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

May 17, 2007

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2007-May-17 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 17 May 2007 Jeudi 17 mai 2007

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

MINING TAX

GO TRANSIT

MINING TAX

GO TRANSIT

MINING TAX

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PREMIER'S SPENDING

WOMEN'S SHELTERS

PREMIER'S SPENDING

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

DESTINATION IMAGINATION

PREMIER'S SPENDING

WORLD HYPERTENSION DAY

NATIONAL DAY AGAINST HOMOPHOBIA

ENDANGERED SPECIES LEGISLATION

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GAS PRICES NOTICE ACT, 2007 /

LOI DE 2007

SUR LES PRÉAVIS D'AUGMENTATION

DU PRIX DE L'ESSENCE

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT

ACT (MUFFLER NOISE), 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(BRUIT DE SILENCIEUX)

ORAL QUESTIONS

PREMIER'S SPENDING

AUTISM TREATMENT

PREMIER'S SPENDING

SMOKE-FREE ONTARIO

PREMIER'S SPENDING

NORTHERN ONTARIO

SUPPLY MANAGEMENT

ONTARIO ECONOMY

VISITORS

PETITIONS

STEVENSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

WORKPLACE SAFETY

GTA POOLING

POPE JOHN PAUL II

NORTHERN ONTARIO

PARENTING EDUCATION

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

SOCIAL SERVICES FUNDING

POPE JOHN PAUL II

REGULATION OF ZOOS

POPE JOHN PAUL II

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PROVINCIAL ADVOCATE FOR

CHILDREN AND YOUTH ACT, 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 SUR L'INTERVENANT

PROVINCIAL EN FAVEUR DES ENFANTS

ET DES JEUNES

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

PROVINCIAL ADVOCATE FOR

CHILDREN AND YOUTH ACT, 2007

(CONTINUED) /

LOI DE 2007 SUR L'INTERVENANT

PROVINCIAL EN FAVEUR DES ENFANTS

ET DES JEUNES

(SUITE)

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

MINING TAX

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I move that, in the opinion of this House, the government must do more to protect Ontario jobs and, as a first step, should repeal the

section of Bill 187,

An Act respecting budget measures, interim appropriations and other matters, 2007, that imposes a 13% tax on diamond mines.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr. Hardeman, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr. Hardeman: I'm pleased to bring forward this resolution today because, sadly, over the past four years, jobs have not been the priority of the McGuinty government. Ontario has lost 137,000 manufacturing jobs since the beginning of 2005. Over 13,000 of those manufacturing jobs were lost last month alone. Clearly, there is a problem that the Liberal government should be addressing.

These are not just numbers. They're real people who are struggling to make ends meet without a paycheque. They're people who are going to have to go to their savings or take out loans to pay their mortgage, and the government is ignoring them. They are focused on slush funds and trying to prop up their promise-breaking government instead of taking action to help the people of Ontario.

Last week in my riding, 55 workers at the Collins and Aikman plant received layoff notices. The company has said that by the end of July they will have about 150 people laid off. When I met with the Oxford labour council last week, the number one issue they raised was the loss of manufacturing jobs.

In December 2005, my colleague from Halton introduced a resolution calling on this government to develop a jobs plan. Although the resolution was passed unanimously, there has been no action by the McGuinty government to create that plan. I want to point out the part of the resolution that called for the plan to come forward immediately.

I recently did a survey of business people in my riding to see what were some of the biggest challenges facing businesses today. I asked them whether they needed a jobs plan, and 93.3% of the people who responded said they felt a jobs plan was "somewhat" or "very" necessary. In the same survey, 86.7% of respondents said that Ontario taxes are too high.

So what does this government do? When an international company chooses to invest in Ontario and create jobs, the McGuinty government, without consultation or warning, more than doubles the taxes on Ontario's first diamond mine; they went from 5% to13%.

I know that a lot of people think of diamonds as a luxury item and aren't that concerned by the increased tax. But what we are really talking about isn't diamonds; it's jobs and investment. De Beers is spending almost $1 billion in Ontario. That is a lot of money going into our economy. There are construction jobs building the processing plant, workshops, winter roads, a warehouse and accommodations. In addition, there will be 400 jobs when the mine is in full operation, and those jobs will have many more spinoff jobs.

Those 400 people need new cars to get to work, clothing, food and housing, and now they can afford to buy a few extra items. All of that creates jobs. That is what the McGuinty government just doubled the taxes on.

This is an area of the north that really needs those jobs and needs the money in the local economy. In response to the tax increase, the mayor of Moosonee, Wayne Taipale, asked, "Are they trying to kill the north? What are they trying to do? Stop the development?"

Dalton McGuinty tries to tell us that he's taking this money to help the people of Ontario, but the people of northern Ontario will tell you that the help they need is getting and keeping jobs in northern Ontario. The First Nations will tell you that they are already being helped through their agreement with De Beers and that this is their money that the government is taking.

In fact, Mike Carpenter, chief of the Attawapiskat First Nation, said:

"We believe that this increase constitutes little more than a tax grab by the McGuinty government, and it will not benefit our First Nation or others throughout northern Ontario.

"De Beers Canada's diamond mine is the first and only opportunity our community has ever had to break free of our soul-destroying poverty. This diamond royalty tax will steal the future of our children. Premier McGuinty ... must honour his government's original agreement with us and take back this tax."

The Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association passed a resolution that petitioned the government "to amend the Ontario Mining Act to include diamonds on the same royalty basis as all other minerals."

Perhaps, if the government had consulted on this change, they would have heard these views and realized that this was a mistake. It was done with so little consultation that the Minister of Northern Development and Mines didn't even know about the increase before it happened.

By increasing this tax without warning, Dalton McGuinty sent a message to the international mining and business community. It says, "We don't want your investment in Ontario." It says, "If you invest in Ontario, be prepared, for your tax rate could double overnight with no warning." It says that businesses looking to invest here can't trust the Ontario government.

This is one of the issues for De Beers: the ability to count on the government to keep their commitment. In a presentation to the finance committee, James Gowans, president and CEO of De Beers Canada said, "We thought we had a commitment from the Ontario government as late as when Premier McGuinty and three cabinet ministers reiterated their commitment to the royalties from the Ontario Mining Tax Act, and in fact the remote royalty when they were involved in the groundbreaking ceremonies at the end of June last year."

McGuinty actually boasted about the mining rates being among the lowest in Canada in a news release at the Victor mine groundbreaking.

You would think that would have meant something. You can see how this company might be shocked that, less than a year later, the same Premier would more than double the tax rate. At this point, De Beers has put a lot of money into the Victor mine project and is probably here to stay. But the company has been spending on exploration in the north, looking for more mine locations and all the jobs that come with them. After this announcement, they are reconsidering that decision.

Sadly, members of the Legislature probably aren't shocked to hear that McGuinty broke another promise and another commitment. We know that he has broken many promises to the people of Ontario, so one more probably doesn't matter that much to him. We all remember 2003, when he looked us in the eye and said, "I will not raise your taxes." He didn't tell that to just a few people. He didn't tell it just to the Legislature. He did it with a commercial on television.

He told every single Ontarian, "I will not raise your taxes." It sends a signal to companies–and, incidentally, the people believed him when he said that; a lot of people believed him when he said that. But it sends a signal to the companies that are considering investing here, now that he has broken all these promises. In an

article in the Sault Star, the mayor of Timmins, Tom Laughren said, "There is a lot of exploration going on in the north, specifically for diamonds. My fear is it may trigger people to look elsewhere just because the tax regime will be uncertain."

In Oxford, we have been lucky to attract some international investment, including a new Toyota plant that is currently under construction. There was a lot of competition for that plant. If Toyota had thought that their taxes could more than double without warning, I'm not sure they would have chosen to locate in Ontario, and all those jobs could have gone somewhere else. There is no point in the Premier spending taxpayers' dollars on international junkets when he is going to treat companies that invest here like that.

On this side of the House, we know how important jobs are. We are willing to do the work to bring them to Ontario and to keep them here. There is no need for the government to go ahead with doubling the taxes on this mine. They can admit they were wrong and show the international community that this is still a good place to invest.

Repealing the

section of Bill 187,

An Act respecting Budget measures, interim appropriations and other matters, that imposes a 13% tax on diamond mines is a good first step in protecting Ontario jobs. But it is just a first step. The government needs to do more to reduce red tape and make this the kind of province where business can grow, and international businesses can choose to invest. We know that in today's global economy, companies have a lot of choices on where they will invest. You need to be competitive to attract investment, and part of that is providing stability.

Our leader, John Tory, has committed that, if elected, our government would do the right thing and roll back this tax increase to protect those jobs and bring more jobs and investment to Ontario. I urge all members in this Legislature to support this resolution and send the message that Ontario is open for business and we want jobs and investment here.

I want to say again, I think it's time we send a message out to the world that when Ontario makes a commitment, Ontario stands behind the commitment. It's not good enough to say something to get elected and then renege on it when the time comes to deliver on that. I think people who invest here have a right to expect that when they are told what the tax rate will be, that tax rate will not, without consultation, without any further ado, be more than doubled, from 5% to 13%. That is almost a 150% increase in tax rates without telling them it was going to happen. I think it's atrocious.

I also think it takes away the confidence people have in investing in our economy and building the jobs that the people of Oxford county and the people of the rest of Ontario need to ensure a lifestyle that we have grown accustomed to and we want to keep.

Thank you very much for the time, Mr. Speaker. We look forward to further debate and to the support of all members of the House to start the building of that confidence back in our future.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I do not believe we have quorum in the House at present.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Deputy Clerk (Mr. Todd Decker): A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Mississauga West, you have the floor.

Mr. Delaney: Thank you very much, Speaker.

It's a pleasure to talk about the resolution by my colleague from Oxford, a gentleman whose company I enjoy and whose opinions I respect in general, but I often wondered, why did he just read the speaking notes that people sent in? Here is a member whose riding is now going to be the home of the world's most sought-after auto plant. When Toyota Motor had a chance to locate its new plant, everyone in the world wanted this particular plant. The Europeans wanted it; the Americans wanted it. But the difference is that when Toyota had a chance to build that plant, Toyota wanted Woodstock; Toyota wanted Ontario.

They chose to build an auto plant and to build jobs and to build careers and to build families and to build communities in that member's riding—and that member has been decrying the flight of jobs, even while his own riding is a net beneficiary.

Now, this is not the early 20th century and it's not the industrial revolution. The reality in which we live, in the 21st century, is that the nature of work continues to evolve, and that change has generally been a good one. It's been from work that focuses on muscle to work that focuses on brainpower. That's one area in which Ontario has a unique advantage. Thanks to this government's five-year, $6.2-billion investment in post-secondary education, we have been growing the kind of people that the member for Oxford is going to be employing in the plant that Toyota has been building in his riding. We've been growing people who can add value to what's done with machine work.

