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

December 4, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-Dec-04 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 4 December 2008 Jeudi 4 décembre 2008

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMANCIPATION DAY ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LE JOUR

DE L'ÉMANCIPATION

ROAD SAFETY ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ ROUTIÈRE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBER'S BIRTHDAY

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

POVERTY

POVERTY

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

POVERTY

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

MINISTRY SPENDING

CHILD CARE

MENTAL HEALTH AND

ADDICTION SERVICES

UNIVERSITY LABOUR DISPUTE

HIGHWAY 406

CLASS SIZE

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

MINING INDUSTRY

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PESTICIDES

NATIONAL FAMILY DINNER NIGHT

SHIRLEY HICKMAN

UNIVERSITY LABOUR DISPUTE

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

OLYMPIC TORCH RELAY

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

STREETSVILLE

HAWKESBURY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

INTERNATIONAL VOLUNTEER DAY

INTERNATIONAL VOLUNTEER DAY

INTERNATIONAL VOLUNTEER DAY

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

CHILD CARE

HOSPICES

MOTORCYCLE SAFETY

HOSPITAL FUNDING

HOSPITAL SERVICES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

HOSPITAL FUNDING

WORKPLACE INSURANCE

POPE JOHN PAUL II

UNIVERSITY LABOUR DISPUTE

LUPUS

BEER RETAILING AND DISTRIBUTION

BATHURST HEIGHTS

ADULT LEARNING CENTRE

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(CHILD PASSENGERS

ON MOTORCYCLES), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(ENFANTS PASSAGERS

SUR DES MOTOCYCLETTES)

MENTAL HEALTH

AND ADDICTION SERVICES

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE BOARD

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(CHILD PASSENGERS

ON MOTORCYCLES), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(ENFANTS PASSAGERS

SUR DES MOTOCYCLETTES)

MENTAL HEALTH

AND ADDICTION SERVICES

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE BOARD

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

REPORTING ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LE DEVOIR

DE SIGNALER LES CAS

DE PORNOGRAPHIE JUVÉNILE

SMOKE-FREE ONTARIO

AMENDMENT ACT (CIGARILLOS), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA LOI FAVORISANT

UN ONTARIO SANS FUMÉE

(CIGARILLOS)

EMANCIPATION DAY ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LE JOUR

DE L'ÉMANCIPATION

SIGNAGE TO PROMOTE

ONTARIO PRODUCED

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR L'AFFICHAGE

VISANT À PROMOUVOIR

LES PRODUITS AGRICOLES ONTARIENS

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMANCIPATION DAY ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LE JOUR

DE L'ÉMANCIPATION

Mr. Arnott moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 111,

An Act to proclaim Emancipation Day / Projet de loi 111, Loi proclamant le Jour de l'émancipation.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Pursuant to the order of the House dated December 3, 2008, I am now required to put the question.

Mr. Arnott has moved second reading of Bill 111,

An Act to proclaim Emancipation Day. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Pursuant to the order of the House dated December 3, this bill is ordered for third reading.

ROAD SAFETY ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ ROUTIÈRE

Resuming the debate adjourned on December 3, 2008, on the motion for second reading of Bill 126,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act and to make consequential amendments to two amending acts / Projet de loi 126, Loi modifiant le Code de la route et apportant des modifications corrélatives à deux lois modificatives.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Certainly I have to say that I have mixed feelings about this debate, in the sense that it's one of those where you're kind of glad and kind of sad at the same time. There are things in this bill that I think deal with driver safety from a perspective of recognizing we need to do all that we can first as drivers, in taking our responsibilities as drivers and as legislators, to make sure that our highways are safe. But what makes me sad is the politics that I think are happening within this bill, that it's targeted to young people.

First of all I start with the premise, as do, I think, all other members in this House, that young people are equal citizens under the law. If a child 16 years and under, or a young adult 16 years of age and over, basically breaks the laws–they have to follow the laws just like anybody else. They have a responsibility to be good citizens. So when we look at the Legislature and the House of Commons, where we develop laws, we should be saying to ourselves that we treat everybody equally when it comes to the law.

Clearly, what I think is happening in this bill is that we have a standard for younger people that is different from the standard for older people. I want to go through that and talk about why I think some of the provisions of this bill need to be changed in recognition of that fact. Let's talk about those parts of the bill in the order that they appear.

