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

December 2, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Dec-02 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 2 December 2009 Mercredi 2 décembre 2009

CONDUCT OF HOUSE PROCEEDINGS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO TAX PLAN FOR MORE JOBS

AND GROWTH ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE PLAN FISCAL

DE L'ONTARIO POUR ACCROÎTRE

L'EMPLOI ET LA CROISSANCE

TIME ALLOCATION /

ATTRIBUTION DE TEMPS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

PENSION PLANS

POVERTY

TAXATION

POVERTY

FIREFIGHTERS

DRIVER EXAMINATION CENTRES

MANUFACTURING AND FORESTRY SECTOR JOBS

AMATEUR SPORT

SCHOOL FACILITIES

HIGHWAY 407

AIDS TREATMENT

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

DEFERRED VOTES

TIME ALLOCATION

TIME ALLOCATION

TECHNICAL STANDARDS AND SAFETY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX NORMES TECHNIQUES ET À LA SÉCURITÉ

NOTICES OF DISSATISFACTION

VOTING

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TAXATION

FIRE SAFETY

GENERAL MOTORS OF CANADA

PENSION PLANS

MEHRUB RAHMAN

TAXATION

FUNDRAISING

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

GENERAL ELECTRIC

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

DAY NURSERIES AMENDMENT ACT

(SUN PROTECTION), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES GARDERIES

(PROTECTION SOLAIRE)

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

PETITIONS

RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

TAXATION

RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY

TAXATION

SOCIAL SERVICES FUNDING

TAXATION

DRIVER EXAMINATION CENTRES

TAXATION

SOCIAL SERVICES FUNDING

TAXATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOOD GOVERNMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA SAINE

GESTION PUBLIQUE

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

CONDUCT OF HOUSE PROCEEDINGS

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'd like to rise on a point of order that relates to standing orders 15(

a) and (

c) and to the ongoing situation surrounding the member of provincial Parliament for Bruce–Grey—Owen Sound and the member of provincial Parliament for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington.

As we all know, for close to two days now, Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Hillier have been staging a legislative protest over the McGuinty government's refusal to hold so much as a single public hearing on the HST outside of Queen's Park. Speaker, I know these past two days have been challenging for you, as well as for the Sergeant-at-Arms and other House officers, and I want to make it clear that there was never any intention to use this protest to undermine your authority in this chamber.

William Lyon Mackenzie King, a Liberal, once warned Canadians about the importance of public input in our democracy: "Where there is little or no public opinion, there is likely to be bad government, which sooner or later becomes autocratic government." This week, two legislators put that belief into action. Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Hillier made a stand on principle and fought on behalf of the public's right to be heard in the halls of power. They refused to be bullied; they refused to be silenced. Today, they are heroes to their constituents and heroes to taxpayers who will be left paying for this historic $3-billion tax grab.

It says a lot that in our negotiations around this protest, we made a single, extremely moderate and reasonable request that would have ended this standoff—a single public hearing in a single day outside of Queen's Park—and the government denied the public even that.

Our caucus was proud to stand united behind Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Hillier throughout this protest and we continue to be proud of them as our colleagues. We will continue to oppose the HST, but our point through this particular tactic has now been made, and with the complete support of our caucus, Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Hillier are ending their legislative protest this morning. Thank you, Bill. Thank you, Randy.

Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Hillier were escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd just ask the honourable members if they wouldn't mind staying for a moment, please. I have a message I would like to deliver to all members.

Within the walls of this chamber, the authority of the House is clear: The Speaker is given the authority to "maintain order and decorum." The most serious penalty in the hands of the Speaker is naming, and it is rarely used. Within our standing order 15(c), I exercised that standing order and have suspended two members from this chamber.

As Speaker, I was extremely reluctant to remove two members with force. Some may agree with my decision; some may not. I stand behind it. I'd encourage members to Google "BC member ejected from the chamber" and see the result of a forcible removal in 1983.

I want to take a few moments of members' time to reflect and comment on the events of the past couple of days. First let me say from the Chair, thanks to the opposition House leader, Bob Runciman, for his effort to resolve this matter without further disruption.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): But I'm obligated to add that what took place was at odds with the traditions of parliamentary debate and the practices of this place. To say it plainly, the behaviour of the two members crossed the line. I want to declare emphatically that it was unacceptable to the Chair, just as it should be to all members of this Legislature, regardless of party affiliation. Expressions of dissent, disfavour and even outright protest on the part of members are a respected part of our parliamentary traditions. As Speaker, I am obligated to defend those traditions, and I will not hesitate to do so.

Order and decorum are what makes our system work. Merely enforcing the rules of the game does not imply that I side with one point of view or another. Points of view are to be given full expression in our Legislature, and chaos is not conducive to that. Actions like these actually hurt all of our cause, and doing what has happened impacts seriously on debate and discussion.

But respect is a mutual obligation. There are boundaries to which members must also adhere and standards of conduct that must be upheld. This is not about the Chair's discretion or the opinion of an individual Speaker. It is about failing to show due deference to this institution and the traditions of civil debate; it is about failing to show due deference to the privileges of fellow members of this Parliament, including members from all parties; and importantly, it's about failing to display an image of parliamentary conduct that the public would rightly regard as appropriate.

Indeed, when members ignore authority other than their own and force the Speaker to contemplate measures as extreme as forcible removal, it seems reasonable to suggest that these same members are projecting an image of indignity that feeds public cynicism about politics and the political process. Surely that has to be unacceptable to us all.

Let me be clear about where we stand now with respect to such behaviour in the future. This is not the new normal. As Speaker, I attempted to exercise a great deal of tolerance and a measure of patience that I will, if needed, repeat again. But at the same time, I will not accept such flagrant disrespect for the Legislature and its members. In future, I assure you that I will move swiftly to preserve the dignity of this chamber, and to preserve the privileges of all members to speak, debate and, if they so wish, protest within the limits of established convention.

To the public I'm going to send a clear message: This is not the way we do your business in your provincial Parliament. We are really doing a grave disservice to our constituents if we willingly give up our voice. The point remains that the Legislature is what gives us our voice. Disregard for those rules diminishes the voice for all.

I'd ask all members to please reflect on these events over the past few days and make the greatest of efforts in their own efforts. Thank you.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO TAX PLAN FOR MORE JOBS

AND GROWTH ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE PLAN FISCAL

DE L'ONTARIO POUR ACCROÎTRE

L'EMPLOI ET LA CROISSANCE

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 26, 2009, on the amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 218,

An Act to implement 2009 Budget measures and to enact, amend or repeal various Acts / Projet de loi 218, Loi mettant en oeuvre certaines mesures énoncées dans le Budget de 2009 et édictant, modifiant ou abrogeant diverses lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Pursuant to the order of the House dated December 1, 2009, I'm now required to put the question.

On November 19, 2009, Mr. Duncan moved second reading of Bill 218,

An Act to implement 2009 Budget measures and to enact, amend or repeal various Acts. Shall the bill be now read a second time?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Second reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 19, the bill is ordered referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs.

TIME ALLOCATION /

ATTRIBUTION DE TEMPS

Hon. Jim Watson: I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 196,

An Act respecting the adjustment of the boundary between the City of Barrie and the Town of Innisfil, when Bill 196 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

That the vote on third reading may be deferred pursuant to standing order 28(h); and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Mr. Watson has moved government notice of motion number 167. Debate?

Hon. Jim Watson: I'm pleased to participate today in the debate on the proposed Barrie-Innisfil Boundary Adjustment Act. I know members of the House are sitting on the edge of their seats waiting for this piece of legislation and my speech.

Ce projet de loi, s'il est adopté, permettra d'assurer la santé et la vitalité économique continues du comté de Simcoe.

We are expecting 73,000 new jobs in the Simcoe area by 2031.

Nous devons nous assurer de pouvoir faire face à cette croissance de façon responsable et durable.

I'm proud of the strong record that the McGuinty government has in planning for growth, with an overall vision and plans that protect the environment while enabling our economy to grow and our communities to offer a better quality of life to their residents. If the proposed Barrie-Innisfil Boundary Adjustment Act is passed, we can get on with definite plans for good, sustainable, environmentally responsible growth for this area.

Prior to our government introducing this bill, we tried for years—literally years—to find a solution to this boundary dispute that would not require us to impose a solution. We arranged for facilitated discussions among the municipalities by the Office of the Provincial Development Facilitator from 2006 to 2008. Those discussions included the town of Innisfil, the county of Simcoe and the city of Barrie.

We thought we might be coming to an agreement in February 2008, when the facilitator tabled a proposed solution. Unfortunately, no consensus could be reached among the municipalities, and so, for almost two years, the stalemate continued. Resolving the impasse is an important element of our government's plan for a sustainable future called the Strategic Vision for Growth in the Simcoe Area.

Municipal and community leaders have been asking the province to take a leadership role in building strong and attractive cities, towns and rural areas. Well, we are. Our strategic vision for growth shows how the Simcoe region should grow over the next 20 years. One of the first steps in proper planning for growth is to identify the potential of existing urban centres. This lets us plan to make the best use of existing infrastructure so that we can maximize the value of the public investments in infrastructure that we've already made.

Our government is committed to building and supporting strong communities across Ontario. However, we will not do that by sacrificing our environment and our natural heritage systems. We are living up to that commitment with our strategic vision for the Simcoe area.

First, our vision would curb urban sprawl and focus development into existing cities and towns that can accommodate new growth. This makes good use of existing infrastructure and the best practices of compact urban development. Towards this end, we have identified five centres that we call urban nodes in the Simcoe area, where employment growth would be focused. One of these is Barrie, which we see as a primary urban node in the Simcoe area.

Second, our vision would build on the Simcoe area's diverse economic base. Agriculture and resource-based industries, large- and small-scale manufacturing sectors and a strong service sector are economic mainstays of this area. Our vision protects the employment areas for the industries and for future investments in these industries.

Third, our vision would outline a clear future for the city of Barrie as a key urban centre. Our plan would require the city of Barrie to confine 40% of each year's new residential development to its existing built-up area. A further requirement placed on Barrie by our plan is that it must achieve a minimum density of 150 residents and jobs, combined, per hectare, in the area designated as the urban growth centre by our plan. Importantly, our plan will support building and intensification in Barrie's downtown area to help realize the tremendous potential that exists there.

Fourth, our vision would protect the green spaces and agricultural areas to support a cleaner Lake Simcoe. I want to congratulate my colleague—who's in the House—the Minister of the Environment, and my colleague the Minister of Culture for their strong work in ensuring the protection and survivability of that valuable asset from an economic, tourism and development point of view in Lake Simcoe. Development pressures on rural and agricultural lands would be reduced, thereby protecting valuable natural heritage, farmland, sensitive watersheds and, of course, Lake Simcoe.

