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

November 26, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Nov-26 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 26 November 2009 Jeudi 26 novembre 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CORRECTION OF RECORD

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

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

TAXATION

TAXATION

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

SKILLS TRAINING

VOLUNTEERS

TAXATION

COMPOSTING

TAXATION

ABORIGINAL LAND DISPUTE

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

HUMAN TRAFFICKING

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TAXATION

ROUGE VALLEY AJAX

AND PICKERING HOSPITAL

ABORIGINAL LAND DISPUTE

ORLÉANS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

PEOPLE'S CHOICE BUSINESS AWARDS

DRIVER EXAMINATION CENTRES

HEALTH PROMOTION

TAXATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

JUSTICE POLICY

PETITIONS

TAXATION

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

HISPANIC COMMUNITY

TAXATION

SOCIAL SERVICES FUNDING

TAXATION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

HISPANIC COMMUNITY

TAXATION

SOCIAL SERVICES FUNDING

TAXATION

LUPUS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

VISITOR

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

CONGENITAL HEART DISEASE

AWARENESS DAY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE JOUR

DE LA SENSIBILISATION

À LA CARDIOPATHIE CONGÉNITALE

PENSION BENEFITS

AMENDMENT ACT

(TRANSFERS ON WIND UP), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RÉGIMES DE RETRAITE

(TRANSFERTS À LA LIQUIDATION)

PUBLIC HOSPITALS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES HÔPITAUX PUBLICS

CONGENITAL HEART DISEASE

AWARENESS DAY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE JOUR

DE LA SENSIBILISATION

À LA CARDIOPATHIE CONGÉNITALE

PENSION BENEFITS

AMENDMENT ACT

(TRANSFERS ON WIND UP), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RÉGIMES DE RETRAITE

(TRANSFERTS À LA LIQUIDATION)

PUBLIC HOSPITALS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES HÔPITAUX PUBLICS

PENSION BENEFITS

AMENDMENT ACT

(TRANSFERS ON WIND UP), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RÉGIMES DE RETRAITE

(TRANSFERTS À LA LIQUIDATION)

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

TIME ALLOCATION

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good morning. Please remain standing for the Lord's Prayer, followed by a moment of silence for inner thought and personal reflection.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CORRECTION OF RECORD

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Yesterday in debate I said that the region of Durham would be paying $7 million. I misspoke. It was $700,000. I just wanted to correct the record.

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 25, 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): Further debate?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I usually say it's my pleasure to rise in the Legislature to debate legislation. Unfortunately, it's a displeasurable experience today, because this of course is the last chance for anybody really, and specifically New Democrats in this case, to have something to say on second reading of Bill 218, the bill that ushers in the harmonized sales tax by this Liberal McGuinty government.

I have to say that we have been very vocal in our opposition to this wrong-headed move by the government. I say "wrong-headed" specifically and purposely. Why? Because this government is prepared to basically bring in a piece of legislation that hits families when they're already down; a bill, a tax measure, that makes life a heck of a lot less affordable, at a time when the people of this province are suffering significantly from a protracted recession, from a downturn in the economy.

People are losing their jobs. People are losing their pensions. People are not able to find a job to replace the one they've lost. They're losing their homes. Their quality of life is being reduced significantly. And that has been happening month after month after month. Over 200,000 jobs have been lost in this year alone. And what does this government do to respond to this crisis in job loss, to this crisis in quality of life that we're facing in this province? They decide to hit people with an 8% tax increase on all kinds of goods and services that they rely on, on a daily basis.

The lack of consideration, the extent to which this government is completely out of touch with the people of this province, whom they are supposed to be governing in the best interests of, is absolutely incredible. The arrogance is unbelievable. This government has decided to close their eyes, to close their ears and to plow ahead with something that is going to hurt people at a time when what they really want is a government that brings solutions to the table that actually help them get back on their feet. This province will go nowhere as long as the people in this province are hurting.

I have to tell you: This government might not realize it, but the people are hurting; they're hurting very, very deeply right now.

At a time when this economy is at a stall—and we know what happens when there's an economic stall. People are told by economists and others that the best way to address that stall is to get people spending again; right? Get them spending again. That'll stimulate the economy. And what does this government do at a time when we need people to be spending, we need consumers to start spending money in the economy? They bring in a tax measure that's going to do exactly the opposite of what we need to happen. People are going to spend less with prices that are going up because of the HST. They're not going to be spending more.

So again we have this government that is bringing in a tax policy that is exactly the opposite of what we need right now. And as if that isn't bad enough, as if those two things aren't bad enough, the harmonized sales tax is also a policy that reduces the rate of job growth in the province of Ontario. That's not something I've come up with on my own. That's something that the C.D. Howe Institute—not an organization that I tend to quote often—very clearly, in their studies over the last year or so, indicates: that some 38,000 jobs will not be created as a result of this government's wrong-headed policy on harmonization of taxes.

But they're not the only ones; they are not the only ones. Another organization that I don't tend to quote from very often, but from time to time and in this case specifically: the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. What does the Ontario Chamber of Commerce say? The Ontario Chamber of Commerce says the exact same thing as the C.D. Howe Institute says: 40,000 fewer jobs are going to be created because of the harmonization of the sales tax.

Now, I've got to say, if I'm not mistaken, that this economy has been shedding jobs by the tens of thousands every single month: As I mentioned in my opening remarks, 200,000 jobs in this year alone, some 350,000 jobs over the last couple of years. These are real people. These aren't just statistics. These are families. These are folks who are now at the end of their unemployment insurance and starting to go and apply for welfare. How do I know that? In my community alone, the welfare rolls have ballooned by almost 3,000 caseloads—and that's my community alone. It's happening across the province; I can tell you that.

So at a time when what we need the most is more jobs, is more opportunity, is hope for people in this economy, what does their government do? Their government brings in a tax measure that reduces opportunity, that slows down the rate of job growth, that tells them, "Too bad, so sad. We know you need a job, but we would rather whack you with an 8% tax increase than give you any opportunity whatsoever, give you any hope for the future."

Shame on this arrogant government. Shame on them for not listening to the people of this province—because that is the other thing: It's not just New Democrats who are extremely critical of this tax. It is people in every walk of life, in every corner of this province who are telling this government, "Stop; don't do this. Don't hurt us while we're already hurting. Do something that gives us hope, that provides us with opportunity"—but they're simply not listening.

I have to say I've had the opportunity to listen myself. I've listened carefully to what the people are saying, and it's interesting that this government, in its response to the criticisms that we've been levelling against the tax, dug up an economist—a neo-conservative, heavy right-wing economist from the University of Alberta. They paid this person to write a report that claims that, in fact, jobs will increase.

The government has taken this one person, who has not had any of his report corroborated by any peers; they've taken this person's report that they paid for—of course, the government knows how to pay for consultants and overpriced reports; we've seen that over and over in eHealth and many other situations—and what do they do? They take this isolated report, the opinion of one person that they paid for, and they fly it out there like somehow it's the truth. We all know it's not the truth.

We all know that the government bought and paid for that opinion, and now it's shopping it out there like it actually has meaning. Shame on them trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the people of this province. Guess what? The people of this province are simply not buying it.

What are they saying? What do they say when I go to Kitchener, when I go to Cambridge, when I go to Windsor, when I go to Ottawa, when I go to Cornwall—which is where I'm going this weekend, and very much looking forward to it—when I'm at home in Hamilton, when I go to Timmins, when I'm in Sudbury, when I'm here in Toronto? What are people telling me? They're telling me that they don't want the government to implement this tax. They're telling me that they think it's the wrong thing to do. They're telling me that they don't believe that savings will be passed on.

They're telling me, as small business owners, that this tax is going to hurt them, too. They're telling me, as single parents, that they can't afford to make ends meet for them and their children right now. They're telling me, as senior citizens, that there isn't enough money to pay the bills as it is. And they tell me they're afraid. They tell me they're afraid of what the impact is going to be when this tax is levied upon them in the middle of next year, if this government has its way.

I say "if the government has its way" because there really is still time to change course. There is time for this government to change course. I urge every MPP—not necessarily every government member, but every MPP—to go back to your ridings and look your people in the face, the people who put you here, and understand and listen to their concerns. Because if they're telling me when I go into your ridings, then I know darned well they're telling you too.

If hundreds of thousands of them are responding to our requests on the Internet to join our campaign through our unfairtaxgrab.com website, then I know that they're calling you as well. Whether you're responding to them, I don't know. Whether you're hearing them—I can tell you, the evidence up until now is that you're not. And you need to. That's your job; that's your obligation; that's your responsibility.

I wanted to put a few things on the record from people who have actually sent me some comments about the harmonized sales tax. I can debate the merits from the perspective of the legislation itself, but I think it's important that, as this government continuously refuses to hear from the people of this province in a public hearings process that is simply democratic, the alternative is, granted, a poor alternative in some ways, but at least it's an alternative to get some of their voices on the record here in the Legislature.

Because, unfortunately, this government has not only chosen to shut down debate on this bill, but also to avoid going to the people, to avoid every opportunity to hear what people have to say by refusing to take it to public hearings. It's one of the biggest tax changes in the province's history, and this government refuses to take it out to public hearings. Talk about dampening of democracy; talk about shutting down democracy in this province. It's absolutely shameful.

Nancy Bailey from Sault Ste. Marie says: "We are barely on our feet now and the last thing all of us need, especially in northern Ontario, is another tax." Why does Nancy say "especially in northern Ontario"? Because in northern Ontario, people already pay more for pretty much everything. People in northern Ontario have to use their cars to go everywhere. They don't have the same kind of transit system that centres like Toronto have. So they're filling up their tanks much more often than the people in southern Ontario. And guess what? Their gas prices are already higher than the ones in southern Ontario—by about what, Mr. Bisson?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: About 10 to 12 cents.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: So, 10 to 12 cents. The member from Timmins—James Bay is corroborating the fact that, on average, about 10 to 12 cents per litre higher is what people in northern Ontario have to pay for their gas. Now that 8% is going to hit them that much harder. That's why Nancy Bailey is really worried in Sault Ste. Marie, as are many, if not all, of the people I've spoken to in northern Ontario.

Don Warner, from Windsor: "As a lifelong citizen of Ontario, I wish to express my deep displeasure with our Liberal government. Please vote this legislation down."

Doug and Kathy White, from Stratford: "We are a small seasonal business that is taxed enough. With the tourism from the USA down over the last nine years, all we need is something else, the HST, to drive away more guests. B&Bs"—bed and breakfasts—"are just getting by in Stratford, and the number has dropped over the last five years."