It's not as if Ontario is the only jurisdiction in the world that is struggling with manufacturing jobs. Automation, computerization and the changing nature of the type of goods that people are buying are costing every jurisdiction in the world the old-fashioned factory-type jobs. Our major colleague—I don't like to look upon them as a competitor, because we share more in common with the state of Michigan than we differ—Michigan lost far more jobs than Ontario last year. We take no joy in Michigan losing jobs, any more than they do in Ontario losing jobs.

About one out of every nine manufacturing jobs in the United States has left. In Japan, one out of six manufacturing jobs has disappeared. It's not as if they're vanishing off the face of the map. It's that they're being replaced by value-added jobs. The types of jobs that Ontario has been losing are ones that generally pay in the range of $8 to $15 an hour, but the net 322,500 new jobs—net new jobs—that Ontario has created generally pay in the neighbourhood of $15 to $40 an hour.

Yes, we're losing low-end jobs, but on a net basis we are gaining more jobs, and those jobs that we are gaining are better-paying, better-trained jobs. Those are the ones that we should be protecting.

Here are some of the changes that the member for Oxford perhaps overlooked: Ontario's budget is in balance. It's going to stay in balance, God willing and no major economic storm on the horizon. It is sustainably in balance. We're not having to sell highways. We're not having to sell assets. Ontario's budget is in balance because this government has finally got a grip on Ontario's finances. It's been in balance for two years. It's been in balance without having to use the reserve, and as Ontario continues to go forward, the budget that the member was criticizing is ensuring that Ontario's finances will stay in balance whether or not we need the reserve.

Those are some of the areas in which Ontario has progressed. Those are some of the reasons that people should have confidence in the Ontario that they live in, confidence that it's going to remain a leader, confidence that Ontario as we know it is going to continue to be Canada's job driver and economic leader for generations to come.

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound—Muskoka): It's my pleasure to join in the debate this morning. This morning we're debating Ernie Hardeman's resolution. I won't read the whole thing, but it calls to repeal the

section of Bill 187,

An Act respecting Budget measures, interim appropriations and other matters, 2007, that imposes a 13% tax on diamond mines.

The Liberal 2007 budget introduced a new diamond mining tax that could see current and future projects pay out up to 13% of the total value of diamonds mined in the province. Prior to the budget, diamond mines were subject to the same tax rates under the Mining Tax Act, which includes a stipulation that a mining project in northern Ontario only pay 5%.

I attended the Meet the Miners reception here a month or so ago, and it really demonstrated the business reaction to this new tax. Most of the time, these receptions are very light affairs. This was held down in the legislative dining room, and De Beers had a booth set up there. I arrived just as the minister was starting to speak. He talked about how he consulted with industry before, after and on a continuing basis.

Right after the Minister of Northern Development and Mines spoke—that's Mr. Bartolucci—then a De Beers representative spoke. He was trying to be nice. He was trying, as people usually do at these receptions, to be polite and not bring up too much politics, but he just couldn't help himself. He kept coming back to the fact that this tax was brought in on the industry without any warning and the effect that this tax will have. He talked about the tax as a Third World tax.

He also pointed to their booth, and said, "Go have a look at those diamonds." There is only one diamond mine about to open in Ontario and that's the De Beers Victor Project west of Attawapiskat. He said, "Have a look at the diamonds, because this may be the only diamond mine that ever opens in Ontario." That's the sort of effect this tax can have. When you surprise business, when you change the rules in the middle of the game, after they've invested $1 billion to find the mine and develop it, then they don't feel safe in terms of investing future money in projects.

And not only that, but they make their plans on a business case based on stable taxes.

This representative of De Beers went on to say that he's got e-mails. At that point, he had many e-mails from his head office sitting there and he just didn't know how he was going to answer them, because he had sold the company on investing in Ontario based on the fact that we have stable government, that we have stable taxation, and here this government, the McGuinty government, goes and changes the rules after the company invests $1 billion, just as the diamond mine is about to open. It really was an underhanded trick that they pulled on this company.

So he had all these e-mails sitting there and he didn't know what to say. He didn't know how he was going to respond, because he had sold the company on investing in Ontario based on the fact that there have historically been stable taxation policies.

It's not just De Beers that were surprised by this move. First Nations: Attawapiskat Chief Mike Carpenter, Grand Chief Stan Louttit of the Mushkegowuk Tribal Council, and Nishnawbe Aski Nation Grand Chief Stan Beardy have all expressed their concern, because the Attawapiskat First Nation has negotiated an impact benefit agreement with De Beers. Having been to Attawapiskat with a legislative committee, it's an impoverished community. This mine means hope to that community and hope to other remote northern First Nations. This change, without any consultation with First Nations, is not going to benefit them.

Attawapiskat Chief Mike Carpenter says this diamond royalty is a step backwards. "We have been trying for years to get some form of revenue sharing and instead of moving forward on that file, the Ontario government decides to take the money themselves. That means there's less money to go around." That was Attawapiskat Chief Mike Carpenter.

Finally, in the short five minutes I have to speak, I'd like to point out that this is yet another broken promise by the McGuinty Liberal government. Dalton McGuinty was one the one who looked into the TV cameras and filmed the ads saying, "I won't raise your taxes," and that he wouldn't bring in any new taxes. Not only did they do that in this case, but they did it without consultations with First Nations and without warning to industry. It's very much a short-sighted tax grab that will hurt this province, that will hurt northern Ontario, and that's why I support the resolution put forward by Mr. Hardeman wholeheartedly.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins—James Bay): I've got to say that I'm not exactly thrilled and happy to be here this morning debating this particular issue, because I would never have thought that any government in this province would have done what this government did in the last budget in regard to changing the game when it comes to how we apply royalties to mining projects in Ontario.

Every government up to now has understood that mining is a very expensive business. Let me make it really simple. If you're trying to find one mine somewhere in northern Ontario, you have to do a lot of exploration. There has to be a lot of money spent and a lot of drilling done on numerous properties in order to, if you're lucky, find a property after spending literally millions of dollars on drilling.

In the case of the De Beers Victor Project up in Attawapiskat, that project is probably about a 25-year cycle from the time that we first noticed diamonds in the sediment, or what would indicate diamonds in the sediment of the Attawapiskat River, to the time that we actually spend literally millions of dollars in order to do some exploration up there, to getting the mine. There are literally in the hundreds of millions of dollars spent in exploration to find one mine.

The point that the government seems to not realize is that if you change the game on the mining companies when it comes to what they understood the cost of royalties would be when they decided to invest and build a mine to the time that you open it up, you're really sending a message out to the investment community that this is not a good place for them to do investments because the government is unstable when it comes to its taxation regime.

The big problem here—there are a number of problems, but I want to try to lay them out. The first one is that De Beers made a decision to invest literally $1 billion to build the Victor diamond project based on the economics of the project. Included in the economics of the project was the 5% royalty.

The Premier of Ontario was up in Attawapiskat. In fact, my good friend over here, Al Simard, might have been there, because he works on construction up at the De Beers project. He basically went to Attawapiskat, to the Victor diamond project, was there for the groundbreaking ceremony of the construction of the mine and said at the time that one of the reasons De Beers made the decision to go ahead was because Ontario had a royalty policy that if you built a mine in a remote location, you didn't pay 10% royalty, you paid 5% royalty. That was one of the key reasons De Beers made the investment.

The Premier recognized that when he did the groundbreaking. That's why it's so surprising that his Minister of Finance—and ultimately him—have decided to increase the diamond royalties from 5% to 13%, thus tripling the royalties.

The first point is that the Premier has done a flip-flop yet again: has gone up to the site, said that the reason the project is going ahead is because of the 5% royalty tax, and at the end of the day the government flip-flopped and decided to do completely the opposite of what they said to De Beers. I wonder if any diamond company would actually open a project knowing that the royalty would triple. I think it would have weighed very heavily against a decision to go ahead.

The other thing is this whole sense of the change of game. You guys have decided, two thirds into the process of constructing a mine, to change the taxation system in order to take advantage of the situation. I think that sends a very bad message, and I was talked to earlier, in regard to what that means for those people in the mining industry.

I want to put this really simply. The Victor Project—does anybody know where the Victor Project is, by the way? It's up on the James Bay coast, west of Attawapiskat. There are no roads, no infrastructure. It's basically out in the middle of a swamp. To build a mine in such a location is a fairly expensive thing to do. You've got to fly all the men and materials in. You have a winter road that, if you're lucky, runs maybe 90 days—about 60 days this year—to haul most of the heavy equipment and materials to the site.

It's a very expensive place to build a mine, and I would say it probably adds about 30% to 40% of the cost of building a mine up in Attawapiskat versus building it around Sudbury or Timmins.

That's the reason we had the diamond royalty, along with all other mining royalties, set at 5% north of Highway 11. We said, "If you build a mine in a remote area, we're going to offset some of your costs by lowering the mining royalty from 10% to 5%." What you're effectively doing now is moving from 5% to 13%. You're not even giving diamonds the same treatment they would get if they were a mine operating in an unremote area; you're allowing them to pay more.

This brings me to the point that I can go up and start a gold mine next to the Victor Project—this is the really unfair part about this. Placer Dome could find gold two feet away from the Attawapiskat property and decide to build a gold mine there. Once they bring that project into production, they're going to pay a 5% royalty on what is extracted from the ground.

The aggregate pits in the province of Ontario—we don't say, "Because you're in Peterborough and this pit is down in Lindsay, you're going to pay a different royalty to the province when it comes to aggregate." We have one price. Why do you all of a sudden have this policy that we have a royalty that's special for diamonds versus all other kinds of mining? At the end of the day, they make the same amount of money.

Just because it's diamonds doesn't mean that they make more money; it's based on the economics: X amount of dollars to build the mine, amortize the cost of building the mine versus what comes out of the ground, and that comes up to whether you profit or not. Whether it's gold or diamonds makes very little difference; it's a question of how much return you can get for your investment. Basing it on diamonds or gold makes no difference as far as how you mine or what you do or what your costs are; they're basically the same.

The first thing is that it's really unfair from the perspective of, why should you say we have a different mining royalty tax regime for diamonds versus gold? It should be the same for all. If the province wants to increase royalties, that's one thing. If you said, "We're moving from 5% to 6% or 7% on remote mines and 10% to 11% or 12% on non-remote mines," we could have the discussion. There may be a logical reason for doing that. But you don't treat one differently than the other.

Let me put it this way: The member from Mississauga West talked about the automotive industry. How would you feel if we had a policy in the province of Ontario that said, "General Motors gets charged this rate and Ford pays a different one"? Nobody in this province would ever stand for that. You would never say, "Taxation rates should be different based on if you're Ford or GM." We have one taxation rate for the auto industry, and the taxes they pay are based on their output and their profitability. They basically pay the same rate.

They may pay more or less tax, based on their profitability, but the rates are the same. So why do we have different rates in mining and allow that to happen when we don't have different rates of tax when it comes to the automotive industry, the manufacturing industry, the petrochemical industry or any other? This is clearly a question where the government is saying, "We can go in and scoop some more money because they're diamonds and we're going to take advantage of the big, bad, old diamond industry," which I think is very wrong.