Ontarians have made it very clear to us that they support a comprehensive plan that protects and restores the ecological health of Lake Simcoe and its watershed. Our strategic vision for growth in the Simcoe area is part of the plan to protect Lake Simcoe and its watershed, and in turn our proposed Barrie-Innisfil Boundary Adjustment Act is a central component of our overall strategy in the Simcoe area.

We have sought the House's approval for this because, obviously, there are time constraints. We want to make sure that the act is in fact passed into law prior to January 1, when candidates can begin registering, because this is going to have an impact, obviously, on the political boundaries of the community of Barrie and Innisfil. It's our hope, with the support of members of the House, that we will reach that deadline, to give that certainty and stability to current and future candidates in the Barrie and Innisfil area.

If passed, this proposed act would help set the stage for the future long-term growth and the coming prosperity for the economy of the Simcoe area and its residents. That's why I urge all members of the House to support this. If members of the House support smart urban growth practices, if they support the concept of blending in the need to protect our environment, as well as future economic growth, they will support this particular piece of legislation.

We're proud of the fact that we have worked in a spirit of goodwill, but unfortunately we were not able to bring the two parties together. So while the facilitator should be commended for the work that he did to try to bring the parties together, regrettably, consensus was not reached. As a result, we had no other choice except to end this long-standing debate, which, quite frankly, was not creating one job, was not allowing the community to move forward and plan. The development community and those people who wanted to create jobs in Simcoe kept telling me and, I know, my colleague from Barrie that this kind of inaction, this kind of instability was not good for economic growth.

I've always felt that the most important thing any government can do in the midst of an economic recession is create the environment to create the jobs for the men and women of all parts of the province, whether it's in my hometown of Ottawa or in Peterborough or, as we're talking about today, in the Simcoe area. I'm very disappointed that we were not able to reach a local consensus. I had the opportunity to talk to the member who represents that area, and I thank her for her courtesy. Obviously, we disagree on the approach, but at the end of the day, the alternative was simply years and years of inaction, more instability and a lack of clarity for the people of Simcoe.

I urge all members to support Bill 196. It is, I believe, a sensible solution to a long-standing problem. This is part and parcel of the work that my colleague the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure has responsibility for, the growth plan. We are working hand in hand to make sure that the people, the businesses and the visitors to that great part of the province, Simcoe county and Barrie, can prosper in the future. I'd ask all members for their support as we move forward to create a better, more vibrant economic circumstance for the people of Barrie and for future generations.

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

Mrs. Julia Munro: I find it a rather strange situation this morning because actually the motion that we're debating here is a time allocation motion on this bill. Normally the government introduces a time allocation at a point after second reading debate or during that time when it wishes to shut down debate and reduce the time available for discussion. But, in fact, in this particular circumstance we find ourselves in, the normal passage of a bill has actually completed second reading, the opportunity for public hearing and clause-by-clause—the introduction, and by the way, rejection, of amendments to this bill.

It's really a kind of strange situation that, at the very last minute, the government has introduced a time allocation motion. I think they didn't look at how far this bill had come along, and in the sense of opportunity to time-allocate bills as we come closer to the projected time to rise, they simply put all of the bills in the same basket and introduced a time allocation motion on this bill.

It's also interesting because of the fact that we now have actually more time to talk about this bill than we would have had it just continued in that normal process. There's some kind of mystery in my mind in terms of why the government would choose now to introduce the time allocation bill that, in fact, allows more time to discuss this bill.

For me, it's an important opportunity because not only is there the questionable tactic of introducing it as a time-allocated bill at this particular point, but it also is really an important opportunity for me to speak to some of the underlying issues that this bill represents.

The minister, in his comments a few moments ago, referred to the fact that this area, from the government's point of view, is projected to have an increase of 73,000 jobs in the community by the year 2021, which is in just a little more than 10 years. What strikes me as interesting about this land acquisition is that apparently the jobs can only exist if it's under the urban leadership of the city of Barrie. So it poses some interesting questions: Nobody else can provide that opportunity? That seems rather strange. It also seems strange to me, since this is an amount of land in the neighbourhood of 5,000 acres, that only under Barrie's guidance could jobs actually appear.

At the same time, the minister makes reference to the fact that this will somehow allow people, presumably in Barrie, to provide greater protection to the environment. I find that an interesting comment. The minister has, as other ministers of the crown have, referred to the importance of curbing sprawl and having sprawl as an evil kind of thing. Regardless of how that is interpreted, the point is, according to the logic of the government, that when Barrie has control over this almost 3,000 hectares, it's not going to be sprawl; it's going to be protecting the environment, but it couldn't happen under the leadership of the town of Innisfil. So there are some questions.

I also think that most people, when you talk about intensification, tend to understand the use of brownfields, the question of looking at rezoning to allow higher structures and initiatives like that, which in fact would qualify for intensification. Part of that intensification argument is the ability to expand public transit, and much has been made about the importance of public transit. When you look at adding more areas and not having the kind of intensification that I've just referred to, then, in fact, transit becomes an extremely expensive undertaking.

It demands that you have higher-storied buildings on a particular footprint in an urban area. So there are many concerns that people in Innisfil have about the fundamental assumptions that this government has made in proposing that it is appropriate for Barrie to consume, as I say, approximately 5,000 acres in the area.

I think there are a number of outstanding issues in terms of what happens. One of the things that I think is really important, which is missing from this piece of legislation, is the recognition of the principle of compensation. Certainly that is something that we know there are precedents for, where municipalities have changed their boundaries at the expense of their neighbours. There has been a principle of the need for compensation.

I see the issue of compensation on three levels. Obviously the town of Innisfil loses not only the current assessment and, with that current assessment, the fiscal and municipal planning that goes with those assumptions, but also, there is no contemplation of compensation on the future loss of the area. Were it to continue under Innisfil's ownership, so to speak, the opportunities for the same kind of growth and development could be contemplated, whether it's part of Innisfil or part of Barrie. So that future consideration is, again, completely ignored.

The people who live on the land that is going to be transferred to the city of Barrie have huge concerns, and I think justifiable concerns, about the impact that is going to have on assessment values; although not directly but indirectly, assessment values do come to play a role in terms of municipal taxes. The people who are resident in the area have, in some cases, fairly wide frontages. These were properties that were made available 20 or 30 years ago, when people bought small acreages but had, obviously, significant frontages, whether it's a 100-, 200- or 300-foot frontage.

As the importance of this land has been elevated significantly by its inclusion into Barrie, they have I think justifiable concerns about the future in terms of the municipal taxes that they're going to see.

Finally, the element of no compensation, this particular principle that the government has used in this case, has much broader-reaching effects, and that is to Simcoe county. Innisfil, as a member of the Simcoe county council, is obviously a payer in terms of the coffers of Simcoe county. The potential of the land now—obviously it pays its way in terms of the levies from the county, but Simcoe then loses that. It also loses the potential value of the area as development takes place because of the legal entity of Barrie not having to contribute in the same way to Simcoe county.

So, in fact, the municipalities of Simcoe county are indirectly impacted by what I would call this new principle of land acquisition.

The issue, then, at this particular time is the question of compensation, the fact that the government has chosen to introduce time allocation at this time on the bill, and what would seem to be the inappropriateness—one can only imagine that in the question of public hearings and the lack of public hearings on Bill 218, the assumption is that we need to speed up the process on all bills. We're not looking at the opportunities to have the public heard in the area of Bill 218, the HST, and we're going to see the same kind of broad brush stroke on all the pieces of legislation we're currently looking at.

For those reasons, I move adjournment of the debate.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Ms. Munro has moved adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members. This will be a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 0933 to 1003.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Order. Members, take your seats, please.

Mrs. Munro has moved adjournment of the debate.

All those in favour, please stand and be counted by the clerks.

All those opposed, please stand and be counted by the clerks.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 6; the nays are 46.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I declare the motion lost.

Further debate?

Mrs. Julia Munro: I would just like to finish up on the issue of the time allocation. As I say, it—

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I was in the House, waiting for the honourable member to use her time to speak. She used about six minutes of that time and then went and—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): That's not a point of order. The member called adjournment. We dealt with that. She has the floor.

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: Mr. Speaker, for how long does she have the floor?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): For 27 minutes and 24 seconds.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Will the minister please take her seat.

Member for York—Simcoe.

Mrs. Julia Munro: I just want to finish up by speaking about the question of the government's initiative in terms of taking time allocation.

The minister raised a question about time. I find it really ironic that she would take the time to rise on a point of order with regard to a perfectly legitimate process.

In my remarks earlier, I referred to the fact that the government made the decision to time-allocate this bill. It did that, obviously, within the basket of its options. But I find it passing strange that it would want to use the time allocation motion, which is a normal process for this government, because what that actually did was create more time for debate. We had already gone through second reading; we had public hearings; we had clause-by-clause. The government had agreed—that is, all members had agreed—that we would have third reading debate and each party would have 10 minutes.

The government obviously is only interested in time allocation, and actually created far more time on the clock for all to speak than we had already agreed to.

Particularly when the minister raises the issue about the use of time, I find it very ironic that this should suddenly be an issue, because she already knows that we had completed this process. Now we've actually expanded the process by entertaining this as a time-allocated process.

Once again, I think it's important to remind people that whatever criticisms there are, the point is that the government has the ability to time-allocate, as we've just witnessed here. They have the ability to make decisions on public hearings. Those are two examples of the fact that they have all these cards to play.

I think that calling this particular bill for time allocation was an extraordinary decision to expand the debatable time for this bill.

It's a bill that has very, very narrow interests, because it is a question of Barrie taking a bite out of Innisfil, and people would feel that it is something exclusive to those two municipalities. However, I think that it should be regarded as perhaps a portent of the future, the fact that this government has allowed legislation to move forward that allows no compensation for an undertaking such as that of Barrie and Innisfil. So while it might appear to be a very local issue, I suggest that it sets a dangerous precedent of not providing compensation.

Not only is no compensation provided for the land that has been usurped by Barrie, but there is the fact that the whole reason for doing this is Barrie's apparent ability to provide jobs. The minister referred to 73,000 jobs. I don't know whether that's part of the 600,000 or those are extra jobs, but the point is that apparently Barrie can create 73,000 jobs out of the same land that Innisfil could not. Again, it's the same thing: If Innisfil were allowed to keep its land, then presumably it would be sprawl, but under Barrie's tutelage it simply becomes urban growth.

