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

May 14, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-May-14 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 14 May 2009 Jeudi 14 mai 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TOBACCO DAMAGES

AND HEALTH CARE COSTS

RECOVERY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE RECOUVREMENT

DU MONTANT DES DOMMAGES

ET DU COÛT DES SOINS DE SANTÉ

IMPUTABLES AU TABAC

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

(KEEPING OUR KIDS SAFE

AT SCHOOL), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

(SÉCURITÉ DE NOS ENFANTS

À L'ÉCOLE)

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

GREEN POWER GENERATION

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

TAXATION

PENSION PLANS

SCHOOL BOARDS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

STUDENT SUMMER JOBS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

FOREST INDUSTRY

HEALTHY LIVING

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

HOSPITAL SERVICES

DEFERRED VOTES

GREEN ENERGY AND GREEN

ECONOMY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR L'ÉNERGIE VERTE

ET L'ÉCONOMIE VERTE

TOBACCO DAMAGES

AND HEALTH CARE COSTS

RECOVERY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE RECOUVREMENT

DU MONTANT DES DOMMAGES

ET DU COÛT DES SOINS DE SANTÉ

IMPUTABLES AU TABAC

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TECUMSETH NORTH

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

PROFESSIONAL HOCKEY FRANCHISE

TOWN OF HAWKESBURY /

VILLE DE HAWKESBURY

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE BOARD

SHERWOOD HIGH SCHOOL

POVERTY EVENT

GENERAL MOTORS TRUCK PLANT

CULTURAL FESTIVALS

INTERNATIONAL DAY AGAINST HOMOPHOBIA

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

HUMANITARIAN CRISIS IN SRI LANKA /

CRISE HUMANITAIRE AU SRI LANKA

PETITIONS

ELMVALE DISTRICT HIGH SCHOOL

CEMETERIES

PENSION PLANS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

CHILD CUSTODY

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT

(FIREFIGHTERS), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ PROFESSIONNELLE

ET L'ASSURANCE CONTRE LES

ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL (POMPIERS)

PENSION BENEFITS AMENDMENT ACT

(UNLOCKING PENSION FUNDS), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RÉGIMES DE RETRAITE

(DÉBLOCAGE DES FONDS DE RETRAITE)

PROTECTION OF MINORS

IN AMATEUR SPORTS ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES MINEURS PARTICIPANT

À DES SPORTS AMATEURS

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT

(FIREFIGHTERS), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ PROFESSIONNELLE

ET L'ASSURANCE CONTRE LES

ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL (POMPIERS)

PENSION BENEFITS AMENDMENT ACT

(UNLOCKING PENSION FUNDS), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RÉGIMES DE RETRAITE

(DÉBLOCAGE DES FONDS DE RETRAITE)

PROTECTION OF MINORS

IN AMATEUR SPORTS ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES MINEURS PARTICIPANT

À DES SPORTS AMATEURS

PENSION BENEFITS AMENDMENT ACT

(UNLOCKING PENSION FUNDS), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RÉGIMES DE RETRAITE

(DÉBLOCAGE DES FONDS DE RETRAITE)

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT

(FIREFIGHTERS), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ PROFESSIONNELLE

ET L'ASSURANCE CONTRE LES

ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL (POMPIERS)

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TOBACCO DAMAGES

AND HEALTH CARE COSTS

RECOVERY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE RECOUVREMENT

DU MONTANT DES DOMMAGES

ET DU COÛT DES SOINS DE SANTÉ

IMPUTABLES AU TABAC

Mr. Bentley moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 155,

An Act to permit the Province to recover damages and health care costs incurred because of tobacco related diseases and to make a complementary amendment to the Limitations Act, 2002 / Projet de loi 155, Loi autorisant la province à recouvrer le montant des dommages et du coût des soins de santé engagés en raison des maladies liées au tabac et à apporter une modification complémentaire à la Loi de 2002 sur la prescription des actions.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I'm very pleased to rise on this occasion to lead third reading debate.

This bill will do several things, but it does them in a broader context. We all know the terrible effect of tobacco on the health of Ontarians. We all know about the damage that tobacco consumption can do and the death that it causes. There isn't one among us who doesn't know somebody who has been affected by tobacco-related disease, often in a very tragic way.

What this bill does is provide the ability for the people of Ontario to recover health care costs from tobacco companies where it is alleged that their actions have contributed to those costs. This is not new to North America. It was conducted quite successfully in the United States about a decade and a half ago–almost $250 billion collected or being collected from tobacco companies. Litigation has been commenced throughout other jurisdictions—specifically, British Columbia and New Brunswick—to recover damages for health care costs from tobacco companies. What this bill speaks to is simply our ability to launch a lawsuit to recover damages in the same way.

The cost—the damages—of tobacco-related disease is enormous. About $1.6 billion every year can be attributed to tobacco-related disease. Just to put that in context, it would completely fund eight large GTA hospitals, it would fund 211,000 hip and knee operations and it would fund 2,000 MRI units—not 2,000 MRI hours, but 2,000 MRI units operating eight hours a day. So there is a lot at issue here. What this bill does is provide the foundation for a lawsuit to be commenced. We need to do this before we can move forward.

The same approach has been taken in a number of other provinces. I mentioned British Columbia and New Brunswick—they've commenced lawsuits—but a number of others have already passed the legislation. This approach has been found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada. This approach is important, so that we can recover health care costs on behalf of the people of Ontario.

In other jurisdictions, the allegations that are part of the lawsuits include allegations that tobacco companies in the past presented light cigarettes as being less harmful, when they were not; acted to suppress research into the harmful effects of tobacco use; and acted to target children with their advertising. Those are the allegations.

We haven't commenced a lawsuit, because we need the foundation on which to do it. This bill speaks to that foundation. It speaks to the ability of the people of the province to recover health care costs related to the alleged wrongdoing of tobacco companies that helped incur those costs through tobacco use. It speaks to the recovery on behalf of the people of the province of Ontario. It speaks ultimately to the terrible cost of a product that we all know has a very, very sad and terrible effect on the lives of so many people in the province of Ontario.

I encourage all members of this House to give very serious consideration to this legislation and very serious consideration to our ability to move forward, and I ask all members of the House to support this legislation as we continue the third reading debate, and to pass it, so we can recover in the same way they did in the United States, in the same way they're moving to do in British Columbia and New Brunswick, in the same way they've passed or proposed legislation in a number of other provinces in Canada. All we want, on behalf of the people of Ontario, is the same right that people in other jurisdictions in North America have already acquired.

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

Mr. Peter Kormos: I'm going to be speaking to third reading of this bill in short order. I'm confident the bill will pass this morning, in terms of having completed third reading, and then the government and the high-priced lawyers can go about doing what they intend to do.

I am going to be briefer than usual, in terms of a contribution to third reading debate, mostly because I've got a House leaders' meeting at 9:45. Ms. Smith, the government House leader, was very clever in that regard, and I give her credit—one should give credit where credit is due. She compelled me to agree to a 9:45 House leaders' meeting, and here I am; I'm going to find myself truncating what otherwise would have been 60 minutes of diatribe. But I do look forward, in short order, after hearing the Conservative response to this, to making my own comments on behalf of the New Democratic Party.

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

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I commend the minister for bringing this bill forward. I have some reservations, as the member from Thorold mentioned, about expensive, high-priced lawyers having their way with Ontario taxpayers' money, and the modest success ratio that has been experienced in other jurisdictions. Perhaps the minister could comment on that in his two-minute wrap-up.

I would also like to hear some comment, perhaps, on whether or not this legislation introduces retroactivity to the proceedings and whether that will be challenged in the Supreme Court, with the ever-continuing sound of the cash register going ka-ching, ka-ching, as it does with those types of cases. I'd be interested in the minister's comments in that area.

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

Attorney General, you have up to two minutes for your response.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I thank the members from Halton and Welland for their comments. Let me address just a few of them.

Whatever challenges may come—and one can never tell what challenges will be made—the approach we're taking is the approach that British Columbia took, which the Supreme Court of Canada has had a good, thorough look at and has said is constitutional. That's why we are using this approach. It very much mirrors the approach that British Columbia and all other jurisdictions in Canada that have taken a look and are moving on this issue have taken.

I take the point about litigation and its expense. I think it's a very important point. We will be taking a look at the bill, if it passes, and determining our next steps, and we will be very careful with respect to the approach.

I would say, with respect to potential recovery, that one never knows in litigation. In the United States, where litigation is thriving regardless of the times and the circumstance, there was a very substantial recovery on behalf of the people of the United States—almost $250 billion payable over 25 years. That was certainly considered by all the governments involved, and the interest groups, to be appropriate and well worth the instigation of litigation.

One can never determine in advance what is going to happen, but if we don't pass the bill, we don't even have the opportunity to advance. So I ask the members of the House to support this, so we can move forward on behalf of the people of the province.

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

Mr. Peter Kormos: We're witnessing a very sad pattern in this chamber. The Attorney General today, in very brief comments, takes credit for this bill, which is as much about public relations as it is anything else, when in fact it was the parliamentary assistant who did all the heavy lifting. It's the parliamentary assistant, Mr. Zimmer, who carried this bill through second reading and through committee, and does he get credit from the Attorney General? No. So where the Attorney General fails Mr. Zimmer, I will fill that vacuum and commend David Zimmer, from Willowdale, for his strong efforts in terms of stewarding this bill through the precarious legislative process.

You know, inevitably, parliamentary assistants are used to take the blame—take the heat—if something fails,

whereas when something is successful, it's the minister himself or herself who seizes the spotlight, squeezing that parliamentary assistant out of the limelight, out of the press, out of any recognition.

Look, New Democrats regard this bill as largely cosmetic. Regretfully, we see the need for cosmetic efforts on the part of the government in no small way as a means of excusing itself for not being as successful as it should have been when it comes to creating declining smoking rates, especially among young people. People of our generation, Speaker, by and large have quit smoking. The carcinogens are already probably well implanted, and we haven't really saved ourselves, but by and large, people of our generation have quit smoking.

Sadly, young people continue to smoke and begin smoking at an alarming rate. Anecdotally, drive past the high school—and of course it's not on school grounds, but it's across the road, to the dismay and annoyance of people who have their homes across the road, where you see high school students, young women as well, frighteningly, smoking.

The other interesting part of that, of course, is—and I understand a package of cigarettes costs up around $9, $10 now. The interesting

part is that the studies that have been done very cleverly, simply by picking up the butts and examining them, reveal that the vast majority of the cigarettes being smoked by those youngsters are the cheap, non-taxed cigarettes that come from native "smoke shacks," I believe is the phrase.