The first part of the bill deals with the issue of the alcohol level that should be allowed in your blood to be within the legal limit to drive. Currently, in the province of Ontario, .08 is the number. Anybody who is found with a blood-alcohol level of over .08 will be prosecuted under the law. I think that makes sense. We came to that conclusion some years ago, and we are very aggressive in this province in having RIDE programs and instructing our police to make sure they enforce that law to the best of their ability. We also do a lot to educate the public to let them know they have a responsibility to make sure they are not driving over the blood-alcohol limit of .08.

If you take a look at the statistics across this province, we're doing a pretty good job. Ontario has managed to put itself in a fairly good position of being fairly serious and having good deterrents and good education campaigns to get people not to get behind the wheel when they're drinking. Unfortunately, at times, people do. But if you take a look at the stats today and compare them to what they were 20 years ago, Ontario has made great, great progress in making our highways safer by very much reducing the number of incidents where people are driving under the influence over .08.

But here is the rub: The government is proposing in this law that we go to .0 for people under the age of 21. This raises two parts to the debate. The first

part is, should we be lowering the .08 limit? Should it be .05, as some would argue, or should it be zero? My argument is that that's a good debate. What the legal limit should be is a debate that I think everybody is prepared to get into in this Legislature and in this province, because there are arguments on both sides as to .0 or .05. I don't think there's a lot of opposition to reducing the alcohol limit that is allowed in a person's blood before that person is convicted of a drunk driving offence.

But the issue here is that we're saying we're only going to apply the .0 to kids—well, to adults; they're not kids at that point—under the age of 21. They can serve their country at the age of 17; they can pick up arms and defend us in places like Afghanistan. Certainly, we're not calling these people kids, we're calling them adults, because we're giving them responsibilities that quite frankly most of us would not want to do at age 50 or 51.

I come from the premise that if you can have somebody join the military at age 17, as I did, and basically pick up training and be shipped out with your unit to someplace around the world to either be on a peacekeeping mission or do the operational activities that are happening in Afghanistan, clearly these young people are not children. They're young adults, and they should be treated like any other adult in this country. So I have great difficulty with the portion of the bill that says we're only going to apply it to younger people when it comes to the blood-alcohol level.

I think that young people, myself as a middle-aged person and older people—or people older than me, I should say—are prepared to get into a debate about, should we be lowering the blood-alcohol limit for all drivers? I don't think it would be much of a problem for us to go from .08 to at least .05. Certainly, Mothers Against Drunk Driving has been lobbying and coming to Queen's Park, meeting with opposition members and government members for months and years, to lower it from .08 to .05.

I think probably that is a debate we can all buy in to. There are really good reasons we should go to .05. Some people would argue, go to .0. Well, as has been pointed out, .0 could be problematic from the perspective that if you're taking a cough medicine—some of the liquid ones you can take—you're going to be blowing over .0 and you're not even taking alcohol, so you could technically be charged for driving under the influence because you have a cold and you're taking medication. Clearly, there are some practical reasons why you cannot get to .0.

Two points: One, if it's impractical to get to .0 for all citizens because of that issue, then why are we applying that standard to drivers under the age of 21? Do they not get colds too? Do they not at times have to take cough medicine that would allow them to blow over .0? Are we saying that somehow people under the age of 21 never get colds? Are we saying that they're immune to cough syrup? It's kind of a wonky situation we're putting ourselves in.

But the bigger issue is, why are we allowing, quite frankly, two classes of citizens within the province of Ontario? I know there are people out there who have an appetite for saying, "Well, they're not grown-up enough yet. They don't have enough experience. They have to earn their stripes." You hear all kinds of people talking about those things, but I hearken back to the day when I was 17. On my 17th birthday, I joined the military. I decided I wanted to serve my country. Was I not a proper citizen at that point? Was I not an adult making an informed decision?

Was I not entitled to rights under the Constitution or the laws of Ontario or Canada like any other citizen? I would argue that I was a citizen. So I have great difficulty with applying this only to people under the age of 21.

We already have, within our graduated driver system, prohibitions that probably go as far as they need to when it comes to allowing drivers to gain experience before they get their full licence. The graduated driver system has served us well in this province, and there are already restrictions about driving after midnight and other provisions within it that maybe make some sense when it comes to allowing drivers to get experience. But I want to say clearly on the record, as a New Democrat and as an individual, that I have great difficulty with having a law that applies just to young people and doesn't apply to the rest of our society.