So I think there are some issues that other municipalities should pay some attention to. Obviously, the ones in Simcoe county are seeing that Innisfil's ability to pay its dues to Simcoe county are reduced by the change in control over almost 5,000 acres of land.

While this bill appears to be very narrow, I think it is important. The issue of no compensation, the issue of future impacts on land, the effects on Simcoe county, the fact that Barrie is not in the same relationship with the other municipalities in Simcoe county, and therefore Barrie gets to keep its money in a way that the other neighbouring municipalities of Simcoe county all share in the provision of particular services—I think it is a bill that has very serious implications for other municipalities, and I think we have to be really careful about the government's rhetoric.

When something is good environmentally, the minister says it's protecting the environment, which I think most people find difficult to visualize, considering that at the same time the land acquisition is being done to provide Barrie, in the minister's own words, with land that is necessary for its economic viability. So there are remaining outstanding issues.

I'm going to close on one particular outstanding issue. One of the deputants at the public hearings brought to the attention of members of the committee that her particular property, which through various earlier agreements is now physically an island—it technically belongs to Innisfil, and she has letters that indicate that Innisfil would certainly allow her property to be changed to Essa township, which would be much more logical for her. She was looking for legislators to appreciate her personal position, and I found it unfortunate that the government did not see fit, during clause-by-clause, to include this particular personal anomaly.

We all talk about being here for the benefit of our constituents and the broader base of the people of Ontario, and here we have one quite simple line to be changed from "Innisfil" to "Essa," but in this case the parliamentary assistant—the government—had not included the opportunity for that to be included in the bill. It seems most unfortunate that something that no one disagreed with could not, in fact, be accommodated through this process, and I find that most regrettable. With that, I'm going to conclude my remarks on time allocation.

Debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: We're honoured today to have the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association lobby day here at Queen's Park. They'll be meeting with all of us.

I'd like to recognize just a few; I know other members will want to as well. We have Fred "It was the night before Christmas" LeBlanc, the president; Mark McKinnon, the executive vice-president; Barry Quinn, the secretary-treasurer; Pat DeFazio, the president emeritus; and then we have district vice-presidents Ernie Thorne, Mike Pauze, Terry Colburn, Warren Scott, Randy Richards and Chris Francescone, and we're really fortunate that we have Eric Nordlund here this morning from Thunder Bay or somewhere, or he's coming.

Welcome, everyone. Have a great day.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: I as well would like to ask all members to join me in welcoming the delegation of firefighters from Oshawa. They would be Paul Konorowski, Steve Barkwell, Rod Thwaits and Craig Baird.

Hon. Jim Watson: I am delighted, along with my caucus colleagues from Ottawa, to welcome the delegation of the Ottawa Professional Fire Fighters Association. I'm not sure if they're actually in the gallery yet, but we've seen them in the halls of Queen's Park: John Sobey, Erik Leicht and Rob Collins. They do a great job for us in the nation's capital, and we welcome them to Queen's Park.

Mr. Robert Bailey: It's my great pleasure today to introduce guests in the gallery here on behalf of myself and the member from Haldimand—Norfolk: Rev. John and Jackie Cruickshank and Rev. Malcolm and Marie Muth, all from Simcoe, Ontario.

Mr. Paul Miller: I would like to welcome the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association to Queen's Park today, particularly Henry Watson and his group from Hamilton. We're very proud of our firefighters in Hamilton.

Mr. Monte Kwinter: I'd like to welcome the staff and students of Premier Elite Athlete Collegiate, which is a private high-performance sports school located in Downsview Park. These are grades 6 and 7 students, and they are learning about international trade. They are up in the public gallery, and I'd like to welcome them.

Mr. Frank Klees: I'd like to extend a special welcome to York professional firefighters Brent Heppell and Andre Bourrie, whom I'll be meeting with later today to hear of their issues relating to their profession and the support of the provincial government.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I want to welcome firefighters from the city of London on behalf of myself and my colleagues Deb Matthews and Chris Bentley: Jim Holmes and Phil King. Welcome to Queen's Park.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I'm pleased to welcome today our wonderful Ontario principals and also the firefighters from Kitchener—Waterloo.

M me France Gélinas: It is my pleasure to introduce firefighter Muldoon and his crew from the Sudbury fire department, as well as recognize firefighter Harris and Captain Groulx, who are watching us on TV this morning.

I also want to welcome the principal from Sudbury Secondary School, who is visiting as part of Principals' Day. Welcome to Queen's Park.

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Today it's my pleasure to welcome some wonderful people from the riding of Scarborough—Guildwood: Ms. Stacey Berry, Mr. Zubair Patel and Ms. Anne-Marie Thompson.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I'd like to welcome the Ontario Principals' Council, the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters and, in particular, Michael Gagnon from the Midland fire service.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I would like to welcome two members of the Oakville Professional Fire Fighters Association: president Carmen Santoro and Andrew Lee.

Mr. Charles Sousa: I would like to acknowledge in the Legislature the delegation and members of the Mississauga fire association. Members include Chris Varcoe, Ryan Coburn and Mark Train. We're proud of the work performed by our firefighters. Welcome to Queen's Park.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I would like to have members join me in welcoming to the Ontario Legislature today firefighters Dave Pay, Terry Colburn, Dean Stoltz and Mike Fowler, and constituency office staff of mine Betty Humphreys and Sarah Groocock.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: In the public gallery, I'd like to welcome three of my colleagues from the master's of business administration program at York University, the Schulich School of Business. In the early 1990s we were all together: Margaret Thomas, Dorene Weston and Diarmuid Salvadori.

Mr. Jeff Leal: I'd like to welcome today Robert Lloyd, who is a very distinguished member of the Peterborough Professional Fire Fighters Association.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I'd like to welcome all the firefighters and principals.

I'd also like to welcome Dr. Edward Lin, who is the father of page Robyn Lin, from the riding of Don Valley West.

Mr. Mike Colle: I'd like to welcome the members of Toronto Fire Services, Canada's largest fire services, and retired firefighter Digger O'Dell. Welcome.

Hon. John Milloy: I'd like to, on behalf of all of the members, issue a blanket welcome to all of the members of the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance who are at Queen's Park this week, I know, meeting with members on both sides of the House. Welcome here to Queen's Park.

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: I also would like to join colleagues in welcoming firefighters from Barrie: Kevin White and Jim Dawes. It's great to see them back. Unfortunately, one of the very finest, Charlie, couldn't join us because he got married.

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to welcome all of the firefighters who are here today. In particular, I want to welcome, from the Markham Professional Firefighters Association, Scott Daniel, Kevin Tsang, Rob Klassen and Jason Scovell. Welcome to Queen's Park.

Mr. Kim Craitor: I, too, want to welcome all of the firefighters here. In particular I want to recognize some of the firefighters from Niagara Falls: Michael Collee and Tim Lea. Welcome. As well, we are really well represented from Niagara Falls because we have the assistant fire chief, Jim Jessop, here as well speaking on a bill that's going through the House. I'm proud to have the members from my riding here.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I would like to introduce Cameron Wood. He is neither a firefighter nor a principal. However, he is job-shadowing me for the day, and he is a grade 10 student from Orangeville District Secondary School.

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast: It's my pleasure today to welcome members of the Ontario Principals' Council: my colleague Lisa Vincent, past president of the Ontario Principals' Council; Peggy Sweeney, who does communications, whom I had the pleasure of growing up with; we also have Doug Morrell, the president; Vicki Shannon, the president-elect; Ken Arnott, vice-president; Naeem Siddiq, vice-president; Paul Camillo, member at large; Richard Pincombe, member at large; Wendy Wade, member at large—almost done, Speaker—Anne Presley, member at large; and Mike Benson, the executive director. Please join me in welcoming them to Queen's Park today.

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: Still making their way through security are proud members of the Burlington community. I would like to welcome Don and Carolyn Johnston; Ralph and Joyce Weston; Alice Sterling—you may recognize that name; Myrna Paton; Abdul Chaudhry; Trudy DeBoersap; Annette Jagt; Ron Morrison; Bert Radford; Lionel McDonald; Dorothy Lundy; June Bishop; and Marlene Purdy.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of page Cairistiona Federico, I'd like to welcome her mother, Gillian; her father, Paul; and her grandmother, Dorothy Dixon, to the galleries today.

As well, I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome a friend of mine from the St. Thomas fire department, Warren Scott, who's sitting up in the Speaker's gallery.

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Yesterday, the government House leader raised a point of order to ask for an

interpretation of the phrase "regular meeting times" as used in the time allocation order passed yesterday respecting Bill 218. The matter arises because of a meeting of the subcommittee on committee business of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs which resulted in the subcommittee adopting a recommendation to the committee that the public hearings on Bill 218 commence at 12:01 a.m. on Thursday, December 3. The members for Leeds—Grenville, Timmins—James Bay, Durham, Beaches—East York and Pickering—Scarborough East also made submissions on the point of order.

While in most situations Speakers have held that a matter that arises in a committee should be considered and disposed of by that committee, there is also precedent for the Speaker ruling on a matter when the committee proceedings in question were the subject of an order of the House and the issue is the

interpretation of the order itself.

The facts, as I understand them from the submissions, are as follows:

The subcommittee on committee business of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs met on December 1 in anticipation of the eventual referral of Bill 218 for public hearings and clause-by-clause consideration. This is the usual process that is followed to allow the committee's decision-makers to provide the clerk of the committee with some direction and preliminary instructions so the committee's work can be organized. This is particularly important in a circumstance where the full committee will not have an opportunity to meet before the commencement of public hearings.

In the meeting of this subcommittee, there was a decision made to commence public hearings at 12:01 a.m. on Thursday, December 3, which is the day set out in the time allocation order for such hearings.

The time allocation motion respecting Bill 218, which passed yesterday, authorizes the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs to meet on Thursday, December 3, 2009, during its regular meeting times for the purpose of public hearings on the bill.

The government House leader contends that an appropriate

interpretation of "regular meeting times" would be 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. The question, then, to be decided is: Does such an invariable time exist that committees are required to observe when they meet in the morning? Such a practice would certainly have to be considered "regular." A quick review of committee meeting notices and agendas, however, reveals otherwise. Many committees have commenced their morning meetings earlier or later than 9 a.m. The very committee we are concerned with today, the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, has on occasion commenced its meeting at a time earlier than 9 a.m.

The only consistency in morning committee meetings governed by an order of the House dated May 1, 2008, is that they must occur in the morning.

