations, bylaws or other instruments made by the authority under its authorizing statute to assess their conformity with this labour mobility code. The minister could also ask the regulatory authority to amend any instrument to ensure compliance with the code.

So the minister will set up the regulatory authority but apparently will still maintain a direct line of accountability for it. It is good to finally see a minister take responsibility when we know that this government may bob and weave from responsibility at every opportunity. I wonder if the minister is being set up here. I guess only time will tell in that regard.

Again, we will support any bill that truly would increase free trade. I think we need to be convinced that this bill accomplishes that. We will be looking forward to the rest of the debate on this bill and we hopefully will get a full debate at committee.

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

Mr. Michael Prue: I listened intently to the honourable member as he spoke. I was expecting—this was a one-hour leadoff, and I was kind of surprised to see the debate truncated. It appears that he is supporting the bill, but he has asked for some reasonable and rational things. I think I tried to say that in the last opportunity for two minutes, that we have to proceed with some caution. I understand that this has taken place in other parts of Canada, particularly with the TILMA discussions in Alberta and BC, which form, I guess, the template for what we are doing here today.

But there have been some problems ensuing there, and I hope that Ontario, in discussing a very similar and like matter, can deal with those.

It appears that the honourable member, on behalf of his party, is saying that they are the party of freer trade. I don't know; I never doubted that for a moment, given what happened around NAFTA and the Brian Mulroney years. In any event, the most important part of what he had to say was that we get some additional information, we proceed with caution upon that information, and that we do what is correct and right for the people of Ontario.

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

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It's a pleasure to rise and to comment on the comments of the member from Sarnia—Lambton. Certainly, he concentrated on job ratios a little bit in his comments. We should note—and I think you've got to give credit where credit is due—that when his party was in power, they didn't change any of the ratios. They had the opportunity to change the ratios and they didn't change one of them. Since we've been in power, we've changed eight of them. So I think you've really got to look at who's serious about doing something here.

I think all members are saying that they support this bill. From what I've heard, they support the concept behind this bill. Other jurisdictions have moved ahead on this type of legislation already. The province of Manitoba, for example, has passed their legislation already. They've moved to full passage.

I think some of the details that the member from Beaches—East York is bringing out and which need to be looked at—that's the role of the House, that's the role of the committee process, to take a look at some of the details that accompany any bill and to see if it can be improved or to see if there's things that can be clarified for members of the public or the industry. But I think what we can't lose sight of is that the intent of this bill and the concept behind this bill will allow Ontarians and all Canadians to participate in their economy more fully.

I think this is the sort of legislation that, quite frankly, we need to pass if we're going to be competitive in today's global economy. This is the sort of mobility we have to have. The way we were doing it in the past, that just simply isn't going to work anymore.

I think this is a government that has shown that it has preferred to take the bull by the horns, that it's prepared to move forward on this type of legislation. It's the sort of legislation that, I think, meets the needs of both those people that are employed in the industry and those employers that employ people in industries that have skilled trades and regulated professions. It's worthy of the support of all members of the House.

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

Mr. John O'Toole: I think the member from Sarnia—Lambton really captured the wish to do the right thing but the uncertainty that this is the right thing. He comes from a background in labour and management, and he knows, having worked at Nova Chemicals for a number of years—I'll let him explain that.

I think the issue of ratios is very pertinent to the discussion here this morning, and I leave it with the minister. We want to move forward, but you've got to deal with the ratios. Mr. Dunlop has mentioned it in the past and there have been members that have raised this issue besides the member from Sarnia—Lambton.

But I do want to caution members that some of what's being said by the parliamentary assistant isn't quite accurate. If you read the explanatory notes on page 1, it says, "The labour mobility code contains the following exceptions to the rule against imposing material additional training....

(1) An Ontario regulatory authority is not prohibited from imposing on the applicant any requirement that is identified on the website of the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities as a permissible certification requirement...." It goes on to say, "

(3) An Ontario regulatory authority is not prohibited from requiring the applicant" to undergo and obtain certain material additional training and experience.

The parliamentary assistant should—I know that the notes they gave you from the ministry are very well done by professionals. However, I would encourage you to read the bill. Read the explanatory notes. The devil is in the detail here.

In fact, the colleges—I finally have to say, you are either taking away these authorities of these skills groups or training groups or you're not. And if you're not, it says right here that they are "not prohibited from requiring the applicant to undertake, obtain or undergo material additional training, experience, examinations or assessments if the applicant has not practised the regulated occupation" in Ontario.

We would like to think that fairness is fairness. We don't want people to come to Ontario and take Ontario jobs unless we have the same rights in their province.

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

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: I'm delighted to comment on this very important bill. Let me tell you, as the opposition people are fully aware, that just two years ago, the Premier sat down with Premier Charest to come up with an agreement for construction labour mobility. The previous government had done a lot of work to succeed, but they never succeeded. Finally, the Premier sat down with Premier Charest and they came up with an agreement so that today, construction people can cross the provincial border and do work in Quebec without any problem, as long as they follow the regulations that are in place for their own employees.

But let me tell you, Premier McGuinty should be congratulated for having shown leadership on this very important bill. We are in Canada. We should be able to go and work in Newfoundland, in Nova Scotia or in Quebec.

We have a meeting coming up on October 22 and 23 of APOQ, which is the parliamentary association of Ontario and Quebec. We have some issues in there that we will discuss again on home care services. This is something again where anybody who gets sick in Quebec and would like to reside in their parents' home in Ontario, or vice versa, cannot get home care services at this time. The same thing for prescriptions: If you are a resident of Quebec and you are at your mother's home in Ontario, you cannot purchase your prescriptions in Ontario.

But at the present time, in this bill, there are a lot of issues by which every one of the professionals in Ontario will benefit.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Sarnia, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. Robert Bailey: It's a pleasure. I'd like to thank the members from Beaches—East York, Oakville, Durham and Glengarry—Prescott—Russell for their remarks and comments on my remarks today.

Like I said, we support the principles of free trade, freedom of mobility and movement of labour across jurisdictions. We look forward to committee, where we'll be able to delve into this bill at greater length and hopefully to make it better and to make sure that if there are discrepancies, as the member for Durham pointed out, with perhaps the college of trades being able to overrule parts of this, we get those questions answered. We look forward to working with the different members in committee in doing that.

Also, it was brought to my attention earlier today that apparently, with the strike at licensing bureaus, there are a number of bus drivers and school bus drivers who are unable to get their licences. I don't know whether this is an example of labour mobility, but I was told that a number of bus drivers from Toronto had to go to Ottawa to drive busses. I don't know if that's an example of labour mobility that the government was looking for. I'm sure it wasn't. But anyway, that's one of the ramifications for industry, with the economy as it is.

Thank you to all the members, and I look forward to the debate in committee.

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

Mr. Michael Prue: I wonder if I might preface my remarks: I am seeking unanimous consent to hold down the lead. Our member is not here today.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Beaches—East York is seeking unanimous consent to stand down the third party's lead. Agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Michael Prue: Thank you very much. That allows me a full 20 minutes, which is more than enough time for me to make the comments I need to make.

