I'm pleased to take the question. I've had the opportunity to make reference to this before, but I think it bears repetition. Since 2003, when we first earned the privilege of serving Ontarians in government, we have increased hospital funding by 42%. I think that contrasts with cost of living increases of 11%. That represents a dramatic infusion of new dollars into our health care system, because they were absolutely needed.

I want to assure all the people who work inside and dedicate themselves to patients, in our hospitals and through their various services, that we will, through this budget, notwitHSTanding our difficult challenges, find a way to increase funding yet again. That's the truth. We've always increased funding for our hospitals. We will find a way to do that again.

I know that my honourable colleague wants, at some point in time, to make a reference to the personal income tax cuts that kicked in on the first of January of this year. I think that's important. It gives a fuller picture of our package of tax reforms.

Also, I want to draw my friend's attention, once again, to the study of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. I don't think that the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives speaks for Mike Harris, although my honourable colleague may think so. They said that, in particular-they put out a study, and I'm just going to reference the name of this study: Not a Tax Grab After All: A Second Look at Ontario's HST. I would strongly recommend this study, again, to my colleague, from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Again, just a few facts: Almost 10,000 new nursing positions have been created in Ontario since 2003. I mentioned before that hospital funding has gone up by 42%; that's $4.6 billion.

Again, referencing this report that my honourable colleague refuses to acknowledge- Not a Tax Grab After All-it says, in part, "The central question of this paper ... was what effect the new tax package would have on the poor. More precisely, given that a political decision was made to move to a HST system did the Ontario government design this properly to protect the interests of the poor?" Answer: "In general, our answer would be in the affirmative.

"The interests of the poor are relatively well protected in this set of measures." Again, I reference this study to my colleague.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

We have, I think it's about $4.5 billion for business tax cuts, but we have over $10 billion for personal tax cuts.

Again, I would reference my colleagues who believe that Mike Harris is somehow, today, working for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives-that he's in fact not doing that, and that there's a lot of support, notwitHSTanding the fact that my friends resent this, for our package of tax reforms from the left, from economists who are generally seen to be on the left, from food banks and from poverty organizations who understand that, fundamentally, this about improving the lot in life of our least fortunate in the province of Ontario.

It's a balanced, thoughtful, moderate, progressive package of tax reforms to help people and to help our economy.

I'm pleased to take the question. I've had the opportunity to make reference to this before, but I think it bears repetition. Since 2003, when we first earned the privilege of serving Ontarians in government, we have increased hospital funding by 42%. I think that contrasts with cost of living increases of 11%. That represents a dramatic infusion of new dollars into our health care system, because they were absolutely needed.

I want to assure all the people who work inside and dedicate themselves to patients, in our hospitals and through their various services, that we will, through this budget, notwitHSTanding our difficult challenges, find a way to increase funding yet again. That's the truth. We've always increased funding for our hospitals. We will find a way to do that again.

I know that my honourable colleague wants, at some point in time, to make a reference to the personal income tax cuts that kicked in on the first of January of this year. I think that's important. It gives a fuller picture of our package of tax reforms.

Also, I want to draw my friend's attention, once again, to the study of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. I don't think that the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives speaks for Mike Harris, although my honourable colleague may think so. They said that, in particular-they put out a study, and I'm just going to reference the name of this study: Not a Tax Grab After All: A Second Look at Ontario's HST. I would strongly recommend this study, again, to my colleague, from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Again, just a few facts: Almost 10,000 new nursing positions have been created in Ontario since 2003. I mentioned before that hospital funding has gone up by 42%; that's $4.6 billion.

Again, referencing this report that my honourable colleague refuses to acknowledge- Not a Tax Grab After All-it says, in part, "The central question of this paper ... was what effect the new tax package would have on the poor. More precisely, given that a political decision was made to move to a HST system did the Ontario government design this properly to protect the interests of the poor?" Answer: "In general, our answer would be in the affirmative.

"The interests of the poor are relatively well protected in this set of measures." Again, I reference this study to my colleague.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

We have, I think it's about $4.5 billion for business tax cuts, but we have over $10 billion for personal tax cuts.

