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

November 27, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-Nov-27 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 27 November 2008 Jeudi 27 novembre 2008

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COUNTERING DISTRACTED DRIVING

AND PROMOTING GREEN TRANSPORTATION ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 VISANT À COMBATTRE

LA CONDUITE INATTENTIVE

ET À PROMOUVOIR

LES TRANSPORTS ÉCOLOGIQUES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

HOSPITAL FUNDING

VIOLENT CRIME

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

NUCLEAR ENERGY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

CHILD CARE

EDUCATION FUNDING

VIOLENT CRIME

ORDER OF BUSINESS

DEFERRED VOTES

TIME ALLOCATION

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS

TERRORIST ATTACKS

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ROAD SAFETY

HEALTH CARE

HAROLD USHER

UKRAINIAN GENOCIDE

OLYMPIC TORCH RELAY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON ESTIMATES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

IMMIGRATION INFORMATION

IMMIGRATION INFORMATION

IMMIGRATION INFORMATION

PETITIONS

WORKPLACE INSURANCE

TOM LONGBOAT

CAMBRIDGE COURTHOUSE

TOM LONGBOAT

LOGGING ROUTE

EMERGENCY DISPATCH SERVICES

EDUCATION LABOUR DISPUTE

WORKPLACE INSURANCE

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

SMOKE-FREE ONTARIO

AMENDMENT ACT (CIGARILLOS), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA LOI FAVORISANT

UN ONTARIO SANS FUMÉE

(CIGARILLOS)

LAKE SUPERIOR DAY /

JOUR DU LAC SUPÉRIEUR

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES ÉVALUATIONS

ENVIRONNEMENTALES

SMOKE-FREE ONTARIO

AMENDMENT ACT (CIGARILLOS), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA LOI FAVORISANT

UN ONTARIO SANS FUMÉE

(CIGARILLOS)

LAKE SUPERIOR DAY /

JOUR DU LAC SUPÉRIEUR

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES ÉVALUATIONS

ENVIRONNEMENTALES

SMOKE-FREE ONTARIO

AMENDMENT ACT (CIGARILLOS), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA LOI FAVORISANT

UN ONTARIO SANS FUMÉE

(CIGARILLOS)

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COUNTERING DISTRACTED DRIVING

AND PROMOTING GREEN TRANSPORTATION ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 VISANT À COMBATTRE

LA CONDUITE INATTENTIVE

ET À PROMOUVOIR

LES TRANSPORTS ÉCOLOGIQUES

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 25, 2008, on the motion for second reading of Bill 118,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit the use of devices with display screens and hand-held communication and entertainment devices and to amend the Public Vehicles Act with respect to car pool vehicles / Projet de loi 118, Loi modifiant le Code de la route afin d'interdire l'usage d'appareils à écran et d'appareils portatifs de télécommunications et de divertissement et modifiant la

Loi sur les véhicules de transport en commun à l'égard des véhicules de covoiturage.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Further debate?

Mr. Frank Klees: I'm pleased to participate in this debate.

Applause.

Mr. Frank Klees: I want to thank the member for Brant for his applause. He is probably expecting some reciprocal gesture, and I'm sure at the appropriate time he'll receive that.

As the critic for transportation for the official opposition, I'm pleased to make my contribution, but at the outset I want to thank my colleagues who have spoken to this bill already. As a result of their very exhaustive work in terms of bringing issues to the attention of the government, I will say at the outset that I will not repeat all of those points that have been made so very effectively.

I will be sharing my time, Speaker, with my colleague from Renfrew–Nipissing—Pembroke. He will also bring his perspective to the debate.

At the outset let me say that of course, in principle, we are supportive of this bill. I want to give credit to my colleague Mr. O'Toole, who has brought successive private member's legislation before the House. In this bill, Bill 118, the government has essentially incorporated Mr. O'Toole's bill. It's through the work of legislators like Mr. O'Toole, who have persistently, over time, brought this issue to the attention not only of this House, but by virtue of tabling the bill and the debate taking place, that there has been an increase in awareness on the part of the public of the importance of this issue.

I can tell you that I have had a significant volume of correspondence—e-mails and telephone calls—on this bill. Not all of those submissions have been supportive. So what I have said to my constituents and to stakeholders is that we will call on the government to ensure that there is an opportunity for public input, that those individuals who either have concerns with details regarding the legislation or are looking for certain assurances with regard to regulations and how they're structured—that there will be ample opportunity for that kind of input.

We are in second reading debate. It's debate in principle, basically, so when the vote for second reading takes place on this legislation, members of this House are essentially saying, "In principle, we agree with the direction of this legislation." That is not to say that a vote in favour is saying that all aspects of this bill are acceptable to this House or to members of the Legislature. Hopefully, we will have an opportunity, assuming that the government agrees, to have public hearings, at which point in time we will be able to take into consideration those specific recommendations.

I have some of my own that I would like to put forward, and will put forward during those public hearings, to get input from the public in terms of how they feel, as well as stakeholders. I have some questions, for example, for police services in the province. I have some questions as well for various stakeholders, particularly in the commercial trucking industry.

I have one concern that was brought to my attention by a former Minister of Transportation, the former Honourable David Turnbull. He is currently the president and CEO of the Canadian Courier and Logistics Association. He raised a very specific concern with me during a conversation I had with him recently. At the very outset, what I'd like to do—for the benefit of the government, they can be thinking about this issue, an area that we would like to see addressed in regulation—is read into the record some of the concerns that Mr. Turnbull brought to my attention. I will quote from Mr. Turnbull's submission:

"The Canadian Courier and Logistics Association is in support of the proposed aims of the legislation to improve safety on Ontario roads. It is essential, however, that exemptions for certain hand-held wireless communications devices used for logistical purposes to dispatch, track and monitor commercial drivers be incorporated into supporting regulations.

"The courier and messenger industry depends on communications with personnel operating delivery vehicles. Safety concerns are always paramount and the industry has a good safety record as drivers are professionals who are used to operating in varying driving conditions.

"The industry consists of two main components, 'same day' or local messenger service and 'next day' or later delivery. Both segments use hand-held devices of various types.

"'Same day' messengers are dispatched throughout the day and provide a direct point A to point B service. Monitoring the location of a messenger at all times is essential to determine who is the nearest to a requested pickup. This segment utilizes a mix of voice and GPS-enabled communications equipment. Many use hand-held two-way radios which are attached to the vehicle, while some utilize devices such as the units marketed under the brand name 'Mike.' Most require only a one-button press to respond to dispatch calls. As much as possible, dispatch is done while parked.

In fact, most is completed at the point of pickup and delivery while stationary. However, the ability to locate and/or dispatch on the move is essential to the routing procedures both from a competitive and environmental point of view. Response time is of the essence to customers. Environmental responsibility dictates that an already dispatched messenger close to another requested pickup be contacted on the move, eliminating the need for two vehicles.

"From time to time, a direction to a difficult to locate address is requested from dispatch or customer while unable to stop due to parking restrictions.

"'Next day' delivery companies, which are mostly represented by the large national and global companies, typically operate on predetermined routes for deliveries but receive requests for non-scheduled pickups. Many of these companies utilize hand-held tablets that dispatch in text form. Employees are instructed not to respond while moving, but are permitted to respond at traffic lights. This ensures that second vehicles are not required to be dispatched."

I wanted to read that particular submission into the record, because I think it's important that the government understands there are various specific commercial applications of some of these hand-held devices that should be considered when the regulations are set, and the minister does have the right to prescribe those regulations. I think, as well, the point that Mr. Turnbull makes is that, in the case of commercial vehicles, these are professional drivers, these are people who are trained, not only in terms of how to deal with traffic situations, but also how to safely utilize this equipment.

So I would be in support of the regulations providing an exemption, as has been requested by Mr. Turnbull.

I want to turn my attention to another issue relating to these hand-held devices. I have had considerable input from constituents relating, for example, to GPS units. I know that the government has already indicated through the minister, as well as the parliamentary assistant, that GPS units and similar units that are mounted on the dash would be exempted from this legislation. What I think we need to clarify, and I'm sure that we'll deal with this in the course of committee hearings, but there are GPS units that can be rented.

For example, when someone rents a vehicle and they're uncertain about how to navigate—particularly in this city, but it applies throughout the province—it's really much safer to have a proper GPS unit, rather than be wondering where you turn next. It's an effective piece of equipment, but these are portable units. Having said that they're portable units, there is the ability to mount them on a dash.

These are the kinds of details that I've undertaken to bring forward to the minister and to the government, and I would expect that when it comes to structuring the regulations, we would take into consideration those very practical aspects of devices such as the GPS.

One of the other areas that I want to focus on this morning is whether or not this government, in bringing in this legislation, has fully considered the consequences and the penalties that are going to be prescribed here.

I've heard from the minister that what is not intended—notwithstanding that there are some substantial monetary fines; you know, they can range from $50 to $500 for a conviction—what is missing here, in my opinion, and there may be some differences of opinion even within our own caucus on this, and I would invite submissions from stakeholders when this bill comes to the public hearing stage, what is lacking, are demerit points assessed on convictions.

If this government passes this legislation without the penalty of demerit points in addition to the fines, then I would submit that many will consider those fines simply a cost of doing business. Another $50, if you happen to get caught, is not a big issue for many people.

I believe that if the government is serious about wanting to change behaviour on the part of drivers in this province through this legislation, then there should also be the consequence of demerit points, because that is where drivers will in fact begin to give a second thought to using a hand-held device that will result in driver distraction. If there is no demerit point assessment in this legislation, Ontario will be the only jurisdiction, not only in Canada but in the United States and in other parts of the world, that does not have a demerit point consequence to a conviction.

I would suggest that if in fact that's the case, then what we have here yet one more time on the part of this government is an ability to present the perception that they're serious about changing behaviour of drivers with regard to distraction, but not really willing to go the distance in terms of putting the substantive provisions into legislation that would actually make a difference at the end of the day.

I want to just very briefly refer as well to comments made by the Minister of Transportation during his second reading debate. I find one aspect of this very interesting. I support the provision that would change the Public Vehicles Act to make it easier for people to carpool. I think, as the minister stated in his remarks, that that's a positive step. In fact, my colleague Gilles Bisson had brought this to the attention of the government through, I believe, a private member's bill. He's been lobbying for that for some time. I think it's appropriate for all the right reasons.