This order designates regular meeting times and provides the authority for standing committees to meet. It specifies that the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs "may meet on Thursday mornings to 10:45 a.m. and Thursday afternoons following routine proceedings." I might add that that identical wording is used in that same motion to authorize other standing committees to meet at those same times on different days, and that the same general terminology has been used in earlier orders of the House in this and previous Parliaments.

There have been occasions when committees have, by a superseding motion, been authorized to meet at a very specific time. That is not so in the case before me. However, it does suggest that if the intent was that the committee would be restricted to a 9 a.m. start time, the motion could have been worded that way. Let me hasten to say, though, that the House leader would not reasonably have had any reason to consider needing to do anything different than using the very common and usual standard wording of a time allocation motion. They have consistently gotten the job done with little ambiguity for many, many years in this Legislature.

Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice states that time allocation motions represent "the extreme limit to which procedure goes in affirming the rights of the majority at the expense of the minorities of the House, and it cannot be denied that they are capable of being used in such a way as to upset the balance, generally so carefully preserved, between the claims of business and the rights of debate."

It is certainly the case that in this House we have seen our share of what I will call extreme procedural events in the past while. This issue in the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs is but the latest. All of these have had less to do with any fundamental flaws or lack of soundness in the traditional operating practices of the House and its committees and more to do with manifestations of a profound disagreement over a particular issue.

Erskine May's "carefully preserved" balance has been disrupted, and as a result, wording in a motion that has been used over and over in the past is today tested to the upper limits of its

interpretation. However, the

interpretation is there; and authorization for morning meetings has previously meant, and continues to mean, any time in the period between midnight and noon unless specified time is observed. If that were not the case, committees would up to now have been prohibited from meeting earlier than the start time of the House, or earlier than 9:00 a.m., or earlier than some other specified and universally observed time.

Do I think it is sensible that a committee would consider holding public hearings before dawn? No, I don't, and since this has not previously occurred, it would seem that that sentiment has generally been shared by committees in the past. But just because I think it is impractical, and just because it has not happened before, does not mean that it's out of order. It simply means that up to now the prerogative has not been exercised.

Until it happened, we had never seen a bill title so long that it took all day to introduce; until it happened, the House had never sat through until adjournment listening to petitions; until it happened on April 2, 1997, we had never seen 14,000 amendments filed on a single bill. All of these things did occur; all were extreme measures employed within the limits of the rules.

It is my

interpretation that "regular meeting time" refers to the days and times that committees have been authorized to meet by the committee scheduling motion. In that motion, "mornings" has by practice been interpreted to mean some time in the morning, but not a specified time in the morning. I find therefore that if the committee decides to meet at any time commencing at 12:01 a.m. they are in compliance with the terms of the time allocation motion on Bill 218.

I would simply add this: The report of the subcommittee is still to be considered by the full committee. The Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs will have the final say on whether that report is adopted, amended or overturned.

I thank all the honourable members for their interjections.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is for the Premier. As William Lyon Mackenzie King said, "Where there is little or no public opinion, there is likely to be bad government which sooner or later becomes autocratic government." Premier, Bill Murdoch, Randy Hillier and the Ontario PC caucus stood up for that higher principle. We stood on the side of hard-working families in the province of Ontario, facing up to Dalton McGuinty's $3-billion tax grab. Premier, through that near 48-hour protest, we had one simple request: one day of public hearings outside of the city of Toronto.

Premier, what is it about your $3-billion tax grab that makes you afraid to go outside of the city of Toronto for your hearings?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague knows that this has been the subject of some considerable debate, discussion and conversation for nine months. I'd ask him to contrast that with the few weeks devoted to this on Parliament Hill. I understand the legislation has yet to be introduced in the province of British Columbia.

I also want to raise an issue which I think is an important one, one that weighs heavily on the minds of Ontarians. It has to do with the credibility of the Conservative Party position on the HST. The member for Halton once said, "Taxing businesses for their input costs is also a negative thing to do in an economy. It would be far better if we could find a way to harmonize the PST with the GST."

The member for Dufferin—Caledon once said, "The government should be beginning serious consultations with Ottawa on the subject of tax reform."

Again, we're wondering: Why is it that for a party that stood so long in favour of the HST, they're now against—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, you began this session under the summer of scandal, a billion-dollar boondoggle that saw public opinion force you to finally dump ministers and senior public servants. We then saw your record $25-billion deficit, with no plan whatsoever to control your runaway spending. Now we have a $3-billion greedy tax grab on the backs of Ontario families without any public hearings outside of Queen's Park.

Premier, your contempt for the public is drawing criticism even from the editors of the Toronto Star, who say, "The bill's critics deserve a wider opportunity to voice concerns about the legislation. And the Liberals, if they have any faith in the validity of their own position, ought not to be fearful of a fuller public debate."

Premier, I ask you again: What is it about your $3-billion—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think it's worthwhile that we further explore the depth of the opposition to the HST to be found in the Conservative Party.

The member for Wellington—Halton Hills said, "They must follow the advice they sought from Roger Martin, and reduce taxes on new business investment in Ontario."

The member for Carleton—Mississippi Mills said, "The Ontario government should harmonize its provincial sales tax with the federal goods and services tax."

The member for Cambridge said, "We have called on you to stimulate our economy by reducing the tax burden on business ... eliminating capital taxes in Ontario, reducing taxes on small business, and initiating serious negotiations with the federal government on tax reform."

That's the true position of the Conservative Party on the HST.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, Bill Murdoch, Randy Hillier and the Ontario PC caucus have the courage of their convictions and stood alongside Ontario families in fighting your greedy sales tax grab. In that nearly 48-hour protest here in the chamber, we had one simple request: public hearings outside of the city of Toronto. They stood with that senior citizen in Belleville who's worried about the tax impact on her natural gas and home heating. They stood with that young commuter family from Oakville worried about your new tax on the cost of gasoline.

Premier, why are you refusing to hear directly from seniors in Peterborough and commuters from Oakville and getting outside the city of Toronto for full public hearings?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to continue to make the case which is obvious to all: that the Ontario Conservative Party, in fact, supports the HST.

Here's what the member for Thornhill said: "I am not saying that harmonization ultimately is a bad idea."

Here's what the member for Leeds—Grenville had to say: "I think, in theory, our party is supportive of harmonization. In principle, it's something we think should occur."

Here's what the leader of the Conservative Party said: "To be clear, I believe that there's little sense in allowing two separate governments to apply two separate sets of taxes and policies and to collect two separate groups of sales taxes."

I greatly appreciate the performance put forward by my honourable colleague, but the fact of the matter is, the Conservative Party of Ontario, like the Conservative Party in Ottawa, supports the HST.

TAXATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: Maybe I will give back to the Premier one of his quotes. This time, unlike his quotes, it is a full, direct quote. The Premier once said, "'Public hearings'; those two words go together nicely if you believe in true democracy." Now, after six years in office, we see an entirely different Dalton McGuinty—locked away in his Queen's Park bubble, surrounding himself with elite opinion and losing touch with hard-working Ontario families.

Let me read your what Fred and Jen, senior citizens from Peterborough, inspired by Bill Murdoch and Randy Hillier and the PC caucus protest in the Legislature, said: "To implement the HST would be disastrous for many of us. The 8% tax increase on our heating bills, hydro bills, repair bills etc. will be impossible to pay."

Premier, why don't you hold a public hearing in Peterborough to hear from these—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Just to continue to help Ontarians better understand the genuine commitment of the Conservative Party to the HST, here are some quotes from federal Conservative members.

Mike Wallace, MP for Burlington: "As Conservatives, we're supportive of a combined tax.... It's not a tax grab.... That is a misnomer [designed] to mislead the public to get them excited about something that's not accurate."

Here's what Dean Del Mastro, MP for Peterborough, said, "It's a massive tax reduction for those that employ Ontarians, for those that drive the Ontario economy. It's a politically courageous decision."

If Ontarians want to know where Conservatives stand on the HST, they need to know they're actually in favour of it.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: The Premier knows that the Ontario PC Party stands with hard-working Ontario families and retirees in fighting your greedy sales tax grab.

In response to the 48-hour protest in the Legislature, Val and Jim sent in an e-mail that said, "Support your stand 100%. As seniors, there are only so many taxes we can pay."

Mel from Waterloo said, "Thank you for your actions regarding the HST. We seniors and vets need more MPPs like you" supporting the protest here in the Legislature.

Premier, why won't you listen to Mel from Kitchener—Waterloo? Will you hold public hearings in that community to hear from the taxpayers who are going to foot your bill?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We now know that the Conservative caucus here in Ontario in fact supports the HST. They've said that. They're on the record. We know that the federal Conservative Party supports the HST. They are clearly on the record. We know that this leader has said in the past that he supports the HST.

Let's ask ourselves what the former leadership of the Conservative Party says about the HST. Here's what John Tory just recently said on the HST:

"I will not take back what I said.... That has made the PCs mad because they think we should just say no, this thing is bad news, all bad news, no matter what, all the time, every day, every part of it—period, full stop. I do not agree with them."

My point is this: This party, like the party in Ottawa, in fact, supports the HST. They won't undo it. They've been in favour of it in the past and they continue to be in favour of it now. They just won't say that.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: The Premier needs to get outside of his Queen's Park bubble and listen to the hard-working families and retirees—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd just ask all members to please come to order.

Please continue.

Mr. Tim Hudak: The Premier needs to get outside of his elite Queen's Park bubble and listen to the hard-working Ontario families stuck with your greedy tax grab. The PC caucus has received an overwhelming response in letters, phone calls and e-mails in our protest for public hearings outside of Toronto.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I'm finding it extremely difficult to hear the questions. I would just ask certain ministers to please be respectful of the Speaker having the ability to hear the question asked.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Thank you, Speaker.

An e-mail said, "Public hearings should be held so members of the public can talk and the government can listen. [McGuinty] doesn't want to hear any dissenting opinions."

Another e-mail said, "Congrats to the two members for speaking up for the" hard-working "people of the province of Ontario" and fighting this greedy tax grab.

As you know, even the Toronto Star said, "The Conservatives have a point that should not be brushed aside: One day of public hearings is absurd."

Premier, will you hold public hearings outside of the city of Toronto?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague is so committed to public debate that he deliberately scuttled two question periods. When we offered them more committee time, they rejected that.

I think it's important to hear from an author of a report called Building Prosperity that was prepared in 2006. The author is Mike Harris and this is what he said on the HST, "The five provinces that still apply the provincial sales tax to business inputs ... should take measures to exempt business inputs. Specifically, all provinces should harmonize the provincial sales taxes with the federal goods and services tax."