Again, I would reference my colleagues who believe that Mike Harris is somehow, today, working for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives-that he's in fact not doing that, and that there's a lot of support, notwitHSTanding the fact that my friends resent this, for our package of tax reforms from the left, from economists who are generally seen to be on the left, from food banks and from poverty organizations who understand that, fundamentally, this about improving the lot in life of our least fortunate in the province of Ontario.

It's a balanced, thoughtful, moderate, progressive package of tax reforms to help people and to help our economy.

Now, my colleagues don't appreciate Dr. Mintz, but I would then instead refer them to a report prepared by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, and I think the title says it all. It says, Not a Tax Grab After All: A Second Look at Ontario's HST. I would strongly recommend both of those reports to my honourable colleagues. Our tax reforms, in fact, cost the treasury billions of dollars over the first two years.

This is about investing in our families; it's about investing in jobs; it is about investing in a bright future.

I am confident that over time, all the provinces will move towards this. It's not an easy thing to do. If it were easy, then the Bob Rae government would have done it or the Mike Harris government would have done it. That's why we've had the advice of federal Liberals, federal Conservatives and former Premier Mike Harris, for example, to move ahead with this kind of package.

What's enabled us to do this, particularly at this time, is the $4.3 billion we received from the federal government in support of our move-money which will be passed on directly to Ontarians, and small businesses, as well, to help them make the necessary change to adopt the HST practice in their workplace.

It's high time that we got on with this. We're proud of this initiative. It's not an easy initiative, we understand that, but it's all about 600,000 more jobs for Ontarians.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TAXATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1100

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

I will say that my honourable colleague has been very consistent in her opposition to the HST. But I would also add, in all humility, that beyond opposing, my colleague has a responsibility to propose. We have a plan on the table. It's not an easy plan to execute. There is some controversy connected with it and some resistance in some quarters. I understand that, I accept that and I respect that, but it's a plan to create 600,000 jobs. If my honourable colleague has another plan that she has been hiding of some kind to create 600,000 more jobs over the course of the next 10 years, then we'd love to hear about that, we'd love to learn something more about that, we'd love to be able to debate that and to share that with the people of Ontario. Until she does, I would argue that she lacks a certain amount of moral authority when it comes to putting forward opposition to our plan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TAXATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1100

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

I will say that my honourable colleague has been very consistent in her opposition to the HST. But I would also add, in all humility, that beyond opposing, my colleague has a responsibility to propose. We have a plan on the table. It's not an easy plan to execute. There is some controversy connected with it and some resistance in some quarters. I understand that, I accept that and I respect that, but it's a plan to create 600,000 jobs. If my honourable colleague has another plan that she has been hiding of some kind to create 600,000 more jobs over the course of the next 10 years, then we'd love to hear about that, we'd love to learn something more about that, we'd love to be able to debate that and to share that with the people of Ontario. Until she does, I would argue that she lacks a certain amount of moral authority when it comes to putting forward opposition to our plan.

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

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

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

Again, if my honourable colleague is questioning our commitment to move ahead with this package of tax reforms, then he's wasting time. I think the real question that weighs heavily on the minds of Ontarians is: If my honourable colleague is so adamantly opposed to our package of tax reform, then why won't he, at a minimum, send a letter to the Minister of Finance in the federal government asking him to put a stop to the HST? Why will he, more importantly, not stand up in this Legislature and say that, should he earn the privilege of serving Ontarians as their Premier, he will put a stop to the HST immediately?

He won't say that. He won't send that letter because he believes in the HST. He believes in our plan.

Interjections.

I think Ontarians would be interested in knowing why the leader of the official opposition is not in fact prepared to repeal the HST. It's because he understands that while it's in place in 130 other countries and four of the provinces, at no time and in no way have any of those jurisdictions repealed it.

He knows that it's a plan to create 600,000 more jobs, and he's without a plan of his own when it comes to creating 600,000 more jobs for Ontarians. He knows it's a plan that's going to cut taxes for Ontarians and for our businesses so that they can grow stronger, especially our manufacturing sector. He also knows that there are so many different economists on both sides of the spectrum, business groups and poverty groups that have built a very strong consensus around the need for us to find a way to move forward and embrace our future. He knows that the position he adopts right now is one of clinging to the past. He knows that the responsibility of leadership is to build a bright and promising future. He knows, more than anything else, this is-

My honourable colleague may not know that so far, in government, we have together hosted over 160 different opportunities to meet with Ontarians, as distinct from fundraisers. We do fundraisers, and so do the opposition. But there have been 160, and more, opportunities that we put in place to meet with Ontarians, to consult with them and hear from them on this.