I'd like to start off by talking about this bill in terms of its broad application and why we have some concerns not necessarily with the bill but with how it may impact other laws and the Constitution of Canada.

I'll start out by talking about mobility rights, which this bill is intended to help. I would agree it will help mobility, not of people, but of assets and qualifications, to cross one provincial border and another. The Canadian Constitution already is very clear: Any person who is a Canadian citizen, a permanent resident, or who is legally in Canada has full mobility rights. They are not in any way hindered from crossing one provincial boundary to another. They are not hindered in any way from doing all things that are legal within this country.

They are not hindered in any way from looking for work or accepting work in any province. The holdback here, if there is a holdback at all, is that people often cannot take their qualifications with them. If a person is legally entitled to be an electrician or a plumber or a carpenter or any other profession in Ontario, they cannot necessarily follow that profession into another province.

The ones we deal most often with, of course, are our neighbours, either Manitoba or Quebec, and so those are the ones where we need to look for those mobility rights and vice versa—but the Constitution already allows them to do that. I'm hoping that when this bill is debated it will not infringe upon a constitutional right, because some lawyers have suggested it may and that if the bill is to proceed and is to become law, it needs to very clearly not take away any rights that people already have. That's the first thing that we need to talk about.

The second thing that we need to take a very close look at—and the member from Oakville talked about this in his remarks—is that the provisions of this bill will override any other law. This is very troublesome to me and, I guess, to the New Democratic Party because we are a nation of laws; we are a province of laws. We pass laws in this Legislature all the time for the public good, and to have this bill override some of those—we need to be careful with that.

We need to be very careful with what we're doing and what authority we give, because in the desire to free up trade and the desire to allow mobility of experience and to recognize others' credentials, we need to make sure that we are not doing so to the detriment of the people of this province and indeed to the detriment of the people of this country.

I know that when this goes to committee we'll want to have a very clear look at how this wording is ultimately framed and the regulations that go with it to make sure that what we are trying to do to build a better society, a better province, is not impugned in any way, where this bill will allow it to be overridden easily.

Before I go into the main meat of what I have to say, we are also, I think, a little worried about the provisions involving red seal, because there is but one line in the bill that says the province may take actions to protect the red seal. We think that this needs to be much stronger than it currently is because the red seal program is indeed a good program.

I want to talk about the potential difficulties that may arise here. This is a very broad bill. It is a bill that is far more complex than one would initially think in looking at it. We as a province, as I said, pass many laws, and this bill may be so broad as to be incompatible with some of the other things we are trying to do. Even though we talk about free trade, I know that many of us in this Legislature often engage in debate from all sides of the House, trying to protect our local industries. We try to say that people should buy cars made in North America, particularly cars made in Ontario.

We try to talk about giving an advantage to Ontario workers to be able to give their skills, to build the industries and to keep jobs here, and we try to stimulate local economies. The passage of this bill may make that difficult. It may render the arguments to stimulate local economies moot.

There is also the whole problem of maintaining public health care. I want to give the example of NAFTA. When it was passed, it did not come from one province to another but it did come from the United States. There was a company by the name of Centurion Health, who sued, or attempted to sue, the Canadian government and provinces because they were not allowed to move, holus-bolus, their health care centres from the United States into Canada, to provide private health care in a place where the public had deemed that public health care was the norm and what we wanted. They attempted to sue the federal government for $160 million so they could set up their own chain of private health clinics.

I'm very worried, because that is a public goal that Canadians are almost universally agreed upon. Will the passage of this bill cause us to have to defend other public policies that we have set in place—everything from universal education up to 18, which is public and free, to our public health care, to public housing and all the other laudable things that we often talk about? If someone were to come along and challenge that under the aspects of Bill 175, if it is passed, we need to make sure there are provisions inside so that that will not happen.

In the TILMA article, which was the template for this bill, the

article entitled "No Obstacles" reads as follows: "Each party shall ensure that its measures do not operate to restrict or impair trade between or through the territory of the parties, or investment or labour mobility between the parties." That's pretty much which is contained within the body of the bill. But everything we do in this Legislature affects that provision. If we pass a bill, it will affect the markets. If we pass a bill, it will affect investments. If we pass a bill, it will affect how workers are able to obtain jobs, keep jobs or keep investments flowing in the province of Ontario.

I just want to say that the passage of a similar type, which is contained within the body of this bill, will cause very much the same problems that they are experiencing in both British Columbia and Alberta.

I also want to talk about the application of the bill, and I think this is where we really need to sit down with our municipal partners. We really need to sit down with the MUSH sector.

Hon. Jim Watson: Peter, I think Colonel Sanders is looking for you.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Order.

Mr. Michael Prue: I think there's a great deal of levity here.

We need to sit down with our municipal partners, because this bill will have a very broad impact, not only with municipalities, towns and cities across this province but also with the regions. It will have a very broad impact on the MUSH sector.

As I understand it, what will be included under Bill 175 are "departments, ministries, agencies, boards, councils, committees, commissions ... agencies of government." It will involve "crown corporations, government-owned commercial enterprises, and other entities that are owned or controlled by the party through ownership interest," it will involve "regional, local, district or other forms of municipal government," it will involve "school boards, publicly funded academic, health and social service entities," and it will involve "non-governmental bodies that exercise authority delegated by law." These are a lot of people who make a lot of decisions for the public good.

They have contracts, they seek workers, they buy goods, they buy services, and it will impact a lot of them.

I know some of the problems that were inherent in Alberta and British Columbia when they came up with the first TIMLA will be borne out here. Some of the same requests will be made; some of the same dichotomy we are going to have to resolve will have to be resolved. Just to tell you what some of those were, in both Alberta and British Columbia, municipal government associations sought exclusions because they felt that it was going to be very problematic for them in handling their day-to-day affairs once that law came into effect. The same things are going to happen here in Ontario.

They requested, I think, not unreasonable things that were all turned down under the body of the law, and I think we ought not to make the same mistake in Ontario.

First and foremost, municipalities, universities, schools, hospitals and government institutions asked to be free to give a local option; that is, to hire locally whenever possible to carry out the goods and services that were going to be required in the building of a hospital or a school—

Interjections.

Mr. Michael Prue: Mr. Speaker, I'm having a hard time even hearing myself here. I don't know whether—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I agree with the member from Beaches—East York. The conversation level is getting a bit high, and I would ask those who need to carry on those conversations to do so in the lobbies, or whisper. Thank you.

The member for Beaches—East York.

Hon. Jim Watson: Michael, we weren't missing anything.

Mr. Michael Prue: Thank you very much. My friends on both sides of the House are assuring me they're not missing anything, but I'm not sure that's entirely true.

What we are asking is that when we're dealing with municipalities, universities, schools, hospitals, government agencies and non-governmental bodies that will be impacted by this law, we look at what their needs are. If a municipality, a school or a hospital wants to hire locally in order to get good service from people who understand the circumstances locally; particularly in times of high unemployment, if you want to go out and find a construction crew in your neighbourhood that is hugely underemployed—they may not be allowed to do so anymore.