I want to read into the record what the minister stated during his debate, and then I want to just quickly comment on a concern that I have that relates to a more recent piece of legislation that the minister introduced from the same seat from which he made these comments:

"There's another significant matter in this particular bill, and that is environmentally friendly transportation solutions. It was recently brought to my attention that the current definition of carpooling, under the Public Vehicles Act, has made it difficult for individuals in certain situations to form carpools to go to and from school, social events and even work. That is why we've proposed an amendment to the Public Vehicles Act to make it easier for people to carpool. We are removing the barriers and red tape associated with carpooling in Ontario, in hopes that this will further encourage their use and help remove single-occupant vehicles from Ontario's highways."

Here's the irony: In one piece of legislation, the minister brought forward an amendment that would encourage carpooling, but just last week he introduced legislation in this House that restricts carpooling for young people in the province. So he's experienced a considerable backlash, especially from young people right across this province, by the thousands, who were caught off guard, who are saying, "Minister of Transportation, why, simply because I may be 21 years of age or younger, are you now saying that I can't have more than one other person in the car with me when I'm driving?"

What happens to the minister's encouragement in this legislation for carpooling so that, as he puts it, when people go to school carpooling in Ontario, "this will further encourage their use and help remove single-occupant vehicles" to and from school, to and from work? I believe that again, with regard to that legislation—I support it here; I think it's the right thing to do for all the reasons the government has announced for this change being brought forward.

But I would also ask that the minister be consistent, first of all, in his own thinking with regard to the issue of carpooling, and that he understand that the provision he is proposing for young drivers that restricts the number of young people in a car is wrong-headed.

I want to put the minister on notice now that I will not support the provision of the young drivers' legislation he is proposing that would restrict young drivers from having more than one passenger 21 years of age or younger in the car.

I believe we need to have extensive public hearings on that legislation. In fact, my call to the minister would have been that we have those public consultations even before we get to second reading of that bill, so that the minister and the Premier can have direct input from stakeholders—from people across the province and especially from young people—on the practicalities of that legislation, which I believe the ministry has missed in drafting that legislation.

I want to be very clear that I support the intent of that legislation. I personally am strongly in favour of the zero tolerance level for alcohol in that legislation. But I will also put the minister on notice that it is my view that we would be much better to define novice drivers in a broader category and make it apply to novice drivers and inexperienced drivers, rather than identify the age of 21 as the target group to which that legislation should apply.

I think the issue here is not how old a person is; to victimize young people through that legislation is fundamentally wrong. I think the intent here is to deal with the issue that we have inexperienced drivers, and that inexperienced drivers should be required to adhere to a different and higher standard when it comes to blood-alcohol level.

Even before we get to the point of a broader debate on that, I would like to ask the minister, on the record, to start giving consideration to being willing to make amendments to that proposed legislation, which would remove the age restriction and replace it with, perhaps, a new definition of novice driver. I believe that will bring many more people and many more stakeholders on side to support that legislation.

With regard to the issue of speeding, no one in this House is a stronger advocate than I, as you will know, Speaker, in terms of wanting to improve road safety when it comes to speeding in our province. However, even with regard to that provision, I have serious concerns that to target young people and suggest that even with a first conviction there should be a licence suspension is not going to have the kind of public support and stakeholder support that that legislation would require.

Mr. Bob Delaney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: With the greatest respect to my colleague from Newmarket—Aurora, there are two bills before the Legislature that deal with the Ministry of Transportation, and he is talking about the wrong one. That one is not before the House.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): I appreciate your point of order. I have listened very carefully to the honourable member from Newmarket—Aurora, and he has been tying the two bills together quite nicely, I think.

Mr. Frank Klees: Thank you, Speaker. If the member from Mississauga—South were, perhaps, paying more attention, he would understand—

Mr. Bob Delaney: Streetsville.

Mr. Frank Klees: Mississauga—Streetsville—he might understand how this is being tied together as well. I will try to give you some more assistance with that.

I was referring, as you know, to the Minister of Transportation, who is just joining us. I know that the reason he has come into the House now is because he understands how these two bills are tied together and he wants to hear personally how effectively I have tied these bills together. The minister and I have had discussions, not only about this bill, which he knows I am very supportive of, but he would also know and he does know that I'm looking forward to public hearings and that much of the work has yet to be done through regulation. I look forward to working with him as do, I know, other members of this House as well as stakeholders.

Having tied the young drivers legislation into the bill before us, I want to return to Bill 118 before I defer to my colleague from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. I want to say to the minister that I am supportive. I will look forward to the public hearings. I have stated a number of areas that I believe we need to perhaps have a second look at in terms of how the government approaches this. I've made the point about demerit points; we've had that discussion.

I know that, no doubt, one of the concerns even from the police services is that if in fact this conviction carries demerit points, there will perhaps be more challenges in court, and the implication to our court system, then, would be that there may well be more gridlock than we have now in our court system.

But I submit to the minister that we shouldn't be compromising on the consequences of what I think we all agree is an important issue and an important road safety concern, namely that of distracted drivers. I believe that if we are serious about wanting to change the behaviour of Ontario drivers, then there should be a consequence there. If there is a problem with court gridlock, then the issue is that we have to resource our courts better. We have to ensure that the resources are there to deal with those convictions and appeals if they happen to come forward.

I will take this opportunity to thank the minister for bringing this legislation forward and again my colleague John O'Toole, who I believe blazed the trail on this, for his persistence. I remember when he first brought this legislation forward, there was very little support, even in this place. But over time, the evidence has become clear that it's the right thing to do. So to the government, I say congratulations for bringing this forward.

Now we will wait to see how responsive the government will be when it comes to recommendations for amendments during public hearings and, of course, how responsive they will be to stakeholders, as I stated at the outset, when it comes to drafting regulations.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The Chair would like to recognize Mr. David Turnbull, who's with us in the galleries here today, the former member of provincial Parliament in the 35th, 36th and 37th Parliament as the member for York Mills and then as the member for Don Valley West.

Further debate?

Mr. Frank Klees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I was not aware that Mr. Turnbull was in the gallery, and I was waxing eloquent quoting him. I should have actually asked him to do this himself. Welcome to Mr. Turnbull.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: I am quite sure that if my friend from Newmarket—Aurora starts waxing eloquently about someone else in the future, they too will appear in the gallery. There's no question about it.

It's a pleasure to join the debate here on Bill 118. I'm going to pick up where my colleague left off, in congratulating, finally, John O'Toole for his persistence in raising this issue in the Legislature, bringing it forth in proposed legislation on more than one occasion over the last several years. The government didn't seem to have much interest in this bill throughout their first mandate. I do have to question why, now, they're bringing out this bill.

You have to wonder out loud if it isn't because they're looking to change the channel on the issues facing us here today in this Legislature on a daily basis, and that is the question of Ontario's finances and the economy and this government's lack of a plan to deal with it. So switching channels, changing the phone number sort of thing is what they're doing here partially with this cellphone bill at this time.

Having said that, for the most

part I don't know that there are too many, if any, members of the House who have indicated that they oppose this bill. But as my colleague Mr. Klees and a former minister did indicate, there are portions of this bill that we have concerns about. I'm going to get to them later.

I also want to raise the issue of the fact that we already have legislation in place to deal with distracted drivers. If that's not functioning properly, then this bill is not going to take its place, because those actions are still going to be out there. We still have to be a lot more diligent about how we're dealing with distracted drivers.

There are so many ways that drivers can be distracted. We see people every day putting on makeup, shaving—not likely the same people, but that's another matter—fumbling with coffee cups to open them while driving, eating a Big Mac or a bacon mushroom melt or something like that, that's dripping all over them, and then they're driving all over the road. There are so many different things that can distract a driver. A cellphone is one of them.

So we have to be very, very diligent about how we're dealing with distracted drivers in every possible way. I've seen people reading the newspaper while driving.

I do concur, however, that cellphones—there is no question about it—are distracting. I have fallen into that trap myself, where I have been unduly distracted because of the use of a cellphone. For the most part, I can tell you that when I get into my vehicle today—and I'm not going to say that I don't use the cellphone when I'm driving because that would be untrue—I do put on the hands-free immediately so that those distractions are limited. Even with the hands-free, it's not just about where your hands are; it's about where your head is, and communicating while driving is not really the right thing to be doing.

We do it, but it is not the best course of action. The best course of action is, of course, to pull over, proceed with your call and then move on. In this world, it's not always possible.

That brings me to a couple of things that I want to talk about: some possible amendments. My colleague Mr. Klees raised the issue from the Canadian Courier and Logistics Association, of which Mr. Turnbull is the president and CEO, and about how important the ability to communicate on a timely basis is for people in that business. I won't read the letter again, because we want to limit the amount of time here, but those are things that we need to get discussing to ensure that business is able to operate. Certainly I think the record of safety within that business is a very good one. So we have to understand that we can't put in undue barriers to the operations of business.

Another group that we want to talk about is the two-way radio people. A constituent from my riding, Peter DeWolf, who is also a newspaper reporter with the Arnprior Chronicle-Guide, raised this issue with me. He has been a radio operator for many years and actually writes a column on the issue. He has some concerns with the broad language proposed in this new law, which could be read to include the use of two-way radios while on the road. He is proposing a simple, one-line amendment to the proposed law, which would read, in the exemptions, "Communication apparatus or persons licensed to operate under the Canada Radiocommunications Act are exempt."

I think that's a very good point. People who operate logging trucks and people who dispatch vehicles in different areas use two-way radios to communicate, and it is essential that they not lose that ability to communicate because of this law. When we get this bill to committee, I think we have to take a close look at some of those things and see whether some of the things this bill is doing are necessarily what we want to accomplish with it.

I would also like clarification on GPS units. Mr. Klees raised that, and I have to be honest with you that my understanding is different. My understanding is that a GPS communication device, other than a BlackBerry or something like that, which has GPS capabilities, was going to be exempt from this law. I would certainly want to voice my concern about that. As long as you're not inputting information while driving, a GPS unit is very helpful—it's helpful regardless. You are not creating a danger if you're not inputting information while you are driving.

If you put in the address you need to get to, your destination, while you are parked, certainly the unit itself giving you that information is very, very helpful. We want to make sure that is clarified.

I do want to tie in the two bills again, as my colleague so eloquently did, because we never know if we'll have the opportunity. The minister seems to be trapped by some inconsistency here: In Bill 118, and only six bills later, in Bill 126, we have a different story. In Bill 118, he is very, very encouraging and wants to make sure that the rules respecting carpooling are as broad and inclusive as possible, so that we can do the right thing and have more people in fewer cars on our highways. But then in Bill 126, we do the exact opposite; we restrict people from carpooling.

I'll give you an example. My son is 17 years old, and I would say he is at least as good a driver as me—some people would say that's not saying much.