One of the questions that comes back to us time and time again is, if the official opposition remains so very much opposed to the HST, then why won't they commit to repealing it? I can't answer that question for Ontarians, but I'm sure that my honourable colleague would want to do that right now.

That's just silly; I can't think of a more apt word.

I want to bring to the attention of my colleague something he has been saying in the last few months, even: "To be clear, I believe that there's little sense in allowing two separate governments to apply two separate sets of taxes and policies and to collect two separate groups of sales taxes." He also said, "In the manufacturing sector, the problem with the PST is it cascades, so every step along the way there's a tax on tax on tax, which raises the cost of goods and particularly punishes exporters. So we understand how [a harmonized sales tax] can help the economy."

Again, we're wondering: If he's so adamantly opposed to this particular initiative of the HST, why did he support it just until recently and why does he refuse to repeal it?

I'm confident that the government of Canada will respect the wishes of the people of Ontario as expressed through their duly elected provincial legislature. I have confidence in that.

Rather than speculate on that, let's talk about the facts: 140 countries and four provinces have already adopted the HST or a VAT, and nobody has ever reversed it, including the NDP in Nova Scotia. They're not going to reverse it, because it works; it strengthens the economy. Here's another fact: When they brought the HST into the Maritimes, it led to a 12% increase in business investment, which we think is very important. Here's another fact: Economists from the right and the left endorse our plan-I wish my honourable colleague would acknowledge that. As well, poverty groups and business groups have endorsed our plan. It's a solid plan, and we are looking to moving forward with it.

I am pleased to get the question on behalf of that particular individual, who I believe is a single mum. Let me tell you about some of the things that we're doing to help Ontarians. In addition to cutting taxes for 93% of Ontarians, 2.9 million families and individuals are going to get our new annual, permanent tax credit-$260 per person. There are also transition payments that we have in place. For the typical family, it's $1,000; for the typical individual, it's $300.

Beyond that, taxes will not change for 83% of consumer purchases, notwitHSTanding the bleak picture that my honourable colleague continues to paint. We have been very deliberate in ensuring that we are fair to Ontarians, but particularly to those in the low-income levels so that they in fact come out ahead as a result of our package of tax reforms.

This is something that we have sadly come to expect now of the official opposition. I think, as I like to say, the facts are not unimportant. There is a distinction between a fundraiser-we host fundraisers and they host fundraisers. Those are not dirty things; those are important things to support a strong democracy. Above and beyond that, we have in fact collectively hosted over 160 separate meetings with various groups right across the province, open to the public, in order to engage Ontarians in a conversation about our package of tax reforms, including the HST. My honourable colleagues opposite know that. I just wish they would admit it.

Again, if my honourable colleague is questioning our commitment to move ahead with this package of tax reforms, then he's wasting time. I think the real question that weighs heavily on the minds of Ontarians is: If my honourable colleague is so adamantly opposed to our package of tax reform, then why won't he, at a minimum, send a letter to the Minister of Finance in the federal government asking him to put a stop to the HST? Why will he, more importantly, not stand up in this Legislature and say that, should he earn the privilege of serving Ontarians as their Premier, he will put a stop to the HST immediately?

He won't say that. He won't send that letter because he believes in the HST. He believes in our plan.

Interjections.

I think Ontarians would be interested in knowing why the leader of the official opposition is not in fact prepared to repeal the HST. It's because he understands that while it's in place in 130 other countries and four of the provinces, at no time and in no way have any of those jurisdictions repealed it.