They asked for an exemption in order to carry that out, and it was not granted in Alberta and British Columbia. I think it's the kind of exemption, although I know it runs contrary to the main purport of the bill, that needs to be looked at, and that we need to look at it.

The second thing is, they asked for the authority not to be sued for damages under the provisions of the bill by people who were unhappy that they were not considered in contract negotiations. They were not granted that. Therefore, municipalities and the whole broad MUSH sector in both British Columbia and Alberta are subject to being sued for damages for the entire legal costs that may result from this. They are often not equipped to have that amount of money to defend themselves.

The third thing is that they are not allowed, even under the provisions of that bill, and certainly I have not seen anything in this bill, to defend their own actions, because this is a provincial responsibility. So a municipality, a university, a school, a hospital or a non-government agency cannot even defend their own actions. We haven't seen that because of course this will likely come in the regulations, but we want to make sure that we don't make that same mistake. If somebody is acting in good faith, they should be allowed to defend themselves when and if the matter is taken to court.

Last but not least, the government does not allow the ability to prevent frivolous and vexatious actions when someone seeks to challenge municipalities, universities, schools or hospitals. It cannot simply be dismissed out of hand as being frivolous or vexatious. The municipalities in both Alberta and British Columbia asked for this safeguard and did not get it. What I am saying to this House today is that if we proceed with this, we should make sure that we are protecting our partners.

I hear very often in this House, particularly from the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that these are our partners and that we respect our partners. Well, I think we should respect them, and I think we should make sure that, in the passage of this bill, we are going to do everything reasonably practicable to make sure that people are protected and municipalities are protected against vexatious actions and to make sure that they can make their own decisions.

Because, clearly, that was the whole intent of the acts that we have passed—the Municipal Act—to free up municipalities to make their own decisions and to do what is best for their own citizens. That was the purport and the intent of the City of Toronto Act when it was passed—although, I must say, I am a little aggrieved that the minister saw fit to take away Toronto's right to license cab drivers.

But in any event, we need to make that kind of decision as a Legislature before we proceed with the bill as to exactly how it is going to set out and impact whole broad sectors, whether those broad sectors are the red seal, whether it's recognizing credentials in other provinces or other countries, whether it is the freedom of trade, whether it is the municipalities, whether it is going to impact in any way upon the Constitution of this country, or whether it is going to override literally every other law.

I am asking, and I think this is really all I have to say on it today, that we exercise some extreme caution, that we send this to committee, that we allow a great deal of time in committee to hear from experts in law—and I have been given some papers, expertise from lawyers at Sack Goldblatt and others, talking about the pitfalls that have befallen both British Columbia and Alberta and the pitfalls that are being experienced in other parts of the country as we try to exercise freer trade—that we take some considerable time to look at this, that we get it right and that we ensure that no one in Ontario, particularly our municipalities, is hurt in the exercise of this.

Do New Democrats welcome freer trade? Yes, we do. Do we welcome it at the cost of what we have, as a society, built up for 100 years? No, we may not. Do we want to protect such vital things as our public health system, our education system, the universality of what we try to do for the people of Ontario? Those must never be put on a lesser playing field than free trade.

So when this bill goes through, I ask that some caution be made, because we have much to protect and we have much to lose. This bill has only a little modicum of change to gain, because everything that is really important is already contained within the Constitution.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to the standing orders, this House will recess until 10:30 of the clock.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. David Zimmer: It's my pleasure to introduce members of Professional Engineers Ontario. That's the regulatory body for engineers here in Ontario. They look after 72,000 engineers and they've put in 87 years as a self-regulating profession: Kim Allen, the chief executive officer and registrar; Diane Freeman, the president-elect; and Donald Wallace, the executive director of the Ontario Centre for Engineering and Public Policy.

There's a reception at the end of the day, and I encourage all members to attend the reception hosted by PEO.

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Today I would like to introduce Ms. Camille Gooden, who is from the Ministry of Health Promotion.

M me France Gélinas: It is my pleasure to introduce visitors from the yellow shirt brigade—they're easy to pick out—who are protesting the closure of the emergency department at Douglas Memorial Hospital. They are: Susan Salzer, Donna Frankson, Anne Kranics, Anne Marie Noyes, Wayne Gates, Merilyn Athoe, Doris Emerson, Joy Russell, June Robertson, Nancy Richer, Pat Schofield, Fiona McMurran, Samantha McMurran, as well as Marg Ferland. Welcome to Queen's Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the member from Parkdale—High Park and page Helen Lee, we would like to welcome her mother, Alison, her father, David, her grandmother Beth and her grandfather Bob, sitting in the public galleries today. Welcome to Queen's Park.

There being no further introductions—oh, my apologies. The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. John Milloy: I'd like to introduce members of my staff from the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities who are up there. As part of their professional development, they're here to see question period today. I'd like to welcome them and thank them for all their hard work in the ministry.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question for the Premier about his summer of scandal: Premier, a very disturbing story has emerged involving the conduct of your finance minister and a senior staffer in the Premier's office surrounding the OLG expense scandal. In this case, the Canadian Press reports that Minister Duncan ordered then-CEO Kelly McDougald to find some "scapegoats" to blame for expenses, some political pawns for the McGuinty government to hide behind. Ms. McDougald refused and was fired.

Premier did you or your assistant chief of staff direct Minister Duncan to make this ultimatum?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the question—

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. We certainly welcome all of our guests here, but I ask that you just observe and not participate in the proceedings, as much as you may wish to.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm pleased to take the question. I think my honourable colleague is very much aware that the matters he is raising are now the subject of litigation in court. There will be representations made by both sides through their counsel. We intend to respect that process, so I cannot speak directly to those kinds of issues.

But I am pleased to say that we continue to take steps to improve accountability when it comes to our agencies, boards and commissions, including an announcement I made earlier today that we'll be later introducing a bill in this House that will give authority for the first time to the Integrity Commissioner to review the expenses for our senior executives at our 22 biggest agencies, boards and commissions, which I think will be very effective in heightening accountability and transparency and better protecting the interests of taxpayers.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, these are very serious allegations about the true conduct of the McGuinty government behind closed doors, a McGuinty government who, it seems, has an instinct to duck behind any convenient political shield it can find, a government willing to put anyone's head on a stick as long as it's not their own.

This goes right to the core of the accountability of your government. On behalf of Ontario taxpayers, we need to shine a light on exactly what transpired with the OLGC before those expenses were released. Premier, will you release by the end of the day Ms. McDougald's complete phone BlackBerry

schedule and any other information pertaining to her meetings with the finance minister and members of your office?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: There's one particular word used by my colleague in his question that is a very important word and that properly characterizes what we are talking about here. He made reference to "allegations." Again, I would remind my honourable colleague—and I'm sure he is very much aware of this and in agreement with this—that there is a process that is about to unfold through our courts. I think we ought to allow due process to unfold.