The reason that this party, like the federal Conservative Party, is in favour of the HST is because they know it's going to create 600,000 more jobs for the people of Ontario, and they know they don't have a better plan.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members will please come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. New question.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier, and it actually comes in the form of a quote: "Premier ... if you said when you sat in opposition that we should hold public hearings, if you maintained ... that listening was the hallmark of courage ... and given that this budget represents such a dramatic departure from your six previous budgets, do you not agree that the best thing to do in the circumstances is to allow the Ontario public to have public hearings?"

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague will know that we've had nine months of public debate on this very important package of tax reforms. I think the public has, to a very large extent, become informed on the HST. I think they still don't know that they're getting a tax cut effective January 1, which is one of the reasons we want to move ahead with this package of tax reforms.

I'd ask my honourable colleague again to compare what we are doing here in Ontario with what they're doing on Parliament Hill; they may have two or three weeks to deal with this important issue. I ask her to compare with what's happening in the province of British Columbia; they have yet to introduce their package of reforms there. We have done this nine months past. There have been extensive conversations, consultations and opportunities to become informed. I say to my honourable colleague that if she is so opposed to the HST, then why doesn't she stand up and commit right here to rescinding it?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My first question was, word for word, a question asked to the former Premier, Ernie Eves, by none other than Dalton McGuinty, MPP.

This week the Legislature was reduced to a farce because the Premier is scared to hear the views of everyday people on his unfair tax scheme. What would the Dalton McGuinty of 2002 say about that?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My colleague and I just happen to see things differently on this score. I think there has been ample opportunity for debate. There have been over 160 occasions created by members of the government—MPPs—to connect with the people in their ridings around the province to get a better understanding of their views and give them a sense of what in fact is happening through our package of tax reforms. Add to that, I'm sure, at least 40 opportunities created by the opposition, and you're talking about over 200 separate opportunities to engage Ontarians when it comes to the matter of the HST and our package of tax reforms.

We have always said that this is a difficult initiative, and that is why the other two parties chose not to do it. But sometimes you have to do things even when they are not easy. Sometimes you have to make difficult decisions in order to create 600,000 more jobs, and that's what this is all about.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The right decision would be to have the people of this province get an opportunity to speak to their government. That's the right thing to do. But tomorrow, or, more accurately, I guess, later tonight when the clock strikes midnight, one single day of hearings will begin on this government's unfair tax scheme.

My question is this: Is the Premier willing to consider additional hearings, or will people of this province be forced to depute at 2 o'clock in the morning?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Start the clock. Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My understanding is that through discussions with House leaders, we in fact offered more time for committee hearings. Speaker, you will know that the opposition scuttled two question periods. They also said they were not prepared to accept more committee time.

Speaker, you've ruled on this, and we accept that ruling, that we're going to have committee hearings after midnight. I think it will be a little hard on families to have to engage in those kinds of things, but so be it. If that's what the opposition wants to do, we will willingly participate in that.

The point I want to continue to make, though, is that we've had an opportunity now for nine months of public conversation and discussion about a very important package of tax reforms. It's an important package. It particularly speaks to securing a bright future for our children. Experts have told us we're talking about creating some 600,000 more jobs and eliciting $47 billion more by way of investment and new business. We think that's worth going ahead with.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Over the last week the people of Ontario have seen a heck of a lot of pigheaded behaviour around here, and frankly, the people of Ontario deserve better. They sent us here and we have a responsibility to listen to, respect and reflect their views. Does the Premier think it is respectful to force people to depute in the middle of the night?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague knows that is not a position that we put forward. It's one that was put forward by the opposition. They have deemed that to be an appropriate approach. Speaker, you've ruled on that and we accept that. So be it.

Again, we offered more committee time to be held during regular time, a time that was more convenient for our families and businesses. That was rejected by the opposition.

We look forward to moving ahead with this bill. We look forward to putting in place those tax cuts that take effect on January 1. But most importantly, we look forward to creating 600,000 more jobs over the course of the next 10 years.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This Premier knows very well that the government can put those extra hours of hearings on another day. That's what we've been pushing for, for days and days and days now in this Legislature: a respectful hearing process for the people of this province.

The Premier's tax scheme is a significant change, and he even says so himself. Every single person in this province will be affected. The people have a right to have their voices heard, to have their views heard. Instead, all they've seen this week is government that arrogantly ignores all of their views and makes a mockery, frankly, of the democratic process.

Has the Premier grown so arrogant and so distant from the people who sent us here that he's unwilling to reconsider his plans?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My colleague knows that discussions with respect to the time allocated to these kinds of things is done through the House leaders. She's very much aware of the events that have unfolded during the course of the past few days, and I'm sure she's very much aware of our offer for more committee time. I'm sure she's aware of the position that we took, which was that we thought it was inappropriate to bring families to the Legislature at midnight or 3 o'clock in the morning.

I think she's also aware that this debate has gone on for nine months now. I think she's aware that our package of tax reforms is supported by poverty groups and business groups and by economists on the left and on the right. I think she knows fundamentally that this is about doing something which is not easy but which is important for us to do together, which is about creating 600,000 more jobs. It's about building a stronger Ontario.

Interjections.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My friends ridicule that, but they don't have a plan.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier can play this game all he wants, but everybody knows that debate on this bill started just a couple of weeks ago, and much of that debate has been shut down, unfortunately.

The Legislature is supposed to actually represent something, but the Premier's intransigence has allowed it to turn into antics: no debate, no consultation. It has just been a circus around here for the last couple of days. In the meantime, everyday people who just want to be heard are told to come in the middle of the night. Has the Premier grown so arrogant and so out of touch—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. Members will come to order, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister of Economic Development.

Start the clock. Please continue.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is this: Has the Premier grown so arrogant and so out of touch, so certain that hundreds of thousands of people are wrong that he refuses to even listen to dissenting voices?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I will say that my honourable colleague has been very consistent in her opposition to the HST. But I would also add, in all humility, that beyond opposing, my colleague has a responsibility to propose. We have a plan on the table. It's not an easy plan to execute. There is some controversy connected with it and some resistance in some quarters. I understand that, I accept that and I respect that, but it's a plan to create 600,000 jobs.

If my honourable colleague has another plan that she has been hiding of some kind to create 600,000 more jobs over the course of the next 10 years, then we'd love to hear about that, we'd love to learn something more about that, we'd love to be able to debate that and to share that with the people of Ontario. Until she does, I would argue that she lacks a certain amount of moral authority when it comes to putting forward opposition to our plan.

We're moving ahead with a plan for 600,000—

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

TAXATION

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is for the government House leader and deals with committee schedules. Tourism and guide outfitters are part of the North Bay local economy, and your hometown is calling for public hearings into the HST. Councillor Judy Koziol says, "We're urging (the provincial) government to shelve the bill until there's been full consultation.... I believe that every resident deserves to be heard and there should be consultations in every riding."

As you know, Minister, we asked for hearings in just one riding outside of Toronto. Why wouldn't you hold one day of public hearings where the tourism sector, seniors, and people of your hometown, North Bay, could participate?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: My colleague from North Bay and my colleagues across Ontario have held numerous meetings with their constituents. Just this past Friday, I had the opportunity to speak at the chamber of commerce and take questions from the audience. Some of those questions were difficult. My colleague from North Bay has relayed to me the concerns of some of her constituents and has relayed to me the support of some of her constituents. She worked very hard with the tourism sector to accommodate some of their needs. In fact, we're investing an additional $40 million into the tourism sector.

As the Premier has said earlier, this package is about creating jobs, it's about a brighter future for the people of North Bay, and it's about more jobs for the people of North Bay. Nobody more than the member from Nipissing has done a better job of bringing forth the views of all her citizens—

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: It's unfortunate that the minister didn't respond, because she had choices. She could have stood with the people of her riding and the taxpayers of the province, like Bill Murdoch and Randy Hillier did, or shown contempt for them by ramming this record sales tax through without letting your hometown folks have their say. She could have honoured a promise that the Premier made not to raise taxes.

One day outside of Toronto for public hearings—that's what we asked for. Why, Minister, did your colleague make the wrong choice for the people of North Bay?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Members of this caucus have in fact held meetings all over the province—even in your riding—where they have been invited to take questions, where they have taken questions. A very prominent citizen of North Bay has endorsed this package, a fellow named Mike Harris, as the Premier pointed out earlier.

Premier McGuinty laid out a plan some nine months ago. He urged his caucus and cabinet to go out across Ontario, to meet with people, to answer their questions, and we have done that. Now it's time to pass a plan that will create 600,000 jobs in Ontario, lower taxes for all Ontarians and, yes, as the leader of the third party said, do away with the kinds of antics we've been exposed to over the last—

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

PENSION PLANS

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Acting Premier. The other day our leader raised the issue of Nortel paying out—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Restart your question, please.

Mr. Paul Miller: I'm sorry. To the Deputy Premier—would that be sufficient? All right; to the Minister of Finance.

The other day our leader raised the issue of Nortel paying out $7.5 million in bonuses to its senior executives, this at a time when thousands of Nortel workers are facing a 30% cut in their pensions with no help from the Ontario government. This government claims to have done what Quebec has done, but in fact it hasn't. The government hasn't guaranteed the current capital while at the same time allowing a sufficient period to manage the fund assets back into solvency. Why does this government do nothing as Nortel shovels money out the door to its senior executives and its workers get a 30% cut in their hard-earned pensions?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: As I indicated to the leader of the third party, I agreed with the comments the leader of the third party made the other day with respect to this. The member opposite will know that under the CCAA, or bankruptcy protection, Nortel remains an operating company and its pension plan remains subject to the Pension Benefits Act, which we did in fact amend before Quebec did. The amendments Quebec brought in reflect those amendments.

I'm aware of some recent concerns about lump sum or commuted-value withdrawals in the Nortel pension plan. Under court orders of June 1, 2009, Nortel will distribute future additional payments of commuted values from the pension plan at 69% rather than 86%. This is an enormously difficult issue. There are other pension challenges. This government is responding responsibly and listening and working with both the workers and others on these very important matters.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Paul Miller: It has been 12 months since the Arthurs commission delivered its recommendations on pension reform for this province. In those 12 months we've had one pension disaster after another: GM, Chrysler, Nortel, AbitibiBowater. The list goes on and on. This government promised to table pension reform in this Legislature in November but didn't. Will this pension reform legislation ever see the light of day in our province?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Yes, I expect it will be any day now.