I want to put on the record, yes, lower the blood-alcohol limit in the bill—provisions of the bill are a good thing. Yes, we should enter into that debate; we should be talking to people about what that should be. Should it be .05%? Should it be .0%? As I said earlier, I would argue that .0% is a problem. But it should be for all Ontarians. All citizens of this province who want to have a driver's licence should have the ability to be seen equally under that law. To segregate young people under the age of 21 to a different standard I don't think is fair. I think it's a bit of playing politics with this bill.

The other

section of the bill deals with zero tolerance when it comes to speed. The government is saying they want a provision in the bill that if a person under the age of 21 gets caught speeding, in any way, shape or form, they would lose their licence as a result of that infraction. Again, I understand why the government is bringing this forward. There have been incidents that are quite sad, where people—not just young people, I would argue—have used excessive speed and, as a result of that excessive speed, have caused accident deaths.

We certainly know the incident that sparked this legislation, in regard to the tragedy of the young people who were killed as a result of driving their father's car faster than they should have and, as a result, were involved in an automobile accident that took their lives along with that of the passenger who was in the car. That is tragic; we can't underplay that. But there are already laws in this province that give police officers the tools they need to deal with dangerous drivers. I think that's the point I'm trying to make here.

There are laws, for example, against street racing and against unsafe driving, and a police officer who pulls somebody over because of excessive speed already has many tools within the police officer's toolbox, as they would call it, to be able to withdraw a person's licence if they think that person is not a responsible driver.

So first of all I ask, why are we putting this in? What police officers are telling me—I have talked to police officers from Kitchener to Toronto to Timmins to, I believe, Kingston as well—is that they're not likely to ticket somebody who is under the age of 21 for speeding if they know that young person will lose their driver's licence—if the person is doing 30 kilometres over, probably; if they're doing something dangerous, more than likely. But the point is, they already have the tools to do that. So I wonder how practical this is.

Certainly, there needs to be some sort of deterrent to make sure a very strong message is sent to all drivers—and maybe particularly to younger drivers—that says speeding will not be tolerated on our highways. You can do that in a number of ways. I remember being part of a government that dealt with photo radar. At that time, we instituted photo radar on the 400-series highways as a deterrent against people speeding, and it actually worked. People didn't like it politically. I understand that; it was one of the reasons we were defeated as a government in 1995.

I think it's more complex than that, but that was an issue for commuters. A lot of commuters didn't like the idea of having to drive within the speed limit. But I'll tell you, If you look at the stats on 400-series highways at the time photo radar was on, we had far fewer accidents, and traffic flowed much more easily because people were not constantly jamming on their brakes because of somebody cutting in front of them on the Highway 400 series somewhere or all of a sudden driving up behind somebody and having to press the brakes.

My point is, if we're trying to get at the issue of speed, I think there are far better ways for us to reduce speed overall on our freeways. Saying again that we're going to have a law that says, "If you're a young driver, here's the standard about speeding, and if you're an older driver, we have a different standard"—I'm not sure that gets at the overall issue of speeding.

I think it's discriminatory to a certain extent. I will argue, and I will give the government some acknowledgement on this, that maybe there need to be, inside the graduated driver's licence system that we have now, steps that people need to go through when it comes to experience and different things when it comes to being able to get a full licence. I don't have a problem with that, but what I'm saying is, if we're trying to get to the issue of how to prevent speeding on our highways, because we know that speed kills, then I think we need to approach it from a more global perspective.

Do we say to police officers that have to be more stringent or—I'm trying to find the word—tough when it comes to making sure we don't allow people to speed? How many of us have driven down the highways, and the police officer said, "Well, this is just a warning; keep on driving." Do we say to our police officers that we should have less tolerance when it comes to speeding?

Mr. Michael A. Brown: It never happened to Paul.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, it never happened to any of us, of course, but do we say that? Do we look at the issue of photo radar? Do we say that maybe we have to have a debate about reinstituting it? Again, it's politically not popular, but it deals with the issue of speed, so I would say that.

The other big issue is that of training. We need to make sure that we properly train current drivers. There should be a fairly good public education campaign for all drivers, as we've done with drunken driving, to get people to understand that speeding leads to accidents and it's not a very good idea, and we need to take responsibility. I think there are different ways to get at that.