And while we know that there are a number of legitimate manufacturers of those cigarettes, we're also told that there's a whole industry of counterfeit or bootleg tobacco cigarette manufacturing, using tobacco from who knows where—China, among other places—raised under conditions where there's the use of chemicals, among other things, that would be prohibited in Ontario, increasing, augmenting, the health risks. As if it wasn't dangerous enough to smoke, these kids are also now probably smoking stuff that has any number of toxins and chemicals in it that are far removed from the tar and nicotine.

It's not inappropriate to challenge this government on its failure to address that phenomenon: the proliferation of cheap cigarettes in non-native parts of the province, or communities that are not on reserves or are not part of reserves.

We know that the more expensive the product is, the greater the reduction of usage. That's why these cheap cigarettes are particularly dangerous and why the government should be regarding them as an acute health risk. Remarkably, I've sat in this chamber while the Minister of Health Promotion has been questioned about her response to this issue, and inevitably she refers the question to the Solicitor General, who then blames the feds, when in fact the enforcement of laws, as I understand it, is as much the responsibility of municipal police and regional police and Ontario Provincial Police as it is of the RCMP.

So there's some explaining to do here, and we should be very concerned. This is a health issue, a major health issue.

Now, the government says it's going to start suing the tobacco companies. You can bet your boots, you can bet your bottom dollar, that the lawyers, the big Bay Street lawyers, the $500-an-hour or $600-an-hour lawyers, are rubbing their hands with glee. At the end of the day, they'll have made the money—and for all intents and purposes, who am I to criticize Bay Street lawyers, with their fancy, expensive cars—their BMWs and their Mercedes-Benz S series and their Maybachs—and their Prada shoes and their Rolexes and their Mont Blanc pens? Who am I to criticize them? Hopefully, they pay their share of income taxes.

But at the end of the day, this isn't one of those John Grisham novels, where you've got some poor, sad family of a person who's smoked himself to a cancerous death who is awarded a multimillion-dollar settlement by a jury in litigation against the tobacco companies. The victims aren't going to see a penny, if indeed there's ever any money.

Now, as I understand the American litigation, huge chunks of it were resolved by negotiated settlements, and parts of those settlements weren't cash settlements, but they were agreements on the part of the tobacco industry to pull back on some of the advertising tactics and techniques they had used, pull back on their sponsorship of sporting events, pull back on their utilization of characters—I think Joe Cool was one of the characters.

It's just remarkable that the tobacco industry exists at all in this province or in this country. We shouldn't be suing these guys; we should be sending them to jail. We should be providing Conrad Black with cellmates rather than simply looking for them to buy their way out of this intense level of culpability.

But of course this government, like so many others, is in a strange position, because at the same time that it condemns tobacco use, it generates huge revenues from tobacco sales. Of course, the government now, cash-strapped as it is—after giving billions of dollars of tax breaks to banks and insurance companies, the corporations that least need it—finds itself looking for revenues from any source that it can, including plain folks like the folks who live in your riding and who live in my riding, with the new BST, the BS tax, the blended sales tax, an increase of 8% on everything from being born to dying: an increased 8% tax on funeral services.

This government will tax anything that moves, and if it doesn't move, it will kick it until it does and then tax it as well, yet the corporate world gets huge tax breaks, and we see a government that has simply thrown the towel in when it comes to contraband and cheap tobacco and cigarettes that are being smoked increasingly by youngsters.

The corner store issue: All of us received a package of materials from the corner store association, and they've been crying out for this government to do something about the contraband tobacco. The Korean Businessmen's Association—again, a large number of Korean-Canadian families are involved in the corner store, in the convenience store business—has been crying out for this government to do something about the contraband tobacco issue.

These are hard-working people who have abided by the law, who have put all their tobacco products behind closed doors, eliminated any advertising or promotion of them in their stores and who rely upon tobacco sales, in no small part, to generate the traffic through their corner or convenience stores, and this government has done precious little for them.

So here it is: We're going to vote for the legislation. The Attorney General is quite right in that he has no idea what the outcome will be at the end of the day. As I say, we know that lawyers will be paid a whole lot of money during the course of events. There may be no return for the government of Ontario in terms of it seeking compensation for health care costs, or the return may be so small that the cost of getting it outweighs the actual judgment or settlement that's provided at the end of the day by the tobacco companies. New Democrats will be supporting this legislation when it goes to a vote later this morning.

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

Mrs. Julia Munro: I would like to comment on those remarks made by the member for Welland and the fact that it seems to me that this bill, as the minister himself has pointed out, replicates other pieces of legislation in other jurisdictions.

The issue is that we're in Ontario, and the problem is illegal tobacco. This bill does nothing to address that. It does nothing to address a growing and serious problem for people when we know that the number of smokers is in fact increasing, and it is through the avenue of illegal tobacco

I commend him on his comments in that regard.

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

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: It's always interesting to listen to the member. I'm sorry that his speech was short; I can't conceive of the member for Thorold actually doing something he didn't want to do because somebody called a meeting at the wrong time. However, I accept the member's protestations about where he can go.

The member did bring up interesting points, not the least of which was the illegal tobacco issue in which this government doesn't seem to be taking as much interest as the people of Ontario would hope. We have seen over the last couple of weeks the protests of the Tamil group, which is located outside the building here. We have seen them move on to the highways and the streets of Toronto, and they have been immediately removed. There's a lot of comment on the radio, there's a lot of comment in the newspapers about how this protest is inconveniencing their lives, how this protest is going on too long.

It just strikes me as strange. I wonder how these people who are complaining about this short protest that has happened in Toronto would like to have lived in Caledonia for the last two years, where that same situation has been occurring on a daily basis, week in and week out. I just find it strange that the government can take the kinds of actions they have here in Toronto, absolutely ignore what's going on in Caledonia and absolutely ignore the illegal sale of cigarettes that is taking place on Ontario government-owned land that is being rented, and smoke shops that are being set up on that land.

I just find there's a double-standard here that's disappointing.

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

Mr. Dave Levac: The member from Welland points out rightly that the parliamentary assistant, Mr. Zimmer, has done a great deal of work behind the scenes on this bill. It's nice of him to make sure that that gets mentioned.

I also am very concerned about the disingenuous comments that are being made about a different issue, as opposed to seeking this bill's approval to go after the people who sell those death sticks. If they want to try to relate it to that, I think it's disingenuous to assume that nothing's being done. The gentleman and the ladies who make those decisions are the RCMP, the OPP and the municipal police, and the work that's being done to disenfranchise those groups—it's disingenuous at best. The reality is that there's a very complicated issue here and there's an extremely difficult situation that's volatile.

To inflame that simply by saying that the government is doing nothing is disingenuous at best. The reality we are talking about is to try to make sure that the companies that were selling these products—what has happened in the past, what has happened in other jurisdictions, happens in Ontario. Quite frankly, the health care costs that are involved in the recovery of that are what the minister is presenting, and I think rightfully so.

I've heard from the member from Welland, speaking on behalf of his party, that they are going to support the bill in a way that simply says that at least that party says it wants to make sure that those recovery costs are done. With the comments that are being made by the members in the Tory party, I'm not sure if they are in favour of the bill, I'm not sure if they're against the bill, or if they just want to take cheap shots at the RCMP, the OPP and the municipal police. I just don't know what it is. Maybe they should stand right up and say so.

Thanks to the member from Welland for his comments.

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

Seeing none, the honourable member for Welland has up to two minutes for his response.

Mr. Peter Kormos: I know the member for Halton would dearly have loved to have had the two-minute response. I didn't hear him criticizing municipal police forces, the RCMP or the OPP. You know, I've been a critic of Julian Fantino, and I'm pleased to see now Ted Chudleigh, the member for Halton from the Conservative caucus, join the ranks of critics of Julian Fantino, because I have concerns.

Well, I contrast Fantino with Bill Blair, for instance, who in Toronto has—in my view, the Toronto police have dealt remarkably with the Tamil Canadian community in the course of their protests and deserve a great deal of praise. I'm a fan of Bill Blair; I'm not a fan of Julian Fantino, and I see that neither is Mr. Chudleigh. I welcome the support and this new alliance that he and I have in our concerns about Julian Fantino.

I know that when Commissioner Fantino reads this transcript, as he undoubtedly will, the fact that the member from Halton has now joined the ranks of his critics will cause him the concern that in fact it should.

Look, let's make it clear: This legislation and this litigation is not going to reduce smoking. That's the sad part. It's not going to reduce that phenomenon of youngsters, teenagers, continuing to smoke and continuing to begin smoking, aided as they are by the proliferation of cheap contraband tobacco that seems to be uninterrupted in its flow, and that's of great concern. I think it's disingenuous for anybody to suggest that we shouldn't be concerned about that and that we shouldn't be crying out for action about that.

All the settlements in the world aren't going to protect kids from ingesting carcinogenic stuff, to wit, tobacco, which they're doing every day. That's the sad part about this debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate? Seeing none, Mr. Bentley would you like time to respond, as mover of the motion?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: No, thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): We'll go to the vote, then.

Mr. Bentley has moved third reading of Bill 155. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I hear a no.

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. The vote will take place during deferred votes, after question period.

Third reading vote deferred.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

(KEEPING OUR KIDS SAFE

AT SCHOOL), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

(SÉCURITÉ DE NOS ENFANTS

À L'ÉCOLE)

Ms. Wynne moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 157,

An Act to amend the Education Act / Projet de loi 157, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'éducation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Debate?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I am sharing my time with my parliamentary assistant, the member for Guelph. I just want to lead off by acknowledging the work of the member for Guelph. I know we're not to mention names, but Liz Sandals is my parliamentary assistant, and she has done terrific work in gathering information around the province on how we should move forward to make our schools safer places, so I'm very grateful to her.

The Keeping our Kids Safe at School Act is about just that: It's about making our schools even safer for students. Before I go into detail about what this legislation would do, I want to make an overarching statement about what I believe about the safety of schools.

When we have schools in the province where principals and other administration, support staff, teachers, parents, kids, all understand what the rules are; where they all feel engaged in the life of the school; where there are good connections with the community, including with the police, where those protocols and those procedures are well understood; where there is a code of behaviour that everyone understands; then we are in a far better place to expect that we will have safety in our schools.

Having said that, there's always more that we can do to make sure that those conditions are in fact in place. With that, we have to understand that schools don't exist in isolation from communities. What is going on in a neighbourhood, in a city, in a region, the services for public health and mental health and community and family support—all of those things have an impact on safety in the community and therefore in the school.

I just want to be clear that we, in this government, do not take a simplistic approach or have a simplistic notion about what makes a school safe, which is why we have moved, for example, to put in place an equity and inclusive education strategy, because we believe that making sure everyone feels included in our schools is part of creating a safe school environment.