This brings me to one of the points that the minister keeps on getting up about: The Minister of Finance has been getting up, day after day, answering the questions in the House and trying to paint De Beers as a bad corporate employer or a bad company, and somehow or other, they're the big, bad old De Beers and why the hell are we all siding with them? I find that, quite frankly, reprehensible on the part of the government. De Beers is like any other corporation in Ontario that does business. They follow the rules of Ontario, and they do what they have to do based on what our laws are here.

They're a good corporate employer in northern Ontario, and for you, all of a sudden, to turn around and try to demean them, I think is very much beneath the Minister of Finance, the Premier and this government. The issue is that this particular tax, at the end of the day, is going to be harmful.

I want to get to the last part of this, and that is the First Nations component, which is one of the parts that this government is very much not understanding. The community of Attawapiskat was asked some six to seven years ago to negotiate with De Beers an impact benefit agreement. Everybody in government is asking the First Nations to come to the table to talk about development. There is somehow this perception out in Ontario that First Nations don't want development. First of all, I want to say that's not true.

First Nations want development, but they want to have development in which they have some say about how it's going to move forward and in which they're going to have an ability to share in the revenue.

If you open up any plant anywhere in Ontario, there's an automatic right for municipalities to get taxation from that plant so that you can get benefits to build up infrastructure in your community: better schools, better roads, better water plants etc. If you're a First Nations community, there's no such mechanism, so De Beers and Attawapiskat had to negotiate an IBA on their own. And I want to say this: De Beers didn't have to do it. De Beers understood from a corporate perspective that if they wanted to develop this project, they had to negotiate with the Attawapiskat First Nations band.

Over a period of six or seven years—it started, first of all, with Chief Ignace Gull; it continued through the process with Theresa Hall; and it was concluded under Mike Carpenter, the current chief of Attawapiskat. There was a negotiating team that was put in place by the Attawapiskat band, led by Thomas Tookate, and they negotiated, along with a number of people at De Beers, to come to an understanding in their impact benefit agreement.

The first point that I want to make is this: What message is this government sending to First Nations if you change the rules at the end of the game? You're saying to all First Nations out there that are interested in doing development, "Go out and negotiate a deal, but by the way, when your deal is done, we're going to come in and scoop money out of your deal, and we're going to fill our pockets at Queen's Park at the expense of the First Nations, of the corporations and of the workers who work at those projects."

That's a really bad message to be sending. We should be trying to encourage First Nations to get involved in development, and to do that, we should do some automatic things around land use planning and also around the issue of revenue sharing, but because we don't have that, we're forced to negotiate impact benefit agreements. So here you've got a situation where the Attawapiskat band, in good faith, sat down with De Beers, and there were some very tough and intense negotiations. De Beers—I'll give them some credit—have been pretty progressive about how to deal with this.

They've really tried to fulfill and meet the needs of the First Nations community to the extent they could. At no time did the province ever do anything to help mitigate those costs in any way. And here we are; we finally got an agreement.

Chief Mike Carpenter, Thomas Tookate and others stood in front of the community—I think it was two years ago—and asked the community to vote on the final IBA. Over 80% of the community voted yes. Imagine how you feel today if you live in Attawapiskat and the game has been changed because this government is coming in, by way of increased royalties, and scooping money from the profitability of De Beers, which will impact the IBA, because part of your IBA is dependent on how much money and profit De Beers makes.

So I say to you that you've basically done two things. You've taken money away from Attawapiskat and other communities like Kashechewan, Fort Albany, Moosonee and Moose Factory, and have taken money directly from those communities that stood to benefit. I say to you: Shame for that. You're sending a negative message when it comes to First Nations negotiating with companies like De Beers when it comes to development. This is the first time in a long time we've the seen the economic activity that we saw on the James Bay coast. If you go into the town of Moosonee today, there is all kinds of activity.

Go talk to the mayor of Moosonee. Go talk to the chamber of commerce. Go talk to the citizens of Moosonee. There's more activity in Moosonee today because of the activities of De Beers. It's the jumping-off point, once you get to James Bay, to clear equipment to get up to the site. It is the first time we're seeing a bit of an economic boom on James Bay in communities like Moosonee. Imagine what it means to communities like Fort Albany, Kashechewan, Attawapiskat, Moose Factory and Marten Falls. There's an opportunity for employment.

For the first time ever, there's a large opportunity to employ people in real jobs that pay big dollars. You can make darn good money working as a journeyman, as a miner or whatever it might be at the De Beers site, either on construction or when the mine goes into operation, and part of the IBA includes training.

Here we have the opportunity to give First Nations people the opportunity for employment, and what you're doing by way of this particular diamond tax royalty is that you're telling De Beers and everyone else in the diamond industry, "Don't come and invest in Ontario for more diamond exploration." Because this pit will close. There's about a 10- to 12-year life cycle on the pit they're currently going to be mining up at the Victor project. Part of the success we need up in James Bay is for more diamond exploration to happen. If you spend money on exploration, we will find other Kimberley pipes.

That's where you find these diamonds. Then, in the end we would be in a position to utilize the infrastructure of the De Beers mining camp to mine other pits. But De Beers has already said it. They were downstairs in the Legislature when the president of De Beers came before the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and all other members who were assembled during mining week and said, "Look in the back; there's a display. That is the first diamond mine to be opened in the province of Ontario and, by Lord, it's going to be the last under this regime."

They're the guys, the Canadian division of De Beers, who had to convince De Beers international to spend over $1 billion to build this project. They had a lot of explaining to do after the De Beers diamond tax was put in this particular budget. It's going to be very questionable if that company and others are going to spend the money they need to spend on exploration to continue looking for diamonds in Ontario. You've basically put a sign outside of Ontario that says, "Don't invest here."

You have a chance this morning, by way of this motion, to vote with the Conservatives and with the New Democrats to support this motion in opposition of the budget measure in Bill 187. I urge members to do it. For the first time, you've got something good going on up on the James Bay coast. Aboriginal people will get employment. We're asking you not to turn your backs on them.

The other thing I find very bizarre in this debate is, where are the Liberal northern members? Of anybody, they should be the ones explaining it here. I have no disrespect towards the other members speaking, but I would love to hear a northern member from the Liberal the caucus speak on this.

Mr. John Milloy (Kitchener Centre): It's a pleasure to stand here today and speak on the resolution brought forward by my colleague Mr. Hardeman.

In essence, the way I read the resolution, it really can be looked at two ways: first, obviously, the specific items around Bill 187 and the royalty regime on diamond mines.

I think it's important to put on the record a few things. First of all, the proposed changes in Bill 187, actually in the guise of a substitute—I had a chance to sit on the committee for an afternoon when this particular item was being discussed and had a good opportunity as a member to learn a lot about the ins and outs. The proposed changes in this legislation would see the same royalty regime in Ontario that exists in other parts of the country, such as in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. In other words, we're talking about a level playing field. We're talking about the same tax regime that exists throughout the country.

We're also proposing that the government exclude diamonds from Ontario's mining tax. As the Minister of Finance has said in the House a number of times, over the next few months we'll be working with the mining industry to finalize regulations. The Minister of Finance said that certainly a lot of the sensitivities that have been raised today, that have been raised in question period, are going to be taken into account as the regulations go forward. That deals with that part of the resolution, the very specific part on Bill 187.

But when you look at the larger thrust, what it's really saying is that in order to create jobs in this province, we need to cut taxes. For me, as a great observer of politics over the last four years and a front-line participant, it was a bit of back to the future, the Mike Harris mantra that it's all about cutting taxes. By that, I don't mean that it's not important to have a competitive tax regime. I think everyone in the province recognizes the need to have taxes as low as is reasonable, but the big difference between this side of the House and that side is the definition of "reasonable."

What we saw across the way when Mr. Harris came in was tax cuts that were not reasonable. We saw tax cuts that added to the provincial debt. We saw tax cuts that were paid for by cuts to health care, cuts to education and cuts to the Ministry of the Environment. We saw tax cuts that were covered up by the sale of Highway 407, a last-minute fire sale so that they could go to the people of the province and say they had balanced the budget.

Finally, we saw a $5.6-billion deficit which was hidden from the people of Ontario in the last election campaign. I heard Mr. Eves on television say over and over again that the budget was balanced, and we came and found out that it wasn't. It's that sort of approach that shows the difference between what's reasonable and what's not.

On our side, we have nothing against lower taxes. In fact, we've been moving in a number of ways to make it more competitive. We've speeded up the elimination of the capital tax by 2010. We've reduced the business education tax rates. I must say that the morning after the budget I had a chance to address a breakfast at the chamber of commerce, which was well attended. It was one of the number one things that the business community applauded our government for in the last budget: the fact that we were dealing with business education tax rates.

We've extended the apprenticeship training tax credit—again, very much welcome in the business community. These are reasonable steps by our government to lower the tax rate to make Ontario more competitive but at the same time to make key investments, and those key investments have been in areas like research and innovation and also in areas like education. This comes full circle, I guess, to the thrust of Mr. Hardeman's resolution today, which is about maintaining jobs in Ontario, attracting jobs to Ontario and creating jobs in Ontario.

It's very interesting; on Monday morning I had a chance to go to Conestoga College, which serves my community, one of the best community colleges in the province. I had a chance to make an announcement of some additional funding from this government in order to improve their infrastructure and also improve the quality of education and the number of students who go there.

All the speeches that were made, both by community representatives and representatives of the college, pointed out how institutions like Conestoga College are so key to ensuring prosperity in this province by providing the sort of skilled workforce which is going to allow our companies to be competitive. It's investments like that, as well as the sorts of tax cuts we're talking about—it's that balance which is going to serve to ensure prosperity in Ontario.

The sad part about it all was that since we came to power, we've seen funding to Conestoga College increase by 33%, and under the previous government you saw funding decrease over the eight years they were in power. Instead of talking about how we're going to build on a platform going forward, unfortunately last Monday we were playing a bit of catch-up. But over the last four years you've seen that catch-up take place. You're starting to see the building blocks in place to ensure that we've laid a real foundation for Ontario's prosperity going forward. That's why the thrust of Mr. Hardeman's resolution, both in a specific way and in a general way, is something I can't support.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock): I'm pleased to rise this morning to speak on the private member's resolution brought forward by my colleague from Oxford that says, "That, in the opinion of this House, the government must do more to protect Ontario jobs and as a first step should repeal the

section of Bill 187,

An Act respecting budget measures, interim appropriations and other matters, 2007, that imposes a 13% tax on diamond mines."

I fully support this resolution. We speak in the House all the time about the job losses that Ontario has incurred. The manufacturing sector alone had over 137,000 job losses; 13,000 last month alone. I spoke this month about the loss of my manufacturing plant at Fleetwood, in Lindsay, and the possible loss of more companies in the Lindsay and Victoria-Haliburton area because of the loss of that one plant, and how this government has sat there and let this happen.

By imposing this improper mining tax without notice on De Beers, that is trying to stimulate jobs in the northern community—the case the member from Timmins—James Bay spoke so passionately about—what message are you not getting over there? You speak, but we certainly don't believe it and we don't see it on the ground, of the good things you're doing for Ontario and the economy. Why are the job losses occurring, then?