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I realize that; I knew I set myself up there.

Anyway, he's an excellent driver and a very responsible driver. In fact, I can tell you that if he is driving and I call him on his cellphone, I'll get a call back a few minutes later, because he won't answer the phone. He'll pull over before he returns that call. Last Friday night, he asked if he could have my van. I said, "Sure. What do you need it for?" "Well, a few of us are going to a movie in Pembroke." Now, we live in Barry's Bay, which is 80 kilometres from Pembroke. The nearest movie theatre is in Pembroke.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Paradise.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Well, they're both pretty darned nice, I might say to the minister.

If he could only take one friend to the movies, under this proposed Bill 126, that's just not right. People who live in rural areas will be so unfairly treated by this bill that it's just unbelievable. But that's another bill, and I'm sure we will have a chance to discuss it at a later time, if the ministry even calls that bill for debate. Maybe he has realized it's so wrought with holes that he's going to just withdraw it and come back with something better—I don't know. Hopefully he will, because that bill is a big problem.

Anyway, we want to get moving on Bill 118. I will be voting for the legislation, but I'll also expect to be able to discuss this in committee, so that some of the very appropriate amendments that will do everything to improve the bill have a chance to be vetted. I thank you very much for the opportunity.

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

Mr. Paul Miller: I would like to take this time to agree with my colleagues from the official opposition. There are some concerns we have about Bill 118, but the actual bill itself is a good thing. We obviously would like to deal with some of these things at committee, and I hope that the government, in its infinite wisdom, will listen to other people's ideas at the committee level. Actually, we're very concerned about transportation vehicles transporting equipment, and of course trucking firms have great concerns.

These will have to be dealt with, and I'm sure that the minister will listen carefully to the people who make their living driving and transferring goods across our province and across the country.

I must also take this opportunity to commend the minister for bringing this forward. It's good legislation, but obviously there are a couple of holes in it that we would like filled. I think with some co-operation with the government at the committee level, we will address those holes.

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: Under questions and comments, I watched on television, first of all, the opposition critic Mr. Klees; then I had a chance to come into the House and listen to him, and then listen to my friend from Barry's Bay make a presentation; then the member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek—all good presentations—and finally, my good friend Mr. Turnbull, who is a former Minister of Transportation. We all recognize this.

I think the benefit I personally have found in my many years in this Legislature is the kind of debate that takes place. If the debate is meaningless in the House and in committee, then we really haven't achieved what we want to achieve. I've always said that not all the wisdom resides on the government side of the House; not all the wisdom resides in the Ontario Legislature. That means that the more input we get on legislation, the better. I am a great fan of seeing legislation go to committee, where the public gets a chance to present, and then it may go to further consideration in clause-by-clause.

The government will put forward some amendments that they may steal from the opposition members who suggested them, but we will always give credit; also, the opposition members may put some forward.

I think one of the unfortunate things in the whole operation of this House over the years has been that there's always been a great reluctance to accept amendments, yet many of the amendments would make legislation better. So I welcome the input on this bill. We had a previous bill that we dealt with that's already passed the Legislature, the more secure driver's licence; we have another bill that we're considering. All the input we get is extremely valuable to us, from right across the province.

I always give that very great weight and consideration, and my good friend from Barry's Bay, the critic for the Conservative Party, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek and my own members I'm sure will all give me good advice.

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I do appreciate the opportunity to make just a few comments with respect to this bill dealing with hand-held communication devices.

I would echo the comments made by my colleagues the members from Newmarket—Aurora and Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, who have indicated our support in principle for this bill, because of course the genesis for this bill lies with the work done by another one of our colleagues, the member from Durham, who has brought a variation of this bill forward on several occasions, concerned as he is with the public safety aspects of driving while holding cellphones and so on. He's been quite tenacious in that respect.

But of course we're not happy with all aspects of this bill, nor are we happy with the aspect of the new young drivers bill that has been brought forward by the government. Certainly the Premier has indicated that perhaps they were a little bit hasty in coming forward with this bill, with some of the comments that he has been making about backing away from some of the more controversial parts of it.

I would certainly encourage the government to take the time necessary to hear all the comments to be made by both the opposition members and the public with respect to this bill, to make sure that the primary consideration, as it is with public safety, is what is actually dealt with in this bill while not compromising, of course, anything else in the process but still listening to the legitimate concerns of business in this area.

I would hope that, as far as that is concerned, they would certainly do so with the next bill and perhaps even send that out for further consultation before it goes through second reading—I think that has been suggested by many people—because there are many practical considerations, particularly as have been mentioned with the prohibition on a driver with more than one friend.

In terms of practical concerns, I have three 17-year-olds who could be driving together with one friend, which I'm sure would cause some concern or at least speculation on the police having to take a look at them at any given time.

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

Seeing none, the honourable member from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke has up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I appreciate the comments from the member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, the minister, and the member from Whitby—Oshawa.

What I heard from the minister was, I would say, a very conciliatory tone with respect not only to this bill, but the general operation of this House. I'm really pleased to hear that because, while I think there are amendments that will improve this bill, and amendments could be brought forward that will certainly make it more streamlined and easier to work, other bills maybe aren't quite the same. These amendments that we are proposing in Bill 118 are far less controversial than might be some amendments in another bill—like Bill 126, which we've talked about.

I hope that the minister will be as conciliatory and understanding about, certainly, the non-monopoly of the government on the wisdom of bringing forth legislation when we're dealing with Bill 126 as well.

I do look forward to this bill going to committee to ensure that the best piece of legislation to improve highway safety is what we get at the end of the day. I want to ensure that they do take into consideration those issues we've raised, such as the communication issues for the Canadian Courier and Logistics Association, which has raised some very significant points with the ability for their businesses to operate efficiently. We have to remember that if they can't operate efficiently, it means more expenses to us in the long run.

I'm just looking at 133—and you're getting up. What's the—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Your two minutes have more than expired. Unfortunately, the clock—we had a little malfunction there, but thank you.

Further debate?

Mr. Paul Miller: I rise today to discuss Bill 118. Once again, I commend the minister for bringing forth this legislation, and I'd also like to send a thank you to Mr. O'Toole for his persistence on bringing this legislation forward over the past couple of years.

I must say at this point that I'm glad to hear the Minister of Transportation stand up in a voice of co-operation at the committee level but, frankly, I must confess I haven't experienced that in my year that I've been here. We've brought forth several good ideas to committees which fell on deaf ears, and the government did not want to even discuss them and just squashed them. Once again, I'm frustrated with the lack of co-operation by the government as to the opposition parties, who have excellent ideas that fall by the wayside—unless it's the government's idea. I must put that point in.

Moving on to the bill itself, this kind of legislation just makes sense. Drivers, pedestrians and cyclists have all had at least one bad experience with a distracted driver talking on their cellphone or other equipment. I myself have had near misses and, frankly, since I've had the privilege—I don't know if it's a privilege—to use the BlackBerry, have been distracted while driving. I don't think it's a very good idea, and I am dead set against those types of devices in cars.

Even back in the days when we didn't have cellphones, iPods and BlackBerries, people had found other ways to distract themselves, whether it be a sandwich or doing their hair or makeup or reading a paper or doing all kinds of things in the car that they shouldn't be doing, so I don't think we need to add to that.

We wonder why it's taken Ontario so long to move forward with this type of legislation. Quebec, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, many of the states in the United States and 30 other countries have restricted the use of cellphones while driving.

There is a significant amount of evidence to support tighter restrictions on the use of cellphones while driving. In Australia, a study in 2005 showed that motorists who used cellphones while driving are four times as likely to crash, causing serious injury to themselves or to other people. The find was supported by the University of Toronto analysis of accidents in Toronto. Another study, out of the University of Utah, concluded that talking on a cellphone while driving is as dangerous as driving while intoxicated.

The Ministry of Transportation has indicated that fines will be $50 to $500, and no demerit points will be taken for the violations. I find this not a good idea. I believe that there should be points attached to these violations, because for a lot of these business people, $50 is no big deal. They could spend that at the local pub or spend it at the variety store quite as easily, and it doesn't faze them.

So $50 to $500—I think there should be a fine as well as demerit points attached to this bill. I think they've missed the boat on this one. The fine structure will determine whether the legislation works. I think that without demerit points attached to that, this system could run into problems if it's not dealt with at committee.

We should look to the other provinces in determining what fines are necessary in preventing the use of cellphones while driving. There's enough evidence in Canada to undertake the analysis. For example, Quebec had a three-month grace period followed by a $100 fine, compared to Nova Scotia's $165 first-time offender fine and a $335 fine for the third offence.

Along the same lines, enforcement is crucial. Police resources are already stretched and strained to the limit, and enforcing the new law can be resource-intensive. We hope the plan comes with additional financial resources for the police departments to enforce this new legislation, because you can have a fine and demerit points, but if they're only spot checks I don't know what kind of an effect that's going to have. I think you need to send a strong message to the public, and the only way you can do that is with proper resources.

So I hope the government has taken that into consideration on the budget level in these hard times when they've called for people to cut back on their spending and to be cautious of what companies are doing. The government also has to follow that line. When they attach new rules, there's always money that goes along with it. So I hope they can find the resources to back up their legislation.

One of the issues we have with the way the legislation is written is that it may capture some uses it wasn't intended to cover. For example, the bill prevents driving while using a hand-held entertainment device. Does that include iPods to car stereo systems, whether through FM transmitters or physical attachment? Pods are no different from stereo systems, and we worry that they are banned because they may fall into the entertainment category.

Also of concern to us is that many companies use hand-held devices or certain types of tracking equipment in transporting goods. We should allow these companies to continue using their equipment in a safe manner, because obviously the hub of our province is the transportation of goods and services. We must not find ways to impede it, because we're facing infrastructure and transportation problems as it is, whether it be the border or whether it be our crowded highways. To further impede people doing their business of transporting goods in this province could be counterproductive.

We're pleased that the government took this opportunity to amend the Public Vehicles Act to end the antiquated restrictions on ride sharing and allow green companies like PickupPal to operate. For those who don't know, PickupPal is a company that arranges ride sharing over the Internet. They don't take a fee for arranging rides and make money through Internet advertising.

This helps people carpool to get to work or to go a longer distance, and it also allows people who may not have known someone on the next street or in the same town going in the same direction on the same day, at the same time, to the same place of employment. This service was definitely a benefit to a lot of people in the province.