In the meantime, that will not stop our government from taking any and all appropriate steps to ensure that we enhance accountability, particularly among our agencies, boards and commissions. We have worked very hard in the past to ensure that all cabinet ministers, parliamentary assistants and political staff have their expenses now vetted through the Integrity Commissioner, and because of the change we're making today, for the first time our senior execs at our 22 biggest agencies, boards and commissions will now have to have their expenses reviewed by the same Integrity Commissioner.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, these are very serious allegations that you seem to show no interest in addressing. It's unfortunate that your instinct when cornered during the summer of scandal is to stonewall. Over at eHealth, you hid behind a PWC study that not only never happened, but we found out later was never contracted in the first place; you want a staff of nine at the Integrity Commissioner's office to sift through up to one million expense reports because the ministers are not up to the job; and now, Premier, you're setting up taxpayers for an $8-million lawsuit because of your mismanagement. The pattern is alarming.

Premier, simply getting rid of a minister will set a tone and won't cost taxpayers a dime. Will you do it?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think that it's important for us to draw a distinction between the interest of my honourable colleague and what I think Ontarians really want us to do. I think they want us to do whatever is necessary to heighten accountability, particularly among our agencies, boards and commissions. That is not something I think, in fairness, that governments of any political stripe have really turned their minds to in the past.

We are doing this now for the very first time, looking at those 615 arm's-length agencies, boards and commissions, at the thousands and thousands of people who work there and at their expenditures. That's what we're doing. That's why we're putting in place new rules to ensure that there's more transparency and more accountability. I think that's in keeping with public expectations.

TAXATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, you've set a disturbing pattern of saying things here in the House, in the precinct, that we find out later are not in keeping with the facts. Yesterday, with some fanfare at your morning press conference, you announced that Michael Ignatieff and the federal Liberal Party supported your HST sales tax grab. Then late last night, you were forced to backtrack and sent out a retraction. Your retraction indicated that your claim hours earlier just wasn't true.

Premier, why did you tell Ontario families that Mr. Ignatieff supported your tax grab when it just wasn't true?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I have been waiting with bated breath for some time now for the leader of the official opposition to put to me a question about the single sales tax, because our position on the single sales tax is very apparent, very clear, very forthright for Ontarians to understand.

What Ontarians really want to know, when it comes to the single sales tax, is whether or not my honourable colleague has the courage of his convictions and whether he's prepared to stand up here and now and commit to repealing the single sales tax should he earn the privilege of serving Ontarians in government.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The clock is stopped. I would appreciate everyone listening to the question.

Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, that is your second misunderstanding in as many days. First, the Premier said it was a misunderstanding when he told members of the House that PricewaterhouseCoopers was retained when they in fact were not. Now you have a potential $4.3-billion misunderstanding with Mr. Ignatieff.

Taxpayers should be able to bank on the credibility of the Premier. Your HST tax grab is nothing but a greedy play on the pocketbooks of working families and seniors in the province of Ontario.

Premier, I ask you: Why is it that when the heat is on, you tend to say things that just aren't true?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd just ask the honourable member to withdraw that comment.

Mr. Tim Hudak: I withdraw—not in keeping with the facts.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Try as he might, my honourable colleague cannot wriggle off this hook. He tells us that he is adamantly opposed to the single sales tax. He tells us that it will wreak havoc on Ontarians. He tells us that it will hurt our families. He tells us that it will hurt our businesses. He tells us that it will hurt our seniors. He tells us that it will hurt renters, condominium owners, first-time homebuyers and sports enthusiasts. He tells us that it will do all those things, but he is not prepared to stand up and commit, here and now, that once we move ahead with a single sales tax—because we believe it's the right thing to do for Ontarians—that he's prepared to repeal it.

I'm giving him another opportunity: Is he prepared to have the courage of his convictions and say that, should he earn the privilege of serving Ontarians as the Premier, he will repeal the single sales tax in Ontario?

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, you're the one putting the hook to taxpayers, middle-class families—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): It's terrible on both sides. I would just appreciate some co-operation, because I would like to be able to hear the questions and the answers, and I find it very difficult with members from both sides shouting down the opposite sides.

Mr. Tim Hudak: This isn't the first time, and I'm sure it won't be the last, that the Premier tried to fool Ontario families about a massive tax grab.

Canadian Press quoted you in the heat of the 1999 election campaign saying that you opposed harmonization of the GST and PST. You said that combining these taxes would lead to a net tax increase for Ontario families.

Premier, what changed? Why were you against it then but are all in favour of your greedy tax grab today?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think we're having a very important debate in this Legislature. I think it's an important opportunity for Ontarians to understand what the two sides are.

The people of Ontario could be forgiven for being confused by the position being put forward by the Conservative Party here in Ontario, because they are telling us that they are opposed to the single sales tax, again they are telling us it will wreak havoc both on our families and our economy, that it's not in the interest of our future, and they are going to do everything they possibly can to stop it. But they are not prepared to take the next step and say—once this becomes law in Ontario, once we have this in place in our businesses, and our families are operating on that premise, they are not prepared to stand up and commit to repealing it. And I put it to my colleague—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): No, leave it running.

New question, the leader of the third party.

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier and it is a very simple question. Why did the Premier's assistant chief of staff attend a meeting to discuss how to handle a freedom-of-information request about questionable expenses at the OLG?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Our government has moved in a variety of ways to address the very real issues of expenses and to ensure that the public has full accountability of our agencies, boards and commissions. Those steps are important. It is important that Ontarians understand all the issues surrounding a range of agencies. We have taken steps, and my colleague the Minister of Government Services will be introducing legislation today to go further to make sure Ontarians can have the confidence that their agencies, boards and commissions are being well managed and will continue to defend the taxpayers of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This appears to be political interference of the highest order, with direct connections right back to the Premier's office. Clearly, he and his office were desperately trying to manage their way out of yet another expense scandal that was breaking in the province. My question: Does the Premier think it is appropriate for his office to be directly involved in screening and managing freedom-of-information requests sent into government agencies?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: There has been a statement of allegations with respect to events that transpired. We will respond to that in due course and in an appropriate fashion.

What I can say to the leader of the third party is this: Our government is committed to protecting taxpayer interests. Our government is committed to ensuring maximum accountability, maximum transparency with respect to the operations of our agencies, boards and commissions, and we will continue on the path to ensure that Ontarians can have greater confidence and that our agencies, boards and commissions continue—or begin, in some cases—to provide that accountability and that transparency. That's what the people of Ontario want, that is what's important to the government, and that's what is important to the agencies and those that depend on the success of those operations for their funding.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It's interesting, because just yesterday this same Premier boasted that his government has "truly enhanced transparency and accountability in the province of Ontario." The only thing that this Premier and his gang of political spin doctors have done is call into question the very integrity of the FOI process in this province. Ontarians may very well have access to the FOI process, as the Premier likes to claim, but will he now acknowledge that the only information they will ever receive for as long as he is the Premier here in this province is information that his office has scrutinized and sanitized first?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I would remind the leader of the New Democratic Party that the Information and Privacy Commissioner's report last year indicated that our ministry had a 94.3% compliance rate within 30 days on FOIs. Our interest is to make information public as quickly as possible, and we will continue to do that following the processes that have been laid out.