We have put millions of dollars and resources into anti-bullying programs in our schools, because we believe it's very important for everyone to understand what it means to bully, how to prevent bullying and how to react to bullying. It's the reason we have put more money into hiring social workers, psychologists and support workers, to make sure those people are available to the school system.

It's why we introduced Bill 212, to make sure that the programs that need to be in place for students who are at risk, for students who have been suspended or expelled—that these kids aren't just sent out to the mall but in fact have a program that can help them get back on track. All the things we've done have helped move us closer to the state where we have perfectly safe schools. Obviously, we're not there. We have to keep making incremental change.

This legislation, if it passes, would build on the work we have done over the past five or so years to make our schools safe. As I say, it has been a priority for us to make our schools safer; when we came to office in 2003, we began to do this work. For us, it is a non-negotiable that our students feel safe, that they feel comfortable and respected at school, and likewise that their families feel they have access to the supports they need. The reason that is so critical is that if a student doesn't feel safe at school, then it's much harder to focus on learning.

Obviously, we have put a huge priority on student achievement and on kids succeeding, and in order for that to happen, they must feel safe. They have to be able to focus on learning.

Nous voulons que nos élèves obtiennent leur diplôme et qu'ils puissent exercer de brillantes carrières qui les comblent. Nos écoles doivent être des endroits où tout le monde—le personnel, les élèves, les parents et la communauté—se sent le bienvenu, en sécurité et respecté.

That's why I asked the safe schools action team, chaired by my colleague the member for Guelph, to investigate some of these behaviours that would create an unsafe environment: issues like gender-based violence, homophobia, sexual harassment, inappropriate sexual behaviour in our schools. As I've said before in the House, some of these are difficult issues to talk about, and that makes it even more critical that the safe schools action team went out and talked to people around the province about how to address these issues in our schools.

The safe schools action team also looked at barriers to reporting: What are the barriers that might be in place that would prevent a student from reporting, or that might prevent a staff person from reporting a serious incident? They talked to people about what might cause a person not to report, and we are acting on their advice as a result of those conversations.

They also participated in a review of local police and school board protocols. As I said, it's very important, as part of a safe school initiative, to make sure that schools have good working relationships with the community, including police services, and that it's clear what the rules are in those relationships.

I want to recognize the work of the safe schools action team, and the people who worked with the member for Guelph as part of that team: Stu Auty, Dr. Inez Elliston, Ray Hughes, Dr. Debra Pepler and Lynn Ziraldo. All those people have a variety of experience that they bring to the table, all of which was invaluable in making sure we got the right recommendations.

I received the team's final report in December, and it is evidence of the thoughtful work all of those folks did—as I said, the difficult work, because these are sometimes tricky issues to raise in the broader community, and critical to do so. There are a number of valuable recommendations that the team brought forward. We've moved quickly to act on those, and this bill, Bill 157, is one piece of that response. This particular bill would deal with some very important issues. First, it would address gaps in reporting in legislation. I said that we were looking at barriers to reporting.

At present, the Education Act indicates when a student suspension and expulsion must be considered by the principal, and these activities include bullying and assault. But principals cannot act on those behaviours if they don't know that they're happening. Staff members, if this legislation were passed, would be required to report to the principal any incident that they're aware of that could result in a student being suspended or expelled. First of all, we delineate what the behaviours are for which a student might be suspended or expelled, and then we require, under this legislation, if it's passed, that that reporting happen.

I just want to say that I know that these changes, if they are passed into law, will formalize what is currently happening most of the time. In the majority of cases, this is what already happens, but there was no formal articulation of that requirement, and we saw that as a problem. It's certainly something, I have to say, that we had heard from members of the opposition and from members of the public, and so we're hoping that it will receive the support of all the members in this House.

We also want to make sure that students feel comfortable disclosing incidents to staff, knowing that they'll be followed up on, and parents should feel comfortable knowing that these incidents will be responded to appropriately.

The legislation would also require principals to contact the parents of victims of student incidents for which suspension or expulsion must be considered. Right now, it's required that principals contact the parents of perpetrators of incidents, but there was nothing that codified the responsibility of principals to report to the parents of victims. Parents have a right to know when their child is a victim of such behaviour, and that is why we are putting this into the legislation. They can't advocate for their child and they can't work with the school to resolve these issues if they're unaware of the incidents happening in the first place.

However, we're also including in the legislation that a principal would not be required to inform the parents of victims if, in his or her opinion—in the opinion of the principal—it would put the victim at risk of harm from a parent. Again, that's a difficult reality to confront, but it's something that we know we need to have in the legislation. We need to make sure that principals have that autonomy to be able to make that decision.

The amendments being proposed would allow the principal to inform the parents of victims about the nature of the incident that resulted in harm to the student, the nature of harm to the student and the steps taken to protect the student's safety, including the nature of any discipline in response to the incident. We think that's a reasonable response. Principals would also protect the privacy rights of other students involved in the incidents.

The safety and well-being of Ontario students comes first, obviously. If passed, Ontario would be the first province in Canada with legislation of this kind. We would be in the forefront in terms of this kind of safe schools legislation requiring school staff to report serious student incidents to the principals.

Finally, the legislation would authorize policies that would require staff who observe inappropriate or disrespectful behaviour among students to respond. Again, I understand that that happens most of the time, but it's something that we believed needed to be articulated. Such behaviours—we're talking about things like racist or sexist comments that are unacceptable in our schools.

I think it's clear from much of the discourse that's going on right now, if we look at the newspapers, around issues of racism and how we perceive each other, that we do a very good job in Ontario to be inclusive, but there's still more that we can do. Having teachers step in and intervene when there are racist or sexist comments I think is something that we can expect. We, of course, would only require staff to do that if it's safe to do so.

We're not suggesting that anyone should put themselves at risk but that they should ask a student to stop the behaviour, identify the type of behaviour and why it's inappropriate or disrespectful, and ask for a change in the future. Again, this happens most of the time.

Le projet de loi n'est qu'une

partie de la solution. Nous prenons des mesures dans beaucoup d'autres domaines, en nous basant sur les recommandations de l'équipe d'action. Par exemple, nous apportons des modifications au curriculum, développons et maintenons des partenariats communautaires efficaces, améliorons la collecte de données et renforçons le leadership des élèves.

L'équipe d'action a formulé beaucoup d'autres recommandations très utiles dans des domaines comme la collaboration avec la police locale, la prévention et la formation.

We'll continue to provide a comprehensive response to the report. We are already acting on many of those other recommendations, whether it's the curriculum changes or the changes in terms of connections with the community. We have a responsibility to act on those recommendations, to continue to create the safest, most positive school climate that is possible. Now I'd like to turn my time over to the member for Guelph.

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

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I'm delighted to have an opportunity to speak on third reading of the Keeping Our Kids Safe at School Act. I'd just like to begin by thanking the minister, who has been very supportive of the work of the safe schools action team. I know that the team has appreciated that as we've delivered the various reports. The minister has been very receptive and worked closely with us on implementing the recommendations.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I would have been disappointed if that were not true.

Mrs. Liz Sandals: It is true.

There are nearly two million students in our publicly funded schools, and each one of them deserves the opportunity to learn and grow. They will be our next generation of leaders and innovators. They will help our province grow and prosper. Every effort should be made to create a warm and welcoming learning environment for students. They deserve schoolyards where they run with friends, not run away from bullies. They deserve classrooms where they learn about different cultures, not to be silent when faced with inappropriate remarks. They deserve hope, not fear. We have a duty to take action, and I am confident that this legislation, if passed, will help make our schools safer.

As the minister said, many of the proposed legislative changes in this act were born out of the third report of the safe schools action team. I want to thank the team. We've worked together now—this is our third report. As I said, we've been very pleased, as we work our way through these reports, to see them implemented, and with each report I know we're making improvements in what's happening in our schools in terms of making them safer for the students. So I would very much like to thank the team for the work they've done over a period of several years now.

I've been proud to chair that team, and during our consultations we met with people across the province, including students, school staff, parents, police, community agencies and other members of the school community. We read the statistics. We found that when you looked at the statistics, half of the girls in grades 9 and 11 reported that they were on the receiving end of sexual harassment. When we looked at homophobic behaviours, we found that a third of the boys in our high schools reported being the target of some sort of homophobic harassment.

We also heard stories from students about being bullied and from parents of victims who felt that they did not receive the information that they needed, hence the requirement in this bill to make sure that principals bring parents into the loop.

We compiled everything we learned and proposed solutions in our report submitted to the minister in December. I'm pleased to see that five months later we have the first step in the implementation of that third report: the legislation that we have before us this morning.

But I do want to point out that that's the first step. These are the pieces that require legislative action. As we move forward in the months to come, we'll be revising ministry policies, creating new policies and making curriculum revisions that address many of the other recommendations and flesh out the work that's in the legislation.

What I do think we are seeing, though, is how committed this government is to making sure that our schools are safe for all of our students, because through this legislation we want to give every student a positive learning environment so they can reach their full potential. We want them to graduate confident in themselves and their future. Everything we do should be focused on getting them there, because a high school graduation diploma is the most important thing that a student can do during their adolescent years. That's the beginning, the foundation, for the rest of their life.

As a government, we have set a target of 85% of students graduating from high school, and we have improved that graduation rate over the past five years from 68% to 77%—a clear signal that we are headed in the right direction. But the action team also heard that when students are bullied, they're less likely to attend school, more likely to drop out. We know that when students are the constant target of chronic homophobic harassment, again, they're less likely to attend school, more likely to drop out.

So if we want our kids to graduate, bullying, sexual harassment and homophobia are issues that we must address to keep our kids engaged in learning and able to graduate. To get on the road to success, we must include greater school safety and a more inclusive learning environment.

We're taking several other steps to enhance safety and equity in our schools. We've launched a new equity and inclusive education strategy. We've provided funding to 33 schools in urban high-needs neighbourhoods to implement after-school activities, peer mentoring and other initiatives. We're also investing in programs like focus on youth and community use of schools to help establish our schools as community hubs for our youth.

During our safe school action team consultations, one student told us this: "In a safe, supportive environment you can be who you want to be without being afraid. You feel welcome so you want to be there and do more" at school. Another student told us that, "If staff observe negative behaviour, if staff don't call us when we make homophobic remarks or sexist remarks or racist remarks, then they are giving us permission to do those negative things." Those statements made an impact on the team.

We feel that those remarks from kids captured exactly what we need to do and why we need to do it, and this proposed legislation will go a long way to creating the learning environment that is needed to help make sure that every student is safe and every student can succeed.