In the time of pollution control and resource control, this makes sense to us, but because the bill hasn't passed yet, the Ontario Highway Transport Board went through with issuing a decision against PickupPal, ordering the company to cease most of its operations, which we think was a negative move. We hope they would consider reinstating this service because it was very beneficial to a lot of communities, and a lot of rural communities too, that go further distances, maybe into the city for their employment.

We urge the minister to find a way to allow PickupPal to continue operating, even though an order has been issued against it.

We look forward to getting this bill to committee because we feel that there are many experts out there who must be heard, whether it be transportation experts or logistics experts. Actually, experts from individual municipalities would be a crucial part of this exercise because some communities, whether they're rural or urban, require different types and modes of transportation to deal with their daily issues. I would like to see rural people who have long ways to go and urban people—city planners and engineering people would be involved in some of these discussions, because I think it will have a very major impact on our municipalities throughout this province.

The bill restricts the following: equipping a vehicle with a television, computer etc. where the screen is visible by the driver—a big distraction—other than the ones that entertain the kids in the backseat to keep them from being a little bit anxious during their rides to wherever they're going. That's not such a bad idea, but to have it in the driver's view is a big mistake. There are enough distractions on the road without watching your favourite The Young and the Restless, or whatever you're watching.

Exceptions are made for GPS devices. Yes, I believe these devices are good for when you're lost; their tracking devices are great. But I think you should be pulling over to the side of the road when you're punching in where you want to go or where you're lost, because that's extremely distracting too. I've even had friends who have almost hit other vehicles because they were lost and trying to find out on that device sitting on their dash, or even on the window of their car, where they're going.

But I do believe that the voice-activated ones that say, "Turn right here, turn left there," would be beneficial if they were put into a position in the car that doesn't distract the actual driver. I'm sure the passenger could handle any directions with ease with these additional devices.

Trucking equipment, collision avoidance systems, fire and ambulance uses—driving while using a hand-held device capable of being a phone or for sending e-mails, text messages: big mistake. How can you drive? Some of these BlackBerries are so small that you have to really concentrate. You may have a large finger and push two letters at the same time or miss the call, or someone is trying to get hold of you—a big, big distraction while you're driving. It shouldn't be allowed, and I think that's a thing we really have to enforce.

I'm in favour of the hands-free mode. I believe that, attached to your dash, voice-activated measures that don't require distraction by you while you listen or respond while watching the road, not while looking around for your device, would be beneficial as well. The restriction includes streetcars, snow vehicles and other types of vehicles. I'm not quite sure about snow vehicles on the trails. You may require this equipment, if you get stranded or are in a bad blizzard, to find out where you are.

But there's no reason why you couldn't pull over your snowmobile, your racing boat or your Sea-Doo or Ski-Doo to find out where you are and how to get back without being distracted from your driving ability and endangering other snowmobilers, other boaters or other modes of transportation.

For those people who are concerned about this, I do believe we can straighten this out in committee. I hope this government will take it upon themselves to listen to us and actually listen to some of our amendments and not just—I mean, for the last bill we did clause-by-clause with the government, I had 17 amendments, and the government didn't look at any of them, didn't want to deal with them. They just moved on straight ahead, tunnel vision: They know better than us; we don't know anything.

It's very unfortunate that in my short tenure in this building I've seen this type of people dealing with situations, and I hope that changes in the next session. I hope they are going to entertain some of our bills, whether they be private—just because they're a private member's bill doesn't mean they're bad. Private members' bills can be amended, too; they can come up for discussion. The government can throw in their two cents on what they don't like about a private member's bill, but they don't even bother to do that. They don't even want to deal with it. That's amazing.

I can't believe how this government functions when they pass up hundreds of excellent ideas and input from all members on this side of the House.

Until governments in Canada and Ontario and anywhere else start to learn to co-operate and use all the people in this House to the fullest of their abilities, use their contributions, then I think we're falling far short of what should be for the people of this province and what's best for Ontario. In closing, maybe this time they might listen to us.

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It's a pleasure to follow my colleague. Certainly, we in the NDP are going to support this bill. It's a nice little bill; there are four pages to it.

I, as well, urge the government to look at amendments. Clearly, we've heard some of the problems, enforcement being a huge one. I know that the Police Association of Ontario laughed at it when they came to lobby me and said, "Our officers are so overstretched and so underfunded; how do they expect us to ever enforce this sort of legislation?" They thought it was, more or less, a joke. So certainly we would push for financial resources to add to the policing services so they can enforce it.

But more importantly, if you were just a Magna worker who was laid off and went home and turned on the television this morning and expected to see your elected representatives deal with the real crises in Ontario, the fact that we've lost over 250,000 manufacturing jobs and just lost another 850 this morning in the auto sector—and we still have a government that hasn't come forward with a plan for the auto sector. This is what we should be dealing with in this House.

Is this a nice little bill? Yes. Is it something we should do? Absolutely. But what I think all Ontarians look to their government to do is to take real action, not just to make the chairs more secure and safer on the Titanic, but actually to look at the direction the ship is sailing in—and hey, maybe the berg has already hit us. That's what Ontarians expect when one in six children live in poverty.

Yes, this and other bills that the government brings forward: nothing wrong with them. I'm sure 90% of Ontarians support them. But this is a government with a huge majority. This is a time for bold action. They could take that bold action. They can do anything they want. Why don't they do something about the real issues that are facing Ontarians? Why don't they help that Magna worker who just turned on the television set, who just found out that she had lost her job? Let's deal with that.

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

Seeing none, the honourable member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, if you would like, you do have two minutes to respond.

Mr. Paul Miller: I'd just like to make a short comment. I would like to thank my colleague. She makes a very good point: that since I've been here, we've dealt with some bills that have to be done eventually. But I would say the important things—the economy, jobs—really have fallen short on the list of things to do. Some people in this House have called some of these bills "fluff bills," bills that are just filling in time, filling in talking, filling in space. But for the real bills that should be dealt with, the government has no answers.

It's tough times, I agree. But in tough times, tough people come out. In tough times, people make good decisions; they make strong decisions. I can't say I've seen this from this government.

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

Seeing none, Mr. Bradley has moved second reading of Bill 118,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit the use of devices with display screens and hand-held communication and entertainment devices and to amend the Public Vehicles Act with respect to car pool vehicles.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I'd ask that the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on General Government.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Is it agreed that the bill be referred? Agreed.

Orders of the day.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I just had a note brought in. There's no further business.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): There being no further business, this House stands in recess until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1005 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I'm pleased to inform the members of the assembly that recipients of the 2008 Attorney General's Victim Services Awards of Distinction will be visitors to the gallery this morning. They're victims of crime whose courage and dedication raised the profile of victims' issues in Ontario as volunteers and professionals who provide outstanding service to victims.

They are Louise Russo; Travis Bailey; John Dick; Mike Neuts; Glenna Byers; Kathleen Fitzgerald; Brenda LaForme; Danielle Ridge; Céline Pelletier, au nom de l'Action ontarienne contre la violence faite aux femmes; Carol Barkwell on behalf of Luke's Place; Nigel Couch, on behalf of Multi-cultural Council of Windsor and Essex County; Joan Chandler, on behalf of Sheatre; and Shirley Hickman, on behalf of Threads of Life. Please join me in congratulating them on the work that they do.

Mr. Mario Sergio: I'm delighted today to have Mr. Pulcini and the 10th graders from Cardinal McGuigan separate school. They are in the east balcony here today. I'd like to welcome them to Queen's Park. I hope they will enjoy their visit today.

Hon. Michael Chan: I'm pleased on behalf of page Kush Thaker to welcome and introduce his uncle, Rakesh Joshi; and his cousins, Raj Joshi, Ashka Joshi, Keyor Joshi and Mansi Joshi. They're sitting in the public gallery.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I'm very pleased to welcome my dear cousin from British Columbia—Vernon, BC—Virginia Wolfe, and her husband, David.

Interjection: Who's afraid of her?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: No one's afraid of Virginia.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I want to welcome the grade 12 students and their teacher from St. Aloysius Gonzaga Secondary School, from my riding, to the Legislature.

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: I want to take the opportunity to welcome page Rohan Pavone from the Scarborough part of the riding. His family is here today: his mother, Dr. Rosemarie Lall; his father, Dr. Leo Pavone; his sister Damiana Pavone; his brother Sanjay Pavone; and his grandmother Francesca Pavone. They're in the public gallery today.

Mr. Joe Dickson: I'm pleased to welcome, in the west members' gallery, members of our model youth parliament, Mac Moreau, Kurtis McAleer and Brooke Longhurst. These involved youth are from my riding of Ajax—Pickering. Welcome.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I'd like to welcome teacher Darshan Harricharran and the students from T.L. Kennedy Secondary School here to the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of page Luis Vera, we'd like to welcome back a family friend of his sitting in the west public gallery, Pat Taylor. Welcome to Queen's Park.

There being no further introductions, it is now time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Today, 850 employees and their families find themselves trying to cope with the shocking news that two Magna plants are shutting down in Newmarket and Aurora.

The auto sector is in a crisis, and this government has no response. Two months ago, I asked the Premier to look into why an auto sector business in my riding had been approved for funding earlier from the Next Generation of Jobs Fund, and yet not one cent had been received.

To the Premier's credit, he obviously looked into it because the next day that employer got a call from the Ministry of Economic Development saying a cheque will be prepared and it should be there soon. This morning, I spoke to the president of that company, who has yet to see one red cent. What he has received is more red tape.

I want to know this from the Premier, or the Minister of Economic Development if the Premier isn't here: Why, on the one hand, can they continue to boast about a $1.5-billion aid plan and not one red cent is being delivered to the businesses that need it while plants are shutting down in this province?

Hon. Michael Bryant: Firstly, obviously, everybody here knows that the news from Magna yesterday was brutal news for those workers. We do, in our government, through the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, make people available to try to assist those workers. They will be laid off in June, it was announced. It is brutal news, it is tough news, it is news that will have a very devastating effect on those families and, of course, as well, in your community.

I did speak with senior executives at Magna today. They reassure me that Magna remains the healthiest auto supplier in North America, with significant liquidity. As a result of the 30% contraction in sales of automobiles, as a result of the shrinkage of that demand, there has been shrinkage of supply, and that accounts for what has happened, which makes it tough news for the people in your riding—

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

Mr. Frank Klees: What I want the minister to address is the fact that back in March they announced a $1.5-billion jobs fund. Applications have been made—no response from this government. I want to know from the minister why, as recently as yesterday, his official told the president of Axiom Corp. that they could expect to receive no funding from this program until February of next year. What is that all about?