We will also go beyond and will continue to build on accountability and transparency measures throughout the government agencies, as the Premier has indicated. We think those are the appropriate steps. We've brought freedom of information and accountability to Hydro One and OPG, which was strictly forbidden. We have extended the rules on a whole range of issues. These are the appropriate steps. That's what taxpayers expect, and that's what we'll continue to deliver.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This question is to the Premier, as well.

Yesterday the Premier stated decisively, "We have secured Mr. Ignatieff's commitment to moving ahead with the" harmonized sales tax. But later in the day, John McCallum, the federal Liberal finance critic, stated just as decisively that there is no deal. How does the Premier explain this contradiction?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I am confident that over time the federal Liberal Party will be very clear in terms of its support for the single sales tax in the province of Ontario and our efforts to bring it into being here, and I'm confident that any objective observer will understand how important it is for us to move ahead with this. If you take a look at what has happened around the world, in 130 other countries—it's a prerequisite to join the EU. Countries like Germany, Japan, Italy and Norway all have had this in place for an extended period of time now. We've just got to get into the game and give our businesses the same advantage.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Unfortunately for the Premier, everyone is scrambling to distance themselves from his unfair tax scheme. As one Liberal MP put it yesterday, "It's absolutely inappropriate and cruel ... to be pushing harmonization in the middle of a deep recession when people are in economic difficulty."

The Premier plans to make life more expensive in this scheme—and it will also lose jobs in the province of Ontario.

Why did the Premier think he had support for this scheme, and does he think that "inappropriate and cruel" is actually a complimentary term?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I do recall the comments offered by Pat Capponi, who leads the 25 in 5 Network for Poverty Reduction. She said the following: "This budget has moved the bar forward on housing, tax credits and child benefits in ways that will make a tangible difference in the lives of many Ontarians."

We've been particularly concerned about ensuring that our budget reflects the challenges faced by our low-income families. That's why we have a tax credit in place. It will be the largest of its kind in Canada. That's why we've enhanced the Ontario child benefit as well. That's why we've increased our property tax benefits for seniors and low-income families. I think that represents a comprehensive approach, a sensitive approach, to the challenges faced by our low-income families.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What the people of Ontario want is for their government to be worried about affordability in this province. They want a government that's concerned about helping them get a job in these tough economic times.

The HST scheme makes life more expensive and will kill up to 40,000 jobs in this province, according to a report by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce.

The federal Liberal finance critic, John McCallum, says this: "One can certainly debate whether the implementation of a tax of this kind in the middle of a recession is sound public policy." His colleagues just call it "cruel."

In the face of growing opposition, why does this Premier insist on shoving the HST down the throats of Ontarians at the precise time when they can least afford it?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to quote Gail Nyberg of the Daily Bread Food Bank. She said the following: "If you're a low-income Ontarian this is a positive budget, and I congratulate the government on recognizing that you can fight poverty and stimulate the economic scene at the same time.

When you start to think about an extra $42 per month per child and start to look at the one-time money coming back and the permanency of the tax credit, the harmonization tax credit, this will make some tangible difference—an extra $100 in these folks' pockets is the difference between going to food banks and not going to food banks. We couldn't be happier and we congratulate this budget, and this government on continuing the fight."

I think that pretty well says it all.

AGENCY SPENDING

Mr. Norm Miller: I have a question for the Premier. On Monday Premier McGuinty assembled the media to say that he had a plan to fix the lavish expense problems at OLG. Now there's more evidence that it was nothing more than a PR stunt and the Premier doesn't really have a plan. Premier, were the so-called accountability measures you introduced nothing more than your plan B for dealing with the summer of scandal?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: One of the things that is part of that approach, that drive to enhance accountability among our agencies, boards and commissions, consists of a bill that we'll be introducing later today, and I look forward to my colleague's support in that regard.

What we are going to do for the first time in Ontario is ensure that the Integrity Commissioner has the authority to review expenses for the senior execs in our ABCs. In particular, she'll be given the authority to take a look at expenses that have come from the boards of directors, from the CEO, from senior management, and then the five biggest spenders within any organization, no matter what job they might happen to hold.

We think that's a step forward, and I look forward to my colleague's support for that new initiative that will enhance accountability among our ABCs.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Norm Miller: Again, for the Premier: It appears it was only after McDougald refused to take

part in your PR scheme that the Premier's office kicked into high gear and cobbled together plan B—again, a hastily-called news conference and an announcement that an office of nine people will begin screening the expenses of 80,000 employees.

Premier, the pattern is alarming. The time is long overdue for you to do the right thing. Will Premier McGuinty come clean with Ontarians, stop the desperate PR schemes and kill the scandals by holding a cabinet minister in his government accountable?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Obviously I'm going to take issue with my friend's categorization of these as PR schemes. I would ask him whether or not he's going to support our efforts, through this bill, to give new authority to the Integrity Commissioner to take a look at the expenses of our senior executives in our agencies, boards and commissions. I would ask him whether he's going to support our initiative to require that the expenses of our senior execs at our agencies, boards and commissions be posted online. We think that's the appropriate thing to do.

We're also going to require that cabinet ministers' expenses and senior execs' within the Ontario public service be posted online. Now, he might call those "public relations," but I think they're progressive steps forward. Again, I would ask for his support.

AUTISM TREATMENT

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre des Services à l'enfance et à la jeunesse. On World Autism Awareness Day, the minister sang the praises of the Geneva Centre for Autism. The minister said, "Since 1986, the centre has been bringing together professionals, educators, parents and researchers from around the world." Well, Minister, this summer, that centre sent a letter out to the parents, telling them that they need to close their services from August 31 to September 4, 2009.

Minister, can you explain why this centre had to close its doors?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I welcome the opportunity to look further into that particular issue.

On the question of autism, I tell you that one of the great privileges I have had is to get to know some of the families with children with autism. I can assure you that we are doing everything we can to improve services for kids with autism. We have tripled funding for IBI therapy and autism services. The Minister of Education and I are working very, very closely to make sure that schools are welcoming places for children with autism.

We are working hard to improve this and we will continue our hard work.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Well, the Geneva Centre had to close for a week because it had no choice to balance their budget.

Let me quote from the letter. They go, "Due to a freeze in government funding ... we will be closing our services and requiring staff to take time off without pay for those days," rather than having staff laid off. "During the shutdown periods, there will be no services delivered."

Minister, is it acceptable that this centre finds itself with no other choice but to close its doors for a week in order to balance their budget?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As I said in the initial question, I will look into that particular situation. We do fund organizations to deliver IBI therapy. They work within that envelope to provide service in the way that best suits those families. As I said, in that particular case, I will look into seeing what happened, but different organizations do manage differently, and if that was the decision they took I will look into that particular case.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Our province, like many other jurisdictions around the world, is currently feeling the negative effects of the ongoing global economic downturn. The people in my community are worried. Job security is a top concern for my constituents and, quite frankly, Ontarians across the province.