This is not specific to Stratford. I have spoken to people throughout Ontario who are in the travel and tourism business. They do not want this tax. They have told me specifically, directly. In fact, I was at the farmers' market in St. Catharines not too long ago. A small business couple—two people who own two small businesses—approached me and said, "You keep fighting that tax. We're small business owners, and we think it's the wrong thing and it's going to hurt us."

The government likes to say that business supports it. There is no homogeneous group of business people who support this. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business did a survey, and almost 60% of the small business members of that organization say they can find nothing of value whatsoever in the harmonized sales tax. Other businesses are telling me that they have to switch around all their accounting practices and all their invoicing processes and their cash registers and everything else, and it's going to be a big pain that they simply don't need.

This government claims to want to talk to businesses. They claim that this is a big tax move that is supported by all business. They are not telling people what is really going on out there. But guess what? The people are telling us, and that is extremely important. And I value their opinions, obviously much more than the government does.

S. Hendry, of Toronto: "I am opposed to the HST, as are all other Ontarians who must try to make a living while running a small business, and trying to keep above water."

Robert Jones, Amherstburg: "I oppose the HST as it is a regressive tax against consumers, particularly middle- and lower-income Ontarians. I do not believe companies will pass on any PST savings. Consumers … will be burdened with much higher costs, particularly on gasoline, electricity and services previously exempt."

This is a pile of responses that have come in to my office, and it is a mere sampling of the thousands upon thousands of people who have contacted us and begged us to do everything we can to get this government to do the right thing by the people of this province. The right thing is to get off this tax track. The right thing is to make sure they listen to the people of this province. They can do that in two ways. They can do that by simply walking away from this wrong-headed move, but the other way they can do that is to actually give the voters of this province the respect of having an opportunity to tell their government directly what they think about this move.

Shame on this arrogant bunch that they refuse to go out and listen to the concerns, the issues and the worries that the people of this province have. Shame on them. We all know that at the end of the day this government can ram this bill through as fast as they want, and they can shut down debate and they can silence the public, and that's what they are doing—I don't know what ever happened to democracy in this province, but I haven't seen it in a while.

But another thing has to happen: The federal Parliament also has to pass legislation to make this bill live here in Ontario and actually make the changes that need to be made. All I would say is that I expect the members in this Legislature who have influence over that particular House—that particular Parliament, our federal Parliament—to go there and talk to those MPs and tell them that although they were forced to vote in a certain way in this chamber, perhaps in the other chamber they can save the day and not approve either the $4.3-billion poison pill, I guess, that the other opposition party talks about.

Don't let that $4.3 billion flow, because, guess what? This government can't implement the tax. But also don't allow the legislation to pass that enables this change to take place.

My requests are simple: I want this government to listen to the people of this province and do the right thing: Go on public hearings. If you refuse to do that, then the next thing you can do is shut down this harmonized sales tax once and for all and forever.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Questions and comments? The honourable member for Pickering—Scarborough East.

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: My thanks to the member from Hamilton Centre and leader of the third party, and to the member from Beaches—East York for their lead off speeches yesterday and today, and particularly to say how pleased I am that over the past few days they have used a modest amount of time available to them for the purposes of speaking to Bill 218 and not having used other tactics that have been used in this place, which I may get 30 seconds to speak on as well.

Let me suggest, as well, to the members opposite in the third party, and to the members of the official opposition, that this is the place for debate. We are each here representing our constituencies and representing the parties to which we are elected in the positions they have. It's a wonderful opportunity for us to speak on behalf of those positions and, effectively, on behalf of thousands of constituents, all of whom may not agree with each of our individual positions, but nonetheless it's an opportunity for us to do that. So I'm happy and pleased they have had that opportunity provided to them.

I said yesterday, and I'll say it again today in the 40 seconds I have left, that we would have had much more opportunity if members had five minutes each to speak. In the two hours of dead air that we had while bells were ringing from the official opposition, that would have been 24 more speakers in this place, in addition to those who have spoken already. There's been more opportunity available than has been provided to us.

I want to take my last 20 seconds to acknowledge the member from Nepean—Carleton, who got up this morning to indicate that she had misinformation yesterday in regard to the region of Durham and the impacts they said the HST might have on them. As a member who represents an area in Durham region, it's important for me to reinforce that. The figures that were provided to us yesterday were tenfold wrong: not $7 million but, as the member said this morning, some $700,000, a very—

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I appreciate the member from the third party, the leader, making her statements. In my minute and 50 seconds, I'm going to read some comments from people from Liberal ridings who are being underrepresented here today.

From Scarborough—Rouge River: "With the regressive HST applying to most goods and services, will Ontarians be able to take advantage of this generosity? Getting to Tim Hortons for a coffee and a bagel may be problematic if an outlet is not nearby and someone can't afford to put gas in their vehicle to get there. If one decides on takeout, will they return home to a cold, dark house because they couldn't afford to pay their utility bill?" That's from Warren Dalton.

Let's move on to London: "When revenue minister John Wilkinson said the HST will make Ontario more competitive and will attract investment and jobs, he must be reminded of one thing. It will cost us, the taxpayers, dearly, while it helps the Liberals make good on promises they never should have made." That's from Paul A. Leinweber.

From Algoma—Manitoulin, Larry Killens writes, "There is no harmony with the impending implementation of the harmonized sales tax between Ontario and Canada."

From Barrie, Rick Winson writes, "This new sales harmonized tax (SHT) will only serve to drive Ontario's economy further underground than it already is. With the number of people who are, or soon will be, unemployed, it's going to be very easy to find someone willing to provide services under the table for cash."

I'll move on to Belleville: "I am worried about it. I've got to get gas in my car and I'll be paying more for it. I have to heat my home and I'll be paying more for that too. I think it'd be better if they'd just leave it alone." That's from Art Lynas in Belleville.

From Windsor: "I think it stinks.... It's going to hurt a lot of people." That's from Betty Cooke.

Steve Peters—not our Speaker—from Windsor says, "The business community will realize a minor savings in their bookkeeping costs, but the net result will be increased costs resulting in increased prices for consumers."

Finally, Doug Chivers from Oakville: "Harmonizing the PST and GST is simply another cash grab for an already inept, out-of-fiscal-control government body."

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

M me France Gélinas: It is my pleasure to add a few words to the ones that were spoken by my leader this morning. She has spoken for the people who won't have a voice because this government is refusing to go out and listen to them.

In my riding alone, I have hundreds of people who are contacting me. My riding is very close to the riding of Sudbury, held by a Liberal member, and 750 people, residents of Sudbury, came to me because they cannot be heard by their own member in Sudbury. They came to me because they want their voice to be heard. They don't want this tax.

For the people of northern Ontario, to have 8% more to pay on gas, 8% more to pay on heating fuel represents a huge amount of their budget. We do not have public transit. There has never been a bus in Whitefish, and there will probably never be one, for a number of reasons. We need our cars to go anywhere. That means we fill up twice a week. That means 8% more on a $50 fill-up. I will let you do the math; it adds up really quick. It adds up to people right now who don't have a job, who are on strike, who have a hard time making ends meet.

We have lots of professional services right now. You're looking at chiropractors and massage therapists who have a hard time making ends meet because of the financial hardship situation that Sudbury and Nickel Belt are in right now with the strike and the recession. They come to me, sometimes crying, saying, "When this 8% comes, France, it's going to mean the end of my business." One of them has been in business in the Hanmer mall for a long time, and she wants her business to continue, but that will be the end of her, and lots of professsional services that are barely hanging on through the recession—that will be the end of them. Why are we killing those jobs?

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

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: It's a great pleasure for me to comment on the member for Hamilton Centre's speech. Let me tell you, I do believe that people are opposed to the HST—because they are misinformed. At the present time, if we were to tell the truth to the people—93% of the people of this province will benefit from a tax reduction.

Let me give you a good example: a trucking company at the present time that has to purchase a truck for $70,000. Did you tell them that in the end, after the purchase, he will receive $5,600 back? That is an amount of money that he used to pay to the government, and today this is coming back to him. The elderly are going to get a $500 deduction on their municipal taxes. Low-income families—we are telling people that they will be—I was listening to the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. He was saying that this is going to be an increase of 13%—completely, completely false. When we're saying that everybody is going to pay an 8% increase in taxes, that is completely false.

Can we tell the people the truth, what they will benefit on top of that? Any seniors who are getting even $100,000 will benefit on the first $37,000 with a deduction on their income tax, and if they qualify as low-income people, they'll get up to $260 per head, and on top of that, they'll get a $500 deduction on their municipal taxes. So why don't we tell the truth to the people of this province on what is the effect of the HST?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The honourable leader of the third party has up to two minutes for her response.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I appreciate and want to thank the member from Pickering—Scarborough East, the member from Nepean—Carleton, the member from Nickel Belt and the member from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell for their remarks.

One thing that's very clear is that it appears that the government members, because this is their bill, this is their initiative, this is their effort, like to talk in terms of theory and in terms of these companies and individuals who aren't real but who are scenarios. What they need to do is look at the real scenarios on the ground of the people in this province and what they're facing with the implementation of this harmonized sales tax. What they need to do is what we're doing, which is get out into the community and talk to real people and real businesses about how they see the impacts of this tax.

My colleague from the Nickel Belt riding did exactly that. I've attempted to do that as well, in some of the issues that I've brought forward not only in my debate today but every single day in question period. I'm bringing real issues from real businesses, from real people, to this table. Unfortunately, the government likes to read a lot of studies and theorize about a lot of impacts, but what people are saying is that the real impact of this harmonized sales tax is not going to be all smelling like roses, the way the government says it's going to be. It is going to hurt people when they're already hurting.

It is going to reduce the rate of job growth in this province by some 40,000 jobs. It is going to dampen down consumer spending at the very time when we need to see more consumer spending to stimulate our economy. It is a wrong-headed tax. It's shifting the tax burden from the corporate sector to consumers. It is the wrong thing to do. New Democrats oppose it, and so do most Ontarians.

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

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: I'm very pleased to enter into the debate. I just wanted to give a bit of a history lesson before I start into the specifics.

We heard a lot of the same conversation that we're hearing from the other side of the House with regard to the budget and the economic stimulus. There was not only the harmonization but also a stimulus package in that budget. We heard how it was the wrong plan, the wrong time, and everything was wrong. But you know what? I pick up the paper today and I read, "'Good News' for Oshawa as GM Announces up to 700 Jobs."

I say to the people across the way: The fact that we are not agreeing with their position does not mean that we are not listening to our constituents. We in fact are listening to our constituents, and we gave the people the opportunity by making it a part of our budget many, many months ago. As members, we have gone out, we have sent out householders, we have held public meetings, we have been to every event and gone to chambers of commerce and Probus. We have done so much, and we have done that because we know that it's the right plan, the right time, to grow Ontario, to make Ontario strong.