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

Mr. Peter Shurman: I have been somewhat involved in this process on Bill 157 through my work on the Standing Committee on Social Policy. I was disappointed, and want to say so, in the way this bill has come back to this House for third reading, inasmuch as while I agree with the minister and the parliamentary assistant to the minister that the idea is sound for mandatory reporting, it is important to say that mandatory reporting is, in the way it's applied in this bill, somewhat of a misnomer.

It suggests to people who hear the term that mandatory reporting means there is some mandate to report and that that escalates to the ultimate authority, which, in my opinion, and I would have to say in the opinion of the majority of my caucus members, is the parent. We tried to introduce amendments to this bill that would have taken the discretion, to some extent, away from the principal, where it is almost absolute, the way this bill has come back for third reading, and put it in the hands of the parents.

I have the experience, as have most people in the House, of having been a parent of young children—I brought up two kids who managed to make it to 30-something—and I can tell you that I would have been one angry person had I not heard of the various incidents—and there were incidents over the years—that involved my children.

In the course of hearings on this bill, I saw Liberal members of the social policy committee in tears, listening to closed-door testimony from parents whose children—young children, single-digit-aged children—had been violated sexually in the schools and were complaining to the committee that they had never heard about this until it was brought to their attention, in one case by the children themselves.

"Mandatory reporting" means more than what this bill purports it to mean, and I, for one, take exception to it.

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

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I will have one hour, at the appropriate time, to do a leadoff, and we're not going to be able to do that this morning. I think things will wrap up very, very soon, so I'm not going to try to pack one hour into a short two minutes, except to say that there is a lot to respond to in terms of what I had said in the second reading debate and in terms of what I heard in the committee from the hearings. Some things the government responded to and some things they didn't, and I'll want to speak to that.

I want to speak to what the Conservative caucus has been raising for some time. I have some agreement with what they say, and I'm very supportive of some of the elements of what they have been talking about. We'll have an opportunity to speak to some of the things that they have raised and some of the inadequacies of what the bill does not speak to in general. So when that opportunity comes, I will do my full hour.

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

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak about this very important bill. I want to commend the minister and her parliamentary assistant for all the great work they have done in terms of this bill, and prior to this bill with the safe schools action team.

This issue has been very important to me from the time I was campaigning to be elected to this Legislature. A young mother asked me a question in one of the all-leadership-candidates debates about mandatory reporting, about kids being abused, primarily sexually, in schools and what the government was planning to do. At that time—I have to be very honest—I did not know the answer, and I was very frank with her. I said, "I do not know the answer to the question you're posing, but I definitely will undertake to pursue this with you, if given the opportunity to represent you." Of course, I'm not naming her for specific purposes, to protect the identity of the child involved.

Since being elected, I've been working with my constituent and making sure that she had an opportunity to present her views to the safe schools action team and to the social policy committee as this bill was going forward. She has participated at every single step. I had the opportunity to converse with her the other day. She is very happy with the process that it has taken. She sees this bill as a good step in the right direction.

Of course, we need to do more, no doubt about it. We need to make sure that our schools are safe, that our schools are healthy, that our schools are a place where kids learn and where abuses of any sort—whether they be in terms of homophobia, racism or of a sexual nature—do not take place.

I commend the minister and her PA for taking the steps necessary to make sure that we make our schools more positive and more healthy. I'm very happy that I was able to represent my constituent in this regard.

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

Seeing none, the honourable member for Guelph, you have up to two minutes for your response.

Mrs. Liz Sandals: Thank you to the members for Thornhill, Trinity—Spadina and Ottawa Centre for their comments. Because a couple have mentioned reporting, I will talk about that.

The testimony to the safe schools action team, which included a written submission from the parent who my colleague from Ottawa Centre has referred to, and information about some of the other cases that we've heard about at social policy that more members had an opportunity to hear—clearly those cases were mishandled. They very much informed the recommendations that the safe schools action team made that are reflected in this legislation.

Specifically with respect to reporting to parents, when a child is the victim of something that is on the suspension or expulsion list, the principal will be required to call parents. There is one exception to that, and that is when the principal has reason to believe that further involving the parent could do harm to the child. As somebody who was a long-serving trustee, I have run into these situations. They are rare, but they are real: for example, a student who has been subject to homophobic bullying who says to the principal, "Please don't tell my parents, because my parents don't know I'm gay.

If you tell my parents I am gay, they will throw me out of the house." Why would the member from Thornhill insist that in a situation like that, the parent must be informed?

We agree and we will put in regulation that the principal needs to do certain other things if they don't inform the parent to make sure the student is supported, but we are not—

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

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I ask for unanimous consent to stand down our lead.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Is it agreed that the Conservatives stand down the lead? Agreed.

Further debate?

Mrs. Julia Munro: I will just take a few minutes to offer a few comments on this particular bill.

I listened to the minister and the parliamentary assistant in their remarks this morning, and I recall that, as the minister herself mentioned, the function of this bill was to close the gap. I guess the question is, does it actually accomplish that? I think that there is, as the parliamentary assistant mentions, more to do, and I look at the kinds of materials and suggestions that have been offered by the action team and people like Lynn Zeraldo, and I think that there is a great deal more to do. At best, this papers over the cracks.

It still leaves us with issues around the reality of bullying and the ineffective measures that have been put in place, but also there is a much greater recognition of the damage that is done to victims and the absence of supports for victims.

I look at, for instance, an

article which appeared in the York region paper back in the fall when this was first being discussed, and it interviews Sergeant Sarah Riddell, who was commenting on the fact that that particular week, November 16 to 22, was being named Bullying Awareness Week. It just struck me that the fact that you have to have an awareness week says it all. She said that talking about the issue wouldn't hurt, especially since Internet bullying is becoming more common.

"As an example, statistics posted to the York police website show about 10% to 15% of children say they are regularly bullied, and close to 40% of victims say they have not talked to their parents about the problem."

So I think that even in the work that has been done through the legislative process of this bill, obviously, we've only just scratched the surface if you have as many as 10% to 15% of children reporting that, on a regular basis, they would be bullied.

Sergeant Riddell is quoted: "'Children bully. Adults bully.'

"'It deals with not respecting people around you and not being fair to people around you.'

"Police are seeing more cyber bullying where computers, instant messaging and text messaging are being employed, she said.

"Unlike in the past, where a student may have been bullied at school and then made it home to a safe haven, an explosion of technology in the hands of young people has made it possible to harass someone electronically when they are at home....

"'It can be all that much more overwhelming,'" she went on to say.

When you don't have that direct contact with the victim, you don't necessarily realize the harm you are causing. To try and bring more awareness to the issue, York police have assigned officers to each school, elementary and secondary, in the region, which is where they obtain information about bullying. Officers also receive calls from parents and older students who will call from home when the school day ends. I thought it was important to frame this discussion with that kind of reality that exists in our community.

I also think it's important to look at this issue of victims. Certainly there has been a great deal of attention in the public, in the media, on victims. Again, the York regional news was overwhelmed after the first

article appeared on a particular victim. They covered several more articles as a result of the fact that the victim is often forgotten in the battle with the bully. I want to take a couple of quotes from the York regional news

article on this:

"'There's another lesson bullied children are learning,' says Jennifer Krizel, a Richmond Hill mom whose daughter was bullied in both public and separate schools.

"'We've learned the bully's right to an education outweighs the victim's right to feel safe.'"

Further on: The "London Anti-Bullying Coalition noticed the same thing and is lobbying to fix the problem. 'The forgotten victim is the biggest travesty' of Ontario's new Bill 212, according to Coalition president Corina Morrison."

Certainly this Bill 157 was designed to rectify some of those things. But I think, from much of what research has demonstrated and much of what people have said in the public hearings that were held, this still becomes a very difficult process for victims. It is certainly, at best, an uneven way of looking at the way perpetrators and victims have been treated.

When I look at some of the excellent programs that exist, I think the Minister of Education needs to talk to the Minister of Children and Youth Services and look at the ways in which specific programs are the background to prevention, which after all is really what it's all about. When you look at how much effort is being put into legislation and the mandate by the various boards of education, that's all work that is done, and costs and efforts being made, that come after the perpetration of bullying.

I would suggest, then, that the Families and Schools Together program; mindyourmind.ca; and the SNAP program, Stop Now and Plan, are all programs that are issues around prevention. I think that while it's very important to be able to provide support for both perpetrators and victims, the government needs to be looking at prevention and looking at some of these well-documented, researched and extremely efficient programs that deal with prevention. At the end of the day, allowing this to take place at all is something that should be the uppermost concern.

I want to conclude my remarks with those that were provided by Karen Sebben. Karen appeared before committee with her son Daniel. She is a constituent of mine, and as far back as the beginning of the committee that the member from Guelph chaired, I offered to provide the opportunity for correspondence between my constituent and the parliamentary assistant. My constituent has been involved in this process right from early last year.

She then appeared in the public hearings with her son, and I would like to read her conclusion to an

article that appeared in the York region newspaper chain on March 19; it says:

"Here, we can point to policy and see how aggressors of our schools are dealt with, but where do we point to help victims?

"Mandatory reporting, although a positive" first "step, does not speak to the issue of dealing with victims within legislation.

"At the end of the day, our 'self-governing corporations,' known as our school boards, do very little to assist victims of bullying other than state 'Our hands are tied.'

"As taxpaying parents, we fund our schools and have the absolute right to demand accountability and justice.

"The failure of our government to stand up and take charge by ensuring the safety and learning opportunities of students who have fallen victim to violence is nothing short of neglect."

I think that captures it for the many people in this province who have, as parents, witnessed the kind of damage done to their children in this process. I think this tells us that we have a lot more to do.

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

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I want to read briefly the amendment that was introduced by the Conservatives, which I supported, with some amendments that we made, because I think it tries to speak to some of the concerns that some parents raised.

What I was infuriated with and heard from three or four parents was the sexual violence that was done on young people—not by teachers but by other young people. So that was the story: violence by boys against boys, for the most part. The way that the principal did not deal with that in an adequate manner left me feeling very, very frustrated and angry. I thought those kids needed to be protected, and I thought we needed something in place to protect them.

The Tories introduced a motion that said:

"If the principal of a school believes that a pupil of the school has been harmed as a result of an activity described in subsection 306(1) or 310(1), the principal shall, as soon as reasonably possible," inform one or more of the following:

"(

a) the superintendent

"(

b) the chair of the board;

"(

c) the director of education of the board;

"(

d) the appropriate police department; and

"(

e) if the activity is sexual in nature, the appropriate children's aid society."