As a result of the current global economic crisis, a number of key sectors in the province, for instance the high-tech sector in Ottawa, have experienced a downturn and for reasons out of their control have had to scale back in order to remain afloat. My constituents are concerned not only about the security of their own jobs and the welfare of their families, but also for their neighbours. So I ask the Minister of Economic Development and Trade: What is your ministry doing to create jobs in this province and to keep Ontarians working?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I'm very pleased to accept this question from the member for Ottawa Centre, who has been instrumental in helping us discuss with our businesses in the Ottawa region how we can be helpful to them. I appreciate his hard work on behalf of his own constituents.

Let me say that over the course of these last few years, the Ontario government has gotten back into the business of helping our companies become more competitive on the world stage. Perfect examples of this are the Next Generation of Jobs Fund—$1.6 billion of investment has resulted from just the first couple of years of this fund; and our advanced manufacturing program, where an over $100-million commitment in loans by us has leveraged over $900 million in investments by the private sector. Likewise, a new program, the eastern Ontario development fund, which this member knows very well, has leveraged all kinds of jobs for small communities in eastern Ontario, which we know has seen—

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

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Minister, it is reassuring to know that the province has programs in place to create and maintain jobs, considering the current economic conditions.

You have made mention of a number of programs and initiatives established by this government, aimed at creating and maintaining jobs in the province, to which a large amount of funds are allocated. In these tough economic times, it becomes increasingly more important to show results when government funds are concerned and people's jobs are at stake.

Minister, could you provide this House and Ontarians with examples of how your ministry is putting taxpayers' dollars to work for them, their families and their neighbours, especially in eastern Ontario?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: We've had some great examples of announcements throughout the summer months that I think show that our programs are working, and we're encouraging those companies to invest. Electrovaya, right here outside of the GTA, is creating new and improved batteries for use in electric vehicles and is taking their product worldwide. It's the perfect Ontario story. And in Hamilton, Karma Candy: We advanced an expansion of their production so that Karma Candy can hire more people and make great products for export, candy in this case.

And in eastern Ontario, we've got a great company, HRose Machining, creating 14 new jobs over the next few years in Carleton Place. That's an important example of how small business can negotiate with government and we can help them grow in important parts of our province.

So we appreciate the support from all members to help promote our programs that are helping businesses exceed and succeed.

TAXATION

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: To the Premier: What we've witnessed here today in question period is a Premier so desperate to change the channel on his summer of scandal and his tax hikes that he has started asking his own questions like he's the leader of the official opposition.

So I have a question today for the Premier—he's had several times to answer the question. Why did you say Michael Ignatieff supported your HST plan when he said no such thing?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I am more than prepared to talk about our position on the single sales tax. We've been very clear on this. We have initiated this. We have sought and obtained the support of the federal government when it comes to moving ahead with the single sales tax. We believe that it is the single most important thing that we can do to strengthen this economy, put us on a stronger footing so we can create more jobs and support our public services. That's where we stand: four-square behind the single sales tax.

What Ontarians continue to be confused about is the Conservative Party position, and they're wondering why, if they are so opposed to it, they're not prepared to commit to repealing it. I give my colleague the opportunity now, which her leader rejected, to inject some clarity into their position on the single sales tax in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The Premier had so much fun in his seven years as leader of the official opposition, I can't wait to welcome him back to this place in two years.

If the single sales tax was so important to him in 1999, then why did he say he opposed the HST, because it's going to be a net increase in taxes to Ontarians? You told us it would hurt Ontarians in 1999. What has changed? Your skyrocketing deficit? Your scandalous spending? Your mismanagement of taxpayer dollars? Please tell us what has changed.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Given the passion and the enthusiasm that they bring to this debate, and certainly the volume as well, the logical inference would be that they're going to do everything they can not only to stop it but, given the opportunity, they will instantly repeal it. I would expect that to be the very top of their platform: "We will repeal the single sales tax in the province of Ontario." It's just a suggestion on my part. I'm sure they're going to want to take it into account.

Again I ask my colleague if she might inject at least a little bit of clarity into this debate for the people of Ontario. Will they now stand up and commit to repealing the single sales tax in the province of Ontario?

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My question is to the Premier. For the past six years, the Premier has been forcing public school boards to defer millions of dollars of badly needed maintenance spending to compensate for his government's inadequate funding. Public schools need new plumbing, heating, computer rooms, science labs, gyms and fields, yet recently, the McGuinty government handed over $250,000 to a private academy in Collingwood for a new field. Is the Premier telling us that he couldn't find a school anywhere in the Ontario public education system that could use that money?

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

Hon. George Smitherman: I'm privileged on the part of our government to work with government ministries on matters of infrastructure, on the matter at hand that the member speaks about related to the upkeep of our schools. That's why our government's budget initiative, with substantial new investment for economic stimulus, brought 700 million new dollars to the floor for the renovation of schools in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: The parents who contacted us have made it very clear that the McGuinty government needs to take a look at its commitment to public education and the Premier needs to get its priorities straight. What does the Premier or the Deputy Premier have to say to parents at Northern Secondary School in Toronto who have been working tirelessly to revitalize their field for the students and the community and have received not one dime from the McGuinty Liberal government?

Hon. George Smitherman: Across the province of Ontario, of course, there are thousands of schools and there are thousands of playing fields as well. The honourable member raises one project, but he doesn't comment on the fact that through investment of government resources in infrastructure initiatives designed to enhance access to recreational programs, fields and also buildings, hundreds and hundreds of unique projects are being supported.

We acknowledge, as the honourable member encourages us, that there are more opportunities to renew recreational infrastructure, and it's nice to at least see the member's acknowledgment that this government has made substantial progress with hundreds of unique projects across the province of Ontario.

TAXATION

Mr. David Zimmer: My question is to the Minister of Revenue. I've been talking with constituents over the summer, and many of them have come to me with concerns regarding the harmonized sales tax. They've heard statements by the opposition that things such as food are going to be subject to HST. My understanding of how the HST is going to work is that items which are currently subject to GST will also be subject to HST. But with the help of $4.3 billion in transitional payments from the federal government, our government has exempted a number of items, including children's clothing, diapers and feminine hygiene products.

When I go to buy food at the grocery store, the vast majority of my purchases charge no GST at all. If this is the case, is what the opposition parties are claiming true? Will all food items be subject to HST?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I thank the member for Willowdale for this important question. Let's just be absolutely clear: When it comes to basic groceries, there will be no harmonized sales tax applied. Today, there is no GST nor PST, and after July 1, there will be no HST on basic food. Those who are trying to scaremonger on this issue should be aware that we are very, very clear on this point.

The most important thing we need to do in the economy right now is to get more people back to work. The way to do that is to ensure that we can compete in the 21st century. We have a tax system that was created in 1961. It is absolutely important that we ensure that we have people back to work to compete for those jobs in the 21st century. We will indeed modernize our tax system to ensure that we can help get people back to work. On this side of the House, we are for it. It's interesting to note that our opponents are opposed to it, but just in a temporary fashion.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. David Zimmer: Minister, though items in grocery stores are largely exempt from GST and thus HST, I understand that reduced-price meals, which were previously exempt, will be subject to HST. Now, I know that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture supports the HST because they know that farmers will save money. Manufacturers and processors support the HST because it'll make them more competitive and help them to compete. Organizations such as the Daily Bread Food Bank have endorsed this tax reform package.