I say to the members across the way: You fought us so hard when we brought forward the budget. It was a very multi-faceted budget. But as they would say in my riding, the proof is in the pudding: "'Good News' for Oshawa as GM Announces up to 700 Jobs."

I say to the members across the way: You were wrong then and you're wrong now. We have a plan, and we have a strong drive to move our plan forward because we know that it is the right plan for the people of Ontario.

I look at the negotiations with the federal government, because that's an important component that we need to speak to. I just want to share with the House that my federal member is firmly on board with the harmonization. He comes from a manufacturing background himself, in the auto sector. I can tell you, because he worked in finances for the auto sector, that he can cite

chapter and verse how important it is for my local company, called Wescast, and what that represents in savings for him.

I say to you, when I stand up in this House, my municipality of north Huron—they're laughing across the way. This is no joke. I tell you, my communities in north Huron, they're hurting, the auto sector. They know that the stimulus package we put in place, the harmonization, is what we need in our community to grow Ontario. That's why I see "'Good News' for Oshawa."

People know that we have to change how we did business. Things have changed. One hundred and thirty countries around the globe know that things have changed. They recognize that how we have done business must change. We must plan for the future. I am concerned about the ability for my children to have a job and, hopefully, some day, grandchildren that don't have four legs.

We know that we have our plan in place. I know that across the way, and now the third party, they have stuck to their position. I tell you, I'd probably get whiplash from how quickly the position of the official opposition changes: They were, they weren't, they were, they weren't, they were, they weren't, and they're back at "not" again. But I'm thinking that they're going to be in favour again in a few short months, especially when we see how effective our budget was, when we pick up the paper and we see jobs coming back. That's what it's about: having a commitment to a plan and then ensuring that that plan moves forward.

We realize in Ontario that the manufacturing sector must strengthen. So, then, what can we do within the manufacturing sector to strengthen that? Certainly, the harmonization is an important component of that plan.

Mr. Speaker, you know that in the riding of Huron—Bruce, one of our main economic drivers is agriculture. So I say to the Speaker: What, then, as a good member, do you look at in any package coming forward? How does that affect my agricultural community? And, yes, they have told me.

One of the things that we've heard from the other side of the House is with our farmers: "Oh, that's what they do in Quebec, that's what they do in Quebec, that's what they do in Quebec." That's important. They supported their agricultural community. But I say to the members across the way: Where do you think a lot of those tax advantages came from, for the farmers? They came from the harmonization.

By moving forward with a harmonization package, a lot of the tax incentives that were given to the Quebec farmers which you cited in the House day after day—we come forward with a package that reflects that, and where are you now? You're opposed to it.

But I don't think that will last long, because I think you'll flip, and then you're going to be in favour again, once the farmers—one thing I would like to say is, I think it's important, when we look at point-of-sale exemptions and how it was in the province—possibly that's something that the federal government would like to look at as the harmonization moves forward: point-of-sale exemptions. That is a concern of my agricultural community.

What are the other economic drivers in the wonderful riding of Huron—Bruce? Energy. I can tell you, in order for energy to remain strong as an economic driver, it needs to be producing energy for something. What would it be producing for, if it wasn't doing it for the manufacturing sector? The manufacturing sector is such an important component, and we can have people who stand up and say, "I don't have this; I don't have that," but we recognize that for all of our ridings, having a strong manufacturing sector, specifically part of the auto sector, is an important component of our financial security within the province of Ontario.

Mr. Jeff Leal: Carol, did you see this? General Motors is recalling workers.

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: That's what I said, yes. You know, this is so important; it's critical. One of the things that I know from my community, the ag community, is that they see the auto sector as such an important part of that.

Mr. Speaker, I just have so much more to say, but unfortunately—I just wanted to reinforce how important it is that we bring this tax package forward to move Ontario forward. Thank you for giving me the time today.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It's interesting to note that the member opposite thinks that their budget and their economic plan is actually good for the province. I guess there's this side, that side and the truth. I think the truth speaks for itself with the numbers. Since this government took office, they have gone from first to worst in economic growth in the nation, even behind Prince Edward Island. They have lost over 300,000 manufacturing jobs. So, yes, we should be welcoming the ones that were announced yesterday by Jerry Ouellette, the member for Oshawa.

But we must always remember that they lost 300,000 well-paying manufacturing jobs. Next week, we will be celebrating the one-year anniversary of the largest province in Canada being on federal welfare.

Now is not the time to raise taxes—not 8% on consumption. That's why we know, for example, that the people in each of the ridings, particularly in the backbenches, are opposed to this tax. They don't feel that their voice is being heard, and that's why they're reaching out to the Progressive Conservative Party, that's why they're reaching out to the third party, and that's why they're writing letters to the editor and calling talk radio—not just because that's what Mr. McGuinty views as the only option to put forward your views on the HST.

That was, of course, callous, to tell Ontarians, "If you don't like the HST, don't come to Queen's Park; don't call me. Call Bill Carroll, call Steve Madely, call Lowell Green." In fact, he just told people to write a letter to the editor and go to the water cooler and gripe about it.

The reality is, I think Ontarians are too smart for this gang of troublemakers next door and across the hall here. They know that this group here has no mandate to shove this tax down our throat, and they're expecting public debate. You know, Mr. Speaker, that we're going to continue to call for public hearings into the legislation, and we don't think it's done. After they decided to shove this through, it's not over, because we are going to continue the fight right through their budget.

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: You know, it's fascinating—yesterday on CBC, on the Andy Barrie show, they had the Minister of Revenue, who has been doing the song-and-dance routine selling the HST across Ontario; he spoke. Then, today, they had the response to his words. The VoxBox, as everybody who listens to Andy Barrie knows, was just full of response. And guess what? It was uniformly negative.

It particularly rang with one woman who phoned in. She was a senior who lives on a fixed income, and she said, "I don't know what this person"—the Minister of Revenue—"is talking about. First of all, I'm not going to get any tax rebate because I don't pay any tax; I don't make enough to pay any tax. But I'm certainly going to be paying tax using the HST: I'm going to be paying tax on my utilities and paying tax on everything I purchase at the store, just about." And she said, "Quite frankly, I can't afford it. I don't know who he's speaking to," said this woman who's a senior; an intelligent senior.

The folks opposite like to characterize seniors as not understanding, not being able to read, not quite comprehending the intricacies of the HST, but the reality is that seniors are incredibly intelligent. They're very smart. They read, they understand how the tax is going to affect them and they respond.

There was also a small business owner who phoned in. He said that it's going to kill his business. It's going to drive his business—he is a small contractor—underground. He competes with those who currently are in the black market; they don't pay any tax at all. He said they'll win and revenues will go down.

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

Mr. Khalil Ramal: First I want to stand up and congratulate the member from Huron—Bruce for outlining the importance of the tax reform. That was a very important speech. I want to thank you very much on behalf of my constituents and all the people listening to us this morning.

She's right. She talked about the opposition; the opposition flip-flops all day. We don't know where they stand. To the member from Huron—Bruce: You're right. I guess in the end they're going to come up and support it. As a matter of fact, they support it now. But they see an opportunity to attack the government, and that's why they can take positions to attack us. As a matter of fact, the deputy opposition leader is the wife of the finance minister of Canada, who is the author of this issue and who has always been pushing for it because it's good for Ontario and Canada.

For the honourable member from Huron—Bruce: You are also right; this one starts to see the effects of the tax reform. Oshawa GM is rehiring 700 people back to work. It's important news.

Mr. Jeff Leal: Ingersoll.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: Ingersoll. The member from Oxford, I think, knows the impact of our government on the Oxford region, where we worked very hard to get the Toyota plant to come to Woodstock, and many other components.

The member from Huron—Bruce talked about farmers and agriculture. They have a right now to claim more than ever for their equipment. I think it's an important step to support the agricultural centres. We believe, as a government, that this tax reform will affect farmers, education and health care for the people of Ontario.

I read a lot of articles about it. Maybe at the beginning, because of the confusion about how it's going to be implemented, people got scared because of something they're not used to, but in the end people kind of like it, because it's going to come back to Ontarians with more jobs, more comfort and more competitiveness nationally and internationally.

Again, I support this bill, and I want to thank you again, member from Huron—Bruce, for outlining the importance of this tax reform for the people of Ontario.

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

Mr. Norm Miller: I'm pleased to add some comments to the debate on Bill 218—the member for Huron—Bruce and her speech. But I first of all would like to apologize that I rose yesterday on a point of order and suggested that the member from Beaches—East York had missed his lead because he was at a reception. That was true, but he had been invited by Advocis to speak to that reception a month ahead of time. So really he wasn't missing in action; he just couldn't be in two places at one time.

On Bill 218: You know, it's interesting. The Minister of Revenue was on CBC Radio yesterday. I heard him making his pitch—and he does a good job of selling why he thinks Bill 218 is a good bill. But I also listened this morning, and the only calls coming in to CBC were from people who—actually, one lady called in and said, "You know, he made a good pitch. He talked about tax cuts, but I don't pay any income tax so it's only going to be money going out for me." I think that's true, and I've read a lot of e-mails into the record to that effect.

Another person was in business, and I've read a lot of e-mails into the record to do with the underground economy and how it's going to grow. The other call was a businessperson calling up to say that they already are competing against the people who don't want to pay the 5% GST; now there's going to be an extra 8%. So this person, a legitimate businessperson, will be at a 13% disadvantage in terms of competing against the underground economy. I've certainly had many e-mails from people worried about an increase in the underground economy as a result of this move by the McGuinty government to bring this HST in.

I would still like to say that they should be doing public hearings. We've been asking for public hearings. Instead, they've filed a time allocation motion to ram this through—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you.

The honourable member for Huron—Bruce has up to two minutes for her response.

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: I do want to thank the speakers from Nepean—Carleton, Parkdale—High Park, London—Fanshawe and Parry Sound—Muskoka, and I do appreciate your comments.

I wanted to say that the members from across the way, the official opposition, have started their day with two apologies, and I think that speaks volumes.

One of the things that I wanted to speak specifically about was the misinformation that we started off with, with the region of Durham. Quite frankly, I've known Roger a long time, so I bet you he was on the phone straightening things out plenty quick. I have 19 municipalities, so I hear a lot from my municipalities as well. But the fact that two apologies were required already speaks a lot.