Hon. Michael Bryant: This is a program that, in fact, provides dollars that are leveraged into an even greater investment. It is a grant. It is a subsidy by the province of Ontario with taxpayer dollars, used to create more investment and more jobs. That is what this program has done and will continue to do.

I note, though, that this is a program that the member voted against. It is difficult to see why, on the one hand, the member can say he's against subsidies and then, on the other hand, say, "You're not spending the subsidies fast enough." It just doesn't make any sense. In any event, we take, nonetheless, that particular application very seriously, and we also want to make sure that the taxpayers' money is given the attention that it deserves.

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

Mr. Frank Klees: The fact of the matter is that this company has been told repeatedly that it's approved, that the money is coming. The fact of the matter is that now, a program that was announced last March, he and his ministry are saying, won't be delivered until February of next year. What is happening here? This is a sham. What I'm asking the minister to do is tell the House, do you have a program? Is the $1.5 billion there? And if it is, why isn't it in the hands of the businesses that need it rather than being tied up in his ministry in red tape?

We approved of the fact that this government has a program, if it's real. But it's not real. Tell the truth. Either you have a program, and if you do, get it into the hands of the businesses that need it, or fess up and say that it is a—

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

Hon. Michael Bryant: Well, the member should tell the truth too about how he voted with respect to this subsidy program. He says he's in favour of it now. He probably says it to the company that's in his riding. He probably says it to a lot of the companies in his riding, that in fact this is a great program and "Boy, I'm holding their feet to the fire." But the truth is he voted against it. This side of the House and that side of the House stood up in support of this auto program, stood up in support for the auto suppliers. That side of the House—what do they say? "The market will take care of it. Don't worry.

Just cut taxes and somehow, magically, that company is going to find itself with additional investment." Well, it doesn't work that way.

This government will continue to actively intervene to assist those companies that meet the test under the public interest, so that we can grow our auto supply industry. That side of the House, in fact, is totally against that approach and he should stand up and say it.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is for the Minister of Health.

Minister, as you well know, hospitals today are operating at almost 100% occupancy. The population is growing and, regrettably, aging. There are more complex needs. We also have areas of growth in the province. Earlier this year, your government committed $120 million over three years in additional funding to those hospitals in growth areas.

Minister, you were quoted in the Canadian Press today as saying that, yes, hospitals needed more money in growth areas; however, you were not sure that you were going to be able to maintain the funding increase in the next two years. Would you confirm that hospitals will, indeed, receive the growth funding you promised?

Hon. David Caplan: In fact, what I did say to the reporter from the Kitchener-Waterloo Record was that many communities have experienced growth pressures in the province of Ontario, and prior to this government coming to office, it was never recognized by previous governments.

When my colleague the finance minister delivered the budget last March, which, I would point out, this member and her colleagues voted against, we recognized that the GTA-905 and other areas of our province are experiencing population growth and unique needs. We have a co-ordinated plan to address these needs that includes capital investments and wait times initiatives. The 2008 budget announced $120 million invested over the next three years to help hospitals in the areas experiencing high growth meet the anticipated demand—

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: It becomes more clear every day that this government doesn't have a plan and any changes that are made in health care funding seem to be done in a haphazard manner.

In the North Bay Nugget of April 7, your Premier said that he was going to protect public services. Despite this, hospital services are being cut. Despite the fact that you've collected $12 billion from the health tax, you're cutting funding to the hospitals. We've got St. Mary's, Quinte Health Care, Cornwall, the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Hamilton Health Sciences, Rouge Valley Health System, and the list goes on and on and on. I ask you today, Minister, why have you broken your promise? Why, in tough times, is the first thing you're cutting health care?

Hon. David Caplan: The member is incorrect. I completely reject the premise of her question. In fact, we are providing additional assistance and support to our hospitals and to our health care partners.

I do recognize that we are in challenging economic times and that our partners must work within the budgets and within the funds that are allocated to them to be able to meet the demands. That's why we've created a plan, which began in 2003, to create local health integration networks made up of people from local communities, working with local partners, whether they be hospital- or community-based providers, to provide the community services and the hospital-based, institutional-based, services.

The member is incorrect in her assertion. In fact, hospital funding this year is increasing; next year, it's increasing. That was not the case when she was a former Minister of Health and when she was a member of a government which immediately upon taking office—

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: The reality is that hospitals this year are receiving a 2.4% increase in funding; next year, it's 2.1%. Regrettably, this government has negotiated contracts with doctors, nurses and others; salaries are going up. Hydro and heating costs and other fixed costs are increasing at a rate of about 4% to 5%. Hospitals are going to have to make cuts. The money is simply not there. We have 100% occupancy today.

We have St. Mary's hospital in my community cutting 10 beds, three outpatient clinics and 17 full-time jobs, including nurses; Quinte Health Care cutting 45 nursing positions; Cornwall has closed their critical care units and one of their two emergency rooms; CHEO is closing six beds; Hamilton Health Sciences, 485 jobs.

I ask you today, why are you cutting health services that your Premier promised to protect?

Hon. David Caplan: In fact, the member points out in her question quite rightly that we are increasing funding, and then she ends her question by saying, why are we cutting funding? She is fundamentally inconsistent. I would quote, for example, that on November 9, 2000, Elizabeth Witmer told hospitals, "'Hospital bailouts can't last,' Witmer warns. Money needed elsewhere." She said, "We need to consider that the economy may not always be as strong as it is today, in the year 2000, and it may not be possible to provide in the future the size and kind of investment we have seen this year."

Of course, the member went on to point out that we needed to invest in home care, in mental health, in chronic diseases, and I quite agree. In fact, that is the plan that has been implemented by my predecessor, by myself and by this government. This member should in fact stand up and correct her record, because she has pointed out fundamentally incorrect and inconsistent information in the question she asked, and the plan that has been presented in fact is working throughout—

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

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is to the Acting Premier. Suddenly the McGuinty government is talking about spending restraints for MPPs. This looks remarkably similar to the playbook of Stephen Harper: When faced with the loss of hundreds of thousands of good jobs, find something, anything, to distract the public's attention. My question is this: Will the McGuinty government admit that its sudden new focus on so-called restraint is simply a cynical attempt to distract the public of Ontario from the real issue? Hundreds of thousands of good jobs are being destroyed in the auto sector, the forest sector, the manufacturing sector, and the McGuinty government has no plan.

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The member opposite just simply isn't correct. First of all, we are taking a balanced and prudent approach. We began that in the fall statement last year with respect to expenditures and we're doing so in a manner that protects public services. We have said for some time now that the province of Ontario, indeed Canada, was facing an economic tsunami. Unfortunately, those realities are coming to bear. We are continuing to take a balanced approach to overall spending. In my fall statement we did announce a number of measures which were designed to be prudent that at the same time would protect public services.

These are challenging times. We've also had billions of dollars in stimulative initiatives, many of which the member voted and spoke against. We will continue this balanced and prudent approach to help lead Ontario through these very, very challenging economic circumstances.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: I don't think the public is going to be fooled by McGuinty government double-talk about restraining MPPs' salaries when it's the McGuinty government that has implemented a 40% pay increase for MPPs over the last year and nine months. I think people are going to see through that.

I also think people will see what the real issue is: When tens of thousands of jobs were lost in the forest sector, when hundreds of thousands of jobs are being lost in manufacturing generally, the McGuinty government had no plan. Now, with the credit crunch threatening hundreds of thousands of indirect and direct auto sector jobs, the McGuinty government's solution is not to have a plan but to talk about symbolic restraint.

My question is simply this: When will the McGuinty government stop the diversions and the distractions and come to grips with the real issue? We're losing hundreds of thousands—

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In the fall statement of 2007, in the budget of 2008 and in the fall statement of 2008, this government introduced almost $10 billion in infrastructure expenses, and that member voted against every dollar. This government voted to put into place a billion dollars in retraining money to help address the needs of unemployed Ontario workers, and that member and his party voted against every single measure.

This government has put into place a system to assist and help our manufacturing sector, including grants, including capital cost allowance, including the refund of capital tax to get cash into their hands in these challenging times. That member and his party voted against every single measure.

All of us have to work together as we get through these challenging times with clear—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: I want the public to understand what the McGuinty government means by "working together." The McGuinty government passes 40% pay increases for MPPs while hundreds of thousands of working Ontarians lose their jobs. That's the McGuinty definition of "working together."

I come back again to the question: When the Liberals were in opposition—and I can quote the finance minister's colleague from Windsor—this is what they said: "In a Liberal government under Dalton McGuinty, we will lead an automotive investment SWAT team to get out there and look for new investment, not sit on our hands like this government has done."

Well, here we go. We've watched the loss of tens of thousands of auto sector jobs. We're witnessing the possibility of the loss of hundreds of thousands of auto sector jobs. My question is, where is the McGuinty SWAT team?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The member opposite said that he would donate his increase to charity and produce tax receipts. I challenge you to table the tax receipts, each and every one of you—each and every one of them, Mr. Speaker.

I'll tell you something: Sandra Pupatello and Michael Bryant and Premier McGuinty have been out and generated $7 billion in investment in the automotive sector. Thank goodness we have people like that, who have the support of Buzz Hargrove, have the support of Ken Lewenza and have the support of the industry.

We are in challenging times. Do you know what he suggested we should do? We should have a jobs commissioner. A jobs commissioner would go to Detroit and say, "Don't cut any jobs, please." Do you know what? Out of concern for working people, out of concern for Ontario communities, this government is standing up for Ontarians, and doing a better job than you, sir, could ever—

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

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Howard Hampton: Again to the Deputy Premier—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. The leader of the third party.

Mr. Howard Hampton: Apparently, members of the McGuinty government don't like to be questioned about the fact that they gave themselves a 40% pay increase at the same time that hundreds of thousands of workers are losing their jobs.

My question to the Deputy Premier is this: As the McGuinty government pats themselves on the shoulder and tries to tell everyone that they have a brilliant strategy to sustain jobs in Ontario, Magna announced 850 lost jobs yesterday. My question again: Hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake in Ontario. Where is the McGuinty government's plan to do anything about it?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Michael Bryant: As I said to the member from the official opposition previously, this is brutal news; the announcement of these layoffs is brutal news—brutal for those families, for those people and for that community. It is unfortunate that supply and demand have gone down by about 30%. Consumers, people buying cars, bought 30% less cars in an amount of time that is just completely unprecedented. As a result of that, obviously supply has gone down. That is going to affect suppliers.

Magna, fortunately a great global leader in the area of auto supplies and auto parts, is in very healthy financial shape, I am assured. It is in fact in the healthiest financial shape within its industry and is not facing liquidity challenges whatsoever.