He knows that it's a plan to create 600,000 more jobs, and he's without a plan of his own when it comes to creating 600,000 more jobs for Ontarians. He knows it's a plan that's going to cut taxes for Ontarians and for our businesses so that they can grow stronger, especially our manufacturing sector. He also knows that there are so many different economists on both sides of the spectrum, business groups and poverty groups that have built a very strong consensus around the need for us to find a way to move forward and embrace our future. He knows that the position he adopts right now is one of clinging to the past. He knows that the responsibility of leadership is to build a bright and promising future. He knows, more than anything else, this is-

My honourable colleague may not know that so far, in government, we have together hosted over 160 different opportunities to meet with Ontarians, as distinct from fundraisers. We do fundraisers, and so do the opposition. But there have been 160, and more, opportunities that we put in place to meet with Ontarians, to consult with them and hear from them on this.

One of the questions that comes back to us time and time again is, if the official opposition remains so very much opposed to the HST, then why won't they commit to repealing it? I can't answer that question for Ontarians, but I'm sure that my honourable colleague would want to do that right now.

That's just silly; I can't think of a more apt word.

I want to bring to the attention of my colleague something he has been saying in the last few months, even: "To be clear, I believe that there's little sense in allowing two separate governments to apply two separate sets of taxes and policies and to collect two separate groups of sales taxes." He also said, "In the manufacturing sector, the problem with the PST is it cascades, so every step along the way there's a tax on tax on tax, which raises the cost of goods and particularly punishes exporters. So we understand how [a harmonized sales tax] can help the economy."

Again, we're wondering: If he's so adamantly opposed to this particular initiative of the HST, why did he support it just until recently and why does he refuse to repeal it?

I'm confident that the government of Canada will respect the wishes of the people of Ontario as expressed through their duly elected provincial legislature. I have confidence in that.

Rather than speculate on that, let's talk about the facts: 140 countries and four provinces have already adopted the HST or a VAT, and nobody has ever reversed it, including the NDP in Nova Scotia. They're not going to reverse it, because it works; it strengthens the economy. Here's another fact: When they brought the HST into the Maritimes, it led to a 12% increase in business investment, which we think is very important. Here's another fact: Economists from the right and the left endorse our plan-I wish my honourable colleague would acknowledge that. As well, poverty groups and business groups have endorsed our plan. It's a solid plan, and we are looking to moving forward with it.

I am pleased to get the question on behalf of that particular individual, who I believe is a single mum. Let me tell you about some of the things that we're doing to help Ontarians. In addition to cutting taxes for 93% of Ontarians, 2.9 million families and individuals are going to get our new annual, permanent tax credit-$260 per person. There are also transition payments that we have in place. For the typical family, it's $1,000; for the typical individual, it's $300.

Beyond that, taxes will not change for 83% of consumer purchases, notwitHSTanding the bleak picture that my honourable colleague continues to paint. We have been very deliberate in ensuring that we are fair to Ontarians, but particularly to those in the low-income levels so that they in fact come out ahead as a result of our package of tax reforms.

This is something that we have sadly come to expect now of the official opposition. I think, as I like to say, the facts are not unimportant. There is a distinction between a fundraiser-we host fundraisers and they host fundraisers. Those are not dirty things; those are important things to support a strong democracy. Above and beyond that, we have in fact collectively hosted over 160 separate meetings with various groups right across the province, open to the public, in order to engage Ontarians in a conversation about our package of tax reforms, including the HST. My honourable colleagues opposite know that. I just wish they would admit it.

Let's hear what else my honourable colleague has said about the HST in the past. In March of this year, he said the following: "In the manufacturing sector, the problem with the PST is it cascades, so every step along the way there's a tax on tax on tax, which raises the cost of goods and particularly punishes exporters. So we understand how [a harmonized sales tax] can help the economy." He was right then; he is wrong today.

Dr. Jack Mintz has specifically said that moving ahead with a package of tax reforms will create nearly 600,000 more jobs. At the end of the day, this is a debate about creating 600,000 more jobs for Ontarians. We're for that. They remain against that.

I sense a greater intimacy with the NDP these days.

Let me just say that we are very much looking forward to moving ahead with this initiative, and I think it's important to understand it in its entirety. We're talking about reducing personal income taxes. We're talking about reducing corporate income taxes for our largest businesses. We're talking about reducing taxes for our small businesses as well. In fact, we're talking about putting in place a support package for small businesses to help them in their transition to the HST. We're talking about, in the end, creating nearly 600,000 more jobs for Ontarians.