From the riding that I represent, we like to call a spade a spade. We like to mean what we say and say what we mean. When we talk, we like to talk with authority. So I say to the members from across the way: If you are so convinced that we are on the wrong path, stand in your place and say that you will reverse it if you have the honour and the privilege to represent the government, because I'll tell you, from my riding, if you don't—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Order. I'd ask the member for Nepean—Carleton to refrain from yelling at the member from Huron—Bruce. The honourable member for Huron—Bruce has the floor.

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: I think we were both raised in the back 40. But anyway, one thing that I will say, and I want to reinforce this: If you are so firmly convinced, stand in your place today, stand in your place, stand up, and promise the people that if you have the honour and the privilege, you will—

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

Mr. Ted Arnott: I'm pleased to have this opportunity to speak briefly to Bill 218 this morning on behalf of my constituents in Wellington—Halton Hills. Of course, this Bill 218 is entitled

An Act to implement 2009 Budget measures and enact, amend or repeal various Acts. As we all know in this House, this is the infamous bill, probably the most significant piece of legislation that the government will introduce during this term of office—without question the most significant piece of legislation that they're going to introduce in this term of office, to implement the harmonized sales tax.

It's important that the members hear some of the context upon which we discuss and debate this issue. I recall very vividly and distinctly in the 2003 provincial election when the television ads were on and the Leader of the Opposition at that time, Dalton McGuinty, was on television with his ads. He looked into the camera and he said, "I won't raise your taxes." And again in 2007 the commitment was made: "I won't raise your taxes." Here we are today talking about a massive tax increase yet again.

Of course, the government would argue that this bill has offsetting tax cuts, but the fact is that the people of Ontario cannot believe this government when it comes to any statements on taxes. Fundamentally, that's what this debate is all about. In my riding, people don't believe the Liberal government on taxes; they just don't believe you. In fact, even if this bill passes, as you have the majority and you wish to do so, I suspect and would suggest that even if tax cuts are brought in as a result of this bill, if the government is re-elected in 2011, we'll see yet again the Liberal government going back on its previous track of raising taxes yet again.

As we know, this government has tabled a time allocation motion to try and ram this bill through the House. They're fearful of listening to the people through the public hearings process. They used to be a party that espoused the idea of public hearings, extensive public hearings on bills. Certainly, when they first took office in 2003, they were always prepared to send controversial bills through the public hearings process, and certainly we were glad to participate in that process.

Why is it that today they won't allow any meaningful public hearings on Bill 218? I think the answer is fairly clear: They're afraid to hear from the people. Government members, even in their own ridings, I'm sure, are hearing from their constituents. I'm sure they're getting dozens of e-mails every day, as most of us on this side of the House are receiving. They know that they've got a real problem, and they know that there has been a poll taken that something like 76% of the people of Ontario are opposed to this tax.

The Minister of Revenue was assigned the task of going around and explaining this and selling it to people. I heard him on CBC radio yesterday as well, and although I thought some of his comments were quite disingenuous and replete with half-truths, in fact, he did his best to explain this to people. The fact is that the calls that were coming in today, from what I understand, on the CBC were expressing opposition.

Our party continues to call for public hearings. We will continue to use the means that are available to us through the standing orders to call for public hearings, to try to get this government to slow down, to try to get this government to listen, because I believe there still is an opportunity for modifications to this bill, and I would encourage the government to listen to it.

Let's talk about that. The government House leader talks about whether or not our party would repeal it if we formed the government. As you know, our critic for revenue has pointed out that it would be absolutely impossible because of the poison pill that's in the contract: the more than $4-billion penalty that the government of Ontario would have to pay.

But let's talk about what we would do, or what we would have done, going back to 2003, had we formed the government. First of all, had we formed the government in 2003, I believe that we would have made a sincere, concerted and successful effort to balance that budget in 2003-04. I know that we would have tried, and I know that you guys didn't try. The fact is, over the course of the 2003 to 2007 mandate, had we formed the government during that time, and were we still in government now, we would have restrained government spending over the last six years.

We wouldn't be in this situation, where there's a $24-billion deficit. We wouldn't have promised the people that we wouldn't raise taxes and then in fact do it. We would not have done that. We would have continued on our approach that we'd done when we were in government from 1995 to 2003, which was on a path to reduce personal income taxes, to reduce corporate income taxes and, at the same time, balance budgets year after year. We wouldn't have been in this situation at all. So we wouldn't have to even talk about that argument right now, in terms of what we would do if we were in government today.

We would be in a totally different fiscal situation.

Again, in the limited time I have available to me, I call upon this government to withdraw the time allocation motion, the draconian and drastic time allocation motion that they've presented, to rethink this whole thing, to go back and understand that they're here to represent the people of the province too, that the people of the province need and deserve to have a say on this issue before this Legislature votes on this bill at third reading.

The fact is, we need to have extensive public hearings across the province. I know that the people of my riding would welcome the opportunity to come to hearings in communities like Georgetown or Acton or Fergus or Erin or Puslinch township or Rockwood. All of my communities would welcome that opportunity, and I know that in every community across the province there would be a significant number of people who would want to express their views on this.

I acknowledge that there are some voices out there that are supporting this. The government has done a job to try to get some third party endorsements: Certainly, the chamber of commerce, through Len Crispino's efforts—I think some of the chambers of commerce across the province see some advantages in the HST, and I acknowledge that. But the fact is, we are sitting on this side of the House, and it's our obligation, constitutionally as well as politically, to speak on behalf of the people who will be hurt by this legislation. Certainly, seniors are going to be hurt. We've heard from the housing industry. We've heard—

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Tell the truth.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Order. The member for Northumberland—Quinte West, I'd ask you to withdraw that comment.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I'll withdraw, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): You cannot imply that an honourable member is not telling the truth.

The honourable member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I've obviously struck a nerve with the member for Northumberland, who, quite frankly, is not bringing forward his constituents' views on this issue, without question.

We understand, on our side of the House, that this bill represents a $3-billion tax grab that the people of Ontario cannot afford. We know that the government is unwilling, through reasonable public consultations, to listen to the people. Our caucus is disappointed but not surprised by the tactics of this government with respect to this bill. That's why we're going to continue to call for public consultation and use every tool at our disposal to try to prevent the swift passage of this bill and make sure that the people of Ontario have their say.

I would suggest to the government House leader that this is not over, and we will continue to use whatever means we can to slow the government down in this respect.

I would like to take a moment or two to read into the record some of the comments that we have received from, for example, the tourism industry. I know that the government House leader is interested in this. I would hope she has had a chance to consult with some of the tourism industry folks because they have some serious concerns.

I would read a quote from the Greater Toronto Hotel Association, where they say the present tax structure on a hotel room is 5% PST, 5% GST, and the destination marketing fee in many communities, for a total of 13%. Harmonization may cause the new tax structure to be a total of 16%, or an additional 3% on the cost of a room in Ontario.

The Greater Toronto Hotel Association recommends that if harmonization of the existing GST and PST occurs, the provincial government commit that no additional tax burden be placed on the consumption of hotel rooms in the province of Ontario due to harmonization.

In the rounds when I'm finished speaking—I only have a minute and 22 seconds left—the government House leader and the Minister of Tourism perhaps could speak to that; perhaps she could commit to the Greater Toronto Hotel Association that this bill is not going to further harm their industry. I doubt she will.

We have heard from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. I'd like to quote Kevin Gaudet:

"We think it's problematic that the government is looking at a tax reform policy that will benefit business at the expense of individuals and families. In principle, we like the idea of a blended tax, but not on the backs of individuals and families and put in during a recession. It's the wrong time."

I would come back to one of the points that I've been making on this debate with my constituents who have e-mailed me repeatedly. The economic recovery that we hope we are in right now is fragile. I would suggest that any new tax increase at this time is likely

to put us backwards in terms of economic recovery and make it tougher for our businesses,

families, seniors and communities to strengthen themselves as they want to in terms of economic recovery. Again, I call upon this government to allow for full and extensive public hearings on Bill 218 before we vote on it for third reading. I plead with the government to do this.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I find this quite an amazing debate. I've had an opportunity to go door to door in my riding to ask people about the HST. To be honest, I've been going door to door, not trying to sell a position—although if people ask me, I tell them what I think—but to ask them, "What do you think about this bill? What do you think about the HST?"

What's interesting to me is talking to people who have small businesses. As the member from Parkdale—High Park was saying this morning when she talked about Andy Barrie's show and the businessperson who called in, I have people who have one- and two-person operations, who know that in the environment they operate in they're going to have to eat that tax. They are going to have to take it on, and it's going to cut their income; they are going to face a loss of revenue that is going to make it very difficult for them to carry forward.

I was talking to a man Monday night, a contractor, who just said, "I deal with too many people in my business who are fly-by-night, who can charge really low. If I've got to charge 13% on top of my bill, I'm in trouble."

I talked to a photographer on the weekend. A similar situation: He's a one-person operation in a competitive environment. He's looking at a cut to his income. I talked to people who are musicians, and in fact, we had Jim Biros here, the executive director of Toronto Musicians' Association, who talked to me about musicians who play weddings, who go to parties, and who have enough trouble collecting any tax now. The thought of having to collect or actually having to send in payment to the government at 13% just means that their take-home is going to drop.

The reality of this tax is, it will drive down people's standard of living, it will make things far more difficult for seniors and for small business, and it is a large-scale mistake.

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

Mr. Jeff Leal: I listened carefully to the comments of the member of Wellington—Halton Hills. I'll just provide a little different perspective on this.

Last Thursday I had the pleasure of being in my riding of Peterborough with the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, the Honourable Sandra Pupatello, to announce an investment in GE Peterborough of $100 million.

Let me explain that. GE Corporate Canada are investing $85 million. The government of Ontario, through the Next Generation of Jobs Fund, will be investing $50 million. That's $100 million, the greatest investment in the Peterborough operation in four decades.

That morning, the CAW, which represents those hard-working men and women—remember, these are jobs paying $25, $30, $35 an hour. The investment we're making in Peterborough is to make the Peterborough operation the global leader in large motors, green energy projects, to put Ontario on the map. They're doing it right in my hometown of Peterborough.

Elyse Allan, a very distinguished president of GE Canada, said that morning in Peterborough, with the media there, "It's because Ontario is providing a new, improved, competitive jurisdiction in which we can invest that money."

Remember, GE worldwide has 320,000 employees. They have operations in every corner of the world, but they chose Peterborough to make a $100-million investment in the future of my community.

It is an enormous achievement, solidifying high-skilled jobs, solidifying engineering and other design functions in Peterborough to provide that platform for future growth. That's what our comprehensive tax policy is bringing to my community in Peterborough.

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

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I want to commend my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills for his explanations and discussion on the HST bill and the imposition of this tax on the people of Ontario, who don't want it.