You slam the previous government. We were the leader in North America in job creation. So your comments are so unfounded and so ridiculous. I mean, you haven't seen a tax increase that you didn't like, that you didn't embrace: "How can we make more tax increases?"

The member from Kitchener Centre speaks that he was at the chamber of commerce. Well, you should listen a little bit more intensely about how they feel about the climate in Ontario and how we're driving jobs out of Ontario and what changes they'd like to see, because it's not the same message that the McGuinty Liberals are grabbing. You're consistent, I have to say, on breaking promises. I have to say you're consistent on breaking promises.

What about the single largest health tax? You said, "I won't raise your taxes." The single largest tax grab in the history of the province was under Dalton McGuinty, only weeks after he'd done the advertisement and signed the paper that he wouldn't increase your taxes. They increased spending by $22 billion in less than four years. Just today we hear the high-class view of himself, that he deserves over a million dollars in flights, flying over all those areas that have lost their jobs. It's just incredible, the arrogance that this government shows, and the disrespect for taxpayers' money.

We've brought forward ideas in this House. It was supported by all parties, about a job strategy for Ontario, because the facts are out there, the loss of jobs in Ontario. We all need to work together to create more jobs, to create an environment for jobs. So when the government slips in this little increased tax for the diamond mine that's going to help job creation in rural, remote areas that so desperately need jobs? I don't think so. What were you thinking over there?

How could you do it to the First Nations, the aboriginals who are working with De Beers, trying to pull themselves up, trying to get jobs, trying to make better places in their communities, cleaner water, better housing, better education?

Interjections.

Ms. Scott: You're taking that away from them in this tax and you've been disrespectful to the people of Ontario—

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Peterborough, you're out of your seat.

Ms. Scott: —with the amount of job losses that have gone on. It just blows me away that you people can ignore job creation opportunities. We've brought forward a job strategy plan. You supported it. An eastern Ontario secretariat—we've lost tons and tons of manufacturing jobs. An eastern Ontario economic development fund, even, similar to the northern development fund: You've ignored that.

You're ignoring eastern Ontario and now you are slamming northern Ontario with this diamond tax, this hidden tax, singling out De Beers like they're not a good company, and they've been working with aboriginals and First Nations. Do you think you're helping them? This is an incredibly arrogant move on the part of the government and I want the people of Ontario to know the message for the Dalton McGuinty government: Stop driving jobs out of Ontario.

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie—Lincoln): I'm pleased to join in support of my colleague from Oxford, who brings forward a very sensible and important and timely resolution to the House today. You know, I was proud to have been the mines minister when the Mike Harris government brought in a forward-looking and powerful plan to re-energize mineral exploration and production in the province of Ontario. We cut the mining tax rate to among the lowest in Canada. We brought in a special bonus for remote mines to encourage projects just like the Victor mine, in partnership with First Nations. We invested in exploration technology.

As a result, we saw new mines opening up in the province of Ontario. We saw rejuvenation of exploration activity, and now, when you go back to places, whether they be Timmins, Sudbury or just outside of Attawapiskat, we're seeing activity in the mineral sector.

Now Dalton McGuinty decides to take us back to the bad old days by arbitrarily hiking the tax on the Victor mine in the most sneaky, underhanded way: no consultation, no indication to the industry, and Dalton McGuinty himself there at the groundbreaking ceremony a year or a year and a half ago boasting about the remote mine tax, saying, "Come on in; we've got this lower tax rate. Make your investments in the province of Ontario." That's what he said when he was there at the site.

When he came back to Toronto, Dalton McGuinty betrayed investors, betrayed those working there, betrayed municipalities like Timmins and Moosonee, and betrayed First Nations that had benefit impact agreements, that had put their trust in the province to keep its word. Dalton McGuinty betrayed them by again breaking a promise, and this was one bald-faced broken promise. He actually was there at the site, construction cap on his head, shovel in hand, boasting about the lower tax rate.

He sneaks back here to the capital and raises taxes on this project after hundreds of millions of dollars in investment were already made.

Look at some of these investments: $150 million to help get services to the mine; $9.9 million in pre-employment training for coastal communities; an almost $1-million training centre built by De Beers in Attawapiskat; $50 million to $70 million for winter roads to provide access. The lower mining taxes and the remote mining tax were paying dividends for the province of Ontario. Dalton McGuinty can't help himself: He broke a promise and jacked up the tax rates—a double whammy on projects like this. It will send a chilling signal to the international community on further mineral investment in Dalton McGuinty's Ontario.

Members may not know this, but Chile was the second-ranked jurisdiction for mineral investment, according to a Fraser Institute survey. Chile did something similarly sneaky and underhanded, Dalton-McGuintyesque, and their rating plummeted to 14th in the world when they brought in a surprise royalty. Under the Mike Harris government, we took Ontario from down the list to the number one jurisdiction for mineral investment, first in Canada, then in North America, then in the entire world, and projects like this came forward as a result. Dalton McGuinty is taking us backwards.

I've got to think—and I know my colleague from Perth—Middlesex is a sensible fellow. I know he listens to the arguments here in the Legislature, and he would know what a bunch of hooey Dalton McGuinty's argument is, that we have to have our tax rate the same as every other jurisdiction in Canada. My goodness. We have a mine in Northwest Territories; we've got the Victor mine. The other provinces don't have diamond mines. I can't use the proper word for it, Mr. Speaker, but that is far off the target of the truth when he describes the situation as having the same tax regime as the rest of Canada. What a bunch of nonsense.

Secondly, why it's in Ontario's interest to find the highest tax rate available and take us to that level is beyond me. It's beyond me. Where is the logic in saying, "There's some other mine out there that has a higher tax rate. Therefore, we're going to increase our taxes"? I don't know if he's worried about people smuggling diamonds from one territory to another, reburying them and then unearthing them, but you'd think, if anything, it would work in Ontario's favour if that were the case, because our taxes would be lower.

What a bunch of nonsense and hooey from the finance minister and this Premier in trying to describe what is nothing but a naked tax grab, Dalton McGuinty robbing First Nations and individuals who are going to work there of their livelihood, and Greg Sorbara driving the getaway car. There's no doubt that if we want to have mineral investment in remote areas to bring prosperity and economic development to First Nations communities and northern municipalities, you need to have an attractive business environment.

Hugo Chávez himself, in Venezuela, would not even have done this. At least Chávez would have gone in the front door and nationalized the company. At least Chávez would have done that. Dalton McGuinty sneaks in the back door with nobody looking, and behind closed doors jacks up the tax rates. And it's not just Ontario, my friends, that is concerned about this; the international investment community is going to look at Ontario sideways, and there's no doubt that future Victor mines are in jeopardy, because you just can't trust a word that the Premier says.

If he was there himself and made this promise and then broke that promise several months later, what does that say about future investment in the area? I know my colleagues, all intelligent individuals, will see the nonsense in the Premier's description of how he could possibly justify this.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth—Middlesex): I'm very glad to enter into the debate about—what is it? The parliamentary term, I guess, is "hooey," I believe the member from Erie—Lincoln wants to talk about. I'll tell you what's hooey about this. It's that the Progressive Conservative Party and the NDP are in cahoots. I believe I've heard their platform, that they're going to go to the people of Ontario and say, "We are going to repeal Bill 187, the

section regarding diamonds. We don't think the royalty rate in Ontario should be the same as the Northwest Territories; we believe that it should be substantially lower. We don't think that those taxes should be applied to, say, for example, a new hospital in Woodstock or a new nursing home in Tavistock. No, no, we shouldn't do that. Instead, what we should do is we should have it at 5%." They fail to recognize the reality on the ground.

I was just reading in Osprey Media, the Northern News—do you know what was announced just yesterday? Because I heard the opposition say, "Oh, this has just put a chill on diamond exploration across the great province of Ontario." Well, I read in Osprey, the Northern News in the Kirkland Lake area, just yesterday, that "Stornoway Diamond Corp. will spend $1 million on exploration of its Timiskaming diamond project, located in Ontario and Quebec. In total the company has committed $23 million in 2007...."

I say to my friend the member from Oxford, if the good people listening to this debate have been paying attention, they would have said that there was a chill, that there was no exploration going on whatsoever, that the measure by the minister has somehow created a chill. But I see companies right now announcing, quite proudly, that they're going to be doing even more exploration right here in the province of Ontario. So that's interesting. But you know, I can understand that, because it is from a party that ran and hid a $5.5-billion deficit. I can understand that they have trouble with this.

They say, for example, that we're losing jobs, because they don't understand the very simple accounting principle of net; in other words, the economy will always have in areas jobs that are shed and other areas where jobs will be gained. While we've been in power, the net number is well in excess of 300,000. Yes, there's always going to be some dislocation, but if you listen to the nabobs of negativity over there, you'd think the province was going to hell in a handbasket. But in reality, what's happening is that there are more people working today than there were before. And do you know how we do that?

We actually have a balanced budget, something that both Mr. Eves and Ms. Ecker were incapable of while they were trying to run this place, because they were running around hiding a deficit: "Peekaboo. We don't have a deficit in this province."

I look forward to the platforms of both the NDP and the Conservatives, where they're going to explain to people how they can cut this diamond royalty, because I'm pretty sure I heard a promise there that that's going to be in their platforms. So we'll all be eager to see whether or not Mr. Tory is going to eschew any type of revenue from diamonds and reduce that down—and for diamonds that are owned by whom? It's a natural resource. They're owned by all the people of Ontario. Are we all going to be able to do that? Are we all going to be able to participate, or is there going to be a special rate?

I find it really difficult that the opposition is going to say, on the one hand, "We believe that we can spend more money," and on the other hand, they think Ontario should have a rate of royalty on diamonds that is some 40% of what it is in the Northwest Territories. I know that the James Bay area is rural and remote, but so is the Northwest Territories.

I think it's very important for us to stand in our place and decide whether we're supporting Bill 187. I know I voted for it; I know the opposition voted against it. So I'm assuming that's going to be in their platform.

We said that the royalty can be up to 13%. There's a sliding scale. I know there are regulations that are being developed. I can understand why some of the industry would portray doom and gloom, but I particularly understand why my partisan friends opposite are trying to make an issue out of this. But we'll see when they release their platform exactly where they stand on this, because our position is very clear.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Hardeman, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Hardeman: I want to thank all the members who spoke both for and against the resolution. I'm sure that those who spoke against it, having heard the others, will seriously reconsider their position and vote for this resolution because of the positive impact it will have on mining and mining exploration.

The members opposite pointed out that they have one

article that says someone is still doing some exploration. We have nothing but articles on this side from every paper in northern Ontario that say they are opposed to what the government is doing on this issue.

I just want to point out too that the members of the government side, though they kept talking about how they weren't going to support this resolution and how they didn't think it was the right thing to do, came up with absolutely no good reason why this tax needed to be increased, other than they found somewhere else that has a higher tax. They said, "My gosh, if the government in the Northwest Territories can get away with getting that much tax, I guess we want it too," and so up it goes.