We will do everything we can to work with those workers leading up to the June date—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: Once again, the McGuinty government tries to offer up excuses. Here is the reality: Yes, Magna is a very large corporation. It has deep pockets, it has lots of connections in the financial community, but most of the auto parts manufacturers are very small companies. They don't have deep pockets. They don't have five or six banks backing them up. If Magna is cutting hundreds of jobs, what it means is that the small auto parts manufacturers are about to go over the cliff.

I come back to the question again. The McGuinty government was oh, so quick to raise MPPs' salaries by 40% in less than two years. A simple question: Where is the McGuinty government's plan to help all of those small auto parts manufacturers who are about to go over the cliff? Where's the McGuinty government's plan?

Hon. Michael Bryant: The McGuinty government has had a plan in place to support the auto industry, the automakers and the auto suppliers. We brought it in and—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I'm trying to listen to the response from the minister to a question that was asked and I'm hearing cross-conversation. If you want to have these conversations, take them outside. Don't interrupt the flow of question period, please.

Minister?

Hon. Michael Bryant: These investments made by the McGuinty government created additional investments from the private sector and created literally thousands of jobs. These programs remain in place and these programs continue to be utilized by companies.

The credit crunch from both the consumer end—consumers who cannot get financing—and with respect to those auto suppliers that need more cash flow in order to continue and are not getting it, because they're not getting that financing—that credit crunch, on top of the fact that sales went down 30%, is going to lead to and has led to a contraction of the market. Everything the McGuinty government is doing is seeking to—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: Every time a member of the McGuinty government gets up, they try to rewrite history. They try to say that thousands of jobs have been created in the auto sector.

Yes, you gave $200 million to General Motors, and General Motors proceeded to lay off thousands of GM workers. Yes, you gave over $100 million to Ford, and Ford has been laying off workers. There has been layoff after layoff after layoff, and the conference board says there are going to be more layoffs. That's not the issue. The issue is this: Without access to financial credit for the manufacturers, the parts suppliers, the tool and die makers, the car dealers and the leasing companies, this vital sector, which is responsible for hundreds of thousands of jobs, especially in southern Ontario, is going to suffer massive losses.

My question again: You're so quick to give yourself a 40% pay increase. Where's your plan to help sustain the hundreds of thousands of jobs that are at risk?

Hon. Michael Bryant: The member knows full well that when we brought forward these investments, New Democrats and the leader of the New Democrats did not support them; they voted against them.

In the case of one investment, the member stood up and said that we didn't put enough strings and conditions on the investment. Now he's standing up and he's saying we should write blank cheques to every single person who asks for one, but we're not going to do that. What we're going to do is work with the industry. What we're going to do is work with the workers. What we're going to do is work not only with the suppliers and the automakers but also with the distributors. We are going to make sure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely, but they will be spent and invested in companies to allow them to grow.

They will be spent and invested in companies all across this province to allow all those parts of the auto industry to grow. We will have a thriving and strong auto industry in Ontario in years and years to come and it will be no—

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

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is to the Minister of Finance. The minister knows that for several years now the Progressive Conservative Party has been expressing concern about your government's spending practices, concerns that you've simply ignored.

With the economic crash in the past few weeks, you and your Premier have been acting like a deer in the headlights, paralyzed with respect to how to respond to the situation until yesterday, when you finally indicated you will bring in a restraint program, but there's a catch to it. The Premier says it will only be symbolic.

Given the challenges your government is facing and that this province is facing, is that the best you can do: a symbolism? Another public relations exercise?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In my budget of last spring, we announced and have now saved $200 million in streamlined purchasing process, vendor rebates and new vendors of record. That member voted against it. We saved $100 million in consolidation of IT services, reduced inbound toll-free and outbound long-distance telephone costs. That member and his party voted against it. We have achieved and saved $50 million in reduced accommodation costs. That member and his party voted against it.

We have more to do. I'll have more to say about that, likely early next week, but this government has taken appropriate steps throughout these challenging times. And every time we've done that, they've voted against them.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: In April 2007, we sponsored an opposition day calling on you to curtail spending in recognition of the growing economic challenges. Virtually every other government in this country has acted over the past couple of years.

I'll give you a couple of examples of your government's response: the administration budget for the Ministry of Agriculture, up 22%; tourism, up 21% this year—this year. The administration budget for the Ministry of Government Services has increased 86% in the last two years; over 50% this year alone. What that ministry has spent on hotels is up 78% last year, and that's $100,000-plus at the Royal York Hotel. Those administrative costs have gone through the roof.

Minister, how can you talk of symbolic restraint when there are parents and families in this province who'll have a very difficult time putting a good dinner in front of their family at Christmas? How can that be symbolic?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I was interested to hear the member now speaking against assistance to our pork farmers, our horticultural sector and others, which you, sir, called on us to do. Now you're criticizing us.

There are challenging times in the economy. We have managed the province's finances in a responsible and prudent fashion. There's no doubt that we can do better, and we will. That's why, for instance, we brought freedom of information to Ontario Power Generation. And what did we discover? That that member and his government had a luxury booth at the Air Canada Centre and a number of his colleagues had the opportunity to be hosted. There's a number of other things like that that we will be talking about over the next few days.

But we're taking a prudent and balanced approach to the management of the expenses of the province of Ontario and leading Ontario through these very, very difficult times.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. This week, St. Mary's hospital in Waterloo region announced plans to eliminate good jobs and vital medical services in order to balance its books. Hospitals in Waterloo region have been chronically underfunded and yet the minister maintains that services should not be cut. How does he suggest that underfunded hospitals do that without allowing greater privatization to creep into our public health care system?

Hon. David Caplan: I think it's important to put a few facts on the table. Funding for St. Mary's has increased 30% in base funding over the course of the last five years. In addition, we've invested almost $38 million in Waterloo Wellington Local Health Integration alone toward the three-year local aging at home strategy, which drives services into the community close to where seniors and their family members need them.

In addition to that, we've invested $560,000 for 499 general surgeries. That's in addition to the almost $27 million in total funding that St. Mary's has received since 2004 to reduce wait times at the hospital. That's 17,000 more surgeries. So I reject the premise of the question which says that there is underfunding. In fact, there is considerable additional funding that this hospital has received.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: The minister talked about St. Mary's, but St. Mary's is just one of many hospitals across Ontario being forced to make substantial cuts and difficult decisions that affect the communities they serve. We have witnessed similar decisions being made recently at hospitals in Hamilton and right here in Toronto. Rather than allowing our public health care system to be dismantled, brick by brick, nurse by nurse, why won't this minister recognize the importance of properly funding our hospitals here in Ontario?

Hon. David Caplan: In fact, there is a plan that has been in place since 2003 where we embarked on an unprecedented investment to build a more sustainable health care system in the province of Ontario. Health care spending has increased by 37%—31% to hospital funding alone; the province's wait times are down in almost every category right across the board; over 100 hospital capital projects are underway; 630,000 more Ontarians have access to a family doctor who previously did not; and contrary to the member's suggestion, 8,900 more nurses have been hired in the province of Ontario.

That follows over 3,000 who were cut under the NDP and a 6,000-nurse reduction under the Conservatives. We have had a 50% increase, over $1 billion, to long-term-care funding, $95 million to community health centres and the largest expansion of community health centres in this province's history.

This is the plan for better health care in the province—

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

VIOLENT CRIME

Mrs. Liz Sandals: My question is for the Attorney General. Figures released by Statistics Canada tell us that the national crime rate is declining and that Ontario's crime rate was the lowest in Canada last year. I know that since 2003, this government has been tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. We have made unprecedented investments to combat guns and gangs. We are helping to build healthy neighbourhoods through investments in better housing, safe schools, after-school activities and programs for at-risk youth.

But when violent crimes are committed, I know that my constituents are concerned that these crimes happen in spite of the steps we have taken to prevent them. We are moved and saddened by the impact on victims, but we also want to know that everything that can be done is being done to prevent similar crimes from occurring in the future. Can the Attorney General tell this House what further steps we are now taking to fight—

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

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I know we all share the sentiment of my colleague from Guelph—Wellington that we need a system that makes sure that the violent and the dangerous are not endangering us in our communities.

There have been a lot of initiatives taken over the past five years: investments in the guns and gangs task force, more police on the streets. The next step is to make the system work more effectively. We've launched a justice-on-target strategy to reduce the number of times cases go to court for adjournments.

That sounds like a strategy just to reduce the number of adjournments, but it really will protect our communities, and it does it in this way: The less time our police officers spend in court waiting for adjournments, the more time they're on the street preventing crime and investigating the crime that does occur. It's about moving resources from the less serious to the most serious. That will keep our communities safer.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Liz Sandals: Our police and crown prosecutors work hard to keep Ontario families and communities safe, but we've all heard about the revolving door of justice and are concerned about repeat offenders getting back onto the streets.

I have spoken in this House before about the fact that the Criminal Code of Canada allows judges to consider pre-trial custody when determining the appropriate sentence. The principle of two-for-one credit, and in some cases three-for-one credit, has been widely recognized by the courts. I know that our government has asked the federal government to amend the Criminal Code to limit pre-trial custody. I also know that this government is working closely with our provincial justice partners.

This week, we heard that the Attorney General and the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services met with our policing partners to discuss additional ways of keeping violent offenders behind bars. Can the Attorney General tell us what came out of that meeting—

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

Hon. Christopher Bentley: The member for Guelph—Wellington is right: She and many others have risen in this House to speak about what we need to do, what we can do, what we must do to protect our communities.

We've got a very good working relationship with our justice partners and our police partners. This week, my colleague Rick Bartolucci and I had a meeting with Chief Davidson, Chief Blair and Commissioner Fantino to discuss what more we can do with respect to the most violent and the most dangerous—and we're talking about, as Chief Blair would say, hundreds, not thousands.

We have now struck an exit point task force to address what are sometimes called the three points in the revolving door of justice: bail, sentencing and the parole post-sentencing stage. The goal is to make sure that the crowns and the police have all of the information and supports they need to direct to the most violent and the most dangerous so we get the result we must.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development. President-elect Obama has specifically spoken about the repatriation of jobs back to the United States. Locally, we constantly hear about the potential loss of the head office or even posturing between the UAW and the CAW for job protection.

I know that two weeks ago tomorrow, the Premier was briefed by the auto sector, and the auto sector specifically asked that the percentage by which the auto sector is employed in Ontario and Canada will receive an equivalent percentage of support to ensure that the US perception is not that supporting the auto sector would take place in Canada by their funding support.