One of the things I was most impressed with is his insistence that, if nothing else, the government should have public hearings to let the people of Ontario speak, to be heard, about what they think about this new tax.

What I find interesting is that the government has been insistent, and now, having tabled a closure motion, has insisted that they're not going to hear from the public at all. They want to push this through as quickly as possible. The only way that the public can get into this Legislature and be heard is through their representatives here in the Legislature.

What I find interesting is that everyone on this side of the House has been speaking about comments they've heard from their constituents—in fact, from constituents in many of the Liberal-held ridings. In all the debate that I've sat here and listened to, I haven't heard the government side talk about any of the people in their ridings who are talking to them and letting them know what they think of this taxation.

I have come to the conclusion that what they're hearing is the same thing that I'm hearing, and I'm hearing nothing but comments from people—seniors and low-income people—who see this as a dramatic increase in the cost of living for them, and they want us to do whatever we can to stop it. I'm sure that the government members are getting those same things on their petitions and in their e-mails, but they're not bringing them here.

I want to say that the people who are represented by the government members are definitely not being heard in this Legislature through this process. I stand up here and I'm proud and happy to present the petitions that come from the Liberal-held ridings and let their voices be heard in this Legislature. But I really think there should be public hearings so we can all hear them.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Questions and comments, or debate?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): One more.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Okay; I thought I was actually going to be up in debate.

I would just say the following, just to pick up on some of the comments that were made earlier: I know that a number of government members have gotten up and have spoken to how this is great for various businesses. I can tell you, a lot of the businesses I've been talking to, where I've been travelling around, have a completely different view.

One is Lloyd Richards, who owns L. Richards Moving and Cartage, up in Timmins. I've known Lloyd for a number of years. We're fellow pilots and I've known him for a number of years in that capacity, but also as somebody who is fairly involved in our community. For him and his trucking business, he's been pretty clear about this not being a good thing.

On the one hand, the government is saying this is going to assist business when it comes to how you're going to be able to remit taxes for goods and services in a much more efficient way, and he's saying that at the end of the day, nobody has even communicated with him or other businesses about what that new process is going to be, and the date is fast coming. That's one of the complaints. The other one is that at the end of the day they're going to end up having to pay taxes on things that they've never had to pay for before—

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, it's administrative. His argument is that the government says, "Oh, yeah, but then you can file a form and you can get your money back." He says, "Jeez, all I'm doing is filing forms to the government for all kinds of things, so this is not making my life any easier," and that's pretty well the thing that I'm hearing from everybody.

From the real estate agencies to people who are insurance brokers, people who sell financial products, the barber shop, retail services, a number of businesses that I've talked to not just in my riding but in other ridings that I've been travelling in around the province, it's pretty clear. So when I hear the government get up in the House and say, "This is a boon for business. Business is on side and we have their endorsement," I don't know who the heck you're talking to, because people are volunteering to me, without me even asking them, that they see this (

a) as a tax grab, and (

b) not necessarily as a thing that's better for business.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The honourable member for Wellington—Halton Hills has up to two minutes for his response.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I want to thank and acknowledge the members who responded to my presentation this morning, especially my colleagues on this side of the House. I want to use this opportunity also to congratulate and commend our leader, Tim Hudak, our finance critic, Norm Miller, and our revenue critic, Lisa MacLeod, as well as the rest of my caucus colleagues who have done an outstanding job, I believe, on behalf of the people of Ontario on this issue.

As my friend the member for Oxford, Ernie Hardeman, just said to me, surely the government members are hearing from their constituents on this. Surely they are getting the same petitions that we're getting—they're not presenting them. Surely they are getting e-mails from their constituents. I get at least a dozen a day, it seems, on this issue, and I would say that they are individualized. It's not like there seems to be an organized campaign out there. People are spontaneously getting up in the morning and sending me an e-mail to express their concern and their opposition to this initiative.

Surely the government members are hearing from their constituents. Why are they not speaking up on behalf of their constituents? Why aren't they going to a caucus meeting and telling the Premier what they are hearing in their ridings? Why are they all looking at their desks and trying to ignore me while I'm speaking now, when they were heckling me before?

I know why. They know what they are hearing from their constituents, and many of them are concerned about losing their seats over this. Quite frankly, this bill is so significant and it is so important, and because of the way the government is handling this issue, most of them do have a real fear and a legitimate fear of losing their seats over this issue. I suppose that if nothing else motivates them, hopefully because of the fear that they have of their constituents and facing their constituents in 2011, maybe some of them will speak up.

If there are caucus meetings over the next few days—and I'm sure they'll have an opportunity to come together—maybe some of their members will speak up and urge the Premier to allow for public hearings on this issue. Give the people a chance to have their say. Give the people an opportunity to express their views. As we know, some people are in favour of this bill and there are some organizations that are for it. Why are you afraid to hear from the people? Why are you afraid of your constituents?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): As Frances Lankin, a former member in this House, used to say, "Don't feed the bears."

The honourable member for Timmins—James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, there are some pretty big bears around here, and you wouldn't want to feed them either.

I just want to take the time I have in debate to put on the record the observations that I've had in discussions both with consumers and people who run businesses that I've been in touch with ever since this HST debate started.

The government goes out of its way to say that this is a great thing, that this is going to be the thing that's going to really enable the province's economy to move forward and create more jobs: It will be a boon for the manufacturing sector, a boon for the retailers and everybody else, and a boon for the consumer.

I've got to say, from my observations as a result of talking to many people who are going to be affected by this tax, that completely the opposite is what we're getting back as feedback, first of all from the consumer. We live in a northern climate. It doesn't matter if you live in Toronto or—I guess it matters if you live in Timmins or Moosonee; I know it's a heck of a lot colder than it is down here. But the point is, we all pay heating bills.

Just on the fact alone of having to pay an additional 8% on your heating fuel, on your electricity or on your natural gas, it's going to be another cost to the consumer that they've never had to pay before. On gasoline that you buy for your vehicle, there will be taxes that you've never had to pay before. On many services—I'll get to the goods later—where you've not had to pay the PST but, yes, the GST, you're going to have to pay more in taxes.

So the government is saying that this is going to be good for the taxpayer because the government is giving you a tax break on the income tax side, on one end, and it's going to offset the losses that you're going to get on the HST on the other side. I don't buy that for a second, because the reality is that consumers have certain expenditures that they must make, such as paying rent, heating the house, paying the telephone, paying for services at your house, buying goods in order to keep things going in your home etc., all of which are going to be subject to this new HST.

And at the end of the day, whatever you get in tax savings on the income tax side is, for most people, going to mean that they're going to actually be getting less because they're going to end up paying more on the HST side.

When it comes to business, it's much the same story. I've had a chance to talk to a number of insurance brokers in my riding who have talked to me about this particular issue and have said, "You know what's going to happen? We're going to end up having to charge HST on items that were not applied before, especially on financial products.

What's going to end up happening is that the person who is buying the product is going to get mad at us, and we're not the ones that are increasing the costs." So they're concerned that they're going to be catching a lot more flak from the consumers that are buying their products as a result of having to pay more taxes, and, quite frankly, they don't see it as fair that people should have to pay this additional tax.

To people working in the real estate business, it's the same thing. I have had a chance to talk to a number of real estate agents across my riding, and I've been in contact here because of the lobbying that has gone on around Queen's Park from the realtors. It's the same thing with them. They're saying that all kinds of things now will be applicable to the new HST that weren't applicable before, and at the end of the day, it's going to cost the consumer more money.

The government's saying, "Don't worry. We're going to exempt houses up to a certain amount," but you're going to have to pay on a whole bunch of things: your legal fees, your land transfer tax. All of that kind of stuff is going to be subject to the HST—things that you haven't had to pay before. As you know, many of the real estate fees, for example, are based on a percentage of the sale of the house. So if there's a 6% realtor's fee on a $100,000 or a $200,000 or a $1-million home, you're going to have to pay an additional 8% to that realtor as a result because of the taxes that are going to be charged.

The question becomes, who's going to pay for that? The realtors sure as heck don't want to, so it's going to be the consumer. So for the government to say that somehow or other the consumers are ahead with this thing—completely the wrong thing.

The moving business: I was talking earlier about Lloyd Richards, who runs Lloyd Richards Moving and Cartage, up in Timmins. Everybody who knows Lloyd knows that he is not shy for words, I guess is the way I would put it for Lloyd.

He is apoplectic about this, because he's saying, "I'm going to have to charge HST on the services that I provide to the customers that I service, and it's an additional 8%." He says, "I don't want to have to pass on an additional cost to my customers at this particularly difficult economic time." He says, "This is really a recipe for disaster." And as Lloyd would say, what's the matter with McGuinty? I ask myself the same question. What is the Premier thinking about, in the middle of a recession, introducing such a tax that really could end up becoming, I believe, a damper on the economy?

It's much the same debate as we saw under Mulroney when he did the GST with Finance Minister Wilson. Wilson at the time introduced the GST in the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney. The same arguments were made on the government side of the bench. It was going to be a real boon for Ontario and Canada. As a result, we now pay more taxes than we've had to before, the savings have not been passed on to consumers, and the Tories went from a majority government down to two seats.

I think you guys on the other side should start ringing the bell and recognize that this is not exactly a political winner. This is something that people are going to remember each and every time they go to purchase a service or buy goods somewhere in Ontario. It's going to be: "Mulroney"—excuse me, McGuinty—"made me pay what? How come I'm having"—well, it's Mulroney or McGuinty; it's kind of the same thing, right? But in the end—

Interjections.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, it is. You guys are like buddies when it comes to this issue, right? There have been successive governments since Mulroney that have refused to implement the HST in Ontario. I was a member of a government that said no. The Conservatives were a government for two terms that said no. We had a choice in Ontario, and we decided not to because we thought it was a bad idea.

The last point, because I've only got about a minute before the House recesses for question period, is the issue of point-of-sale exemption. Here in Ontario, we're going to give up the ability to determine retail sales tax policy. For First Nations, that's an issue because they now have a point-of-sale exemption on PST but not on HST. So that means that now, whenever First Nations go to buy goods and show up with their status cards, they're going to be paying the full amount.

Some people might think that's a great thing, because I know the debate around this issue, but I can tell you that for First Nations, it's a problem. Go live in Attawapiskat, go live in Fort Albany and tell me if you can afford to pay an additional 8% on any goods you buy, because quite frankly, things there are far more expensive, and even if you get on Air Quebec and fly down to Timmins or Sudbury or North Bay to buy something—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): It being 10:15 of the clock, this House stands in recess until 10:30. At such time, we will have question period.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I'm delighted to introduce page Nicolas McWatters' guests, his family sitting over in the members' gallery: Kathy McWatters, Gord McWatters and the grandmother, Loredana Semenzin. We're delighted to have them here, as we're delighted to have him here.