I think that when all is said and done, there is nothing to which we attach greater value today, in the face of a global recession, than a job creation strategy. That's fundamentally what this is all about. I know that the NDP in fact support anything that we can do to create more jobs for Ontarians.

1050

We look forward to moving ahead with this initiative because we believe it's the right thing to do. There's an important section to be found in Roger Martin's latest report, his eighth annual report, and I'd refer my colleague to page 50. It's called "Most HST myths do not stand up to scrutiny." Under the column of myths, which are rebutted in here, and I recommend it to my colleague, myths include:

"-increases prices paid by consumers;

"-is an excuse for producers and service providers to gouge consumers;

"-raises costs for small businesses;

"-hurts lower-income Ontarians;

"-is a tax grab;

"-is `business friendly';

"-should be delayed until the recovery is under way."

Each and every one of those myths is effectively rebutted on that page and I would strongly recommend that to my colleague, on page 50 of the latest competitiveness and productivity report.

I know we've spent a lot of time talking about the HST, and that's important, but there are other aspects to our package of tax reforms that are worthy of consideration as well. I only wish that my honourable colleague would draw the public's attention to those from time to time. Those include the following: 93% of Ontarians will get a permanent personal income tax cut; 2.9 million families and individuals will get a new annual tax credit of $260 per person. That is permanent. Additionally, there are transition payments: $1,000 for the typical family and $300 for the typical individual. Taxes won't change for 83% of consumer purchases.

Those are all dimensions to our package of tax reforms that my honourable colleague has not referenced in her attacks on the HST. Having said that, this comes down to 600,000 more jobs for Ontario families. I can't think of anything more important than us coming together to stand up for those 600,000 jobs.

I've got good news for the people of Hamilton on a number of fronts. I had the opportunity recently to speak with the mayor of Hamilton, and I congratulated him for the support he gave us in landing the Pan Am Games. That's going to result, in the city of Hamilton alone, in a new swimming pool at McMaster University, a new stadium and a velodrome, which will be the best of its kind in northeast America.

Why is that important to the people of Hamilton? Because it means jobs, jobs and jobs. We're talking over $200 million in infrastructure investment, with a deadline. It's got to be done by 2015.

On top of that, we're going to move ahead with a package of tax reforms that will create some 591,000 more jobs. My honourable colleague knows that the HST in particular will benefit our manufacturers, and if there's a community in Ontario which is heavily dependent on manufacturing, it is the city and the people of Hamilton. That's one more reason for us to work together to move ahead with this package of tax reforms.

My honourable colleague is well aware that Hamilton, like Ontario, like Canada, like North America, has not been sheltered from the terrible consequences of a global economic recession. It has affected all of us. But we have done a few things to help. For one thing, every single year we keep increasing the rates of social assistance. We've also accelerated the Ontario child benefit so that it is there for parents in our low-income families in a more meaningful way. Beyond that, of course, we are moving ahead with a package of tax reforms which are designed, centrally, to create more jobs.

If you ask the people of Hamilton, ask the mayor of Hamilton and ask Hamilton city council what it is that they need in their city, they will tell you that they want a stronger economy that creates more jobs. That is what we're all about. That was what the Pan Am bid was all about. That's what our HST package is all about. It's about creating more jobs for the people of Hamilton and, indeed, all the people of Ontario.

HEALTH CARE

Let's hear what else my honourable colleague has said about the HST in the past. In March of this year, he said the following: "In the manufacturing sector, the problem with the PST is it cascades, so every step along the way there's a tax on tax on tax, which raises the cost of goods and particularly punishes exporters. So we understand how [a harmonized sales tax] can help the economy." He was right then; he is wrong today.

Dr. Jack Mintz has specifically said that moving ahead with a package of tax reforms will create nearly 600,000 more jobs. At the end of the day, this is a debate about creating 600,000 more jobs for Ontarians. We're for that. They remain against that.

I sense a greater intimacy with the NDP these days.

Let me just say that we are very much looking forward to moving ahead with this initiative, and I think it's important to understand it in its entirety. We're talking about reducing personal income taxes. We're talking about reducing corporate income taxes for our largest businesses. We're talking about reducing taxes for our small businesses as well. In fact, we're talking about putting in place a support package for small businesses to help them in their transition to the HST. We're talking about, in the end, creating nearly 600,000 more jobs for Ontarians.