I think it's also very important to point out—and the member from Timmins—James Bay was very eloquent in his presentation—the difference between a diamond mine and a gold mine that are side by side, and the fact that this change increases the diamond mine from 5% to 13%, a 150% increase, where the gold mine right next door still has the same rate. I'm sure that when the McGuinty government finds out that that's the case, they will start looking for where we can find a place in the world where taxes on gold mines are higher, and they will be implementing an increased tax on gold mines.

Lastly, I think what's most important about this resolution this morning is not the level of taxation, but it's the Premier and being able to believe anything he says. He goes to the ribbon-cutting and says, "I think the reason this company is investing in our economy is because of the low tax rate we have on diamond mines." Then he rushes back and says, "Greg, they've got the shovel in the ground. They can't get away now. Raise it up.

This is a great place to grab a whole bunch of money because they can't do anything about it." When the rest of the world sees that that's how this government does business, they will not be investing in our communities and we will not be getting the jobs we require.

GO TRANSIT

Mr. Paul Ferreira (York South—Weston): I move that, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should, on a priority basis:

Increase access to public GO Transit service to all communities served by the Georgetown south rail corridor;

Revive the previous GO Transit expansion environmental assessment requiring only one additional track to expand GO service on the Georgetown south rail corridor; and

Separate all GO Transit aspects of the current Georgetown south rail corridor environmental assessment from all aspects of the private, high-speed, air-rail link Blue22 environmental assessment.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr. Ferreira, you have up to 10 minutes. The floors is yours.

Mr. Ferreira: I rise this morning to speak on a matter of significant importance, not just to my constituents in York South—Weston but to tens of thousands of Ontarians living in northwest Toronto and elsewhere along the Georgetown south rail corridor.

As members here and regular viewers at home will know, I have devoted considerable time in this House talking about the need for better public transit in my part of Toronto. Communities in my riding, and in places like northern Etobicoke and north Peel and Halton regions, are presently underserviced by public transit.

I am certain that government members here this morning will point to the proposed subway extension to York University. That is a worthy project, but the geographic location of that line does not improve the public transit capacity in my riding, nor in the northwest quadrant of Toronto and beyond.

My riding is, however, served by GO Transit trains along the Georgetown south rail corridor, which covers communities along the line from Georgetown to Union Station in downtown Toronto and includes a stop in the village of Weston in my riding.

For many years now, communities along this line have been underserviced and the present capacity is strained. Currently, GO Transit service along the Georgetown south corridor consists of 10 trains inbound toward Union Station and nine trains outbound towards Georgetown each weekday. Most of these trains are during rush hour. There is no weekend service along the line.

I have taken GO Transit on this line many, many times. Back when I lived in Brampton and worked out of the CBC building on Front Street, I would take the train twice each day. That was 10 years ago, and the rush hour trains even then were packed with commuters standing for the duration of a long ride. Commuter congestion has only increased during the intervening years.

The recognition of an urgent need for increased service on this line isn't a new one. Back in the early 1990s, the NDP government of the day initiated an environmental assessment to look at improvements to GO service along the Georgetown corridor. That EA was completed in 1994 and it forecast a strong increase in demand for GO service along the line due to general population and employment growth.

The EA called for the addition of four new stations, including one in my riding to be built near Eglinton Avenue West in the community of Mount Dennis, which was to be called York City Centre. The EA also called for the construction of an additional track along the corridor to serve the increased number of GO trains and reduce the sharing of existing track infrastructure with freight trains.

The EA involved extensive public consultations with affected residents and its recommendations received glowing public review. One resident who participated in the process back then said, "A great idea, 20 years late though ... this expansion will greatly help people who need jobs." Another said, "This is a most welcome improvement to rapid transit in the northwest metro corridor. The integration with Eglinton West RT is superb planning. Let's keep moving toward implementation!"

These residents, as it turned out, were well ahead of their time. Here now, 13 years later, the vast majority of the recommendations of that EA have not been acted upon. We had, unfortunately, in the province of Ontario a government from 1995 to 2003 that did not place public transit on its list of priorities, and thus the GO expansion plans were derailed.

We do have, today, a new EA regarding the Georgetown south rail corridor. However, this EA appears to be stalled by the present government. The EA is not only examining expanded GO service along the corridor, it is also looking at the possibility of a publicly subsidized, privately operated, high-speed train, the now very well-known Blue22, which would run between Union Station and Pearson airport.

This Blue22 would not stop in any of the communities in my riding or anywhere else along the line, save for, perhaps, a stop at the Bloor and Dundas subway station here in the city of Toronto. It would run along the line every seven and a half minutes, 20 hours a day, 365 days of the year. To hop aboard, it would set you back the princely sum of approximately $20, give or take a buck or two. The Blue22 fleet would consist of several 50-year-old refurbished diesel cars—not exactly modern-age technology.

Blue22 would not be public transit. It would be a private service, operated by a very well-heeled private consortium led by the Liberal-friendly folks at SNC-Lavalin. Yet it would cost taxpayers upwards of $1 billion to provide the necessary track upgrades along the line. Residents and business owners in my riding have been quite clear in their opposition to Blue22, which would pollute our neighbourhoods, lead to greatly diminished property values—real estate brokers have estimated up to a 40% drop in values—while offering very little in the way of spinoff benefits to the local community.

To add insult to injury, the initial concept for Blue22 would force the closure of three main streets in the village of Weston, cutting off the residential district from an already struggling business strip along Weston Road.

The opposition to this flawed idea is so fierce that more than 3,000 people showed up at one public meeting. The community has continued its stiff opposition to Blue22. They have been unfairly dubbed, in some quarters, as NIMBYites. That is the furthest thing from the truth. The people of Weston, Mount Dennis and other communities along the line welcome improved transportation in our part of the city, but it must be improved public transportation that serves the needs of local residents and business owners. One of the reasons they elected me on February 8 was so that I could deliver their message.

That's what I'm doing here this morning and what I have done repeatedly in this House since I first arrived here.

Just yesterday, I asked yet another question of the Minister of the Environment on this very issue. She is responsible, as we know, for the current environmental assessment process. Her ministry has been stalling on its decision regarding the terms of reference that would provide the framework for the current EA. We were initially told that the decision on the TOR would come down in late January. Of course, there was the small matter of the by-election in York South—Weston in early February. The fate of Blue22 was the local key issue.

We learned through an e-mail during the campaign that the ministry would release its decision on the TOR the day after the vote. When that news made the front page of the local community newspaper, the Ministry of the Environment started to backpedal. The furious backpedalling has continued for the past three months, and it would appear by the non-answers that I get here in this House that not even the minister knows when that decision will be made.

The unfortunate part of all of this is that for every day that the minister and this government stall, the longer the commuters along the Georgetown corridor must wait for improved service. The too few trains get more congested by the day, the gridlock caused by those who can't squeeze on to the trains increases by the day, pollution gets worse and Toronto gets its first smog day of the season in early May. That's the reality.

Yesterday, in response to my question, the minister urged me to "take a significant and relevant stand" on public transit. I hope the minister is at least tuning in right now. Perhaps she has missed it, but that is what I have been doing since my very first day here and it is what I am proud to be doing on behalf of my constituents here this morning.

With this resolution, I am asking this government to take a significant and relevant stand on improved public transit in a part of Toronto and the GTA that desperately needs it. I am asking this government to unbundle the GO Transit expansion plans from the deeply flawed Blue22 EA. I am asking this government to dust off the perfectly good EA that was completed more than a decade ago and fully implement its recommendations so we can move ahead with delivering real and meaningful investment in public transit.

If this government is serious about its commitment to public transit, it will support my resolution this morning. I am afraid, however, that their commitment is rather thin—postcard and photo op thin. If that's not the case, then I challenge government members, the ones in this House this morning, to rise from their seats and vote in favour of my resolution, which would immediately provide the impetus for much-needed, long overdue expansion of public transit along the Georgetown south corridor. Thank you.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey (Brampton Centre): I am pleased to have the opportunity to join in the debate today on the proposal by the member for York South—Weston relating to: "Increase access to public GO Transit service to all communities served by the Georgetown south rail corridor," including my own community of Brampton.

GO transit is one of Canada's first—and Ontario's only—interregional public transit systems, established to link Toronto with the surrounding areas of the greater Toronto area. I understand it carries 44 million passengers a year on an extensive network of trains and buses that is one of North America's premier transportation systems. We've been truly blessed with one of North America's finest transportation networks and strongest transit systems.

But in recent years, I think we've all noticed an increase in population that changes those travel demands for Malton, Brampton and Georgetown, and it can no longer be accommodated on the existing transportation system. We all know first-hand how congested the existing roads and freeways are for both automobile travel and bus transit. GO transit can no longer accommodate the current demand on the existing infrastructure. Projected commuter ridership from Brampton to Toronto is increasing exponentially, from today's 15,000 daily trips to over 27,000 daily trips by 2015.

It's no wonder that many of my constituents in Brampton Centre feel that our current transportation system has failed them and hasn't kept pace with the demands of the community and others that extend beyond my community in the Georgetown south corridor.

The present service provided in Brampton appears to me to be at or near capacity, with standing room only on very many trips. This capacity cannot be increased without significant rail infrastructure improvements in the corridor. My own experience is that in the first year at this Legislature I tried to take the GO train, not realizing how late some of the trips were. At the end of the day, we finish here so late that there is no train service. Even if you finished at 6, you'd sometimes have a hard time getting to the last train going to Brampton, which is at 6:45, so then you're stuck with the bus.

Sometimes the bus doesn't make it all the way down to downtown Brampton, and I have go to the Bramalea station and catch another bus to downtown Brampton to get a car home. It doesn't fit the lifestyle I have, and my guess is that there are a lot of businesses and business owners that have to travel to Toronto that can't meet that

schedule either. It certainly doesn't fit the needs of the kind of commuter we have now.

The present service clearly needs assistance, and that's why the expansion of GO service in the Georgetown corridor is critical to meet the current and future demands of my community and others that share that same corridor.

Our government is serious about public transit and we do recognize the importance of investing adequate capital funding in safe, reliable, efficient transit systems, which is the key to building a strong and prosperous community around Brampton and across Ontario. We as a government have invested $1.3 billion since coming to office in 2003. That sounds pretty serious to me.

We've invested in GO Transit, as well as developing partnerships with both the federal and municipal governments to work with GO Transit to ensure that the expansion program, which includes the proposed project along the Georgetown corridor, is completed by 2010. The completion of these projects is essential to better accommodate the 44-million-plus current riders across this province, and these riders are expected to double in the next 20 to 30 years.

Long-term funding is essential to improve public transportation that will reduce the gridlock that we all know about, improve our environment and preserve the quality of life for the residents of Brampton—the people I represent—and for everybody in this House and the communities they represent across the province.