I do want to indicate that there was some interesting debate that went on in the federal House of Commons on November 2. In an exchange, the following was said: "The minister ... keeps insisting that he can do nothing because it is a provincial matter. He is wrong. The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act is under federal jurisdiction and could provide recourse....

"Companies can use federal bankruptcy laws to evade their debt to pensioners and instead pay off corporate creditors whose investments are likely insured anyway."

That is the federal NDP member for your riding, sir: Mr. Wayne Marston. He's right. This has a federal overlay. I would suggest that he and his colleague federally ought to get their act together.

POVERTY

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. This week marks a very important anniversary for our government's commitment to reduce poverty across Ontario. One year ago we committed to reduce the number of children living in poverty by 25% in five years. These are challenging economic times. The Ontario Association of Food Banks released a report yesterday saying that food bank use is increasing. Ontario families need more support. Can the minister please provide the House with an update about the status of our efforts to combat poverty in our province?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I'm very proud to tell the Legislature that this morning our first annual report on Breaking the Cycle: Ontario's Poverty Reduction Strategy was tabled in this Legislature—a historic moment here in Ontario. I assure you that we are on the right track. Despite challenging economic times, we are making real progress towards our goal of lifting 90,000 children out of poverty within five years. Much hard work lies ahead of us, but over the past year we have made some very important steps. We've increased the Ontario child benefit to $1,100 per child per year, two years ahead of schedule.

We are also moving ahead to implement full-day early learning for four- and five-year-olds beginning in September 2010, with an investment of $200 million and $300 million in the following years. And through our harmonized sales tax, we are ensuring tax fairness for low-income families. Ninety thousand Ontarians—

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

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: Thank you, Minister, for the update on the annual report.

In the past few weeks there has been a lot of media coverage around the one-year anniversary of the poverty reduction strategy. One of the topics that has attracted a lot of attention in the media has been the proposed social assistance review. I have been hearing allegations that our government is not acting quickly enough on this. Minister, can you provide us with an update on when you will start the much-awaited social assistance review?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I know that the Minister of Community and Social Services would love to respond.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Thank you very much for the question.

The review of the social assistance program is a very big task, and one that can only be accomplished with the support of those partners in the poverty community. That's why I am pleased to announce today the creation of an advisory group chaired by Gail Nyberg of the Daily Bread Food Bank. I would like to thank Gail and all of the advisory members for their ongoing commitment to improving the life of Ontario's most vulnerable. The group has been asked to create the scope of the review, followed by recommendations to remove barriers and increase opportunities for those who require assistance.

I look forward to working with the advisory group to help us tackle poverty. Again, thank you, Gail—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock for a moment, please.

I don't need help from my armchair Speakers who surround me in this chamber.

I was listening to that answer, and I would caution members, because that was sounding very much like a ministerial statement and an announcement being made through the form of a question.

I would remind the honourable ministers that the appropriate time to make announcements is not during question period but during the routine proceedings in the afternoon, under the title of ministerial statements.

TAXATION

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is for the Premier. What do public hearings on the HST and a public inquiry into the billion-dollar Liberal health care boondoggle at eHealth have in common? It's the public.

We're wondering, on this side, why you are hiding from the public who have questions about your scandals and your tax grab.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: Hillier has eclipsed you, Lisa.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock.

Withdraw the comment, please.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I withdraw, absolutely.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Our government has endeavoured on all efforts to involve public opinion across Ontario for more than nine months since the introduction of the bill. I regret that yesterday, because of the opposition, we lost an hour of question period. I regret that a week ago Monday, we lost an hour of question period because of the tactics of the opposition. I regret that that member and her colleagues on the committee have moved the hearing times for the bill—the important public hearings—until midnight tonight. That's all unfortunate.

But the member opposite and her colleagues need to understand this government's absolute commitment to moving forward with creating 600,000 new jobs. It's the right—

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The one thing that we all regret in this chamber is that you are in charge of the province, because, my goodness with the scandals and the tax grab, you're now known as Canada's worst government, and you've also become Canada's most secretive government.

We know, on this side of the House, that it's been a tough session for them. With the scandals at OLG, eHealth and the Windsor Energy Centre, he's got his hands in every pot, and now he's rushing to try and get away because of the $3-billion tax grab. Despite a motion to extend sittings, you're in a race to ram through your record $3-billion tax grab and to try to run away from your billion-dollar boondoggle.

We also know that the $1 billion wasted at eHealth resulted in him throwing right under the bus two ministers, a deputy minister, the CEO, and a chair.

We want to know: Why are you throwing the Ontario public under the bus, and will you have the guts to hold public hearings outside of Toronto on eHealth?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. Order.

The honourable member made a comment during her question, a reference to a hand being in a particular place, and I would ask that that comment be withdrawn.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I'll withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I think Ontarians want their Legislature to move responsibly and productively. I think they see the importance of the debate which we have engaged in. I think they want a reasoned debate. I think they do want to have the opportunity to be heard. That's why we've conducted some 160 hearings across the province involving our members, people who support the HST and others.

I think the people of Ontario really do regret this; they regret the fact that we've wasted, I think, some six hours now on stunts, and even the front row of that party understands the mistake they made.

It's important to move forward with this plan, which will create some 600,000 new jobs and lower taxes for all Ontarians. We will lead through this, unlike that member and her party.

POVERTY

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Premier. I heard what the honourable ministers have to say, but I'd like to hear the Premier.

Today's report by the 25 in 5 Network for Poverty Reduction states: "The province runs a very real risk of falling short of its poverty reduction goal unless bolder action is taken, and soon."

Premier, 25 in 5 calls increases to the child benefit and minimum wage welcome but insufficient, and the implementation of the low-income dental plan long overdue.

Is the government still committed to reducing child poverty by 25% by the year 2013, the end of the five-year period, and will it act on the recommendations made today?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I'm very pleased to have an opportunity to speak to an issue which is of critical importance to our government and one that we have made headway on in the past year.

I want to provide the member opposite with a quote from Greg deGroot-Maggetti, the co-chair of the 25 in 5 network and poverty advocate of the Mennonite Central Committee, who just a few minutes ago said this in his press conference: "Let me start by stressing the importance of the poverty reduction strategy. The government launched the strategy just as the global recession rolled across Ontario, and that was precisely the time when we needed our government to work for us.

So the fact that the government has moved forward with the poverty reduction strategy in the midst of the recession is significant, and in the first year of the poverty reduction strategy, the government has taken some very positive steps."

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Michael Prue: I was also at the press conference, and the next word was "however." The government has finally announced a social assistance review panel, but it will be another year before the review is complete. Most members of the panel have stated that immediate action is needed to make social assistance a hand up, including increased allowable asset levels and "decent and adequate incomes" as a stated outcome of the review.

My question: Will the government listen to the panel members, or will this review be another government-controlled process like the closed-door poverty consultations last year?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I thank the member for his question, and I can guarantee the member that it's going to be an open process.

I'm very proud of the people who have agreed to take on this responsibility. There has been a lot of work done internally by staff, and we have introduced changes this year. It will complete the review that was already started by staff. We will make sure that people have been heard and that their recommendations—because we're looking for recommendations—will be taken into consideration. I'm very excited about this task and this work that will be done, and we're looking forward to their recommendations.

FIREFIGHTERS

Ms. Helena Jaczek: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Minister, firefighters perform a critical job and play a very important role in keeping Ontarians safe. They are outstanding individuals who take their duty very seriously. They have chosen a career that involves great personal risk to themselves: As everyone else is rushing away from a fire, they are the ones rushing in.

It is important, when firefighters are responding to a call, that they have the resources and training they need to be best protected while performing their duty. Firefighters should be able to feel confident that they are prepared as they work in dangerous situations. Would the minister tell us what our government is doing to help better protect Ontario's firefighters?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I want to thank the member for the question. As a former chief medical officer of health, she understands the importance that our firefighters bring to community safety. It's been said that a firefighter's first act of bravery is signing up; everything else is in the line of duty.

The men and women who are here today representing professional firefighters believe that. Our government chose to have a very, very open relationship with our firefighters. We chose to bring them in as a partner of community safety. That has led to very, very dramatic results and major change. There is better equipment. There is better training. We introduced presumptive legislation for firefighters who develop cancers and other related health conditions. Why? We did this because we listened to our professional firefighters—

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

Ms. Helena Jaczek: Minister, I'm pleased to hear that we're working with the OPFFA to help better protect Ontario's firefighters. Unfortunately, there are occasions when a firefighter has given their life in the line of duty. These tragic cases leave a mark, not only on the community where the firefighter lived, but also on all Ontarians. People from across the province come together to mourn and respect the act of bravery it takes to lay down one's life while attempting to save another. The Ontario Firefighters' Memorial honours all of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty.

You will recall that the memorial and the names of those brave firefighters etched on its columns was the target of an appalling act of vandalism in May 2008. What role did our government play in the restoration of the memorial?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Another important question. The Ontario Firefighters' Memorial is just steps away from this building. It is difficult to pass this memorial and not think of the brave firefighters who have paid the ultimate sacrifice. At the same time, this memorial reminds us of the dangers that these professional firefighters put themselves in on a regular basis.

After the outrageous and senseless vandalism, our government was proud to contribute $150,000 towards having the memorial restored. I want to thank the Restoring Respect committee for the incredible work they did in establishing the rededication of this particular memorial. It is a testament to those who have passed on in the line of duty. It is a reminder of the bravery of these people every single, solitary day.

DRIVER EXAMINATION CENTRES

Mr. Robert Bailey: My question today is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, as you well know, the current labour dispute at the DriveTest centres is dragging into its fourth month. Your government has refused to take any action to get the centres back open. This is having a very real impact on truck driver training schools. Minister, truck driver training schools, like all private career colleges, pay a mandatory levy that goes into a training completion insurance fund. This fund is designed to make sure that if a private college goes bankrupt, the student is protected. How much money is in that fund today?

Hon. John Milloy: To the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I thank the member for the question. I understand the member's frustration, and I can empathize with those who are being inconvenienced by this work stoppage.

The parties, over the last couple of weeks, have had an opportunity to assess their positions and the other party's position. Through our mediation department, through our mediators at the Ministry of Labour, we are encouraging the parties to get back to the table. We know that the collective bargaining process is the best process. It is the most productive and provides for the best agreements for short-term and long-term stability.

We will continue to work with the parties through the Ministry of Labour so that they can get a collective agreement that is right for both parties.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert Bailey: That rendition was all very well and good, but my question was to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, and I hope he'll answer it.