Minister, in the December 2 presentation for support, will the auto sector receive a parallel level of support by the province of Ontario to at least ensure that the jobs stay here, and we don't have repatriation of our jobs to the United States?

Hon. Michael Bryant: I understand and appreciate very much the important issue that the member is raising with respect to the concerns and risks around the future of the auto industry in light of whatever terms might be attached to US assistance, particularly, say, congressional assistance.

This is a matter that was taken up when Minister Clement and I were in Washington. We're confident at the present time that the leadership within both Democrats and Republicans are fully aware of the fact that we have a very integrated North American market, such that what hurts Canadian automakers hurts American suppliers and distributors and vice versa.

I appreciate the member's question. It's certainly at the front of our mind. We're going to continue to keep a very close eye on that and continue to do the due diligence necessary—

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

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: Minister, in the event that repatriation is moved forward with in the United States and we lose a significant number of jobs or positions in Ontario, is there some plan that you have to come forward in order to ensure that we do the very best we can to maintain those jobs here? We are learning on a regular basis about the loss of jobs, but the potential loss due to repatriation is huge in the auto sector, and anything you can apply or add to that sector would certainly be beneficial. Can you enlighten us on that, Minister?

Hon. Michael Bryant: It is important that the federal government, through the embassy and every other means, continue to track what kinds of terms and issues in fact are part of the broader package that may be before Congress. Working with Ontario, this has become an important issue and we want to make sure we have something in place in the event that there is a challenge. I can say that we are very confident right now that it is not, but we take it very seriously so we continue to monitor it.

Obviously, as we approach that date and we receive more information from the automakers themselves, which we have sought, once we have the financials and once we have more details on the longer-term prognosis of jobs in Canada, we'll be in a better position to make a decision.

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is to the Minister of Energy. If the construction of new nuclear power plants is as affordable and as viable as the McGuinty government claims, why has Westinghouse, one of the three bidders to build new nuclear power reactors in Darlington, suddenly dropped out of the McGuinty government's bidding process?

Hon. George Smitherman: The story in today's Globe and Mail, to the very best of the information I have available, is erroneous on that. Westinghouse has, as recently as a few days ago, been in touch with and submitted paperwork to Infrastructure Ontario, which is leading this process.

We're working very vigorously to ensure that as we go forward, the ratepayers in the province of Ontario will have the advantage of a competitive process which will result in the construction of two new nuclear reactors at Darlington. It's a huge stimulus from the standpoint of construction and a huge source of reliable electricity going forward, part and parcel of the energy supply mix which has been part and parcel of Ontario's energy supply mix for going on 30 or 40 years.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: The minister tried very hard not to answer the question. The fact of the matter is, Westinghouse may be willing to supply some equipment, but they're not interested in the bidding process that the McGuinty government has outlined. Why? The Globe and Mail is very specific: because of the company's concerns about how much of the risk the company would be asked to assume for any cost overruns and delays. Westinghouse officials aren't stupid. They know that every nuclear power project in Ontario has gone over budget, in some cases billions and billions over budget.

They know that most of the new nuclear power construction elsewhere in the world is going billions of dollars over budget.

My question is this: When will the McGuinty government finally realize that its nuclear mega scheme to pour tens of billions of dollars into a source of power that is neither safe, reliable, nor affordable—

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

Hon. George Smitherman: I think that the honourable member standing today in a province where 50% of the baseload supply is coming from a form of energy which the honourable member has just characterized as neither reliable nor safe—that is a rather extraordinary comment on that member's part. I know that the honourable member has written a book, which has often been referred to, on the matter of energy, but I must confess that a coherent policy from that party with respect to energy does seem to be lacking.

Here in Ontario, we believe that we should have renewal of our nuclear fleet. For 30 or 40 years, it has been a staple of the energy supply mix in the province of Ontario. We hope to make further progress on conservation and renewables alongside that, as we undertake the single biggest climate change initiative in North America, which is the elimination of coal from the Ontario energy supply mix.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Jim Brownell: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Minister, on October 15 of this year, I hosted a Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry day here at Queen's Park. This was a great opportunity for community leaders of my riding to talk to ministers about the challenges they are facing, the initiatives they are taking to address those challenges, and ways in which our government can assist in these endeavours.

I want to commend all those from my riding who are members of A Quality of Life for All, a group with representatives from the social services sector, for the work they do both with their agencies, such as the Social Development Council, the Agapè Centre, the Red Cross, and the municipalities, through their joint efforts to address the social inequalities in my riding.

Minister, this government understands the importance of assisting these agencies in their important work. Could you elaborate on some of the supports the McGuinty government has in place to assist groups such as the ones I've just identified from my riding?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: First of all, let me thank the member from Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry for all the work that he's doing in his community.

Yes, indeed, on October 15 I met very dedicated members of his community, and I was very glad to listen to their concerns and good suggestions.

Our government doesn't just listen; we act. Since taking office, we have increased social assistance rates by 9%, after years of cuts by previous governments.

In regard to domestic violence, I was proud to have the opportunity this past year to announce that our government was investing $18.8 million, which will increase the base budget of women's agencies by 5%. This was one of the 2007 campaign commitments. Also, we have provided $136 million annually to programs that help reduce domestic violence—

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

Mr. Jim Brownell: I am proud to continue working with those groups and to help foster positive working relationships between local agencies. I believe that these collaborative efforts result in more comprehensive supports for those who are underserviced in my riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

Recently, the Social Planning Council of Cornwall and Area, led by Mehroon Kassam, held a poverty reduction forum that addressed poverty issues of importance to the soon-to-be-released poverty reduction strategy. Obviously, there is concern across the province about issues of poverty, especially given the economic climate we now face.

Minister, can you tell us that in preparing this strategy, you have met with and taken into consideration the concerns of groups like the Social Planning Council of my riding and that their concerns will be reflected in your plan?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I'd like to refer that question to the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: First of all, I would like to thank the member from Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry and the Social Planning Council of Cornwall, under the very strong leadership of Dr. Kassam, for the work they are doing to champion poverty reduction in the Cornwall area.

One of the most encouraging and, in fact, inspiring learnings we took from meetings with groups across the province like the social planning council is just how powerful individual communities are in the fight against poverty. Throughout the province, Ontarians are developing innovative and local solutions that address the unique needs of their communities. The causes of poverty are different across the province and so the solutions must be as well. We've worked hard at the provincial level to open the conversation, to invite people in to be part of the solution, and that is translating across—

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

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr. Norm Miller: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Minister, Premier McGuinty has been very clear that despite the current economic downturn in Ontario, there will not be any cuts in health care services, but on the ground there's a very different reality.

Last week, Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare announced that it's projecting a deficit this year of $2.3 million. That will bring their total debt up to $7.7 million. Mike Provan, chair of the board, commented in the Huntsville Forester last week: "We can't go on like this. It's costing us ... $300,000 a year just on the interest, on the line of credit, and every million dollars we go over, that's money that should be going to patient care that (ends up) going towards the banks."

The headline in the Almaguin News is, "Cuts Looming After Hospital Deficit Jumps."

Minister, the people in my riding would like to know, What is your plan to deal with this? How can you continue saying health cuts will not happen?

Hon. David Caplan: I'm glad that the member raises the question. In fact, it has been identified going back almost a decade. I know that one of his colleagues, a former Minister of Health from Waterloo, warned hospitals at that time. She said, "We need to consider that the economy may not always be as strong as it is today, that it may not be possible to provide, in the future, the size and kind of investments that we have seen this year." In fact, at the time, as the member would well be aware, there were significant cuts to hospitals and significant cuts to health care.

This government has embarked upon another path and has a different kind of a plan. We've been providing enhanced and increased resources, a 37% increase to hospitals. I don't have the specific figures, but I will obtain them for the member and provide them specifically about the Muskoka and district hospital. But I can tell you that they have received additional funding this year as they have in previous years to their base budgeting, and we will work with them—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Norm Miller: Well, Minister, we're already seeing the first signs of cuts to service with the end of the after-hours clinic in Burk's Falls and the upcoming loss of community lab services. There's a genuine concern now that the Burk's Falls health centre will be next on the chopping block.

People in my riding are calling every day with problems in health care. Patients with serious fractures are unable to get transfers to regional hospitals. Residents are calling about delays in joint replacement or arthroscopic procedures. Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare says their biggest problem is that more than a third of their beds are occupied by patients who really need a long-term-care bed, but your government is not doing anything about that.

Minister, people are tired of hearing your excuses. They want to know: What is your plan to deal with these hospital deficits, or are you just going to dump your problems over to the LHINs?

Hon. David Caplan: In fact, local health integration networks are working very well. We are already seeing examples of local innovation. I would point to a very exciting project in northeast Ontario at Timmins and District Hospital, where we had the LHIN working with the hospital. They've been able to have a unique and innovative strategy, driven by the community, called "wraparound," which has reduced their ALC pressure some 40%. We look toward other innovative solutions in the context of partners who are located there.

We have confidence—I have confidence—in our hospitals to take care of critically ill patients, and we'll continue to work with our partners in health care to develop better strategies that reduce emergency room wait times. Increasing access to urgent care is a priority for our government. Our government is committed to tackling emergency department wait times, and that's why the ALC pressures that the member mentioned earlier are a key component. We have already taken action. We have increased—

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

CHILD CARE

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. This week, the minister boasted that Hamilton has increased its temporary care assistance caseload over the past couple of months. The minister should know that there's more to this picture.

The city of Hamilton, May 6, 2008, information report to the emergency and community services committee showed that the average 2007 temporary care assistance caseload was 250. The statistics provided to me from the minister show a caseload of only 176.

The 2004 Ontario Early Years community profile report from the city of Hamilton shows a distinct 311 TCA cases,

whereas the minister's statistics show a meagre 199. Can the minister clarify these constant discrepancies for me?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Let me correct what the member just said. The member is mixing cases and children, because some grandparents have more than one child that they keep. He's mixing both.

The number of cases decreased, and then increased in Hamilton and in the whole province. So the temporary care assistance is here to stay, and we are very proud to respond to the needs of children and to support those who are helping to take care of those children in need.

As I said, we have increased the budget by more than $3 million. We have more children in care every year. It's about—

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

Mr. Paul Miller: That's a really interesting statement from the minister. By the way, Minister, I've got two letters—you said four people weren't cut off. Two of the four we've contacted have letters from your ministry saying they're cut off, and I'll be happy to share them with you.