I thought that was a good thing to do. Then it says "Safety plan," that the principal should have a "a written safety plan for the harmed pupil." I thought that was a reasonable thing. Third:

"Documentation by principal

"300.3.3 If the principal of a school believes that a pupil of the school has been harmed as a result of an activity described in subsection 306(1) or 310(1), the principal shall maintain written documentation,

"(

a) describing the activity and the harm;

"(

b) describing the actions taken in response to the activity and the harm; and

"(

c) setting out the reasons for the actions taken in response to the activity and the harm."

I thought that was reasonable. We should have supported it, and the Liberal caucus did not.

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

Mr. Rick Johnson: I would like to thank the members from York Simcoe and from Trinity—Spadina for their comments, and I'd also like to thank the minister and the parliamentary assistant for bringing forward this bill. The goal of Bill 157 is clear in the title, which is the Keeping Our Kids Safe at School Act. We have an obligation, as a society, to create a safe and caring environment for all of our province's children, a place where they can learn in safety and have the desire to be in a safe environment.

As a former school trustee for the past 12 years, the majority of phone calls that I would get would be from parents who would be concerned about things that were happening in the schools. Many of the stories were heartbreaking. Just last week—my phone number is still on the local school calendar, so my wife received a phone call and passed it on to the school board, from a mother who was complaining about bullying in a primary school, which is a school that only goes up to grade 4. The stories are heartbreaking, when you hear that.

I think we have an obligation as a government and a society to create that environment where children will feel safe. In the school board in my area, Trillium Lakelands, the board's logo is "Better together in a safe and caring environment." We really tried to live that while I was there.

We can no longer put up with the attitude that it's just kids being kids. Children need to want to go to school; they need to want to be in an environment where they feel safe, and that is really the key thing that this act is attempting to do. I would commend the efforts of the safe schools action team for the work that was done on this. I will be supporting this bill and I think that it's really crucial to the future of our province.

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

Mr. Peter Shurman: My colleague from York—Simcoe rightfully raised the issue of a perpetrator's rights sometimes being put ahead of a victim's rights. I again want to hearken back to a particular deputation made to the committee in reviewing this bill after second reading. Very particularly, this deputation was in camera by a very distraught mother of an 8-year-old—an 8-year-old, I have to say—who was sexually attacked by his peers in a washroom in the school that he attended, being literally scarred for life.

This woman tearfully told the committee that what the principal had done with the reporting on this incident was to initially call the perpetrator's parents. It took a long time for her to find out what had happened to her child. That's why the amendment that we've been talking about, that was rejected out of hand by this self-satisfied Liberal government, that had to do with what a principal does with information, made so much difference as far as we were concerned.

This is not an adversarial bill, from our party's perspective. This is a bill where co-operation between all of the parties could have and should have been invoked at the committee stage so that by the time we got to this third reading debate, we would be able to talk about mandatory reporting on the level that I think most Ontarians expect us to talk about it, which is that it is mandatory for a principal to escalate reporting to the appropriate authority where deemed necessary.

To distort my words and suggest that we're talking about something like a gay student having that information preserved at the level of the principal and not shared with the parents—to me, that is not a discretionary aspect of a principal's rights. Principals have a duty of care to people which goes beyond the student.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions or comments? Seeing none, the honourable member for York—Simcoe, you have up to two minutes for your response.

Mrs. Julia Munro: I'm pleased to respond to the members from Trinity—Spadina, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock and Thornhill. I'm very pleased that the member for Trinity—Spadina chose to use his time to put into Hansard the amendment that was proposed, because I think it demonstrates what the member from Thornhill just mentioned in the fact that it was not intended to be an adversarial or partisan kind of thing; we are concerned about the fact that there seems to be a need to provide a better system of reporting and, as I mentioned in my remarks, a better system of support for both perpetrator and victim. Certainly, I appreciate the fact that people took the time to respond to my remarks.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

Mr. Jim Wilson: It being past 10:15, this House stands in recess until 10:30, at which time we will have question period.

The House recessed from 1019 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Parkdale—High Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for being a gracious host today to Girls Government from Parkdale public school and also from Fern public school. These are their names: Julienne Rufin, Ann Truong, Alana Tinney, Thenuka Thanabalasingam, Mumtahia Monzoor, Monica Truong, and their vice-principal, Ann Marie Borthwick. Also, from Fern: the vice-principal, Linda Tasevski; and the girls, Mayla Patchett, Sophie Lovink, Astrid Burgess, Nuala Polo, Na'ama McLaughlin and Emma Lewis. One of them will be Premier one day.

Hon. Michael Bryant: I want to introduce my fabulous kids, Sadie and Louis Bryant. You all better hope that one of them isn't Premier one day. Welcome.

Mrs. Julia Munro: I'd like to introduce the students from W.J. Watson school in Keswick, who are on their way.

M me France Gélinas: I would like to introduce people from the Strathroy and Area Concerned Citizens. They are Sandra Edmondson, Joyce Jolliffe and Kathryn Gordyn. Welcome to Queen's Park.

Mr. Robert Bailey: It gives me great pleasure to introduce the parents of page Cameron Tomlinson: his mother, Christine Tomlinson, his father, Scott, and his sister, Madison, who are with us in the gallery today.

Mr. Paul Miller: I rise on a request for the consent of this House. I request permission to wear this hockey jersey today, supporting the bid for an NHL team for Hamilton. I've heard the Premier's voice in support for this team, and I'm sure that my colleagues in the opposition will support this economic boost to the Hamilton region.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member seeks unanimous consent to wear the shirt? Agreed? Agreed.

And on behalf of the member from Bramalea—Gore—Malton and page Zachary Crichton, we want to welcome this mother, Theresa Crichton, to the Legislature today. Welcome.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd like to take this opportunity to ask all members to join me in recognition and saying thank you to the pages for their service to all members of the Legislature. We wish you all the best in your future endeavours.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is to the Deputy Premier. For the past number of weeks, the folks across the way in the Liberal ranks have been in damage-control mode, trying to work the media and reduce the impact of their record-breaking, debt-ridden budget. The Progressive Conservative caucus has asked repeated questions about specific impacts in increased costs to families on items and services they use every day, because that's what we're being asked by families and seniors every day.

Minister, when you're forcing people to pay more taxes and those people are asking specifically what those new taxes will include, do you not feel that you have an obligation to provide them with an answer?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The information is readily available. We are creating a single sales tax. The new things that are covered are those services and goods that are not covered by the provincial sales tax. It is subject to a number of transitional rule changes on which we are working with the federal government now in terms of implementation. I should also point out that the tax package will provide enormous tax relief both to businesses and consumers. We look forward to continuing the dialogue as we move to this more competitive tax system which that member and his party in the past supported but for some reason now don't support.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: The reality is we have not received any answers to very specific questions. It's difficult for most Ontarians to believe that you're bringing in this massive tax hike in the worst economy the province has faced in 80 years, with hundreds of thousands of job losses in the same environment.

We've asked about the increased tax costs for everyday needs: no answer. We've asked about the increased costs for sports and recreation activities: no answer; silence from your backbenchers. We've asked about the increased tax costs for a young person purchasing a first home and the potential of 21,000 jobs lost in the construction and renovation industries: no answer; more silence from your backbenchers. We've asked about the increased tax costs on family vacations. What do we get? A laugh and a shrug from Dalton McGuinty.

Minister, do you have any intention of facing Ontarians, giving them the real facts, or are you content with this bankrupt approach of ignoring Ontarians and their concerns? Is that your approach?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The only thing that's bankrupt is the integrity of the opposition party. Let me say again: Those goods and services that are currently not taxed under the PST will be affected by the new single sales tax. That list is readily available to the member opposite. I should tell him that we've been meeting with the same groups, working on transition rules, and we have been working with the Canada Revenue Agency on the very same rules in terms of implementation.

This is the right approach. This is the proper approach. That's why groups as diverse as the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, the chamber of commerce, a number of consumer groups and the Daily Bread Food Bank have said that our tax policy represents a bold step forward for Ontario that will lower taxes for 93% of Ontarians.

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I don't think we can miss the irony of the member of a government that has broken so many solemn promises to the voters of this province in their five and a half years in office—I think it's an understatement to say that Dalton McGuinty has a problem keeping promises. The two largest tax grabs in the province's history are the most expensive examples.

Minister, what is it that makes the Premier and his backbench yes-men and -women so proud of a tax increase, providing a very one-sided view, nothing about what it will really cost seniors and hard-working families and the jobs that are on the line? If you're so proud of this and the tax shift that's going to occur here, why won't you be upfront about the downsides of this new tax: the cost to seniors and hard-working families, the thousands of jobs on the line and the impact on the underground economy?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I think that why we're proud of it, in spite of the attempts by the opposition to paint it another way, is that this represents a tax cut for Ontarians. Ninety-three per cent of Ontarians will get a permanent tax cut. Average families with an income of $80,000 will see a 10% cut. The first $36,000 of everyone's income will be cut 17%. Ninety thousand more people will no longer pay personal tax. Seven hundred and twenty-five thousand additional lower-income Ontarians would benefit from the Ontario tax reduction.

A single parent on social assistance with two children will save over $1,200 under our plan. A single parent earning $25,000 with one child will save over $1,100 on our plan.

That member and his party used to support this. His federal colleagues do. This is the right and the bold move for Ontario to build jobs and build—

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

GREEN POWER GENERATION

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Back to the Deputy Premier: Thanks to the mismanagement of Dalton McGuinty, Ontario families and seniors are about to become the victims of one of the largest tax hikes in Ontario's history. The Premier likes to say Ontarians are willing to pay more for things like gas and green energy, but unfortunately he doesn't tell them how much more he's going to force them to pay. He prefers to camouflage the impact and bamboozle taxpayers.

Deputy Premier, this long weekend, when families head out for a much-deserved holiday, they're going to be going to the gas pumps, taking their boats to the marina to gas up. Next summer, will your McGuinty sales tax cause an increase to already unstable gas prices, and if so, how much?

Hon. George Smitherman: I want to say to the honourable member that I resent somewhat that he's already taken this long weekend away from Ontarians and he's fast-forwarded to some scenario, which is to concoct something that's more than a year from now.

But on the issue of green energy, as the honourable member has raised the question, I do want to make a couple of points. Firstly, we've taken seriously the role model of the Conservative opposition critic, who himself stated a 40% reduction in electricity use through behavioural alteration in the home. Today in the province of Ontario, we have launched time-of-use pricing that will see one million Ontarians enjoy the advantage, for 60% of all of the hours in the week, to have reduced electricity costs.