Minister, this is a very troubling question, the situation about this fund. I understand that there have been three draws on the fund, leaving it almost empty. The industry is rife with rumours that a large school is about to ask for a draw, which would completely bankrupt this fund.

Your government is not doing anything to get the DriveTest centres back open. It's your responsibility, not the industry's, to make sure these students are protected. Minister, when will you and this government step up to the plate and make sure that the students caught in this stuff are protected?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: The member talks about responsibility, and he's right. It is the responsibility of the employer and the trade union to come to the table, to work through their differences and to get a collective agreement done. Through the Ministry of Labour, our mediators are there to assist; they have been assisting. I know that the parties are assessing their positions. We encourage them to get to the table, to resolve their differences, so that those who are being inconvenienced—and we do understand that many are being inconvenienced across the province—can get on with getting their licences and getting on the road and being able to drive.

MANUFACTURING AND FORESTRY SECTOR JOBS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. The jobs crisis in northern Ontario continues, and this government doesn't have the slightest idea what to do about it. The latest shoe to drop? Sysco Corp. has announced it is closing its Sturgeon Falls warehousing facility and throwing over 100 people out of work. This is devastating news for a small community that has already been crippled by forestry job losses.

My question is a simple one: When will this government get off the sidelines and actually do something for hard-hit communities like Sturgeon Falls?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I appreciate the question. We are very conscious of the challenges being faced in northern Ontario, particularly relating to the forestry sector. Therefore it's a good opportunity for me to be able to tell the leader of the third party and all members about the decision that we made last week to open up a competition for wood supply in the province of Ontario. Eleven million cubic metres have been opened up in terms of opportunities for existing industry and new entrants to bring forward proposals. We want to put Ontario's wood to work, and this is going to provide us with that opportunity.

I can tell you that there's a great deal of excitement about these opportunities. In fact, may I say, this is something that the third party has been calling on us to do for some time. We are very pleased with the fact that we opened it up. It's a big competition and it's going to put people back to work, create jobs in northern Ontario and make a real difference. We're very excited about it.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: That measure doesn't deal with the severity of the problem that we're seeing in northern Ontario. Sturgeon Falls is simply one example. Across the north, 40,000 jobs have been lost in the forestry industry alone, and each one of those lost jobs cost at least two additional service jobs. When these good-paying, community-sustaining jobs are lost, there's a tragic trickle-down effect. Schools close, Main Street businesses are shuttered and families are forced to move away from friends and loved ones.

How many more northern Ontario communities have to be economically and socially gutted before this government finally takes action that makes a difference for them?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: In some ways, I'm startled by the response, in light of the actions our government is taking. For one thing, there's no question in terms of the benefits the HST will bring to the forestry and mining sectors. It's significant. It's huge—at least $15 million. Corporate income tax cuts, again, will be of great help to the forestry sector and the mining sector, let alone the fact that we have got the northern Ontario heritage fund—

Mr. Mike Colle: That they wanted to cut.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: —which you wanted to cut. Our government has increased the funding for that. We're up to $80 million this year, creating thousands of jobs in northern Ontario in a variety of ways for the community sectors.

Mr. Howard Hampton: We're going to send this transcript everywhere.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I hear the member from Kenora—Rainy River going on as well, and I appreciate the fact that—

Mr. Mike Colle: He was the one who was going to kill it.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Exactly. We are very excited about the opportunities that the HST will bring to the sector; there's no doubt about that. The cuts to corporate taxes for forestry and mining, the northern Ontario heritage fund and a number of other initiatives, including the wood supply competition—we're putting Ontario's wood to work, creating jobs for new—

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

AMATEUR SPORT

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: My question is for the Minister of Health Promotion. I'm really pleased to ask this good-news question of you—an update. I would have loved to ask it yesterday, but that opportunity didn't present itself.

Now that Ontario has been awarded the 2015 Pan Am Games, we know there's much work to be done to ensure we are ready to host a successful event. It was reported that the University of Toronto at Scarborough will see a major new facility built there, and that other sporting events will be using further venues in Durham region.

Can the minister please tell us what steps the government is taking to ensure that these Pan Am Games are going to be an overwhelming success, and how Scarborough and Durham will play an important

part in these games?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: First of all, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleague the member from Pickering—Scarborough East for his hard work in Pickering—Scarborough East and for the question.

The 2015 Pan Am Parapan Games will bring approximately $700 million worth of investment in sport infrastructure to the greater Golden Horseshoe area. In fact, this investment in the games will create approximately 15,000 new jobs. It will attract up to 250,000 tourists and bring 10,000 athletes and officials to our great province of Ontario.

But it's not just about infrastructure legacy. It's about all the goodwill this will generate and the fact that this will put Ontario on the map in terms of sports infrastructure and development. In fact, Scarborough stands to gain the Canadian Sport Institute Ontario, to be located at the university—

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

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: Minister, thank you for that response. As the member for Pickering—Scarborough East, I'm excited about the opportunities that are presenting themselves. Thank you for highlighting how my riding and the region are going to benefit from the 2015 Pan Am Games.

The games also bring thousands of the best athletes in America to Ontario. As the home team, we want to make sure our athletes perform the best they possibly can to bring home the medals. Minister, can you please tell this House what our government is doing to support high-performance athletes so they can perform to their full potential in these international games?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I will continue by saying that both Scarborough and Durham will benefit long after the Pan American closing ceremonies in 2015, as will the rest of the Golden Horseshoe.

On the international stage, we want to ensure that our athletes are the best-trained and supported on the track, in the pool or on the courts. That is why, between 2003 and 2009, the McGuinty government increased support for amateur sport by 166%. This government supports our high-performance athletes and coaches as they train for international competition through our ministry's Quest for Gold program. In fact, I received two letters from Quest for Gold recipients just today, telling us how much the Quest for Gold has benefited them. Since 2006, we have provided $42 million to this program. This has contributed—

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

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is for the Minister of Education. Why is the minister standing idly by while the students of McKenzie-Smith Bennett public school in Acton are losing their playground?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I understand that the member opposite's question has to do with local decisions about how facilities are allocated and the decisions that school boards have to make about how to use their facilities to best advantage. At the core of that is a question that school boards have to answer about providing the best program for their students. They have decisions that have to be made about schools that are less than full; they have decisions about building new schools. In doing that, they have to rationalize the use of their property. That's what the local school board is doing—

Hon. James J. Bradley: They don't want that dictated from Toronto.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: You don't want a minister at Bloor and Bay—at Bay and Wellesley; where is that office?—making a decision about a small community or even a suburban community and its schools. You want that decision made by the local school board.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Arnott: The minister cannot escape her personal responsibility in this matter. School boards are making decisions based on policies and directives from the minister's office. In this case, the ministry policy is being interpreted to compel the Halton District School Board to declare the playground to be surplus land in order to sell it and then use the proceeds to build new schools in other communities.

I've written multiple letters to the minister on this, I've raised it in the Legislature and I've spoken to the minister many times directly. Is the minister really prepared to ignore our intervention, that of the mayor and council of the town of Halton Hills, the region of Halton, the school council, the outstanding community support for the playground, and the 5,000 people who have signed a petition demanding that it be saved?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member opposite knows I have spoken to the mayor. I really believe that a good, local community process is very important in these decisions. There need to be plans that include school boards, municipalities and other community agencies.

In fact, the member opposite knows full well that in this year, we've introduced a partnership policy into the school board system that would require school boards to work with their partners and have a plan that all of the partners, including municipalities, would know about well in advance, so that if there's space that's going to be surplus and they have an opportunity to use that space, they will be able to talk with the school board about that.

But I go back to the fundamental principle, which is that local school boards need to be working in their communities to make the decisions regarding school facilities and school properties. That is not a decision that you want made at the ministry level, at the provincial level; you want that to be a local community decision. The provincial government can—

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

HIGHWAY 407

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. For weeks, the Toronto Star has been showing how Ontario drivers are being taken to the cleaners by the Highway 407 toll company. Billed incorrectly, charged sky-high interest rates, pursued for 15-year-old charges, even stripped of their driver's licences, Ontario's drivers are incensed and want action. Why did the minister sell out Ontario's drivers in the 2006 settlement with 407 ETR?

Hon. James J. Bradley: As you would know, it's exactly the opposite. When your NDP government decided to embark on this trail of the privatization of Highway 407 when in power—I know you were supporting the NDP at that time—you will recall that that started us down a path where the Conservative government, in desperation, wanting to show a balanced budget, almost gave away the 407 to the 407 corporation. The deal was ironclad. I'm going to tell you, that company had to be completely happy with that deal. We went to court as a government in the year that the member mentioned, 2005, to fight against this, and the court ruled in favour of the deal that the Conservatives had set up.

So we have a Conservative government that signed the deal and a court that confirmed it. I'm with the member in being highly—

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: The history is an interesting diversion. The reality is that this government issued a press release in 2006 talking about the wonderful deal that it had settled with 407 ETR and talking about protection for drivers, and in fact what it did was sell drivers down the river. This government abandoned its responsibilities. When is it going to take back the initiative and actually act to protect drivers?

Hon. James J. Bradley: The member is usually a member, I know, who doesn't provide wrong information. He's usually pretty accurate in this House, and I know he's usually fair-minded.

The problem is, our government went to court over this matter. We were criticized by some saying, "Why would you bother with this? It's an ironclad guarantee." But we went to court on behalf of the people of Ontario that use Highway 407. Not only did the court rule in favour of the deal that was signed between the Conservative government and 407 corporation, they also denied our government the opportunity to appeal, because we would like to have appealed.

I know, in hindsight, the member has lots of solutions, but I think the whole history of the 407 commends itself to those—

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

AIDS TREATMENT

Mr. David Zimmer: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. One of the most significant issues during our lifetime has been the spread of HIV/AIDS and how it has affected millions of people across the planet. Yesterday was World AIDS Day. This year, the theme is of "Universal Access and Human Rights," which will highlight and underscore the importance of understanding HIV/AIDS from a human rights perspective. I think we can all agree that the elimination of HIV/AIDS is of utmost importance.

In Ontario alone, this disease will claim or has claimed 9,000 Ontarians. My question for the minister: What is our government doing to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS and to support people living with HIV/AIDS?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: World AIDS Day is a solemn reminder to all of us of the lives lost to AIDS in this province and around the world, but it's also a time to consider our shared hope—hope for better prevention, hope for better treatment, now and in the future, for those living with the disease in Ontario, in Canada and around the world.