Hon. John Wilkinson: Good morning. I want to introduce a good friend and neighbour of mine from my riding, Rick Attridge, who's in the gallery. Welcome to Queen's Park, Rick.

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to welcome youth from the Guru Gobind Singh Children's Foundation. They are here today in Queen's Park. Welcome to Queen's Park.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I would like to welcome the mother of page Jamie Sheidow. Lori Sheidow is going to be joining us today. Welcome, Lori.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would like to welcome Gail Ballard from my riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London, who is seated in the Speaker's gallery. Gail, welcome to Queen's Park today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Premier. Premier, Anzen Consulting submitted two separate bids for an eHealth contract in what was supposed to be a competitive tendering process. Ordinarily, this disqualifies both bids, but the McGuinty government still managed to hand Liberal-friendly Anzen the deal. Premier, why is it that even when you tender a contract, your Liberal friends will still end up with the deal?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I'm very happy to talk about our response to the Auditor General's report. As the member opposite knows, the Auditor General raised some important issues. We have responded to those issues. We have made significant changes in our procurement policy, but we're moving ahead with eHealth. EHealth is an extremely important initiative of this government and of governments around the world. We take the Auditor General's findings extremely seriously.

The board of eHealth went above and beyond the call of duty and got independent legal advice to further explore some of the situations raised in the Auditor General's report, and I was very happy to share those letters the day before yesterday.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Back to the Anzen contract, which was the subject of my question: There was a legal opinion obtained by eHealth with respect to some inappropriate practices, which we have obtained. The legal opinion notes that Mr. Patrick Lo, who is the acting VP of security of eHealth, was instructed by Mr. Allaudin Merali, then eHealth Ontario's senior vice-president of corporate services and privacy, to telephone Anzen Consulting Inc. to ask Anzen to resubmit its proposal at a lower price. Premier, can you explain how this is possibly acceptable in a competitive tendering process?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: In fact, it is not an acceptable practice. The Auditor General raised the issue. We have responded to the issue. It is not an acceptable practice, and eHealth got independent legal advice to confirm that it was in fact not a criminal issue but it certainly wasn't an appropriate practice and one that we are absolutely committed to having learned from.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: The legal opinion which we obtained raises more questions than answers and certainly does not dispose of this issue. That's precisely why we need an independent public inquiry. The legal opinion mentions this obvious breach of the competitive bidding process but fails to deal with the ramifications of it.

Why did Mr. Merali give the instructions that he did? Who else did he speak to? Did anyone else know that the competitive bidding process was not being followed? All of these point to the need to ask serious questions that Ontarians deserve answers to. So my question is: Based on this new information, will the Premier do the right thing and finally call the public inquiry so that the people of Ontario will know what really happened?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. The member from Peterborough will watch his comments, please.

Minister.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The member opposite knows full well that this was a situation that took place prior to the Auditor General reporting on eHealth. We have learned from that. We welcomed the Auditor General's recommendations and have acted on every single one of them. This will not happen again. It should never have happened, and we have put in place the right safeguards to ensure that it does not happen again.

We're moving forward on eHealth. It's critically important to the sustainability of our health care system that we have electronic health records, electronic medical records. It's the way of the future, and we on this side of the House are committed to moving forward, having learned the lessons we have learned, to bring eHealth to this province.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Premier. Given this government's track record of awarding contracts under suspect circumstances at the Ministry of Health, we now learn that the Ministry of Transportation has been engaged in its own questionable contracting practices.

Two major contracts were put out to public tender. The ministry ignored its own tender conditions and awarded the contracts to companies which were clearly non-compliant with the tender process. In both cases the matter was appealed to the courts and in both cases the court ruled, "MTO failed to fulfill its duty of fairness to all bidders." I want to know from the Premier: Why were these awards made when it was very clear that the conditions of the tender were not met, and why, after the Premier committed to an open and fair tendering process, are these continuing to happen in this government?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I don't know what contract the member would be talking about in this particular case, because the contracts I'm aware of have been—

Interjection.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Is this the new voice of the Conservative Party over here, constantly nattering on that side?

The member has a serious question and a good question. He always asks in an appropriate manner. I'd be interested in further detail, because I'm not aware of a contract that would be in the manner which the member has described. The contracts that we're involved in are free, open and transparent. If the member would give me some detail, I'll be able to help him out, I think, in some subsequent answers to the supplementaries. He addresses a good question, all the time.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: I'm surprised that the Minister of Transportation would not be aware of two major contracts which were referred to the courts to be resolved.

One of those contracts was worth $20 million. It was awarded to Thomas Cavanagh Construction Ltd., even though its bid was non-compliant with specifications of MTO's tender contracts. It took an appeal to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to have the award of this contract quashed. Again, I repeat the words of the judges in this matter: "MTO failed to fulfill its duty of fairness to all bidders." It ordered that the award of that $20-million contract be quashed. I would like to know from the minister: Why does this practice continue in his ministry, and who will be held to account for these decisions?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I would like to be able to help the member more. I think the way he's described it—and to be fair to him, I think he asks good and relevant questions in this House. Is this matter—the member can help me out with this—still before the courts? Is there an appeal going on at the present time? Because normally, we're unable to discuss those if they are before the courts. But I'm very interested in what the member has to say.

I can tell him that as a result of the auditor's recommendations, for instance, there is a situation where the Premier has prescribed that all contracts go through an appropriate procedure which is an accepted procedure. Under my mandate, that is what I am supposed to follow.

I'm very interested in what the member has to say. He can help me out and tell me whether the court proceedings have been completed at this time.

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

Mr. Frank Klees: It's not up to me to brief the minister.

What I would like to know from the minister is whether or not he will commit now to the House to research not only this particular contract but the second contract, which his staff will be prepared to brief him on, and tell us today whether he will hold people in his ministry accountable, or will he be complicit by explaining this away in the same way that it has been done at the Ministry of Health?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I have a note that says there's one. Highway 417 at Arnprior is before the courts at the present time.

There are a number of these that go to court when people who are not successful in them decide to go to court because they're dissatisfied with the manner in which this has happened. Then the court makes its rulings.

Of course, I am prepared to look at all of these that have some history to them, but I can assure the member that at this time our policy is to have a free and open process. Oftentimes we'll employ a third person, as you know, who is a referee, I guess the word would be, who looks at it from some distance and makes sure that it's compliant with all government policies.

I would be delighted to continue this conversation with the member tomorrow.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. As the holidays get closer, Ontario families are wondering how they're going to make ends meet during these tough economic times. But the only gift that they can expect from the McGuinty government is a new tax that's going to make life more expensive, a new tax that's being rammed through this Legislature before the end of the year, even though the House of Commons won't be debating it until next year.

My question is a simple one. Why the urgency? To the Premier: Why the urgency?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know that my honourable colleague is nothing if not consistent in terms of not sharing the good news with the people of Ontario about their tax cuts. She knows that the package of tax reforms, yes, does include the harmonization of the provincial tax and the goods and services tax, but it also provides for a tax cut.

Were it within our power, we'd deliver that tax cut for Christmas, but we can't. We'll have to wait until the new year, the very beginning of the new year. With the able assistance of my honourable colleague, I know that we will have this matter completed before the House rises at the end of this year, to ensure that Ontarians can benefit from their tax cut, beginning on January 1, 2010.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This Liberal government likes to pretend that it can just ignore the growing political storm that's brewing in Ottawa over the HST. The Premier is betting that the federal HST legislation will sail through the minority Parliament. But his friend, Michael Ignatieff, is holding a trump card that he refuses to reveal.

Will the Premier provide some clarity and tell the people of Ontario: Does he have Mr. Ignatieff's support or not?

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier doesn't like to talk about the tough decisions his friends in Ottawa will need to make about the HST, and I understand that. Could it be because his federal Liberal cousins are listening to their constituents and getting cold feet about supporting a tax that the people simply don't want?

The Premier knows that without federal legislation, Ontario won't see a dime of the transition funding to implement the HST. Given that it's anybody's guess whether or not the federal HST bill will survive this minority Parliament, will the Premier commit today to shelving his plans for the HST if the House of Commons refuses to support it?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'll tell you why we have such continuing confidence and faith in our members of Parliament, from all political parties, to do the right thing in the circumstances: because what we're talking about is 600,000 more jobs for the people of Ontario, we're talking about $47 billion more by way of investment in new business, and we're talking about increases of income of up to 9% more as a result of our package of tax reforms.

I think members of Parliament in the House of Commons understand that Ontario in particular has suffered greatly. Our families and communities have suffered greatly as a result of this global economic downturn. They know that we need to take strong action. They know that we need to be rather dramatic in terms of the reforms that we put in place. They know that we've given long and hard thought to what needs to be done, so I'm confident that we'll have their support, as I say, to create those 600,000 jobs for the people of Ontario.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier may have faith in that. I wonder if he also has faith in Santa Claus bringing him a good gift this Christmas.

My next question is to the Premier. The Premier insists that prices are going to go down—

Hon. Christopher Bentley: There are children watching. Leave Santa alone.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): There may be children watching, but children would not be acting the way some of you are acting right now.

Interjection: Does the Speaker have a list?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The Speaker does have a list, and he has been checking who is naughty or nice.

Please continue.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. The Premier insists that prices are going to go down with the introduction of the harmonized sales tax, but yesterday he insisted that electricity prices are going to continue to rise. Would he like to correct the record and announce hydro rate cuts, or is he admitting that life is actually going to get a heck of a lot more expensive with the harmonized sales tax?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: First, let me say that, yes, Andrea, there is a Santa Claus, just so that we're clear on the record; I want to remove any doubt. I had hoped that was an issue that was beyond debate, for which there is a global consensus.

What I indicated yesterday was that, notwithstanding the fact that electricity prices have been frozen for five years in the province of Ontario, and we're very proud of that, over the course of the next several years—in fact, over the course of the next 10 years, when our package of tax reforms creates nearly 600,000 more jobs—it is likely that the price of milk will go up, the price of gasoline will go up, the price of electricity will go up and rents will go up. That's just what happens over the course of an extended period of time, and I think Ontarians understand that. But most importantly, in terms of hope, they can count on 600,000 more jobs.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Everyday people are writing to me and to the Premier about the impact of higher electricity prices and what that's going to mean for them and their families.

Grant Fraser writes this: "Adding this tax to necessities such as hydro is completely without reason, or caring about the citizens of Ontario...."

Pam Ross of Exeter writes this: "Hydro One has already increased their rates so much.... The cost of living has already increased enough and our wages are not increasing."