I think that when all is said and done, there is nothing to which we attach greater value today, in the face of a global recession, than a job creation strategy. That's fundamentally what this is all about. I know that the NDP in fact support anything that we can do to create more jobs for Ontarians.

1050

We look forward to moving ahead with this initiative because we believe it's the right thing to do. There's an important section to be found in Roger Martin's latest report, his eighth annual report, and I'd refer my colleague to page 50. It's called "Most HST myths do not stand up to scrutiny." Under the column of myths, which are rebutted in here, and I recommend it to my colleague, myths include:

"-increases prices paid by consumers;

"-is an excuse for producers and service providers to gouge consumers;

"-raises costs for small businesses;

"-hurts lower-income Ontarians;

"-is a tax grab;

"-is `business friendly';

"-should be delayed until the recovery is under way."

Each and every one of those myths is effectively rebutted on that page and I would strongly recommend that to my colleague, on page 50 of the latest competitiveness and productivity report.

I know we've spent a lot of time talking about the HST, and that's important, but there are other aspects to our package of tax reforms that are worthy of consideration as well. I only wish that my honourable colleague would draw the public's attention to those from time to time. Those include the following: 93% of Ontarians will get a permanent personal income tax cut; 2.9 million families and individuals will get a new annual tax credit of $260 per person. That is permanent. Additionally, there are transition payments: $1,000 for the typical family and $300 for the typical individual. Taxes won't change for 83% of consumer purchases.

Those are all dimensions to our package of tax reforms that my honourable colleague has not referenced in her attacks on the HST. Having said that, this comes down to 600,000 more jobs for Ontario families. I can't think of anything more important than us coming together to stand up for those 600,000 jobs.

I've got good news for the people of Hamilton on a number of fronts. I had the opportunity recently to speak with the mayor of Hamilton, and I congratulated him for the support he gave us in landing the Pan Am Games. That's going to result, in the city of Hamilton alone, in a new swimming pool at McMaster University, a new stadium and a velodrome, which will be the best of its kind in northeast America.

Why is that important to the people of Hamilton? Because it means jobs, jobs and jobs. We're talking over $200 million in infrastructure investment, with a deadline. It's got to be done by 2015.

On top of that, we're going to move ahead with a package of tax reforms that will create some 591,000 more jobs. My honourable colleague knows that the HST in particular will benefit our manufacturers, and if there's a community in Ontario which is heavily dependent on manufacturing, it is the city and the people of Hamilton. That's one more reason for us to work together to move ahead with this package of tax reforms.

My honourable colleague is well aware that Hamilton, like Ontario, like Canada, like North America, has not been sheltered from the terrible consequences of a global economic recession. It has affected all of us. But we have done a few things to help. For one thing, every single year we keep increasing the rates of social assistance. We've also accelerated the Ontario child benefit so that it is there for parents in our low-income families in a more meaningful way. Beyond that, of course, we are moving ahead with a package of tax reforms which are designed, centrally, to create more jobs.

If you ask the people of Hamilton, ask the mayor of Hamilton and ask Hamilton city council what it is that they need in their city, they will tell you that they want a stronger economy that creates more jobs. That is what we're all about. That was what the Pan Am bid was all about. That's what our HST package is all about. It's about creating more jobs for the people of Hamilton and, indeed, all the people of Ontario.

HEALTH CARE

I was just running through a lengthy list of what the opposition stands against. It's easy to stand against these kinds of things, although it's sometimes difficult to understand.

They're against the personal income tax cuts. They're against the cuts for big business and small business. They're against the HST. But they have no plan of their own to create a single job, let alone our plan to create 600,000 more jobs for Ontarians.

We have a plan. They have partisanship. I think Ontarians-

Again, I appreciate the representation made by my honourable colleague, but I disagree with her fundamentally in terms of what we need to do together to strengthen this economy and create more jobs. There will be ample opportunity for debate in this House. There will be committee hearings. Members, I expect, will have created opportunities of their own accord in their ridings and around Ontario to make sure that they're hearing from Ontarians.