The proposed project along the Georgetown corridor would see improvements in rail infrastructure along GO's Georgetown line, which would see additional tracks being added between Bramalea and the recently built Mount Pleasant GO station, which I had the pleasure to be at and never thought I would see happen in my lifetime, but this government made it happen. Improvements like a new layover facility near the new Mount Pleasant station and several road-rail bridges in the Georgetown corridor increased track capacity for both the proposed air-rail link Blue22 service and future GO Transit rail service.

This proposal to increase access to public GO Transit service to all communities served by the Georgetown south rail corridor has the full support of not only myself and our government but the city of Brampton and the region of Peel. City council and staff have been diligent in their advocacy on this issue and have been following the GO Transit environmental assessment study with great interest, as it would enhance service in Brampton.

Brampton city council has endorsed the environmental assessment and preliminary design study for the Georgetown north rail corridor to plan for the expansion of the Georgetown commuter rail service to provide for eventual two-way, all-day GO train service through the city of Brampton.

The regional chair, however, has expressed serious concerns regarding the delays and potential future delays to the Georgetown south corridor service expansion project. The region is committed to ensuring that Peel's long-term needs for frequent, all-day, two-way commuter rail service and transit access to the Lester B. Pearson airport are not jeopardized and that regional staff will continue to work with the GO Transit project team on the environmental assessment study to help support and expedite the project.

The environmental assessment study has two components, as I understand it. One examines proposed improvements along GO's Georgetown south rail corridor that would meet the increasing demand and future needs for the GO train service to communities such as Brampton along the corridor running between Halton and Peel regions and the city of Toronto. The second is to examine alternatives—both within and outside the Georgetown south rail corridor—for an airport transportation link, including the proposed air-rail link service between Union Station and Lester B. Pearson International Airport.

The potential for excessive delays in introducing additional commuter rail services due to the linking of the environmental assessment for the Georgetown GO rail service expansion project with the airport transportation link project is an ongoing concern. Considerable public opposition to various aspects of the airport transportation link project has already resulted in the termination of the original class environmental assessment and a bump up to the individual environmental assessment.

My concern is that the current proposed approach of combining the environmental assessment processes for the two projects into one could lead to further delays. Under this approach, problems with the airport transportation link project or part of the project could delay or even jeopardize GO Georgetown service expansion, which would have a negative effect on my constituents and our local economy.

Although GO Transit is obligated to conduct the environmental assessment work required for the GO rail improvements to the Georgetown corridor and for the air-rail link, we should remain committed to an open and transparent process that considers the communities' concerns.

It is my understanding that no single alternative has been selected at this point and that any decisions regarding the structure of the environmental assessment would have to go through the Ministry of the Environment.

By investing in the GO Transit expansion program and by expanding service along the Georgetown south rail corridor, we will enable a larger portion of commuters in Brampton to use public transit instead of private automobiles. That's why I support Mr. Ferreira's motion to prioritize access to public GO Transit service to all communities served by the Georgetown south rail corridor.

In order to avoid any future delays to the GO expansion project along the Georgetown rail line, we need to move quickly to accommodate the current and projected future ridership. This expansion is important and is key to building a strong and prosperous Peel and, in particular, the riding of Brampton Centre.

Mrs. Joyce Savoline (Burlington): I'm pleased to stand to support the member from York South—Weston. As a proud previous member of the GO Transit board, I had some awareness of this project while I sat on the board. I want to say that there was a lot of discussion. The good people of York South—Weston did come to the GO board to make a presentation and the points are valid and well taken.

GO Transit is probably one of the safest and cheapest commuter rail systems in North America, and we as a province ought to be very proud of it. As we're talking about the Georgetown rail corridor, I want to be sure—at the remote possibility that there are any folks here from Georgetown or who may be listening to this broadcast later in the day—that this does not mean there's going to be increased train service to Georgetown. This increase of train service, should it go forward, would be to Brampton only. I just wanted to get that out of the way.

I too feel it's important to separate the two projects, because I don't believe the air-rail link project has met its time. I think that is a project for the future, given the challenges and the priorities that exist for projects and for funding here in the greater Toronto area for GO Transit and other modes of public transit. I'm a huge supporter of public transit, but it has to be convenient, it has to be safe and it has to be the kind of cost our residents can afford.

Whose interests are being met by the air-rail link? The public has concerns. Are their interests being met? There has to be some certainty for our government that the province's interests are being met. Also, there has to be some certainty to the private sector, which is going to be involved here, that the game will not change halfway in the middle of the game.

I feel that this project has jumped the queue in a priority list. I feel there are priorities in our province, in our GO system, that stand far higher than this air-rail link. I think it would behoove the government to do an audit of exactly how many cars would be taken off the road if the air-rail link project went forward. In fact, it would behoove the government to do an audit on any grant in public transit to any municipality to make sure the money is being spent to take cars off the road.

With the millions and billions of dollars we have spent for public transit, we have no idea whether or not we are in fact taking cars off the road, so I think it would be a really good idea for us to monitor how the money is spent and whether we get our money's worth.

We know that gridlock is a cost to our economy of about $2 billion a year, and that is substantial.

I feel that this air-rail link began under the previous federal government when the Minister of Transport at that time wanted to leave a legacy as he left his office. I think this air-rail link is that legacy, but it's not well thought out. The numbers have not been crunched. We cannot be confident that the system will support taking cars off the road. I live in Burlington. Would I pack my suitcase, kids in tow, get on a GO train, go to Union Station and get on yet another train to go to the airport? I don't think so. So who is this rail link serving? How much are we going to get? What kind of bang are we going to get for our buck?

I think that this project is out of touch and that we have been pulled into a flawed federal scheme that began with the previous government. This is one of those ad hoc projects that really jumped the queue in a list of some very serious priorities that would have made a difference in the greater Toronto area, and even the wider greater Toronto area, because we're now looking at points beyond what is known to be the greater Toronto boundary. We're looking beyond into Sudbury, Peterborough, Niagara, and even Waterloo and Guelph to see how we can service people and take people off the roads, because that's what the goal should be. This project, I don't think, does that.

Inasmuch as the EA is part of this battle, I think another very important battle is to say, why the air-rail link now? Why are we doing this now? What benefit is it to us for the cost that's going to be involved and for the disruption that it's going to cause to residents in the area? It's going to split communities—communities that have existed there for years, scores of years. So I think that if we go ahead and spend this money, it goes under the category of government waste, and it will be yet another one-off project to satisfy somebody. There'll be a great ribbon-cutting and a name on a plaque, and away we go.

In finishing my comments, I want to say that I support what the member from York South—Weston has brought forward and I'm all for public transit. I think it's very important for us to deliver on projects that get people out of their cars and into public transit. The air-rail link is not one of those projects.

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity—Spadina): I just want to speak for a short while to support the member from York South—Weston by way of his resolution and by way of his defence of his community in York South—Weston. GO Transit is proposing to lay down two new tracks, in addition to the existing three tracks, to allow a train to connect Pearson airport and Union Station. Blue22 is the name they give the train, which I suspect means the price that they charge—

Mr. Ferreira: Twenty-two minutes.

Mr. Marchese: I thought it was the charge that they pay. It's the 22 minutes it takes to get from downtown to the airport.

Mr. Ferreira: The trains are blue.

Mr. Marchese: And the trains are blue.

While it seems like a good idea on paper, nobody has talked about the impact it has on the good people in Weston region. Residents have worked around the inconvenience of the railway tracks for a long time and they did this with grace and, yes, complaining, but they lived with it for a long, long time. There was never enough money, it seems, to make bridges over or underpasses under the tracks. It seems that we didn't have enough Rosedale residents in the area to give it adequate muscle to urge the politicians of the time to build the bridges or the underpasses under the tracks.

I suspect that if we had a couple of Rosedale types, with all due respect, we would get their voices heard and politicians would listen.

Unfortunately, the community from the area has never been so lucky, until we got people like my friend Paul Ferreira from York South—Weston, who has put up a strong defence, with the thousands and thousands of people that have gone to these meetings, urging not just an environmental review process—a thorough one—but urging them to stop something that has very little convenience to the community. What we have in the community is a lack of recreation centres; as some other writer mentioned, limited child care facilities; very few places for seniors to hang out. We know they won't even stop at Weston.

They won't even get a benefit from this train, because it won't stop there. They, these poor residents, are being gouged at the pumps, with gasoline prices going up and up. They have poor transit service, as far as I understand very little public transit service, and very poor at that, so at the end of the day you say to yourself, what do the good people of York South—Weston get out of this? They don't get very much. What we know is that many roads are going to be closed.

Thanks very much for getting this train to start at Union Station and cut right through the York South—Weston region and go straight to the airport. It will benefit some people; it will certainly benefit SNC-Lavalin, who is a publicly subsidized, privately owned company. They're going to make a few bucks, no doubt. But we haven't talked very much about what is to be had, what is to be gained for the working people of York South—Weston. From the looks of it, and the debate that I have witnessed over the last couple of years, we get nothing.

This resolution is an attempt to speak to the problems and to the need for public transit in York South—Weston, and to the need for federal politicians and provincial politicians to review how we help a community that in is in desperate need of public transit, rather than a train that is going to cut through their region and cause greater problems to them with very few benefits.

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): It was a very interesting motion. Some of my comments have been made by some of the other members. But there are three words in it that I am grappling with. They are "a priority basis." The member for Brampton Centre, an excellent member who very diligently represents her constituents in Peel region and shares some of the same problems that I do, has made some of these points. Let me emphasize them from my vantage point living in Mississauga.

The people I serve live on the Milton GO line. The Milton GO line has five trains in the morning, five trains in the evening, and they are all full to capacity, every single one of them. Very much like the member for York South—Weston, we are also served by GO bus service. The bus service, admittedly, is very good. But if we really need to get people out of their cars, and people are willing to get out of their cars, we have to be able to get them from where they are to where they want to be and back at the times they want to get back.

Many people will say, "I don't mind getting out of my car, but I don't want to get out of my car to get into a bus to sit in the same traffic that I would sit in if I drove my car."

It's for that reason that in the government's 2006-07 budget we set out a long-term plan for developing public infrastructure, and especially public transit. There were a number of services that received a significant amount of funding—one of them in my own city of Mississauga, the Mississauga Transitway; the Brampton AcceleRide—but we also set up the framework in the Greater Toronto Transit Authority to begin to address such issues as the member for York South—Weston raises.

I ask the member rhetorically, should his project, its merits and its drawbacks notwithstanding, be the basis for GO Transit to say, "Drop what you're doing, forget your capital plan, look after me first"? I'm not sure that's quite the case. If indeed there needs to be an additional track, should it be on this line or should it be on the line that serves Milton? Should it be on a line for Milton and Oakville? Should it be on the line that's serving the areas where more people are moving to, where more of those cars are getting on the road—not because people want to get their cars on the road but because there's no other way to get downtown?

Very much like the member for Brampton Centre, I love to take the GO train. Whenever I can, whenever this House rises at 6, I'll take the GO train in in the morning and skip that wretched traffic. Sometimes I can make the 6:10 GO train back to either Meadowvale or Streetsville, but very often I'll have to take the Lakeshore express to Clarkson and get my significant other to pick me up from Clarkson because there is no train back along the Milton line.