We're trying to make the commodity of electricity one where people use it wisely and take advantage of all opportunities to use less of it, and especially to use it in less expensive periods, an opportunity for savings for consumers in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: To date, I would suggest the minister's been less than upfront about the impact on Energy Star appliances, energy audits, energy-efficient renovations and energy bills: They're all going to increase more than they have, thanks to this upcoming sales tax. We also know that energy bills are going to shoot up as much as $1,200 per year as a result of this tax-and-grab, disguised as green energy.

The minister doesn't have, apparently, the fortitude to say that, but London Economics has indicated as much. The Premier has refused to bring forward this kind of important information for Ontarians despite the fact that we're going to be voting on the legislation later today—the information that our critic has asked for on numerous occasions.

Minister, if what you say is in fact accurate, that people are prepared to pay more for this, do you not feel any obligation, any responsibility to disclose just how much you're going to make them pay?

Hon. George Smitherman: I think that if the honourable member and his party, in commissioning a purpose-built study, had decided to pay a little more for it, the company might have actually looked to give some credit to the consumers in the province of Ontario for the opportunities that the Green Energy Act represents to actually lower the amount of electricity they use. The Conservative critic Mr. Yakabuski, on the day that the bill was introduced, to great credit—and I've invited him to come to talk to school groups in my riding—mentioned that in his own household, they've reduced their use by 40%. He's the poster child for electricity conservation in the province.

Our projections are that a 15% to 20% reduction in electricity use is possible on the part of the people in the province of Ontario. We want to give them the tools that allow them to transition their homes and their businesses, institutions like this one, to lower electricity use overall. This is the way to protect consumers against the risk of rising prices: to use less electricity—and that's what the Green Energy Act helps to create.

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Mr. Yakabuski is not only the poster boy for green energy, he's also the poster boy for honesty and integrity, and giving the people of this province the honest and true facts about the real impacts of what you're doing here.

Yasir Naqvi, who's the MPP for Ottawa Centre—and I'm quoting a story related to him in the Ottawa Citizen where they said he is "misleading" in respect to the harmonized sales tax. Minister, no matter how—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'm going to ask the honourable member to withdraw that comment, notwithstanding it was a quote, please.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I withdraw, Speaker.

Minister, no matter how hard your members try to push this sales tax policy, they can't get around the fact that they really are withholding the real, true facts related to this or ignoring them. You can't fool all of the people all of the time. We've heard that often enough. Why do you and your caucus take pride in refusing to give—

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

Hon. George Smitherman: It's fantastic that the honourable member has made such laudatory statements about his colleague. We would agree. We think that 40% reductions in a person's energy conservation is a story that should be told and we're grateful that the critic has been telling that. Here's a quote he had from the Green Energy Act third reading leadoff: "Let me begin by making it very clear that we in the Progressive Conservative Party on this side of the House are very much in favour of, and in the greatest possible way promote, the improvement, the enhancement, the growth and the necessity of green energy in the province of Ontario." So we're glad to see that support.

But there's another piece to it too, which is creating a culture of conservation. Our introduction today of time-of-use pricing will give people the tools that they need to transition electricity use to times of the day when it's actually cheaper than what people are paying now. This is a good opportunity, and we're delighted that the Leader of the Opposition and his critic are such strong supporters of this element of the legislation.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. Right about now the last pickup truck is rolling off the assembly line at GM's Oshawa truck plant. It marks not only the end of an era but also the end of GM's long run as Canada's largest automaker. This government played a role in the sad demise we are seeing today. It doled out $235 million to GM without securing the production of the Sierra Hybrid pickup truck, notwithstanding the fact that the engineering work was actually done in Oshawa.

Having already betrayed GM workers once by not securing the Sierra Hybrid pickup truck for Oshawa, will this government continue to betray them by failing to negotiate job guarantees for GM's current multi-billion dollar aid package?

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

Hon. Michael Bryant: The reality is that the Premier of Ontario has played more of a role in supporting the auto industry in Ontario than any other politician has ever played in the history of Ontario, period—none of which is to suggest that this is not a really brutally tough time, obviously, for those people who are being affected by the wicked drop in demand that has taken place globally when it comes to auto and truck sales.

This government is endeavouring to do everything it can to support this auto manufacturing industry consistently throughout the tenure of the McGuinty government, and from the moment that the industry was in the critical insolvency trouble that it is in now, it was Dalton McGuinty who stood up and said, "We'll be there for the auto industry as long as we take care of the"—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Today's plant closing means the elimination of 2,600 jobs. Another 1,500 will disappear next year, when GM's Windsor transmission plant closes. That will bring the company's Ontario workforce well below 16,000.

This minister should know that the original agreement with GM called for the company to repay $235 million if its Ontario workforce fell below 16,000. What is this government going to go do to make sure GM lives up to its job and production commitments?

Hon. Michael Bryant: The member can't stand up and say on the one hand that the government has to do everything it can to support the industry, and then on the other hand say, "Let's stick it to the company as best we can." We're going to work with the company. We have to work with the company in order to see a future that is a profitable future. That's what we are going to do. If the member is suggesting—I don't know, I'd like to hear what the member is suggesting. We are going to make sure that the taxpayers in fact receive the best deal that they can, as they have over the past.

This government has made the investments necessary, and will continue to make the investments necessary, in the taxpayers' interest to grow the economy, and in the case of the auto industry, to support an industry like no other government is doing right now in North America—the only subnational jurisdiction in the world which is making these investments, and our support for that industry is unequivocal and will continue to be so.

I'd like to hear the leader of the third party stand up and—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: New Democrats have supported, and always will support, the financial assistance for Ontario's auto sector. But unlike this government, we believe that it must come with ironclad job and product guarantees. The $235 million given to GM in 2005 didn't include ironclad job guarantees, and we are now seeing the end result of that. Even the new GM-Suzuki operation in Ingersoll is producing only one SUV a month, if the media reports are to be believed.

With so much more at stake right now, has this government actually learned from its mistakes, or will it condemn Ontario's auto sector to further job losses and little return for the investment we're making?

Hon. Michael Bryant: It is absolutely the case that the government's investment on behalf of the taxpayers has to be in the interest of the taxpayers, but it also has to be the right deal. There's no question about it, and I don't disagree with the member.

It is also the case that the government needs to find a way, as best as possible, to provide support to the industry. If in fact it is the case that General Motors is not in a position to provide the kind of production that the governments of Ontario and Canada insist upon, then, yes, you're absolutely right, we will act in the taxpayers' interest.

However, we are more confident, on this side of the House, that we are going to be able to act in the taxpayers' interest and ensure that there is, as best as possible, the appropriate level of production here in Ontario so that General Motors and its workers and suppliers, and all of those communities that are affected, which is all of Ontario, have that bright and prosperous future.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, the Premier made crystal clear his opposition to my bill calling for a cap on executive compensation. This morning, we may be finding out why he was so opposed. It may have something to do with the company he keeps.

My question is simple: Has the government sought advice on the issue of capping executive compensation, and if so, from whom?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The one thing that our government is intent on doing is protecting the footprint of the auto industry in Ontario. The member opposite wants to pretend that there's an easy way out of this. The member opposite wants to pretend that there haven't been more jobs lost in Michigan, Indiana and Indianapolis.

In terms of executive compensation, a number of parts of the arrangements in the Chrysler situation—and the General Motors deal, if we're able to come to one—will address those kinds of questions as well.

But let's all understand the enormous difficulty that this major employer and major contributor to our GDP is going through. Let's all resolve to work together to get a deal with GM, to protect the jobs and pensions of the workers here in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, this morning's Globe and Mail paints a picture of how this government comes up with its economic policy. It would appear that the person really calling the shots at the finance ministry doesn't even sit in this House. No, he works at TD Bank, and he reports directly to a CEO who raked in more than $22 million in pay over the last two years.

Why is this government putting the interests of corporate executives ahead of the interests of everyone else?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We have a group of 12 economists who regularly provide advice to the government, including Jim Stanford from the CAW, who has provided a lot of very good advice to me individually, and with whom I communicate regularly.

Unlike New Democrats, I don't have all the answers. We reach for advice from all kinds of people, from CAW economists to bank economists, from the director of the food bank to the directors of some of our largest companies.

To the member opposite, I'll continue to seek their advice, and I will continue to seek the advice—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: We shouldn't be surprised by any of this. Executives responsible for the poor decisions that have left large companies on the brink will continue to be handsomely compensated through the public purse while hard-working Ontarians are left to worry about the everyday essentials, worry about disappearing pensions, worry about getting slapped with an 8% tax increase that's going to cost them more every single day, all because well-heeled executives say so.

What will it take before this government finally says no to self-serving corporate executives and yes to the other 99% of Ontarians?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: That is sad. Let me say this: I don't believe Don Drummond is self-serving. I think Don Drummond provides good advice, some of which we take and some of which we don't.

We offered that member a full briefing from our ministry on the state of the economy prior to the budget, and she said no. She refused to take it. To the leader of the third party, I will continue to take advice from Mr. Drummond. By the way, the Canadian banks are not losing money; in fact, they're a symbol of success at a time when world banks are collapsing.

I ask our members in Toronto—more than 300,000 new jobs have been created in financial services in the last five years. No, no, to the leader of the NDP—

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

TAXATION

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is for the Minister of Tourism. With the price of a holiday set to go up 8% next year because of the Dalton sales tax, when will this minister start speaking up for Ontario families, travellers and visitors to the province of Ontario?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I appreciate the question. Certainly, I've been working closely with our partners in tourism across the province. We've been out talking to them about our new regional structure that we're proposing. We've been talking to them about the new marketing fees that will be flowing to them as a result of our single sales tax and will benefit the entire tourism industry, as we have far greater resources to market the different regions and all of the great attractions that we have across the province.

I'm looking forward to the feedback that's coming back to us. We've had a number of consultations. We were in Gravenhurst just two days ago. We were in Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Kenora and Fort Frances. We've been across the province. We'll continue to work with our stakeholders to ensure that their views are reflected in the development of the regions and in the way that our regional marketing organizations will function.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Ted Arnott: The Victoria Day holiday weekend, the traditional beginning of the summer tourism season in Ontario, is upon us. I'm hearing that the Dalton sales tax will grab over $100 million from the pockets of tourists, making it harder for us to demonstrate good value which, traditionally, has been one of our marketing strengths. The $40 million the minister referred to that she's promising the industry is actually less than they're now collecting in destination marketing fees.

What a message to send our tourists next year: Welcome to Ontario, where you get to pay a brand new 8% tax on accommodation, attractions, spas and the price of gas. The campground association tells us that the new 8% sales tax will hit campsites, guest fees, boat rentals, dock slips, boat launch, boat storage, heating and air conditioning—the list goes on and on.