So we get to the next part of the bill, which is the issue of having one passenger in the car. This is the one that has garnered more attention than a whole bunch of bills that have gone through this place, other than the granny issue that my good friend Mr. Miller has raised in this Legislature over and over again. But the issue of saying to young people that if you're a younger driver you will only be allowed one passenger in the car, well, that has enraged young people beyond the pale.

There are Facebook sites and Flickr sites and others that have started up where we've seen, by leaps and bounds, people engaging in debate on the Internet about why this is not a good idea and what their thoughts are about how this should change.

There has also been quite a debate within this Legislature, with members of all sides looking at this issue and saying, "Well, is this really a good idea?" And clearly there is a debate within police enforcement and others that are also asking the same kind of questions, both pro and con. Some people believe it's a good idea and some people don't believe it's a good idea. We need to enter into this when the bill goes into committee hearings, really listening to what people have to say so we make the proper decision.

Let's look at it first from the perspective of the young people. This, to me, is way beyond the pale. Let's look at the situation. You live in Hamilton and you're 18 years old. You're going off to the hockey game because you've got a game in St. Catharines. You and your buddies are off to go play hockey. All right. So now, as normally would be the case, you grab mom or dad's minivan, you load the equipment in the back of the minivan, and three or four of you go down to the hockey game. That's kind of the way it happens. We're saying to somebody who's 18 years old, who can serve the military, who can serve their country; they can drive a Hummer down the streets of Kandahar—

Mr. Paul Miller: Baghdad.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Not Baghdad—thank God we're not there—but of Kandahar.

They can be trusted with the lives of their co-soldiers, and they can be entrusted to follow the mission of Canada in Afghanistan, but we're not going to let them put more than one person in the car? They can put a whole bunch of soldiers with guns in the Hummer, they can drive the APC, they can fly the helicopter, they can do all those things, but we're saying, "If you're going to a hockey game in Ontario, you can't put more than one person in the car or the minivan." Give me a break. It is so, so, silly.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: You're incorrect.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: He says we're making it up. We're not making this up; it's in the legislation. I listened very intently to the government when they had their say, and I would just ask them to listen me. I'm saying this is silly.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: But you're wrong.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, get up and debate. Tell me you're right. When it's your turn, you can do that.

My point is, this is silly. If we're saying to young people, "We think that for some reason you're distracted in your car or your minivan when there's more than one passenger," then I think we have a training problem. Let's get back and deal with the issue of how we train drivers. To argue that somehow or other a young Paul Miller, who was 18 years old back in the past, and going off to a hockey game down in St.

Catharines, and he's got his three buddies in the back of the minivan with their hockey equipment, is going to be more distracted than a 50-year-old going to an Argos game with his buddies from Timmins—give me a break. I'm probably more distracted than he is. It's a longer drive, and my buddies take their football pretty darned seriously.

I just say come on, give me a break. Are we saying seriously that at the end of the day we're going to apply a double standard to young people on the basis that somehow or other they're going to be very much more distracted by having more people in a car? The issue is that drivers have to take the responsibility and that passengers also have a responsibility. That's really, to me, the key of the issue.

The other example is—I'm a private pilot, as everybody knows.

Mr. Paul Miller: And a good one.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: And pretty a good one. I manage to keep the airplane straight and level—

Mr. Paul Miller: Have you crashed ever?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I haven't. You know, crash landing is a different state. Any landing is a form of crashing. It is a question of bouncing it once or twice and away you go.

Hon. James J. Bradley: You haven't crashed.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: But, no. I'm just having fun with my friend Mr. Miller.

But my point is, a young person in Ontario today, at age 15, can go out and do all their flight training. You can actually go out if you are 15 years old, you can do your ground school, you can write your exam, you can do all your flight training at age 15 and you can do your solo at age 15. But when you get to 16 years old, you get to the point of being able to do your flight test. On your 16th birthday, you can go out and get your flight test in order to have your licence to fly a private aircraft.

Then, once you have that licence, I could put, depending on the plane—I've got a four-seater, so I could put three passengers in my plane if I were 16 years old. If your dad's got a Caravan, you can probably put eight in the back—it's a plane, it's called a Cessna Caravan, and you can put eight people into that aircraft.

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Did you have a Caravan? My God, that's a great aircraft. I wish I had that. Boy, you have more money than me.