More of the tax burden is being shifted onto everyday people. If the HST is supposed to lower prices, why is this Premier not announcing hydro rate cuts?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think what my honourable colleague is asking for is, in the circumstances, unreasonable. She is asking that we cut the cost of electricity. I think we've done the next best thing: We've held those rates steady for five continuing years. We think that's pretty important. I think it's a significant achievement and a real accomplishment.

Again, I would remind the honourable member that in addition to the harmonization of the provincial sales tax and the federal goods and services tax—something that has long been called for by her party, this party and economists generally—we are cutting income taxes for the people of Ontario. Ninety-three per cent of the people of Ontario are going to have a permanent income tax cut. We're taking 90,000 Ontarians at the low-income level off the tax rolls forever.

So there is a balanced approach that we're bringing. In addition to holding those electricity rates steady for five years, we're now going to cut people's income taxes.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Sharol from northwestern Ontario puts it very simply: "This HST will put a lot of hardship on the people from this area who are already having a tough time due to the mill closures, high electricity bills, high prices at the grocery stores ... and it appears to me that this Liberal government just doesn't give a damn."

Can the Premier explain to Sharol and other Ontarians like her how an 8% tax on electricity is going to make her life more affordable?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My colleague made reference to mill closures. My sense is that the individual who wrote to the leader of the NDP would not have sent that letter were the mill open today.

This is about jobs. It's about 600,000 more jobs for the people of Ontario. It's creating those economic conditions that lead businesses to expand, to make further investments in machinery and equipment and in people. That's what this is all about.

When they put harmonized sales taxes in place in the Maritimes, that led to a 12% increase on the part of business in new equipment, new machinery and new jobs.

This is all about creating more jobs. We've had a very strong consensus.

If the opposite parties were to check their records, they would see that on many separate instances in the past, they've been very much in favour of the kind of tax reforms that we're putting in place. I'd ask for their support once again, this time in a more public way, as we move forward to create 600,000 jobs for Ontarians.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr. Frank Klees: To the Minister of Transportation: A company named Coco Paving received contracts for construction and repair of Highway 402, despite being submitted after the competitive bidding process was closed. It's more than a little odd that staff who are very accustomed with processing bids would make such a flagrant breach of tendering law. I want to know from the minister why his ministry awarded this contract, knowing that it did not comply with the tender terms of his ministry.

Hon. James J. Bradley: As you would know, the ministry evaluates all of the bids that are put in. These are ministry officials who have some long experience in the development of highways in the province of Ontario, or the repair or expansion of highways. They do an evaluation according to the materials that are provided and many different circumstances. These are public servants who have done this—when you were the minister, when my good friend Norm Sterling was minister, when everybody was a minister. They look at all of the bids that are put forward.

Sometimes it's the content of the steel, for instance—whether there's Canadian content or no Canadian content—and these officials make the decision on that basis. There are, from time to time, companies that will go to court to challenge this. That is their right.

In the Highway 417 situation, that is still before the courts. These companies have that right to go before the courts, and when the courts make a determination, the ministry will comply—

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

Mr. Frank Klees: This matter, too, was referred to the courts because it was such a flagrant breaking of tendering law. I would suggest to the minister that his staff knew full well that this bid came in after the closing of the bid.

What is interesting is that Coco Paving went from receiving $1.6 million of work from the province in 2002 to $113 million last year. Did the fact that Jenny Coco is a big donor to the McGuinty Liberals and that she is a former president of a Windsor riding association for the Liberal Party have anything to do with the faulty decision that was obviously made by the Ministry of Transportation?

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

Mr. Frank Klees: I withdraw that.

Hon. James J. Bradley: It's the old story of the opposition: They state it and then they withdraw it, and of course it's out there on the record for people to hear.

I can assure the member that when the ministry is letting contracts, the ministry goes through the procedure that it has. It's entirely done by the ministry officials, who are civil servants who have served under your government, under the NDP and under Liberal governments. They make the determination, they make the recommendations, as to which contracts shall be awarded. They do not take into consideration any of the material that the member has mentioned in his supplementary at all.

These are fine public servants who over the years have served your party when you were in power, the Liberals and the NDP when they were in power. Companies that are unsatisfied with the procedure have the opportunity to go to court, and do, and the ministry complies with the court rulings.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. After the first seven months of the Second Career program in 2008, only 1,100 unemployed workers were enrolled in the program. Under pressure from the NDP, you changed the rules and you got more people. Last summer you said, "Holy cow, what are we going to do with all these people?" And so instead of dealing positively with all the new applicants and the greater number of applicants you had, you decided to reduce the number of applicants.

Minister, why have you decided to return to the bad old days when Second Career was just a token program?

Hon. John Milloy: It's unfortunate that I only have a minute or two to correct the record on what the member brought forward.

I'm very proud that our government brought forward a training program to help unemployed individuals who were looking to pursue long-term training in a college or a private career college. We set up a program for 20,000 spaces over three years. After approximately 15 months, we could report to the Legislature and to the people of Ontario that we had 21,000 people come forward. This government, under the leadership of the Premier and the Minister of Finance, made a decision that instead of declaring victory and moving on, we were going to continue this program.

Over the last number of months we have continued to accept individuals into the Second Career program on a limited basis, and just recently, about 10 days ago, we brought forward a new framework for the program under which we are assessing applicants that have come forward—

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

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I read on the Second Career website where it says, in answer to the question: "Do the new guidelines mean fewer people will be able to receive Second Career support?" "Yes," says the website. And also the website says—his, not mine—"Participants may be asked to make a greater contribution to their training, depending on their financial situation." I wish I had more time to read more from the website, and I don't.

All the analysts agree that there can be no complete recovery while unemployment hovers at around 9%. You have qualified applicants and you have spaces. Why would you limit access to a job creation program that you claim is working? Do you not want Ontarians working and contributing to the economy?

Hon. John Milloy: We welcomed 21,000 people into the Second Career program, and a little over a week ago we announced our plans to welcome 8,000 more people into Ontario government training programs. I am not going to apologize for a program that he stood up and made fun of day after day.

At the end of this program we will have 29,000 people in training in the province of Ontario, preparing themselves for new careers, preparing themselves to move forward in an economy that is under transformation.

I am proud of the leadership of this government; I am proud that we have been able to reach out to almost 30,000 people to make sure that they have the retraining opportunities that they need.

VOLUNTEERS

Ms. Helena Jaczek: My question is to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. A recent column in the Toronto Star speaks about the future of volunteerism and the lack of opportunities that will be present for baby boomers upon retirement. According to the column, in just over a year, Canada will start experiencing the largest wave of retirement in its history. There is concern that organizations don't have the infrastructure to manage volunteers. They are currently facing difficulties with orienting, training and integrating volunteers.

We're all aware of the economic and social benefits of volunteering, and baby boomers have so much to contribute. It's Ontario that stands to gain from their contributions. What does the minister intend on doing to assist the non-profit sector to keep volunteerism both strong and viable here in Ontario?

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to thank the honourable member from Oak Ridges—Markham for her question. John F. Kennedy once said famously, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." After all these long years, it is still relevant in the lives of the five million Ontarians who volunteer and give so much to this province day in and day out. We understand their level of commitment. This is why we have helped hundreds of volunteer organizations through 60 partnership projects to retain and manage volunteers.

I'm proud to say that Ontario is a better place because of our volunteers, and we are here to support them.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Helena Jaczek: Active citizenship and volunteerism is at the core of our way of life in Ontario. Ontarians who are actively engaged in the public life of the community have a positive impact on the quality of life and on our economic and social well-being. Communities across Ontario depend heavily on volunteers.

Governments of all levels need to support these individuals and organizations to ensure that there are necessary resources available to welcome volunteers with open arms. However, in order to further volunteerism to thrive at its highest levels, we also need to recognize volunteers and commemorate their outstanding work in our communities.

What is the government doing to ensure that these remarkable citizens are getting the recognition and appreciation they truly deserve?

Hon. Michael Chan: Our government recognizes outstanding citizens for their accomplishments through the Ontario Medal for Good Citizenship. Recognition applauds both commitment and hard work. It also becomes a symbol of inspiration for many to follow.

The Lieutenant Governor recently honoured 11 such outstanding individuals. Among them was Bilaal Rajan. One of many accomplishments was fundraising more than $5 million. He is only 13 years old. Another individual, Barbara Edwards, has served as a foster home mother for 63 years. She continues to provide a loving home for children in need. Ontario has many wonderful volunteers, and we are proud of them.

TAXATION

Mr. Norm Miller: My question is for the Premier. Two weeks ago, a company by the name of Coco Paving played host to a tour stop for your so-called HST consultations. Jenny Coco, the CEO of Coco Paving, is a past president of the Windsor West Liberal Riding Association and also a big donor to the McGuinty Liberals.

Premier, how many other so-called consultations were set up by big Liberal donors?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: That is, in fact, the case; in fact, Ms. Coco was the past president of the Windsor West Federal Liberal Association, that's absolutely correct. Like a number of other business people and like people like Jim Flaherty who have been speaking out in public in favour of the harmonized sales tax, this government will continue to advocate on behalf of the tax reform package we brought forward.

It will create some 600,000 new jobs and it is the right plan for Ontario. It is the right plan. It is the right plan going forward to strengthen this economy so that people in Ontario can find work as we come out of this recession and we can grow a better and stronger, more prosperous economy for the future.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Norm Miller: To the Premier: If it's the right plan for Ontario, why don't you proudly go around the province and listen to the people of Ontario?

This isn't the first time Coco Paving helped you orchestrate so-called consultations; you did the same thing in Sudbury. But according to Northern Ontario Business, what you call consultation was nothing more than "a press conference in Sudbury."

Premier, will you give up these sham consultations and commit to holding real public hearings on the HST?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The Ontario Road Builders' Association, I can assure you, has a lot of Conservative representatives, including Ms. Coco, and that's who sponsored that forum. My goodness.

I did find some interesting quotes here that I thought I would share with the House in terms of other people. Here's what the member for Carleton—Mississippi Mills said, and this is in Hansard: "The Ontario government should harmonize its provincial sales tax with the federal goods and services tax." And here's what the same member said in standing committee: "I think that a good statement would be that the committee now agrees with the Conservative position in a minority report two years ago, that we combine the GST and the PST."

You can cast aspersions against Ontario road builders, people who create jobs, people who act fairly. You shouldn't do that. We are having a debate—

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

COMPOSTING

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé et des soins de longue durée. The McGuinty government is proposing to allow composting companies to mix sewage sludge—which is full of toxics, heavy metals, PCBs and disease pathogens—into its compost. There will be no restriction as to where this compost is spread or how it can be distributed. Since companies get paid to dispose of sewage sludge, they will add the highest allowable level of toxic material to our compost, which will find its way to our farms, our backyard gardens and our parks, and also find its way into our water and our food.