Beyond that, what it falls down to-and there's no escaping this painful reality. We have a plan. We're putting forward a package of tax reforms. We're cutting personal income taxes. We're cutting taxes for small business. We're cutting taxes for big business. We're going ahead with the HST. We're going to create 600,000 more jobs than we otherwise would have under the existing system. That's our plan. We're proud of that plan. On behalf of Ontarians, I ask the opposition: Where's your plan?

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

I was just running through a lengthy list of what the opposition stands against. It's easy to stand against these kinds of things, although it's sometimes difficult to understand.

They're against the personal income tax cuts. They're against the cuts for big business and small business. They're against the HST. But they have no plan of their own to create a single job, let alone our plan to create 600,000 more jobs for Ontarians.

We have a plan. They have partisanship. I think Ontarians-

Again, I appreciate the representation made by my honourable colleague, but I disagree with her fundamentally in terms of what we need to do together to strengthen this economy and create more jobs. There will be ample opportunity for debate in this House. There will be committee hearings. Members, I expect, will have created opportunities of their own accord in their ridings and around Ontario to make sure that they're hearing from Ontarians.

Beyond that, what it falls down to-and there's no escaping this painful reality. We have a plan. We're putting forward a package of tax reforms. We're cutting personal income taxes. We're cutting taxes for small business. We're cutting taxes for big business. We're going ahead with the HST. We're going to create 600,000 more jobs than we otherwise would have under the existing system. That's our plan. We're proud of that plan. On behalf of Ontarians, I ask the opposition: Where's your plan?

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

I fully expect that my honourable colleague will do a very good job at making those kinds of representations day in and day out in the House. What I believe Ontarians are looking for are just a few more ideas on the part of the opposition. We have worked hard and, I would argue, well in government to come forward with a package of tax reforms that involve tax cuts for individuals, small businesses and our larger corporations and moving forward with the HST. We know that will create 600,000 more jobs.

The opposition says that they are against these reforms. What we don't know is what they are for. If they have a package of reforms that they can guarantee will create 600,000 more jobs during the course of the next 10 years, then we would love to hear that, but to this point in time we've heard no such ideas, no such proposals and no such policies. We have a solid idea. We're moving forward on behalf of Ontarians.

TAXATION

The purpose of the Green Energy Act, as you well know because we stated this in the Legislature many times over, is to create new jobs. In fact, our commitment is to create 50,000 jobs in the next three years in domestic manufacturing and assembly, architecture, construction, trucking, servicing and installation, financing, engineering, electricians, inspectors and computer software and hardware.

My honourable colleague tells us that he's somehow concerned about the implication this will have for domestic business. The single most important thing that we can do to strengthen this economy and create jobs is to put in place a harmonized sales tax, so I would ask my honourable colleague to stand up and do something that is admittedly difficult for that party, which is to lend their support for the HST in the province of Ontario.

I know it's an old saw for the NDP: "Corporations bad; all corporations bad." I just don't think that washes anymore, especially in an era of globalization.

I think my honourable colleague does understand deep in her heart that it's very important, in a jurisdiction that has an economy that is so export-driven like Ontario, that we ensure that our exporters, particularly our manufacturers, can be competitive in an era of globalization. We have to help them get their costs down. That's what the HST is all about: It's about ensuring that we have a strong manufacturing sector here that can grow and create more jobs.

The very people my honourable colleague purports to stand up for are dependent upon those corporations getting stronger and those businesses getting stronger, growing and creating more jobs. This is about 600,000 more jobs; it's about a bright future.

The purpose of the Green Energy Act, as you well know because we stated this in the Legislature many times over, is to create new jobs. In fact, our commitment is to create 50,000 jobs in the next three years in domestic manufacturing and assembly, architecture, construction, trucking, servicing and installation, financing, engineering, electricians, inspectors and computer software and hardware.

My honourable colleague tells us that he's somehow concerned about the implication this will have for domestic business. The single most important thing that we can do to strengthen this economy and create jobs is to put in place a harmonized sales tax, so I would ask my honourable colleague to stand up and do something that is admittedly difficult for that party, which is to lend their support for the HST in the province of Ontario.

I know it's an old saw for the NDP: "Corporations bad; all corporations bad." I just don't think that washes anymore, especially in an era of globalization.