Ontarians are now able to live with HIV/AIDS. In fact, about 27,000 people across the province are doing exactly that. With a stronger provincial support system, Ontarians now have access to better HIV/AIDS medications, to better community-based AIDS education programs; people now have better access to anonymous testing and to outpatient clinics.

In this fiscal year, I'm very pleased to say, we're increasing our investment by $1.68 million to community-based AIDS/HIV prevention—$1 million of that earmarked for women—

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

Ms. Sylvia Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I believe that according to standing order 21(c), my privileges as an MPP and the PC critic for community and social services had been breached because the minister made a statement during—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): If you're going to raise a point of privilege with the Speaker, there is a process that needs to be followed. You need to file a letter with the Speaker outlining your point of privilege, and I will be happy to review it.

Mr. Frank Klees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like clarification on that. It's my understanding, according to the standing order, that if a point of privilege arises as a result of the proceedings, that that point of privilege can be made directly to you and does not have to be put in writing.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I will stand corrected, and the

interpretation is correct.

I would say to the member from Dufferin—Caledon that I too noted during question period that it very much sounded to me as a ministerial statement, and I took the minister to task for that and said that it should have been.

Again, I would just urge caution to all ministers because we get into situations like this, and the members of the opposition, the duly appointed critic from Her Majesty's loyal opposition should rightly be given an opportunity to respond to a ministerial statement, and I will recognize the member from Dufferin-Caledon.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: On this same point, Speaker: Because you ruled like that, if you don't call for her to ask for a ministerial statement today and allow me the five-minute response, we will continue to see this activity on behalf of the government. I am concerned that we have to stop it today and demand that she do that ministerial statement during today's proceedings.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I thank the honourable member.

The member from Beaches—East York.

Mr. Michael Prue: You said the "official opposition." I think, Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect, the third party has the same privilege. I would echo what the member has just said. We will be prepared to make statements today, should the minister actually make a statement during the appropriate time.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I thank the honourable member from Beaches—East York. Yes, when I was responding, I was speaking directly to Her Majesty's loyal opposition. I do not lose sight of the role that the third party plays in this House as well of keeping the government accountable.

Mr. John Yakabuski: We demand an apology.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd just ask the member from Renfrew to please come to order.

As I have ruled in the past, I cannot compel a minister to make a ministerial statement, but I will again remind members that, on issues, it would be best for statements to be made within the chamber.

With that, I believe I have some reading to do here.

DEFERRED VOTES

TIME ALLOCATION

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We have a number of deferred votes.

First we have a deferred vote on government notice of motion 166 on time allocation of Bill 185,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act with respect to greenhouse gas emissions trading and other economic and financial instruments and market-based approaches.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1156 to 1201.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): All in favour will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

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

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 59; the nays are 25.

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

Motion agreed to.

TIME ALLOCATION

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We have a deferred vote on government notice of motion 168 on time allocation of Bill 203,

An Act to allow for better cross-border policing co-operation with other Canadian provinces and territories and to make consequential amendments to the Police Services Act.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

Interjections: Same vote.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Same vote? Agreed? I heard a no.

The division bells rang from 1205 to 1210.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Mr. Bartolucci has moved government notice of motion number 168. All those in favour, please rise and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Those opposed?

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 59; the nays are 24.

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

Motion agreed to.

TECHNICAL STANDARDS AND SAFETY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX NORMES TECHNIQUES ET À LA SÉCURITÉ

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 187,

An Act to amend the Technical Standards and Safety Act, 2000 and the Safety and Consumer Statutes Administration Act, 1996 / Projet de loi 187, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2000 sur les normes techniques et la sécurité et la Loi de 1996 sur l'application de certaines lois traitant de sécurité et de services aux consommateurs.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

Interjections: Same vote.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Same vote. Agreed?

Interjections: No.

The division bells rang from 1213 to 1218.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Mr. McMeekin has moved third reading of Bill 187. All those in favour, please rise and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Those opposed?

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 59; the nays are 25.

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

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

NOTICES OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Pursuant to standing order 38(a), the member for Sarnia—Lambton has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities concerning bankruptcy of the training fund. This matter will be debated today at 6 p.m.

Pursuant to standing order 38(a), the member for Leeds—Grenville has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Finance concerning public hearings on Bill 218. This matter will be debated today at 6 p.m.

Pursuant to standing order 38(a), the member for Wellington—Halton Hills has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Education concerning the McKenzie-Smith Bennett public school in Acton. This matter will be debated at 6 p.m. today.

VOTING

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'm very, very concerned with a ruling you made two or three days ago in this Legislature and the precedent that it creates in the future of this Legislature of Ontario. I would like an explanation of where the Speaker's power is derived from in ignoring standing order 20 and standing order 28 with regard to your decision to let me vote in another seat of this Legislature. This is important from a point of view of the Speaker taking the liberty to ignore standing orders that are in place in order to resolve a problem that arose in the Legislature. Mr.

Speaker, it may have made rational sense to do what you did, but on the other hand, we must be concerned that the standing orders which you are charged to put in place are adhered to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I thank the honourable member for his point of order and I reserve my decision on it.

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

The House recessed from 1224 to 1500.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'm going to take this opportunity to welcome in the west members' gallery Debbie Thompson, who is the reeve of the township of Stone Mills, and Todd Steele, the deputy reeve of the township of Stone Mills. They're down here today to support Olivia Hughes, one of our pages.

Welcome to both of you, and enjoy your visit to Queen's Park.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TAXATION

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I would like to take this opportunity to speak out against the harmonized sales tax that the McGuinty Liberals are imposing on Ontario families. This shameful tax grab will mean that Ontario families will lose more of their hard-earned income. The HST means that Ontarians will be stuck paying more for essential services such as home heating.

What the McGuinty Liberals are doing is inexcusable. What they are saying is that they don't care about Ontario's average taxpayers.

The consequences of the HST are being felt across Ontario, including in my riding of Dufferin—Caledon.

Home renovations will be subjected to the HST. The consequences of this are enormous. Ontario families that want to renovate will struggle to pay the extra costs. This will mean a thriving underground economy where illegal contractors are not subjected to the HST. This will mean loss of sales, or even bankruptcy, for many legitimate contractors who are forced to pay the HST.

The federal government has introduced a home renovation tax credit to support families and the economy. Yet, the HST shows that the Liberal government doesn't care about either. The HST will not benefit Ontario families or taxpayers. The McGuinty Liberals need to stop this shameless tax grab before it begins.

FIRE SAFETY

Mr. Mario Sergio: Tomorrow I will be debating my private member's bill, Bill 214,

An Act to amend the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997. Countless deaths have instigated three coroners' inquests to recommend making sprinklers mandatory in specific care occupancies. Our government did the right thing and mandated that all care homes built after 1997 have sprinkles installed.

What about those seniors who live in older buildings? Why are their lives put at risk? Those are our mothers, our fathers, our family and our relatives. This year alone the province lost four seniors in two separate fire incidents.

Bill 214 has wide support from the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs, the municipal fire chiefs' association, the Ontario Municipal Fire Prevention Officers Association, as well as the endorsement of a number of seniors' organizations all over Ontario.

I'm looking forward to the debate tomorrow afternoon, and I'm honoured that this Legislature will be filled with fire chiefs from around Ontario who will have made the commute to support this particular bill.

At the present time, we have in Ontario two systems of care occupancy: one with a sprinkler system and one without. I hope that we can move closer to providing safety and peace of mind to our seniors.

GENERAL MOTORS OF CANADA

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: I'm pleased once again that General Motors Oshawa has been recognized as one of the most efficient and best-quality car assembly plants in the world, with the announcement of the all-new 2011 Buick Regal being produced at the Oshawa assembly plant. This is a testament to the dedication and hard work of the employees from General Motors Oshawa.

There will be a tremendous impact on our community as the extra shift will be added and approximately 600 laid-off employees will be recalled to produce the new Buick. I'd like to congratulate the work of the Canadian Auto Workers and General Motors for securing this agreement to have the Buick Regal built in Oshawa. I want to thank the engineers and the marketing personnel at General Motors who secured the advanced design technology and performance capabilities of this vehicle for the North American market.

This is definitely not your grandfather's Buick. This exciting, new, European-inspired sports sedan is based on the GM award-winning 2009 European Car of the Year. The Buick Regal is the second new car to be built on the new state-of-the-art flex manufacturing line.

Congratulations to General Motors for moving forward with innovative, fuel-efficient, high-quality new vehicles and building them right here in Ontario. Once again, great things are starting to happen in Oshawa.

PENSION PLANS

Mr. Paul Miller: I couldn't help but be enraged when I heard about the obscene payouts that Nortel executives have given themselves. How these people can even look at themselves in the mirror every day is beyond any decent person's comprehension. Sadly, they're not alone in this scandalous behaviour.

In my riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, my former employer, US Steel, laid off all but a bare skeleton of workers and moved not only Canadian raw materials but Canadian jobs to the States. Although I'm glad that many Canadian workers have been recalled to work, as I've said before, this is only to stave off the cost of severance pay. I fear the long-term goals of US Steel.

Our sisters and brothers at the Lake Erie Works plant in Nanticoke have been locked out for many months in a dispute with US Steel, with a very dim outlook. Like so many foreign owners of our Canadian industries, as soon as the going gets tough, they grab whatever they can get—money the government gives them to keep operations in Ontario and Canada—and run back home, taking our jobs and our livelihoods with them.

The steelworkers at Vale Inco in Sudbury are all too familiar with this scenario as they face their daily trek to the picket lines of this strikebreaking, union-busting foreign owner.

I can't imagine how the Nortel injured workers must have felt when they discovered that their long-term disability plan was actually being paid by Nortel and not by an insurance carrier. Now they face an uncertain future with real fear that they will not be able to afford their medications, while Nortel executives pay themselves for driving this once-thriving company and its employees into the ground.

The province needs to enact legislation that will guarantee real long-term illness insurance, a real backstop for the pension benefits guarantee fund and a system like Quebec's, whereby the province takes over an at-risk pension fund, guarantees the bottom line and actively—

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

MEHRUB RAHMAN

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: I rise to speak about Mehrub Rahman, a Bengali writer, poet, actor, journalist and community activist. Mehrub is his pen name, which in Arabic means a sacred place or platform to disseminate information.

Mehrub came to Canada five years ago and has quickly assimilated into the mainstream society here in Toronto. He has a regular day job, but his evenings and weekends are spent working in the community as a writer, poet, actor and journalist. He's a graduate of the University of Dhaka, but Mehrub has always had an attraction to the literary world. He started writing poetry in grade 9, with his first literary magazine published in grade 10. In