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Oh, you didn't have?

Interjection.

Mr. Paul Miller: He rented it.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: You rented a Caravan. OK, there you go.

But my point is that the 16-year-old pilot can get into the airplane and is able to fly more people in that airplane than he or she will be allowed to drive in a car.

Now, the argument that I heard from across the aisle was, "Oh, well, it's not like a whole bunch of highways." Listen, piloting an airplane is much more complex and much more difficult than driving a car. There are all kinds of things that you have—

Mr. Bruce Crozier: It is not.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: He's saying it's not. Well, give me a break. You have to understand the situation that are you in. You need to understand traffic patterns. You've got to know the air rules, navigation, meteorology, and you have to know airmanship. There's a lot more to flying an aircraft—I think everybody will agree with me on that—than driving a car.

The issue here is that we train pilots to be safe pilots. We train pilots in this country to make sure that they understand what good piloting skills are all about. We make sure that they understand the situational awareness that they're in. We make sure that they understand air traffic laws so that they know what the separation of air space should be in different circumstances—class D, class G, or whatever it might be. We that for a reason, because we need to make sure that our airways are safe.

Now, here's the rub. How many airplane accidents do you have in Canada? I would say we have some. But when you look at the stats, is it young pilots at age 16 who are having all the crashes? No. It's a mix of all kinds of different people. There are older pilots, younger pilots, who are getting into accidents for different reasons: sometimes bad piloting skills, sometimes bad choices, flying into bad weather etc. The stats do not bear out with private pilots that younger pilots have a disproportionate number of accidents to older pilots.

So my point is this: If we're saying there is a disproportionate number of accidents with younger drivers, and the stats would indicate that there is, then maybe the issue is training.

Why are we not, then, having a discussion in this Legislature about making sure that we have a better driver training system in the province of Ontario that allows us to really try to get at the issues of how we're able to train drivers at a young age to be the responsible drivers that they are and, once they get their licence through a graduated driver's licence system, that they basically ramp up to an ability to drive a car safely on our highways? I'm saying maybe we've got a training issue here. Maybe the emphasis should be put on a couple of things.

One, we should be making sure that in high schools—because that is where people turn the age of 16—there is driver training for anybody who wants to go out and get their licence; that we as a province engage, through the Ministry of Education, the funding for that so that it becomes an opportunity for all. You know as well as I do there are many young people out there, at age 16, who don't have the means to pay for driver training and don't have a car to drive in.

But we know eventually they will have a car and they will become drivers, so why don't we have a driver training program that basically allows all young citizens at age 16 who choose so to go out and do the training to become a driver? Then, once they do get their licence and they do buy a car, they've got to go through the graduated driver's licence system. It seems to me that's the emphasis we should be putting on in the debate, and saying that the issue is that of training and making sure that we do a better job.

On the other side, let's say a person decides for whatever reason at 16 that they don't want a licence and at age 25—and I've seen a lot of this, where people at age 25 or 30 decide, "Okay, it's time for me to get a driver's licence"—they have to follow the same standard. Just because you're 25 years old or you're 16 years old and you've never driven before, that doesn't mean to say that you're smarter at getting your driver's licence. I would argue that at 16 you're probably much more nimble than an older person, much more able to process things more quickly.

There's probably an argument that it's easier for a 16-year-old than, let's say, a 40-year-old to go out and get a driver's licence or to acquire skills, the testing, etc. because you're younger, you're more of a sponge when it comes to learning and your reflexes are better etc. My point, however, is, shouldn't the standard be applied to all, so that the person at age 35 or 40 who says for the first time, "I want a drivers licence," has to undergo the same type of training as any new driver, and basically that it's mandatory: "Here's what you need to do?"

We do that to an extent in Ontario. In fairness to the government, I'm not saying that that doesn't happen whatsoever. But clearly the stats spell out that there is, from what the stats are showing, a disproportionate number of accidents with younger drivers. Therefore, let's come at it from the opposite direction. Let's look at it from the training perspective.

Now, the other issue is that of driver responsibility. I think this is one area where we really need to change the attitude of citizens completely. That is, the first thing that we have to say is that driving is not a right; it's a responsibility. I've spoken to this issue before in the House in the past. It seems to me that there are far too many people in our society, young people included, who say, "It's my right to get my driver's licence. That's what happens. When I get to 16, it's my right to get it. That's something that society owes me." Well, I'm sorry.