In fact, Gail Nyberg stated that "the permanency of the tax credit, the harmonization tax credit, this will make some tangible difference—an extra $100 in these folks' pockets is the difference between going to food banks and not going to food banks."

Minister, how will the tax reform package help those who will be most affected by any changes in food prices?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to say to the Minister of Finance that he crafted a tax reform package for the province of Ontario that was particularly sensitive to the needs of people who would be impacted the most by any change in our sales tax regime. That's why in our budget it was proposed that we would do a number of things. First, we're going to cut the income tax rate on the first $36,000 worth of income. That will apply to some 93% of all Ontario taxpayers. We didn't cut the rate at the top; we cut it at the bottom to make sure that those who could value that the most will receive that.

As well, we're enhancing the sales tax credit. Many people in this province receive $240 from the federal government by way of a GST rebate. We will be adding an additional $260 a year tax-free, not just for adults, but $260 for every person in the household, including children. As well—

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

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr. Ted Arnott: Over the past six years we've seen many, many examples of this government's indifference to rural- and small-town Ontario. Quite simply, they don't give a hoot about the people who live in the countryside. Today's case in point: their presumptive legislation which excluded part-time or volunteer firefighters.

Now the government claims they're for extending the presumptive legislation to include the volunteers, that they're "doing it." But in a spectacular display of legislative incompetence, the government members voted against the volunteer firefighters in principle when we brought forward a bill in this House last May to fix this problem. Now, another four months have passed, which has added to the two years our volunteers have already waited for equal treatment with their full-time counterparts.

My question is this: No more excuses. When will the minister keep his promise to volunteer firefighters?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I thank the member for the question. I understand the importance of volunteer and part-time firefighters to communities across this province. I also understand that these volunteer and part-time firefighters do hazardous, life-threatening work. That's why, when we moved on legislation back in May of 2007 to bring forward presumptive legislation for firefighters, within the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act we allowed for a regulation. So we have been consulting with many stakeholders. Just at the last AMO conference, I had an opportunity to meet with many communities.

The next step in this process is that I will be meeting with the new president of the Firefighters Association of Ontario. This is the representative of volunteer and part-time—

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

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Each and every day we witness the McGuinty Liberals' destruction of rural Ontario. We see the devastation of agriculture, the closure of rural schools, the small factories and stores boarded up in our rural communities and a severe shortage of family physicians. And yet, when you have an opportunity to help rural Ontario, you fail again. In something as simple as treating volunteer firefighters with respect, providing presumptive legislation equal to their full-time brothers and sisters, you not only delay and ignore your own promises; you even vote against a well-intentioned, non-partisan private member's bill.

Minister, even if you don't support volunteer firefighters, will you at least have some compassion for their families and commit today to providing presumptive legislation to volunteer firefighters by the end of this session?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: As I said to the member's colleague, I do understand the importance of this matter. That's why I will be meeting in short order with the Firefighters Association of Ontario's new president to discuss this matter. I've had the opportunity to meet with many community leaders from across Ontario.

I understand that there may be some frustration here, but the member has to understand that this consultation with the WSIB and looking at the way that part-time and volunteer firefighters do their work in these fire halls across Ontario is very, very important, so that we get it right. But I can assure the member that we will conclude this review as quickly as possible and get an answer to the member.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. On September 28, Fort Erie will lose its emergency room. Fort Erie's 30,000 residents will join those in Port Colborne who have already lost their ER, and face long travel times and waits in the overburdened ERs in Welland and Niagara Falls. The many people here today—the Ontario Medical Association, the mayor of Fort Erie and the regional council—are all pleading for a moratorium on this closure. Why is the Premier ignoring them?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to welcome representatives of the community who are here today. I want to acknowledge that this has been a difficult debate. I understand that there's anxiety that has been created and we all have a tremendous attachment to our local hospitals.

Here at Queen's Park, in downtown Toronto, we have to rely on our local health integration networks and the work that they do to represent the interest of their communities. We have heard from the local health integration network, and their recommendation is that they put in place a 24/7 urgent care centre that will accommodate fully 95% of the patients who are now going to the hospital in Fort Erie. We think that overall it presents a step forward in improving the quality of care that's available to patients in the community.

I understand that it's difficult and it's controversial, but we believe it's the right thing to do.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It's interesting, because the LHIN has been quoted as saying that they have the full support of the government in making this decision, and now the government is saying that they're just doing whatever the LHIN thinks is supposed to happen. So it's a bit of shell game, in my opinion.

The government created a rural and northern health panel to examine these very kinds of issues, yet the findings of this panel have not yet been released and this government is bulldozing ahead with closures regardless of that. The Premier knows full well that he can intervene—

Interjection.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: —just like his deputy is intervening in my question right now. Instead, he is allowing the health of Niagara residents to be jeopardized with this decision.

Why won't the Premier do the right thing and impose a moratorium on all small, rural and northern hospital closures, at least until the findings of the very panel that they're putting in place have been released?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: There was a third party review conducted of this issue by a Dr. Jack Kitts. He said the following: "In critical cases it is vital that patients receive definitive treatment as quickly as possible. The ED at the Douglas Memorial site is unable to provide this service as it lacks the necessary diagnostic equipment and specialist back-up."

Again, we're putting in place an urgent care centre, which will be open on a 24/7 basis, that can accommodate 95% of the patients who are already going to the Douglas Memorial hospital in Fort Erie. The other 5% will be going to a larger hospital with more technology and more expertise so they can provide better care to patients in need of that kind of care.

I understand and I acknowledge that this is a difficult issue. There is tremendous sensitivity associated with your local hospital, but we firmly believe this will improve the quality of care for people in the community.

AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Members of this House know that food produced by Ontario farmers is among the freshest, safest and best quality in the world. As we have moved forward with our Buy Local strategy, my constituents are more and more aware of the benefits of buying food that is produced right here in Ontario.

In 2008 our government launched the multi-year Pick Ontario Freshness strategy. Buying Ontario produce, meats, eggs and dairy products supports our local economies in rural Ontario and helps farmers get a price that is fair and reasonable for their hard work.

I recently read an

article in the Guelph Mercury about There's No Taste Like Home, a mobile education trailer that was funded under the Ontario market investment fund. Could the minister please share with the House more information about the Ontario market investment fund and what sorts of initiatives could be supported?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: Thank you very much, Speaker. I want to as well just acknowledge the work that you're doing to have the farmers' market on the lawn today. Thanks very much. We encourage members to go. And—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock for a second. I think I need to make it very clear to all members of the House that this initiative of the farmers' market on the front lawn is an initiative of the Speaker. I do not want it to be taken in or criticized as part of government. This is a Speaker's initiative. Thank you.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: Thanks very much, Speaker.

I'm happy that my colleague has asked about the program. It demonstrates the McGuinty government's commitment to continuing to work with our partners in rural Ontario. That is why we have committed $12 million over three years to invest in partnership initiatives in our rural communities to support farmers—and not just farmers, but the businesses that benefit from their well-being as well. So far, there have been 62 successful projects that have been announced, and we have invested over $3 million in the Ontario market investment fund.