But this member says that his solution in York South—Weston should be the priority and not the area where 15,000 to 20,000 people a year are moving to in western Mississauga. That could be a problem. That may be what we should be debating. Is this indeed the priority or is it simply one of the priorities? Isn't it something that perhaps GO Transit in its capital plan should be considering? Wouldn't it be better if, within the framework of the GTA, GO Transit took a look at the entire region's needs and looked at it in the form of its capital plan and said, "These are the priorities. These are the timelines"?

But the member says, "Look after the Georgetown south rail corridor and do it right now."

I have a little note here on what GO does supply in the York South—Weston area: four trains into Toronto in the morning; four trains back toward Georgetown in the afternoon. Between Bramalea GO and Toronto there are the 10 trains, four as previously mentioned, plus an additional three during rush hour, plus an additional three in the off-peak hours. On the Milton line we get nothing off peak—nothing. We have five in the morning and five in the afternoon, and by the time you get to the third stop, which is Streetsville, you can hardly find a seat anymore.

It used to be that you could get as far as Erindale and still get a seat, but it's harder and harder now to find a seat if you get on the train at Erindale.

But the member says, on a priority basis, "Me first." There are indeed others of us, and I think the best solution would be not to say, "Me first before anybody else," but to say, "Let us all co-operate," because this is private members' time and we are not here to put on our party colours. We are here to ask, "What is the best thing for the province of Ontario?"

While the member relates some needs which, from what I have heard this morning, seem to be perfectly legitimate needs, my suggestion to him would be, would it not be better to sit down and look at the entire area served by GO Transit and decide, if we are going to build an additional track, where that track should be built first? Undoubtedly, we need a lot more capital expansion, but this one is perhaps a little bit too narrow, saying, "Look after York South—Weston." Why not look after Peel, Halton and Durham regions and consider that in the same plan that we are in looking after York South—Weston? Other than that, it seems to be a fine resolution.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh (Halton): The previous speaker seems to be suggesting that we need an overall commission to look at this, maybe an authority, and I could come up with a name. I think maybe we should call it the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority. Oh, maybe one was announced by the Liberal government. Maybe we already have one. I think we have a chairman, the former mayor of Burlington. However, I don't believe it's doing anything. I don't think they have a budget and I don't think they have any employees.

It's a sort of authority because it doesn't really have any authority and it doesn't have any budget. It does have a chairman, but the chairman is not all that busy. I would agree with the member from Mississauga West that that's kind of what we need and we kind of have one, but it's not going anywhere. Nothing is happening with it.

But this proposed resolution from the member for York South—Weston is indeed a good one, especially as it deals with increased capacity on the Georgetown south GO rail corridor. Although that increased capacity doesn't go to Georgetown yet, it certainly has the potential of going to Georgetown at some time in the future.

Increased public transit, of course, is one of the solutions to the gridlock that is costing business, commuters and family life. Stress and health care and everything else in the greater Toronto area are costing them a great deal in dollars and in the well-being of individuals within the public. It's costing us in every way.

Of course, public transit is one of the solutions to that gridlock. It's one of the solutions that has to be looked at very carefully, and in this particular project, looking at it very carefully has taken an inordinate amount of time. That is one of the problems we have. When these projects come along, everybody says, "Yes, yes, we need them. They're a good thing," and as the member for Burlington pointed out, when you take the cost analysis of it—how much does it cost to pry someone out of their car?—this project, obviously, the GO Transit project, would be a good one that I think would come out well in that cost comparison.

Whereas the so-called Blue line link—Blue line, I think it's a mine actually. Somebody's going to mine some money out of it, but I don't think it's going to take very many cars off the road. It's perhaps not as much a line as it is a mine, and with the number of studies that have gone on with this particular project, that mine is kicking out lots of returns for people doing those studies. I don't think it's going to provide a very realistic alternative.

A high-speed rail line would be a wonderful thing for the GTA, but I would suggest that the heaviest commuter traffic we have in the GTA is along the 401. If you're going to have a high-speed, high-capacity public transit line, certainly the 401 corridor would be the highest priority for me. As you're sitting in your car on the 401, watching a high-speed train, or rail, or some public conveyance going by at high speed, I think it would certainly encourage you very quickly to reconsider your options and perhaps leave your car at home, or at least leave your car in a very large parking lot somewhere and get on the high-speed train that would take you to your destination.

Having all of those facilities coordinated, of course, is another wonderful thought. It would require an overall authority to coordinate those things, and if the GTTA—Greater Toronto Transportation Authority—were ever to be given a mandate and a budget and a staff to do those kinds of things, I think it could probably do a very good job of it. But as it sits in its infancy, it doesn't seem to be moving ahead very quickly or with very much enthusiasm from this particular government.

Talking of public transit as a solution to gridlock—yes, that is a solution to gridlock, or one aspect of that solution. I know that Ontarians have a long-term love affair with their cars, and it's always popular from a political point of view to talk about building more roads. I think anyone who has studied the problems of gridlock would agree that it would be absolutely impossible to build enough roads to handle the kinds of traffic generated in high-density populated areas such as the New York to Washington corridor, the Los Angeles area, Chicago area, or indeed, the Toronto area.

I think those four areas are the four highest-density areas in North America. So the GTA problem of gridlock is one that is mirrored in the other three huge metropolitan areas in North America.

I think one of the alternatives to gridlock and public transit is also the ability to decentralize this province. Ontario is a very large province. The fact that we have focused our growth in the GTA area is one that has brought about continuing, growing problems in the ability to move people from one side of the city to the other, to move freight in and out of the city.

We've seen most of the industrial base of Toronto move out of Toronto because they can't get their supplies into their factory in just-in-time delivery, and they can't get their product shipped out of the city with anywhere near efficient time use. So you've seen most of that manufacturing base move out into the suburbs or into the nearby towns, in order to accomplish that just-in-time delivery or the meaningful or reasonable communications with the road links and rail links that exist in those areas.

So probably a decentralization of the province in general, moving it into the London-Chatham-Windsor corridor, into the Peterborough-Belleville-Cornwall-Kingston corridor, moving it north into Barrie and north of Barrie, into those areas to encourage growth in those areas, to decentralize the Toronto area, the GTA, would be a longer-term solution to what is going to continue to be a growing problem until it is faced square on.

As with most of the issues that face us today, there is no single issue, there is no single solution, but there are multiple solutions. I would suggest that doing what we can with roads and encouraging the efficient production of growth and building of public transit and the decentralization of the GTA would be the solutions to those problems.

Mr. Peter Tabuns (Toronto—Danforth): It's my pleasure to speak in support of the resolution put forward by my colleague Mr. Ferreira.

It's interesting to look at this whole issue from two angles. One is what I will refer to as fun with environmental assessments. The other is the whole question of transportation and the need for transit—adequately funded, properly planned, put-in-place-on-time transit.

First, in terms of fun with environmental assessments, this environmental assessment that Mr. Ferreira's motion refers to is one that seems to keep getting put off. It was certainly my understanding at the end of last year that this environmental assessment would be announced in February. Then the by-election came down and that date for the environmental assessment was pushed off. We have a provincial election coming on. It may well be that it's pushed off again. Clearly, this is a hot issue.

But it isn't just this issue where environmental assessments have been pushed off. The integrated power supply plan—the Minister of the Environment exempted one of the largest decisions Ontario is ever going to make in its history from a full environmental assessment, so that the decisions that will have to be made in as intelligent and rational and environmentally friendly a way as possible will be deprived of the forum that in fact the decision should take place in. I see that decision around the power supply plan being solely politically driven, and the same in this case; I see another politically driven decision.

In my riding, on the Portlands Energy Centre, which was proposed starting at the end of 2003, we in our community asked for an environmental assessment. We were told that, no, it was impossible; the time was too short. But lo and behold, in the initial RFP process, the Portlands Energy Centre failed to make the cut and then it was another nine months to a year before a decision was made to go ahead—nine months to a year, when in fact an environmental assessment could have been held and frankly, in my opinion, a decision could have been rejected that will be seen to be a problem for the long term for this city.

So those are two significant areas where environmental assessments have been pushed aside when they were needed, and yet again we have another. There is an environmental assessment. It was done, completed in 1994. The facts at hand, the arguments that were made, are all on the record. What remains, given the transit crunch that we have in this city, in this region, is to proceed with the environmental assessment and not have us knocked off kilter, not have us knocked off track, as it were, by this Blue22 proposal, which frankly is, on the face of it, very questionable.

If it's going to have an assessment, by all means convene an assessment and get rolling on it. But we have an assessment on the GO trains already in place; we have a need already there. We need to move forward.

I was in estimates over the last few days. As part of the estimates, we were looking at the transportation needs in the greater Toronto area. The Neptis Foundation, in 2002, did a study of transit needs in the GTA, a study of transportation issues in the GTA, in the period 2000 to 2031. On a business-as-usual basis, assuming that the way we've continued to approach things over the last decade will continue on into the future, they show a very dramatic increase in greenhouse gas emissions in this region over the next 25 years. As we all know, we're looking at dramatically increased travel times—another way of putting that is dramatically slower travel times—for people in this region.

We need the GO Transit to go ahead. Blue22 is not going to address those key issues. Ms. Savoline addressed that, the fact that we're looking at a spread-out demand for access to the airport. If we have a route to the airport and a rail route, and a rail route makes sense to me, let's have an environmental assessment. Let's look at multiple options. Let's look at one that has the best impact in terms of benefit for the environment and benefit for the population as a whole.

Let's not hold this community in suspense forever, saying to them, "Well, after the next election we'll get around to the environmental assessment. No, after the next election we'll get around to the environmental assessment." It doesn't make sense.

I understand that there is an interest on the part of the proponent to have their assessment bundled in with GO train assessment. Obviously, you get to surf on, to ride on, the shoulders of a project that already has approvals, support, and analysis that shows that it's useful and makes sense. So why not try to ride on those coattails?

Let's adopt the resolution that's been put forward by my colleague. Let's make sure that those GO trains get built, get put in place. We've already heard people speak this morning about the need for the existing transit. Let's put them in place and let's go forward.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The member for York South—Weston.

Mr. Ferreira: Mr. Speaker, I will use the remainder of our time and then wrap up with my two-minute summation.

I want to use the next few minutes to respond to some of the very thoughtful comments that were made by members from across the greater Toronto area. We heard from the members from Brampton Centre, Burlington, Trinity—Spadina, Mississauga West, Halton and Toronto—Danforth. I think it's quite evident that we all believe there must be greater investment in public transit across the region of greater Toronto. In fact, there is tremendous economic benefit to be gained by investing in public transit. We know the negative effect that gridlock has on our economic development, on the economic standing of our region, and we know the positive impact that investment in real public transit can have.

The member from Brampton Centre acknowledged in her very thoughtful comments the tremendous growth—I believe her word was "exponential"—that she has seen in the need for and the use of GO Transit services in her community of Brampton, a community that I grew up in. As she well knows, by having the Blue22 proposal bundled in with the GO Transit expansion plans on the Georgetown line, what we've seen is unnecessary delay.