Again, I ask the minister, why is she sitting back as her Minister of Finance prepares to pillage the potential of tourism in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I'm certainly not sitting back. I've been meeting with my partners in tourism across the province. My representatives have been out in the field. We've had a variety of meetings across the province, talking to them about the regions, about the new funding that's coming their way and how that's going to benefit them. We are committed to working with the industry to ensure that we are providing the best marketing possible.

The new single sales tax, should the budget pass, will also of course increase the savings to our businesses by $500 million, in paperwork costs. We are also cutting taxes for small businesses. As you know as my critic, small businesses are the backbone of the tourism industry. We are helping them create jobs, and we're helping them to grow even stronger. The corporate income tax rate for small businesses will be cut by 18%. This is a real benefit to tourist operators across the province.

I look forward to hearing more from them. We are being very proactive, working with our partners, to ensure that our tourism industry is the strongest it can possibly—

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

PENSION PLANS

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Men and women in Ontario who have worked for decades for profitable companies are facing the prospect of living out their retirement in poverty because the government is walking away from its commitment to backstop pension shortfalls through its pension benefits guarantee fund.

This morning, the NDP proposed an amendment to the budget bill that would have ensured continued government protection of pension funds through repayable loans to the fund when claims exceed assets. Why did the McGuinty government vote against this amendment?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: What was particularly unfortunate happened in 1992, when the NDP exempted companies from contributing into the pension benefits guarantee fund. That was really unfortunate.

But don't underestimate the problems that arose out of that party's blindness to the importance of paying for these kinds of pensions, and why they let General Motors out of that—

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

Mr. Paul Miller: Well, there have been three governments since then.

Yesterday, the finance minister shared his strategy for dealing with his own retirement savings plan. He said, "I just don't look."

Most men and women in Ontario don't have the luxury of turning a blind eye to their financial future. Workers at General Motors, Chrysler, Nortel and AbitibiBowater have given decades of their lives to their work, and now their pensions are at risk, through no fault of their own.

When will the minister get his head out of the sand and assure Ontario workers that the government will stand up for them by committing to provide bridge financing when claims exceed assets in the pension benefits guarantee fund in Ontario, and do it now?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The member opposite proposes to exempt these companies or their successors from paying their obligations, and asks the taxpayers to fill in the gap. We don't think that's adequate. We don't think that anybody should walk away from this. Frankly, the member opposite doesn't understand the depth of the problem.

They joke about it, and he makes a joke about what I talked about yesterday in terms of pension adequacy and in terms of our call for a national review of pension adequacy, because the reality is tens of thousands, millions, of Ontarians don't have a pension.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: They laugh and they joke, but I think the people—

Interjections.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: It's incredible that they make fun of Ontarians who are worried about their futures.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr. Rick Johnson: My question is for the Minister of Education. As a former president of the Ontario Public School Boards' Association and chair of the Trillium Lakelands District School Board, I'm very interested in the recently introduced legislation that aims to modernize school board governance.

I've long been intrigued by the current legislation in the Ed. Act that outlines a long list of responsibilities—everything from putting up fences to buying milk. However, the most important goal of Ontario parents and educators, student achievement, is never mentioned. I'm therefore pleased that this legislation, if passed, would clarify the mandate of school boards to emphasize their responsibility for student achievement.

I also understand that the governance bill will require individual trustees to support decisions reached by their boards. Some of my constituents wonder if this will stifle the voices of elected trustees. I'd like the minister to answer the concerns of my constituents.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to just acknowledge the work of the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, the work he did on governance as the chair of the Trillium Lakelands board and as the president of OPSBA. Thank you very much.

Nothing in the governance legislation would curtail the ability of individual trustees to speak about matters in an open fashion, to have opinions and to state those opinions clearly for their constituents and during meetings. The clause I think that folks are worrying about has language about supporting the implementation of decisions reached by the board, which is quite a different matter.

Once a decision has been reached by the board, what we're saying is, individual trustees must honour and support the implementation of board decisions and not move to have a different set of rules in their ward that isn't consistent with what's going on across the board. So it's more about supporting the implementation of a decision that's been made by the board than about having an opinion and expressing that opinion.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Rick Johnson: I know that this government has a history of working with school boards to support achievement across the province. During visits to schools in my riding of Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, I've seen the progress that can be achieved when there is a culture of respect between all partners in our publicly funded education system: smaller class sizes, more educators, higher test scores.

In light of this, I know there are concerns in some quarters about other aspects of this legislation, specifically, the requirement that directors advise their board if it is or is planning to conduct itself or reach decisions which are contrary to provincial legislation, and that in the event that the board decides to proceed in contravention, the director will be obligated to report this to the minister. Although I don't share their concerns, I know that some might say that this might erode the powers of boards and put directors in a vulnerable situation. I'm interested to know how the minister would address these concerns.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: In fact, directors have always been expected to advise their boards when their actions are noncompliant with provincial legislation. That has always been the case. What we're doing in the legislation is just being clear about some confusion that there has been on this point. Boards will only be required to act in compliance with provincial directives that are backed up by legislation, and that makes eminent sense. As the member alluded, this isn't new. There's still considerable scope for boards to make local decisions based on local needs.

In terms of directors, this provision makes it clearer as to what they should do in these situations when it appears that a board is not going to act in compliance with legislation. Directors who draw noncompliant actions to the attention of the ministry through me, the minister, will in fact be backed up by legislation. So in fact, it's a protection that makes it clear exactly what they are expected to do.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: My question is for the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure. A Toronto Star

article printed yesterday describes how citizens of Milton are fed up with the lack of health care infrastructure that should have accompanied the economic and population growth. All fingers are pointing to the province, since it was this government that mandated Milton to grow in Places to Grow legislation from 2005.

A Ministry of Health spokesman is recorded as saying that the new proposed Oakville hospital will ease the strain on Milton District Hospital. However, there are a couple of problems with that statement: First and most obviously, the planned Oakville Trafalgar Memorial Hospital is nothing more than a field; construction remains delayed. Secondly, even when that hospital is finished, the relief in Milton will not be significant. Wait-time statistics in all surrounding hospitals are way above provincial averages. So the new hospital in Oakville will not only serve overflow from Milton but Mississauga, Burlington, Brampton and even Hamilton.

Milton needs an expanded hospital. Will you tell the people of Milton when they can expect an expanded hospital?

Hon. George Smitherman: I know the community of Milton. I can't confess to know it as the honourable member does; I believe he goes there somewhat more frequently than me. But I also know that the growth in Milton has not all occurred in the last week or two, as the minister's question does suggest. The growth there has been ongoing, and this is a pattern that has occurred in other places in Ontario as well.

We really were delighted in a recent visit to meet with Mayor Krantz and also to meet with the folks who created the Friends of Milton Hospital. This is a community-related effort to build a profile and community support towards the construction of a new facility that nobody disagrees is required. That's why we have advanced planning money to that hospital to get moving forward on it. We'll be looking for opportunities in the context of our capital budgets to move this project forward, recognizing that there are many, many projects in the province that are very worthwhile and must be considered.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: The report went in last September, 2008. It has been sitting gathering dust since that time. It's time that report was released and the next phase of the planning take place.

The case for Milton becomes more convincing when you compare it to other high-growth areas such as in the Vaughan region, where there is high growth, but in the hospitals that surround Vaughan, the wait times are not nearly as bad as in the hospitals that surround Milton. I only use the comparison to demonstrate the unique situation that Milton is in as the fastest-growing community in North America.

Minister, given these facts, will you stop the delays, make some decisions and help the people of Halton by expanding the Milton District Hospital?

Hon. George Smitherman: The one thing we can be grateful for from the question is that, unlike the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook—he says we're spending too much on infrastructure. It's true we have a lot under way with projects on the hospital side at Credit Valley, Hamilton Health Sciences—Hamilton General, Hamilton Health Sciences—Henderson General, Kingston General, London Health Sciences Centre, St.

Joseph's Health Care, Montfort Hospital, Niagara Health System, North Bay Regional, Ottawa Hospital Regional Cancer Centre, Quinte Health Care, Rouge Valley Health System, Royal Victoria Hospital, Runnymede Healthcare, Sarnia Bluewater, Sault Area, St. Joe's London, Sudbury, Sunnybrook Health Sciences, Toronto Rehab, Trillium Health Centre and Woodstock General. There's not a government in the history of the province of Ontario that has gotten on with the task of building new hospital infrastructure—we know Milton has needs, and the people of Milton can count on this government to deliver on those.

They know that that honourable member has best been known for his silence on this matter.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le ministre des Finances.

Recommendation number 22 contained in the Financial Services Commission of Ontario's auto insurance review would slash insurance payouts for serious car crashes, which means it would impoverish the victims and enrich the insurance industry. The medical and rehab costs are now capped at $100,000. The recommendation is to lower the cap for a lifetime to $25,000. The cap for med rehab was $25,000 about 20 years ago, but in the last 20 years costs have risen. Mortality rates have declined. Public sector rehab services have been decimated. Factoring in inflation, reducing the cap in 2009 to $25,000 is inhumane.

Will the Minister of Finance stand in this House today and make it clear that he will reject this wrong-headed recommendation?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: As honourable members will know, our government for the first time launched a five-year review of auto insurance policy. Over the course of the last year, we have been receiving input from a variety of stakeholders, including accident victims. We expect final recommendations on that report by the fall, and at that point in time, once we've received feedback to all the recommendations, we will be in a position to make final determinations on what we will do.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

M me France Gélinas: The Financial Services Commission of Ontario tabled its report on March 31. People have until the end of this month to make recommendations. I want the minister to take into account the fact that a cut of 85% in health care for injured motorists and zero percent reduction in car insurance premiums is not a good deal. It would seriously damage the quality of rehab services provided to accident victims. The insurance industry is saying that they are not making money. Well, a 7.5% return in 2008, I agree, is not the 15% they're used to, but it's a good return on investment.

A hundred thousand dollars is not a lot of money to buy a prosthesis, a wheelchair, modifications to your home, pay for rehab services, supplies etc. This cap needs to go up, not down.

I repeat: Will the minister state today in this House that he will reject this wrong-headed recommendation?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I would remind the member opposite that since we took office, auto insurance premiums are down 8.16%. We have the most comprehensive no-fault benefits of any province in Canada. We've fostered a more competitive marketplace for auto insurance. As a result, there are now approximately 20,000 drivers in the Facility Association, down from 204,000 in 2003.

The member opposite and her party have a rather checkered history on this issue. I would advise the member opposite that she shouldn't necessarily be advocating for increasing premium costs, which is what it sounds like she's going to do. She's going to pretend that you can keep increasing benefit after benefit and then not reduce rates. It's a fine balance to walk. As we do on all policies, this government will find the right balance that will be fair to consumers and fair to those accident victims.