I think my honourable colleague does understand deep in her heart that it's very important, in a jurisdiction that has an economy that is so export-driven like Ontario, that we ensure that our exporters, particularly our manufacturers, can be competitive in an era of globalization. We have to help them get their costs down. That's what the HST is all about: It's about ensuring that we have a strong manufacturing sector here that can grow and create more jobs.

The very people my honourable colleague purports to stand up for are dependent upon those corporations getting stronger and those businesses getting stronger, growing and creating more jobs. This is about 600,000 more jobs; it's about a bright future.

I assume that "putting people first" is code for public auto insurance. The NDP government in the province of Ontario rejected that- fortunately-for the right reasons. We reject it as well.

With respect to premium increases under the NDP government, it is worth reminding ourselves that they went up 20% in just two years. On our watch, after six years, we are still down about 2% on average. We understand that pressures are growing when it comes to costs in the insurance industry. That's why we brought in a package which I again believe strikes the right balance between consumer choice and affordability. Again, the minimum available package in the province of Ontario is on par with the very best right across the country.

TAXATION
Mrs. Amrit Mangat: My question is to the Minister of Revenue. Two weeks ago, I attended a meeting put together by the Brampton Board of Trade. The groups of businesses at the meeting were made up from various sectors and were all different sizes. There were some businesses at the meeting who had questions about how the HST was going to be implemented. Many businesses are aware of the benefits that harmonization will have for them.

My question is: What will the HST mean for businesses in my riding and across the province?

My honourable colleague and her party are having difficulty accepting the findings of the Provincial Auditor. Again, they don't like to hear this, but it's important to repeat it because they have yet to accept it. The auditor said, "We were aware of the allegations that `party politics' may have entered into the awarding of contracts and that those awarding the contracts may have obtained a personal benefit from the firms getting the work-but we saw no evidence of this during our work." He went on to say, "We saw no evidence of fraud or criminal activity here."

NotwitHSTanding those very specific, explicit and incontrovertible findings-my colleagues opposite, of course, prefer to indulge in political gamesmanship-we choose instead to move ahead with electronic health records for Ontarians. That's where we'll remain focused in terms of our effort.

FLU IMMUNIZATION

I'm just staying home.

I'm always open to suggestions from the honourable member as to any specific approach that he might bring. What I am aware of is that the member would eliminate the Ontario health premium. That would add another $3 billion to the deficit. I don't think that would be a prudent approach.

We are going to take a little bit of time. NotwitHSTanding the member's haste and imprudence, we're going to take a bit of time. We're going to work both internally inside of government and externally and engage Ontarians. We have made it clear that we have three priorities: health care, education and strengthening our economy. If my honourable colleague has any specific suggestions, we would welcome those.

It's up for discussion every day in this House, in businesses and at the breakfast tables of families. I think it's a very important discussion for us to have. To come back to something I said earlier, I think the single most important question that we are charged with answering together is, what do we need to do in order to strengthen our economy? It's different from the question of what we want to do. What do we need to do to build a stronger economy not just for ourselves but for our children and grandchildren? What do we need to do to ensure that we've got the continuing capacity to support our colleges, our universities, our schools, our hospitals, our doctors, our nurses, our police and our firefighters? The foundation for all of that is a strong economy. We're absolutely convinced we've got to move forward with the HST to maintain that fiscal capacity, that economic capacity to enjoy our quality of life and good-quality public services.

1050

I know that with respect to the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, my friend has been gently chided and corrected when it comes to her misinterpretation of the report that they put out, and I think the C.D. Howe may be interested in doing the same kind of thing.

The reason that 130 other countries and four other provinces have moved ahead with a harmonized sales tax, the reason that no subsequent government has ever undone the introduction of the HST, is because it works. It does give an added benefit to our businesses, but especially our manufacturers, who had been up against it even long before this recession had its impact here in Ontario.

This is all about ensuring that our businesses can compete in a globalized economy. It's about ensuring that our products can be introduced into the global economy at a competitive price level. When we're more competitive here, then we can expand our businesses, we can retain existing employees and we can hire still more Ontarians. Fundamentally, that's what this is all about: ensuring we have a strong economy that can continue to hire more and more Ontarians.