The public has been in an uproar over the possibility of private trains—publicly subsidized to the tune of almost $1 billion—running through their community without stopping in that community, without leaving any tangible benefit behind in that community except for diesel fumes. And that's not acceptable to the people of my community. That's why they have been so concerned about this issue and why they have come out in such large numbers. It's also why we are seeing this unnecessary delay in expanding service along that line.

This leads me to my response to the member from Mississauga West. His concern was with the words "on a priority basis," and perhaps feeling that I was suggesting that the Georgetown line be bumped ahead of all of the other projects. In fact, expansion plans are under way across the entire GO network, and in some places that expansion is near completion. The unfortunate reality is that along the Georgetown line, because of the bundling with the Blue22, that line and the commuters on that line are being penalized. They're being forced to wait, and we are all ready.

Just on the acceptance of the terms of reference, the TOR document, that has already caused a delay of several months. That document was submitted to the Minister of the Environment late last year, in late November. A response was expected back within six weeks. I outlined the timeline earlier. We were expecting a response in late January; it did not come. We were told a response would come in early February; it did not come then.

We are now in the middle of May and we still have no indication whatsoever on when this government is prepared to act on the terms of reference for the environmental assessment, which is why I say, "Let's take that 1994 assessment, let's pull it off the bookshelf, let's blow the dust off and let's utilize that environmental assessment."

It calls for the added infrastructure of one track along the line. That is all we require to be able to deliver expanded GO train service, not just for the people of York South—Weston in the station in Weston but also to Bramalea, Malton, Etobicoke North, Brampton and further into Halton, into Georgetown, into the riding of the member from Halton. That's why this is so important and it's why I think I am about to receive the support of members from all parties on this initiative.

I want to say, before my initial time runs out here, that I know the good work the member from Burlington, who sat on the GO board, did and other GO board members did in raising concerns about how the Blue22 plans would unfairly impact—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: I have to hear the member speak and I'd like your co-operation in doing that.

Mr. Ferreira: I want to thank the member from Burlington for her presentation and her fine work when she served as a member of the GO board in expressing her concerns about Blue22 and its impact on expanded GO service.

The Deputy Speaker: Are you—

Mr. Ferreira: I thought you were going to pause, Mr. Speaker.

I want to close by thanking the people of York South—Weston who have, over the past two and a half years, engaged themselves on this issue. As we know, the various levels of government were trying to sweep this project under the rug. It was initially announced as a federal government initiative in 2000 by then-federal Transport Minister Collenette.

Our community was kept in the dark for almost five years, but when activists in the community raised this issue and brought it forward to the community, the community rallied like I have never seen it rally before. We had meetings where thousands of local residents came and expressed their opinion, and they applied a little bit of political pressure. That's why we now have a full-fledged environmental assessment process.

It's also why we have a government now that is trying to avoid dealing with this issue. They've had a number of months to deal with it. All indications are that they may decide this is too hot a political potato to deal with anytime soon, and that means perhaps after October 10. They may not have the chance to deal with it after October 10, and the unfortunate result is that the people who need the Georgetown GO service to be expanded will be forced to wait and wait and wait.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

MINING TAX

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall first deal with ballot item number 8, standing in the name of Mr. Hardeman.

Mr. Hardeman has moved private member's notice of motion number 64. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will call in the members after dealing with the next item.

GO TRANSIT

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall now deal with ballot item number 9, standing in the name of Mr. Ferreira.

Mr. Ferreira has moved private member's notice of motion number 61. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. It's carried.

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

The division bells rang from 1205 to 1210.

MINING TAX

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Hardeman has moved private member's notice of motion number 64. All those in favour, please stand.

Ayes

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please stand.

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 21; the nays are 24.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been dealt with, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1212 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Members' statements.

Failure of sound system.

The Speaker: The microphones are down. We will recess for 10 minutes.

The House recessed from 1333 to 1344.

The Speaker: I thank members for their patience. We will start again. The member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

PREMIER'S SPENDING

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke): We learned today through a freedom of information request that Premier McGuinty has used government aircraft flights costing $1 million since taking office, while only claiming $2,913 in air travel. Air McGuinty funnels all these other flights through the MNR, thereby avoiding the need to account for their cost. It is no wonder the Minister of Natural Resources has ordered conservation officers to stay in their offices and out of the field. He is spending a good part of his budget keeping his boss above the clouds and beyond the reach of public accounts.

The records further show that many of these flights, at exorbitant cost to the taxpayer, were for nothing more than partisan photo ops to spread the Liberal message. What the people haven't been told in the latest story of Liberal disregard for taxpayers' money is that when the Premier flies high, his entire entourage of security people also travel by ground. That's right. His fleet of SUVs, with the full complement of security officers, drive to meet him at the airport, take him to his photo op, drive him back to the airport and then return to Queen's Park. Of course, he will also have the remaining SUVs in the fleet take him to the airport in Toronto and pick him up when he returns.

I feel that it is high time—no pun intended—that the true cost of the Premier's travel be made public, just as it is for other members of the Legislature. This would be in keeping with the practice in other provinces. The people have a right to know just how much it costs them for a Dalton McGuinty photo op.

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Under standing order

section VI, "Rules of Debate": "In debate, a member shall be called to order by the Speaker if he or she ... (

h) makes allegations against another member." I was listening very carefully, twice now, to the member's comments, and a couple of the comments—not all of them, but a couple of them—made an allegation of impropriety regarding party politics versus his business. I would think that allegation is not acceptable.

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): To that point of order, Speaker: With all due respect to you and to the government whip, this effort to merely censor members doesn't constitute a point of order. In fact, this whole business of rising on phony points of order should be sanctioned by the Speaker to protect us from the technique, the tactic of this being used during speech-making, for instance, during debate, to cut into opposition members' legitimate time slots, be they the one-hour time slots or the 20-minute time slots. These are phony points of order. They shouldn't be tolerated.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): On the same point of order? The member for Brant.

Mr. Levac: While I appreciate the member for Niagara Centre's comments on that, I will make it perfectly clear that I did wait until the member was finished. I also was going to wait until after the entire

section so I could bring this up.

But to say this is a phony point of order—it's not, because I am making reference to a specific comment made in the member's statement. The specific comment the member made was allegations of party politics versus his business time. His reference was an allegation that would be subject to Integrity Commissioner response. So I would say this is a very serious allegation and I would say this is a serious point of order to be made.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins—James Bay): Further on that point of order, Mr. Speaker, you know I'm not normally one to get up on points of order, but on that one I've got to make the following point: There have been a number of times now, two or three that I can recall in the last week or so, where the government whip has gotten up on similar points of order, trying to limit the ability of opposition members to do their jobs and point out issues that are maybe sometimes seen negatively by the public.

We know that the tenet of Parliament works this way: The government has the right to introduce legislation and, in the end, as a majority government, has the right to pass legislation by right of their majority. But this speaks to the right of the opposition. The opposition in the British Parliamentary system has a very important role, and that is to keep an eye on the government and to make sure that the government is looked at through the scrutiny of the opposition, through the standing orders.

I would point out that when we bring school groups into this chamber to see what we do here, we always point out, if you take a look up at the other end, that you have the owl on the opposition side of the benches to keep an eye on the government. For the whip to say that this member was doing something beyond what's allowed in the standing orders is, quite frankly, shameful and regrettable, and I hope he withdraws.

The Speaker: I appreciate the comments on the point of order raised by the chief government whip and the members for Niagara Centre and Timmins—James Bay. In listening carefully to the remarks made by the member from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I did not detect the fact that he may have gone across the line. I will have a look in Hansard later to see if that's true, but on the face of it, I did not believe that to be true.

Secondly, to points of order: Points of order are always in order and can easily be done in a period where we have 90 seconds for each member to make their statement. No one lost any time. No one was interrupted. It seems to me that that's fair to members on all sides. But I would caution members that we need to not only respect the words in the standing orders and our precedents and practices, but to respect the intent of those very same traditions that we have. So on all sides, I ask for your co-operation as we move forward to the next statement.

Mr. Yakabuski: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want to thank you for your intervention and your ruling. I appreciate that.

WOMEN'S SHELTERS

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I'm pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the nearly $1-million investment made by the McGuinty government for a women's shelter in Peterborough. The YWCA of Peterborough, Victoria and Haliburton will use these funds to build, renovate, maintain and repair a shelter facility that supports women and their children fleeing domestic violence.

I would like to take a moment to share some of the comments made by Lynn Zimmer, the executive director of the Peterborough, Victoria and Haliburton YWCA. Ms. Zimmer writes:

"This grant has restored our belief in miracles." That's right, Mr. Speaker, "miracles." "Although we've been moving resolutely toward the goal of a new shelter, it has at times seemed like an overwhelming task beset by barriers."

"This marvellous grant suddenly makes everything seem possible. We can imagine success. And the news has already inspired community members to come forward with donations and offers of help."

The McGuinty government firmly believes that the victims of domestic violence deserve all the support we can give them, and that is why this investment is so important to the community of Peterborough.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins—James Bay): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I was just wondering if that announcement was done by way of the Premier with King Air from Sault Ste. Marie, and if that could be shown through the—

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): That's not a point of order.

PREMIER'S SPENDING

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds—Grenville): Today's revelation that Dalton McGuinty is once again misusing taxpayers' dollars should not come as a surprise to anyone. The Liberal re-election team would like to portray Mr. McGuinty as average Joe Citizen, but his lifestyle since becoming Premier belies that. How many average Joes can spend $1 million of someone else's money flying around the province for photo ops or to avoid gridlock on GTA highways? How many average Joes live in a tony Toronto neighbourhood in a taxpayer-subsidized mansion? How many average Joes require 10 OPP vehicles for security purposes, at taxpayers' expense? How many average Joes pay $75 for a haircut?

Once upon a time, Dalton McGuinty may have been an average Joe, but his elevation to the Premier's office brought with it taxpayer-paid temptations that he has been unable to resist. This is a presidential Premier, another Liberal who believes he is entitled to his entitlements. Come October 10, the real average Joes, many of whom have lost their good jobs under Dalton's watch, will say "Enough abuse of our money" and show him the door.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mr. Peter Tabuns (Toronto—Danforth): Community mobilization against the possible third Toronto hydro line has triggered a series of interesting reactions on the part of the Minister of Energy and his staff in a bid to downplay this potential spinoff consequence of the Liberals' approach to electricity planning. In the wake of the first community meeting on the issue, ministry staff said that Pape Avenue was no longer a possible site for a transmission corridor. But, upon further questioning, they would not rule out the possibility of a potential route coming through other east end locations.

The Minister of Energy, in his latest effort to downplay the potential corridor, has mused about conservation and efficiency as a possible means to address Toronto's electricity security rather than another transmission line. This is an approach that the mayor, a number of city councillors, local residents and sustainable-energy experts have long pressed for, but it's missing in the government's electricity plan directives what shape that Toronto's electricity-use patterns are going to be. Different analyses on the government's electricity strategy released last year conclude that it underutilizes demand re