STUDENT SUMMER JOBS

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Recently, I've heard from many students in my community concerned about how the current economic climate is affecting them. Students are worried that the summer jobs they have come to rely on will not be available to them this summer.

Summer jobs are an important part of a student's learning process. The invaluable work experience they gain serves them well in all aspects of life. Ontario needs a highly skilled, highly educated workforce in order to be economically competitive. Students are the workforce of our future, and they need summer jobs to help support their education and training costs. Let's not forget that businesses also need government help in these tough economic times if they are going to hire students.

To the minister, what are you doing to ensure that students have access to important opportunities through summer jobs?

Hon. John Milloy: I thank the honourable member for the question. He raises a very important issue. In the tough economic times, as we head into the summer months, we want to provide as much support as possible to Ontario students. That's why I'm very pleased that our recent budget contained a 57% increase to the Ontario summer jobs strategy, bringing spending this summer to nearly $90 million. This expansion will mean that over 100,000 young people will benefit from support for summer employment opportunities. That's an increase of 27,000 students over last year, and this increase will continue next summer as well.

As I say, we recognize the economic hardships that are being faced by students. That's why we're very pleased to be able to offer this additional support.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: I know that many young people in my community will be pleased with this news.

There are many businesses in my community that benefit from hiring students, but during these difficult times some may be reluctant to hire. The Ontario Restaurant Hotel and Motel Association indicates that most small- and medium-sized hospitality operators could benefit from additional assistance that will allow them to hire on more young people, but some may be reluctant to do so because of increasing their labour costs.

Job creation is essential at a time like this, but, Minister, some young people need help in applying for jobs. This may be the first summer that a young person is looking for a job, and they'll need all the help with the basics of applying, from getting their resumé together to knowing where to look for employment.

To the minister, how do you plan on expanding summer job opportunities for both youth and businesses?

Hon. John Milloy: I'm pleased to inform the member and the House that the summer jobs strategy has a number of components. First, we're increasing the number of government jobs. These are jobs through a number of government ministries, both office jobs and jobs outdoors, such as the forest rangers program. Second, to address directly the first part of the honourable member's question, we're expanding the $2-an-hour wage subsidy we provide to private companies to help them create more summer jobs. Third, we're expanding the program that helps students start their own summer business.

Finally, my ministry is expanding our Employment Ontario summer jobs service so that if a student needs help with a resumé, interview skills or job search, they're able to receive that additional assistance.

As I said in my previous answer, through this strategy we hope to find jobs for 100,000 students—

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

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Our finance critic, Mr. Sterling, and I recently met with representatives of the Alliance of Community Medical and Rehabilitation Providers, who apprised us of concerns they have related to regulatory changes to auto insurance that you're currently considering and apparently plan to make a decision on by the end of June. In their view, the changes will reduce protection for victims in automobile accidents and shift the cost and work burdens onto publicly funded services.

Minister, do you share those concerns, and if not, why not?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The Leader of the Opposition is correct. We have engaged in a dialogue over the course of the last year with a variety of stakeholders in the insurance industry, as well as consumers—as we said we would, the first five-year review that's been undertaken in order to set the regulatory framework moving forward.

As I indicated in an earlier question to the third party, we do in fact have to find a balance. But what I can say to the member is, since we first changed auto insurance regulation legislation, premiums have come down by 8.16%; under his party and their government, they went up more than 10% per year. We are working through the recommendations we have received from a variety of stakeholders, and we'll find the right balance to both protect those accident victims who rely on their insurance and consumers who pay the premium. And I look forward to hearing more from other stakeholders before the conclusion of the consultation period.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I'll just touch on two concerns: the reduction of the basic accident benefit from $100,000 to $25,000 with no premium reduction, and the lack of public awareness about these changes. I would suggest that most Ontarians are completely unaware. The alliance pointed out that many of the 60,000 people, on average, injured every year in auto accidents in Ontario are seriously hurt and require months, and sometimes years, of rehabilitation, and contends that the proposed benefit reduction will only provide a fraction of what victims will need to put their lives back together.

Minister, will you consider extending your consultation deadline, to consult broadly and give the public an opportunity to know about these proposals?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: No. Governments do have to take decisions. We've had a very extensive and protracted consultation. I, in fact, have met with the group the member opposite referred to.

It would be nice to remind Ontario consumers, however, that in the last three years that that member and his party were in office, insurance premiums went up 43%. Here is what the Insurance Bureau of Canada says: Ontario has seen aggregate savings of $4.5 billion since 2003, which represents "the largest premium reduction ever seen in Canada."

We are working through and have had extensive consultations. We have to take decisions. We're going to take those decisions and we'll debate our choices here in this House and right across Ontario. But what we know is this: We won't see the kinds of premium increases that he and his party foisted on Ontario consumers when they were in—

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

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr. Howard Hampton: A question to the Acting Premier: Yesterday, in estimates committee, the Minister of Economic Development gave a thoughtful rationale for the McGuinty government's contribution of $1.25 billion to the financial restructuring of Chrysler. Minister Bryant said that if Ontario failed to advance the $1.25 billion while the US government was advancing money to Chrysler, then Chrysler plants in Windsor and Brampton would close production, move to the United States and thousands of good jobs would be lost in Windsor and Brampton.

AbitibiBowater is also undergoing financial restructuring and 4,000 good jobs are at risk in communities like Thunder Bay, yet the McGuinty Liberals have not advanced one penny in that financial restructuring. My question: Why is the McGuinty government completely missing in action in the financial restructuring of AbitibiBowater, where 4,000 good jobs—

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

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: I'm pleased to respond to the member's question. We're very concerned, obviously, about AbitibiBowater and the restructuring that they're undergoing, and we recognize and realize that this is going to be very complex. AbitibiBowater is a worldwide company. It owes some $8.8 billion and has some 40 pension plans worldwide. It has some very significant challenges, in that the production of pulp, primarily, has plummeted in the world, and they control 43% of that particular market, which no longer exists.

As they're going through these challenges, as we have in the past, we will continue to work with Abitibi. We have provided significant dollars—about $156 million—to Abitibi during the process prior to their bankruptcy filing, and as they go through these challenges, we'll be there to work with them, and we've made that indication.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: I understood the rationale given by Minister Bryant. I recognize that car purchases have plummeted and that the production of vehicles has plummeted in North America. I recognize, though, that if Ontario does not advance the $1.25 billion to Chrysler, thousands of good jobs will be lost in Brampton and Windsor.

The Quebec government has advanced $100 million of debtor-in-possession financing in the financial restructuring of AbitibiBowater. This means that the Quebec government will be at the table and will be in a very powerful position when decisions are made on which mills to close, which mills to sell and which mills to keep. I don't think Quebec will be advocating to keep mills in Ontario open.

My question again: Quebec is there; Ontario is there in auto restructuring. Why is the McGuinty government completely missing in action when it comes to—

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

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: In fact, there are about 2,000 jobs with AbitibiBowater in northern Ontario. There's no question that there are residual jobs as well. The fact of the matter is, they are going through restructuring. We have provided some $22 million to the Fort Frances-Rainy River biomass plant. There's no question that we have been working with them as they go through that. We are prepared to continue to do that.

They have their challenges, they have debts that they must meet, and they have been provided extraordinary amounts of money by this province through energy rebates, direct dollars in grants and direct dollars in terms of helping them prior to the restructuring requirements.

We've been there all along for Abitibi. We know that they still have some water rights that we have to deal with. Again, we're more than prepared to work with them. The challenges are that they are in CCAA—

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

HEALTHY LIVING

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: My question is for the Minister of Health Promotion. In May 2008, federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for sport, physical activity and recreation set Canada's first-ever national physical activity targets for children and youth aged five to 19. One of the targets is to increase the proportion of children and youth who participate in 90 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity by seven percentage points over the next six years.

In fact, Hamiltonians have taken this to heart. I recently had the opportunity to participate in the opening of the Les Chater YMCA on Hamilton Mountain. This wonderful facility, and facilities like this all across the city and province, will play an important role in meeting these targets.

What is the government doing to ensure that we are on the right track when it comes to supporting Ontario's children and youth to lead healthy, active lives?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: First of all, I would like to thank the member from Hamilton Mountain for her work as she continues to further health promotion activities throughout the province. I also want to say that I was very pleased to have attended the Les Chater YMCA opening with the member.

The McGuinty government continues its investment in Ontario's children and youth. We are also investing in our newcomer families and our off-reserve aboriginal communities in furthering our goal of building a healthier Ontario.

We have recently partnered with the Public Health Agency of Canada to deliver $3.4 million over three years towards projects that promote physical activity and healthy eating among targeted groups.

To date, the McGuinty government has invested $1.9 million in—

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

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: Ontario has a comprehensive approach to increase everyone's access to sport and physical activity. I know that the Public Health Agency of Canada is an important partner in this goal. I believe that we must remain committed to new physical activity and healthy living projects that create new opportunities and remove barriers for participation in healthy living.

Is the bilateral agreement signed by the Minister of Health Promotion and our federal counterparts consistent with the goals of the McGuinty government's strategy to promote health and fitness for Ontarians?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I'll continue: The federal government is investing $1.5 million in this project, and we are hopeful that this is only the first of many agreements to come. We will continue to partner with our federal counterparts in delivering healthy eating and active living projects for all Ontarians. We will build on our partnerships with organizations such as the Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Canada, the YMCA and the Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres to promote overall wellness and physical activity, which are essential ingredients to building strong, healthy children and youth.

Friendship centre participants and communities will increase healthy eating and physical activity levels through the urban aboriginal healthy living program.

Our government has already invested $32 million in supporting our communities and increasing physical activity province-wide. This year, the investment is a further testament of our commitment to continuing to move forward in supporting Ontarians—

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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is to the Acting Premier. Could you tell us about the urgency of the announcement made by the Premier this morning?

Hon. George Smitherman: Yes, I'm very pleased to tell the honourable member that the urgency of the matter that was announced by the Premier is about the economic circumstances for the people of the province of Ontario.

Since we came to office, our Premier has led a variety of efforts to enhance the trade connections between Ontario and jurisdictions in growing economies around the world. One of those really extraordinary opportunities is in our relationship with India. Canada and India enjoy very, very strong relations, elements of culture and connection that are extraordinary. Our population here is so intensely positively impacted by people who have come from India to enrich our land, and they bring with them the skill set to build business relationships.

Today, the Premier of the province of Ontario was talking about a trade mission to India, which will enhance economic opportunities for the people of the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Well, I understand this is all going to happen in December, and I find it passing strange that this government changed the time of question period from early afternoon to 10:30, ostensibly so ministe