There are obvious problems with this program, not only the statistics but the varying

interpretations of the minister's new eligibility criteria. If you read it, Minister, no one will qualify in January. Why is this minister so resistant to getting the fiasco fixed? We want to fix it, Minister. You don't want to help us fix it.

As I've asked in the Legislature and in writing, to the minister again: Will this minister appoint an independent expert fact-finder to audit the temporary care assistance program and report back to this Legislature so we can get to the bottom of it, to the truth?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I'll repeat the number. Let's talk about facts. In Hamilton in July 2008 there were 181 cases; in October there are 185. Province-wide, it has increased by 100 cases in four months.

Let me quote what the administrator of the program for Peterborough, Mrs. Mitchelson, has said: "There has been no change in the city's

interpretation of the program, and I have not directed my staff to change their practice for awarding temporary care."

The member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek wants to—it's a scare tactic. He wants to scare the grandparents and those who are taking care of children. What he is saying is not true.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Reza Moridi: My question is for the Minister of Education. This past Friday, I was pleased to attend the press conference organized by the York Region District School Board, along with the Premier and yourself. I know this conference was attended by educators across the province and had representatives from a number of international jurisdictions from as far away as Australia, Finland, England, Ireland and Scotland, among others.

These guests had come all this way to have a look into Ontario's education system and were favourably impressed by what they saw in the schools of York region, especially our strong focus on literacy and numeracy. Mr. Speaker, would the minister please outline some of the literacy and numeracy initiatives of this government?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I thank the member for Richmond Hill for his question. It was very exciting to meet with these people from around the world. We had arranged a breakfast to get some feedback from these people, who have been watching what's going on in Ontario, the kinds of resources we've been putting in place to support the students who are here visiting with us today. These are the kids who are benefiting.

In York region alone, we've funded 550 new teachers, over 1,000 more education assistants and 991 more support staff. The primary class sizes in York region are 92% at 20 students or fewer, and that compares with 23% before the cap. But specifically, the literacy and numeracy secretariat has put in place $25 million across the province for focused interventions. There are 20 schools in York region that are benefiting from those literacy- and numeracy-focused interventions.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary? The member for Oak Ridges—Markham.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: Minister, I'm certainly mindful that students not only in York region, but across Ontario, are reaching new heights when it comes to those vital skills of literacy and numeracy. In fact, I'm not surprised the success of our education system attracts interest from around the globe. Ontario students rank among the best in the world in reading and science. On visits to schools in my riding, I have often been struck by the confidence and optimism of students. I know those same qualities were on display for conference delegates to see.

Literacy and numeracy are important, but they don't produce well-rounded students alone. My constituents would like the minister to tell us what other initiatives the ministry has undertaken in this regard.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I thank the member from Oak Ridges—Markham for the question. In fact, the York Region District School Board is one of the leaders in character development. Character development is one of the important parts of the equation in terms of helping a student to develop into a well-rounded citizen. So we've put $2 million for character development in our schools.

We've also invested $45 million this year in program enhancement, which is education, programs for arts, physical education, outdoor education, the kinds of things that are supporting conditions for kids to develop into terrific citizens. We've consulted with hundreds of students to get their feedback. We know that there are kids involved in character education forums around the province.

As I heard from one Quest participant, Denis Stewart, who works in Northern Ireland and Scotland, we are building not the best education system in the world, but the best education system for the world. That's what we're doing in Ontario.

VIOLENT CRIME

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is to the Attorney General. Minister, last weekend we both attended a rally here at Queen's Park that was organized by a number of faith communities to support the Varughese and John families. Saramma Varughese and Susan John, as you know, were murdered in their own home allegedly by their next-door neighbour, who was out on bail at the time on several charges of violent sexual assaults.

At the rally, you indicated that you were prepared to do whatever was necessary to protect the public interest and to keep this from happening again. The family has called for a public inquiry. Yesterday, you announced your exit point task force to deal with certain violent offenders as they come before the court. Are you suggesting this task force as an alternative to the full public inquiry that the families are requesting?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: We're all not only saddened, but angered by tragedies that occur. It moves us all to ask, "What more can we do?" We have to and we must take whatever steps are necessary to keep our communities safe.

So we had a very good meeting the other day with the chiefs, Chief Davidson, Chief Blair, Commissioner Fantino, and my colleague Minister Bartolucci. We have struck, at the Ministry of the Attorney General, an exit point task force, and we're looking at those three parts of what some call the revolving door of justice where sometimes the most dangerous might slip out: bail, sentencing, and the parole. We're going to bring to bear the expertise from around the province, police and crown expertise, to add to what we already apply to make sure that the dangerous stay where they must, not in our communities.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I would say to the minister that the task force falls far short of the full inquiry that the family members have called for. There are several problems posed with this. First of all, it's only going to be dealing with a very small number of individuals who come before the courts. Secondly, it's only to coordinate the information that comes between the police and the crown attorneys when the matter first comes before the courts. It doesn't deal with what happens when bail is ultimately granted and how that's going to be monitored.

The fact that the coordination between the crown attorneys and police isn't happening right now in itself speaks to the fact that there's a larger systemic issue that needs to be examined. I would say to you again, Minister, will you be calling a full public inquiry into this matter to look at the whole system of bail in the province of Ontario, as these families have been calling for?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: The people of Ontario expect us to continually get on with the job and continually improve. There is a lot of coordination, a lot of very hard work, that's going on by the crowns and the police on every one of these serious cases. They are all determined to prosecute these to the full extent of the law. The question is, what more can we do?

The exit point task force is the first step, and we will continue to build on it. It was recognized by Mr. Tory in his interview the other day, when he said, "You can never object to this kind of thing. It sounds good, and it is good." The fact of the matter is, on that matter Mr. Tory had it right. This is a good initiative. It's going to help us increase our ability to make sure that the most dangerous are where they belong and not in our communities.

Hon. David Caplan: On a point of order, Speaker: Earlier, in answer to the question from the member from Parry Sound—Muskoka, I undertook to provide information. The Muskoka Algonquin hospitals received a base funding increase: $6.972 million—a 17.7% increase in the last five years.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Hon. Michael Bryant: On a point of order, Speaker: I believe we have unanimous consent, and I seek unanimous consent, to move a motion regarding the

schedule for the House this morning.

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

Hon. Michael Bryant: I move that government order number 14 be called this morning immediately after deferred votes.

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

Motion agreed to.

DEFERRED VOTES

TIME ALLOCATION

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We have a deferred vote on government notice of motion number 92 on allocation of time on government order number 14.

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

The division bells rang from 1137 to 1142.

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

Ayes

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

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 51; the nays are 20.

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

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 26, 2008, I am now required to put the question.

On November 24, Ms. Smith moved that, notwithstanding the order of the House dated May 1, 2008, for the purpose of conducting its 2009 pre-budget consultation, the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs shall have authority to meet and adjourn from place to place in Ontario during the week of December 15, 2008.

On November 24, Mr. Hudak moved that the government motion be amended by striking out "during the week of December 15, 2008" and replacing it with the following: "during the months of Janaury and/or February 2009 when the Legislature is not sitting"—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order.

—"rather than rushing the pre-budget hearings under the cover of Christmas, and in the following 19 vulnerable communities, among the hardest hit by Ontario's economic downturn: Brampton, Brantford, Cambridge, Chatham, Cornwall, Guelph, Hamilton, Ingersoll, Kitchener-Waterloo, Lindsay, London, Oakville, Oshawa, Owen Sound, Smiths Falls, St. Catharines, St. Thomas, Welland and Windsor."

We will deal first with the amendment by Mr. Hudak. Is it the pleasure of the House that the amendment carry?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members; this is a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1146 to 1151.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We'll deal first with the motion by Mr. Hudak. All those in favour will rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

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

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 16; the nays are 48.

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

We will now deal with the main motion by Ms. Smith. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Same vote.

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

The division bells rang from 1154 to 1159.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We will now deal with the main motion by Ms. Smith.

All those in favour will rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

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

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 49; the nays are 13.

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

Motion agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): This House stands recessed until 1 p.m.

The House recessed from 1202 to 1300.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Dave Levac: In the precinct today, representing Ukrainians across the province and the country, we have Mr. Orest Steciw, projects coordinator, League of Ukrainian Canadians; Mr. Eugene Yakovitch, chair, Famine-Genocide Commemorative Committee of Ukraine Canadian Congress, Toronto branch; Mrs. Irka Mychak; Mrs. Marika Szkambara; Mr. Oleh Romanyshyn, president, League of Ukrainian Canadians; Mrs. Chrystyna Bidiak, president, Canadian Women's Congress.

As well, we have with us today a very special visitor in the precinct, Her Excellency Mrs. Kateryna Yushchenko, first lady of Ukraine; Dr. Ihor Ostash, Ambassador of the Ukraine to Canada; Mr. Ihor Lossovskyi, Consul General of the Ukraine in Toronto.

We welcome them and hope their visit is joyous.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd like to welcome a group of students from Martin Street Junior Public School in their grade 5 class and a special welcome to one of the students, Jake Hunter.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS

Mr. Frank Klees: The auto industry is in a crisis. Thousands of jobs are at risk and businesses in all sectors of the industry, from manufacturing plants to dealerships, are in jeopardy.

Today, 850 employees and their families are coping with the frightening reality that two Magna plants are shutting down in Newmarket and Aurora. The employees are now faced with the daunting challenge of finding a new job and accessing retraining programs.

I'm calling on the Premier today to commit his government to take immediate action on two fronts:

And, second, that the government act immediately to implement a job preservation plan that will facilitate the operational survival of the auto industry in this province.

This is not just about saving a corporate entity; it is about preserving jobs, families and communities.

TERRORIST ATTACKS

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: Yesterday, the world watched in horror as terrorists attacked innocent civilians in Mumbai, India. Reports confirm that 100 people have been killed, 300 injured, and Canadians are among the many hostages still being held.

On behalf of the constituents of Mississauga—Brampton South, I condemn this terrorist attack and urge all Canadians to stand united with the people of India against this act of cowardice. Our thoughts are with the victims of this tragedy, and we pray that those who are being held hostage return home to their families and friends safely and as soon as possible.

Those who attempt to destroy a peaceful way of life with fear and venture to solve political, social and economic problems through violence—the civilized world must not allow them to succeed.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Ms. Laurie Scott: In my riding of Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, the automotive sector is one of the largest employers. The negative economic impact of auto job losses hurts our local businesses, local suppliers and local manufacturers. The challenges faced by our auto sector also hurt our local dealerships and service centres.

I have received many phone calls, e-mails and letters from concerned constituents about how the provincial government plans to respond to these