We are committed to working with our partners in rural Ontario. This is yet another example of how the McGuinty government is working to support rural economies in our province.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I know the farmers in my riding appreciate the Pick Ontario Freshness strategy, as it aims to open up the local market for them and help them get a better return on the hard work and resources they put into it.

Partnerships along the value chain between local producers, processors and grocery chains are crucial to ensure that Ontario demand for Ontario food products is met. Farmers in my riding appreciate the direction that our government has taken in partnering and working closely with them to help address the challenges the sector is facing, while at the same time helping to advance new economic opportunities for farmers through our Buy Local strategy and other initiatives.

The Ontario market investment fund program has been a huge success in my riding. Could the minister please share with the House information on how the OMIF program has benefited other communities in Ontario?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: Over the course of the summer there have been a number of announcements in ridings right across the province. I want to talk about one that happened in Renfrew county. That was with regard to Taste of the Valley. The province of Ontario, the McGuinty government, provided $9,000 to Taste of the Valley, and that was to sponsor events in three communities: Barry's Bay, Arnprior and Cobden.

We've also supported initiatives that have come to us from communities in Haldimand county: the Harvests of Haldimand, local food guides and culinary events. They received $22,000. We have the Newmarket Main Street Farmers' Market. They brought us a proposal; we were able to provide them with $5,000 to promote locally grown food. The Savour Muskoka initiative was a $50,000 grant from the McGuinty government for eight—

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

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Mr. John Yakabuski: To the Minister of Government Services: Minister, your decision to close privately operated licence offices in the city of Pembroke and the town of Renfrew in of my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke will have serious negative repercussions on the people of those communities. Jobs will be lost, businesses will close and, according to everyone I've spoken to, service will be reduced.

Minister, you made this decision without any consultation or due consideration. Will you do the right thing, rescind your decision to close these offices and restore good services to these communities?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I think I answered this question yesterday too, but let me just repeat this again.

This whole initiative is about increasing services by modernizing our ServiceOntario centres. We are also expanding health card services to all 300 ServiceOntario centres; it is now only available in about 27 centres.

This is about expanding services; this is about increasing services. In rural Ontario alone, services will go from two locations to about 163 locations for health cards. In northern communities it will go from six locations to 67 Ontario centres. It is all about improving services.

We are evaluating the situation. If we feel that in any community the service being provided is not up to the standard of the services being cut, we will evaluate the situation and take steps to make sure that the right services at the right levels in the right communities are being provided.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Minister, you can slice that and dice that and you can spin it any way you want, but it still comes up baloney.

You are going to be closing privately operated offices in the province of Ontario and in communities in my riding. Those offices have consistently been the best-run offices anywhere in Ontario. Whether I talk to average citizens on the street or to auto dealers in my riding, they tell me that your decision will result in reduced services to them and their communities.

I am going to ask you one more time: Will you reverse this ill-considered decision that was made without consultation and restore the proper services to those communities and all the other communities across the province, including those in the Minister of Agriculture's riding, so that we get good services in our licence bureaus?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I think the member was very, very emotional and I'm not sure I really got what he was saying.

Let me just quote what he said before. When we announced this initiative in July, here is what the member said. He said: "It just makes sense ... I'm pleased that after six years the government is listening with respect to amalgamating these services under one roof.... This is a positive announcement." It's the same member who said this.

On September 28, 2008, the member from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke said: "We have driver licence issuing offices throughout the area that are equipped with the staff, cameras and the secure computer system that could easily handle the issuance of health cards in the same effective and timely manner as they do driver licences"—

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

AIR QUALITY

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. As you know, the Clarkson airshed in Mississauga is stressed, it's polluted, and yet your government insists on building a new gas-fired power plant in that region. Why are you gambling with the health of the people in south Mississauga?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: The Minister of Energy.

Hon. George Smitherman: To the contrary. First, I think it's important that the honourable member acknowledge that Ontario is moving forward as a jurisdiction in North America to eliminate coal-fired generation. This is a fantastic ambition on behalf of the people of the province. We recently announced that we'll be closing two units at Nanticoke and two units at Lambton, all of which, as an example, are upwind of the area that the member speaks about.

In addition to that, working with the Ministry of the Environment, local officials and the MPPs in the area, we're generating the capacity to look for offsets of emissions in the very same airshed, making progress on a continual basis to improve the quality of air for people not just in that part of our province but indeed all across Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Premier, your minister speaks about the need for investment in conservation and renewable power, but when it comes down to the crunch, in an area where the air quality is overtaxed, we don't have a plan for substantial investment in renewable power or conservation. What we do have is people who are breathing air that is already over-polluted by your standards.

Why is your government not bringing forward a plan to deal with the power demand in that area with an aggressive conservation and renewable plan? Why aren't you doing that?

Hon. George Smitherman: I encourage the honourable member to actually read up on the subject, because he has missed a couple of important points. First and foremost, the Green Energy Act entitles project proponents from the First Nations and Metis communities all across the breadth of the province to initiate renewable energy initiatives, and the honourable member knows that very well.

I think what he has missed is that we will be moving forward—the ministry and the Ontario Power Authority, in partnership with the Ministry of the Environment and all local players—to address offsets in the very same airshed through aggressive conservation and energy efficiency initiatives that are targeted at specific companies that are producing electricity for their own needs and creating emissions in that very same airshed.

This is something that has never been done in the province of Ontario, that was won because of the hard-fought efforts of local representatives, and stands to be a model that can improve circumstances when we do have airsheds that need some additional efforts. This is exactly the conservation and energy efficiency—

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

LOW-INCOME ONTARIANS

Mr. Khalil Ramal: My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

There is no doubt that families are being hit hard by the economic times we are facing. I am hearing often from families who have lost their jobs or had their hours reduced at work and are struggling to make ends meet.

These days kids are going back to school, and families are trying their best to create a good environment for their kids to be able to study, and especially to provide clothes and food.

Minister, can you tell us what you're doing to support low-income families' efforts to provide for themselves?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I'd like to thank my colleague for the question and for his ongoing passion and interest in this issue.

We know that parents want the very best for their kids and that they work very hard to provide them with every possible opportunity. But these economic times are putting more pressure on families and now, more than ever, they need a little extra help. That's why this past July we almost doubled the Ontario child benefit, increasing it to $1,100 per child per year, two years ahead of schedule. This extra support means that parents won't have to choose between feeding the kids and paying the rent. It means that some kids will now have the opportunity to participate in sports and music lessons. Those things can enrich a child's life chances.

We're making real progress. Under our strategy, a single parent with two kids, working full-time, will have an increase in their income—

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

Mr. Khalil Ramal: There has been a lot of talk lately about the impact of these economic times on the ability of families to provide nutritious food. For instance, we know that food bank use is up in communities across the province of Ontario. Just this summer, the Daily Bread Food Bank reported that usage in the GTA hit over a million users.

Can the minister tell us what she's doing to support those families, and especially t