My question is, has the minister explored the potential health and disease implications of this deregulation of compost?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I want to thank the member for the question, and I certainly will raise it with the Minister of the Environment at my earliest opportunity.

I can assure the member opposite that the health of Ontarians is of paramount importance to this government, and that's why we've moved forward on many initiatives to protect their health. I would much rather protect Ontarians' health than treat them once they become ill. I know that's a philosophy shared by all members of this House. So as we move to reduce toxins in our environment, we have banned pesticides. We are continuing to improve the health of Ontarians. It's critical to the sustainability of our health care system and, more importantly, to the health of Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: There have been constituents from the village of Vernon who have contacted the minister and asked her to take action to put a moratorium in place. Sewage sludge is becoming more and more toxic. The US Environmental Protection Agency found pharmaceutical products, steroids and flame retardants in sludge. That's in addition to the heavy metals, the bacteria, the viruses and the allergens we all find in this. A study has found that sickness from airborne pathogens now can be found up to a kilometre downwind from the sludge-spreading area. Yet the government still does not collect information about sludge-related health complaints.

Once the water we drink, the food we eat and the air we breathe has been contaminated, it will be too late. Why won't the minister call for an immediate moratorium on sludge spreading until we know that it is safe?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As I said earlier, I will raise the issue with the Minister of the Environment. What I can tell you is that the composting and green bin programs are a very important part of our waste diversion program. Organics make up about a third of our waste. We know there have been some challenges and that there is work to be done. We want to do more to encourage organics diversion, and we want to make sure we do it right. That's why we're proposing new standards that would ensure that compost is produced and used in Ontario in a manner that protects the environment and public health.

The new guideline includes best practices for compost facilities, as well as new categories for compost material, and there will be different categories for material and appropriate standards. Our proposal is encouraging more composting while ensuring that it's done in a manner that protects our people, our communities and our environment.

TAXATION

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: My question is for the Minister of Revenue. We've once again heard allegations that there has not been enough public consultation and debate regarding the harmonized sales tax. But it has been my experience that since the budget was introduced, Ontarians in every corner of the province have been fully able to voice their concerns and discuss tax reform with their MPPs, which we also hear about in this chamber.

Each member of the opposition and the third party has spoken at length in opposition to our tax cuts and job creation, but important debate on this issue continues to be delayed. As the leader of the third party has said, "I would put my requests to Mr. Hudak and ask him to actually stop playing the silly games."

Minister, can you tell us how you are conducting the public debate and consultation on the HST?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to say to my friend that of course I've been fortunate to have many, many invitations from right across Ontario. I think I've done well over three dozen of these consultations across the province. I've made sure that I've been able to get to every corner of Ontario, and I have been able to go into parts of Ontario that are represented by those opposite.

For example, on September 25 I met with the Northwestern Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce in the riding of Kenora—Rainy River. As a matter of fact, I believe the member for Kenora—Rainy River was there. I saw him there. On September 30 I met with the Simcoe and District Chamber of Commerce in the riding of Haldimand—Norfolk. On October 20 I spoke at the Wasaga Beach Mayor's Breakfast, organized by the chamber of commerce in the riding of Simcoe—Grey.

I know my good friend from Simcoe—Grey wasn't able to be there, but when I was introduced by a friend of his, he wanted everybody to know that he thought that I was a pretty good guy. I really appreciate the member from Simcoe—Grey passing that along.

But at every one of those—

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

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: Those opposed to the HST and our package that will cut taxes and create jobs have been actively fear-mongering and spreading mistruths. Some of the common false arguments that they present include: that the HST is an excuse for producers and service providers to gouge consumers; that the HST will raise costs for small businesses; that the HST will hurt lower-income Ontarians; that the HST is just a tax grab; that the HST isn't business-friendly; and that the HST should be delayed until the recovery is underway.

Minister, these are serious claims that have Ontarians very concerned. Could the minister please address these claims? Is anyone going to be hurt by the HST?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I would say to all members that Roger Martin, the dean of the Rotman School of Management, and James Milway, the executive director of research at the Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity, authored an

article in today's Globe and Mail entitled "Debunking Myths about the HST." And what do they tell us about these claims that are being made? Well, first of all it says:

—"the experience in Quebec and Atlantic Canada was that market forces pressured" companies "to pass on their savings to consumers";

—"the costs for small businesses ... will decrease, because they will no longer have to pay" PST on their inputs;

—"the tax reform package provides for sales tax credits aimed" specifically "at lower-income Ontarians";

—"the province is reducing"—oh—"personal and corporate income taxes and providing tax credits to help compensate for higher sales taxes paid by lower-income Ontarians"; and

—"the HST is Ontario-friendly."

A recent study done by tax expert Dr. Jack Mintz says that the tax reform will estimate some 591,000—

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

ABORIGINAL LAND DISPUTE

Mr. Toby Barrett: A question to the Premier: The Caledonia standoff is in its 1,367th day. Three and a half years ago—on May 9, 2006, to be exact—I stood in this House and I warned you about the breach of security with respect to the power system in Caledonia. Just two weeks later the lights went out.

Three and a half years ago the Niagara-to-Caledonia hydro tower project was ground to a halt by militants. Premier, what headway have you made since 2006 with respect to keeping this power tower project moving forward?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'll refer this to the Attorney General.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: We know it's a very difficult and very challenging situation in that part of the province. We know that emotions in these situations can run very high. We have a number of different agencies, the police, working with the community, working very hard with my colleague the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and his officials to try and not only defuse situations but to try and ensure the long-term resolution of this, which, of course, at the end of the day, involves a federal land claim where we need a long-term federal solution and assistance on this area. I'll be pleased to refer—

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

Mr. Toby Barrett: Look, it's been three and a half years. We've had trestles from these power towers being used as blockades. This Niagara reinforcement project is massive. It runs the length of the Niagara peninsula, from the Allanburg transfer station at Thorold up to the Caledonia transfer station and beyond to Middleport—800 megawatts of transmission capacity. I'm told that it was meant to serve 300,000 people, but we've had Mohawk warriors on top of these towers, not Hydro One workers.

Premier, or various ministers: After three and a half years, just how much longer will this project be blockaded?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: It's a very difficult situation, but it's not just been three and a half years; it's been 200 years. If there's a 200-year-old dispute, and the federal government has jurisdiction over land claims, I know my friend would want to join us, would want to ask the federal government to become as engaged as we are, and get to the table as we are. Assist us in finding the resolution that all of the residents in that area, and in the province of Ontario, want.

It's a very challenging issue—three and a half years, my friend refers to, and the other 196 and a half that this issue has actually been alive. It's time for all to come to the table in good faith and find the way forward.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. The number of Ontarians receiving out-of-country medical treatment is skyrocketing. An investigation by the Metroland newspaper chain found that OHIP approvals for out-of-country care have risen 450% in the last eight years—and so have this government's contracts with American health providers.

My question is, will the Premier explain why there has been such a dramatic increase in out-of-country care?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The member opposite is absolutely right: There has been a dramatic increase in out-of-country health care provided and covered through OHIP. We are very focused on bringing that number back down.

I'd like to talk about one of the big investments that we have made, and actually, it's headed by a renowned physician from Hamilton. We're investing $75 million to provide in-country, in-Ontario, bariatric surgery. We currently spend significant amounts of money sending people outside of Ontario for that bariatric surgery. We can do it for less money and we can provide the service right here in Ontario, where we can also provide the follow-up support that people need after they've had that surgery.

We're committed to bringing back down the number of dollars that we spend out-of-country. That's just one example. I'll have others in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The reality is that Ontarians are facing cuts to their local hospitals—to beds, to staff, to services, and even entire emergency rooms. Patients are losing access to local care as the McGuinty government shells out more money to private American providers. Rather than sending more and more Ontarians out-of-country for medical basics like MRIs and CT scans, why isn't this government investing more money to improve services for a greater number of Ontarians right here at home?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: If the member had listened to my answer to the first question, she'd understand that we are investing a lot more here, not just in programs that were previously covered out-of-country, but in the full range of health care services. By any measure, health care is significantly better now than it was when we took office in 2003.

One of the other areas where we have seen tremendous growth in out-of-country expenditures is in the area of genetic testing. We are working on a plan to repatriate genetic testing back to Ontario—the five most common forms of genetic testing we think can be done right here in Ontario. The new program is expected to be up and running within the next several months, sometime in 2010.

Another area where we've made great investments is in new cancer care and drug treatments, which will save taxpayers some $15 million in out-of-country expenses. There's more—

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

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Mrs. Liz Sandals: My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, here in Ontario, enrolment at our post-secondary institutions is growing. More and more people are choosing to go on to college, university or an apprenticeship, and they are choosing Ontario schools.

In my community, the University of Guelph has seen a tremendous amount of growth over the past four years, and I know that this is the case for most institutions across the province. Although this is welcome news, there is no doubt that it is creating additional pressure on our universities.

We are all aware of the studies that cite the need for a highly educated, highly skilled workforce to compete in the new knowledge-based economy. In fact, it is estimated that 70% of future jobs will require some form of post-secondary education. Minister, what are you doing to assist universities so that—

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

Hon. John Milloy: I want to thank the member for the question, which I think is very appropriate considering the fact that we have representatives from the Council of Ontario Universities here with us at Queen's Park today, and I know that all members want to welcome them as they undertake meetings with various MPPs.

The honourable member is quite right: Since 2003, we have seen a tremendous increase in post-secondary education of about 100,000 more students; 84,000 of them have been in Ontario's universities, and I've been very proud of the support that our government has offered these institutions. Since 2003, operating funding for universities has increased by 64%, while at the same time we have significantly increased per-student funding.

I was very pleased that the most recent budget contained an additional $150 million to help our colleges and universities alleviate growth pressures. At the same time, over the course of the summer we rolled out $1.5 billion—

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

Mrs. Liz Sandals: Recently, we've heard a lot about the green economy and what that will mean for the future of Ontario. I understand that Ontario universities are pledging to do even more in the future to engage in best practices in all areas of sustainability on their campuses.

Our universities play a key role in promoting sustainable practices, integrating sustainability concepts into teaching and research, and going greener right across their operations. In fact, at the University of Guelph, students even voted to support energy conservation retrofits through a charge on their student fees; I have a very green campus. And universities across Ontario are conducting research that will not only help us tackle climate change, but create businesses and jobs that will make Ontario a global leader in this high-demand sector.

Speaker, through you to the minister: How is the government helping Ontario univ