It's something that society doesn't owe you; it's a privilege that we give you. With that new privilege of being able to drive a car comes a responsibility to make sure that you're safe for yourself and your passengers and the motoring public that you're engaged with as you're driving down our streets and highways in this province.

Maybe one of the things we need to do, both through driver training and also just through public education overall, is to make sure that people understand that when they get behind the wheel of a car, that car can become a lethal weapon and you need to make sure that you drive that car safely. For example, we have legislation in this House now that will look at banning cellphones and other devices in cars. I think that's a great idea.

We're saying to people, "Listen, you can't be abusing your privilege of driving a car and trying to talk to somebody on the phone at the same time and being distracted from what you're supposed to be doing, which is driving the car." So, certainly there are ways of being able to strengthen the individual responsibility that we all have to take when it comes to driving an automobile.

I say to the government, we really need to take a look at the issue of how we're able to engage citizens in recognizing that they have a responsibility when it comes to driving a car, and that they need to take that responsibility seriously. So I say to the government, okay, we know why are you doing this.

There might be an argument as to, "We need to find a way to make sure that we don't have a disproportionate number of accidents with younger people versus older people," but clearly, I think if we really get into it and look at the stats more deeply, there's probably an equal amount of accidents with much older people. We know that when people—it's the natural aging process that our reflexes are not as good as they used to be and our eyesight might not be as good as it used to be. I would argue that we have a problem at both ends of the scale: older drivers and younger drivers.

So it seems to me that we need to look at this from a larger perspective, not just from the perspective of younger people, of making sure that all drivers have the skills that they need to drive a car and that they are exercising their responsibilities correctly in driving. So I think the problem I have with this bill is we're only looking at young people, it's like we're picking on young people.

It has been interesting. The government has been raising in this debate that one of their stats that proves this is the information that the insurance companies collect on drivers. Clearly, young people are paying much higher automobile insurance than older people. They say the way of being able to fix that is to have this legislation, because if we make the stats safer, at the end of the day it'll drop the insurance rate for younger people. I say, hogwash. The issue to deal with that is public auto insurance. If you want to get into providing a better and fairer insurance system to the—

Hon. James J. Bradley: I thought we had that.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: No, we don't have that.

Mr. Bruce Crozier: A more expensive system.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Oh, here go the Conservatives—I mean the Liberals—across the way, all right? No, they're Tories too—that's what I'm saying—on this one. Oh yes, the cat's out of the bag.

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: There go the Conservatives again: the Liberal benches. There I hear the Conservative voices amongst the Liberals. I hear them. I just said—I'm going to do it again—"public auto insurance." He didn't rise to the bait this time.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I just thought we had it.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I know my good friend Mr. Bradley is a lefty like me and he likes the idea of public auto. I do know that. He's a social democrat at heart. I do know that. Although wearing Liberal clothing, I know Mr. Bradley is a social democrat. I give him some credit.

So here's the issue. The Conservative members on the Liberal side of the House are really worried about getting into a discussion about why it is that we're charging young people an exorbitant amount of money for insurance.

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: There goes another Conservative voice across the House. They're all Tories on this side this morning. The Liberal caucus is now putting on their blue jackets again and they're getting into the Conservative mantra.

Mr. Paul Miller: Blue shirt.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Blue shirt, the whole bit. I've got a white one, thanks. Sometimes I wear blue shirts. Well, I do have a bit of a blue tie.

Let me make the point. I heard the parliamentary assistant and others say that we need to basically lower auto insurance for young people, and one of the ways of doing that is by way of this legislation, because it'll make the stats improve, young people will become safer, there will be fewer accidents, and the private insurance system is going to be able to deal with providing cheaper insurance to young people. I'm saying no, the way you do that is through a driver-owned system. We have this system in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and BC, and we have a mixed system, both public—

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: There go the Conservatives again. They're saying they pay more insurance than us. Man, oh, man, go take a look at the websites. I can't get over it: Liars figure and figures lie all the time.

Interjection: Oh.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It is parliamentary, what I said.

My point is this: If we're serious about providing all drivers with a cheaper form of insurance, the issue is to pool the risk of accidents into a larger pool. That's what driver-owned auto insurance does. You still have brokers; your brokers locally would still have to sell you insurance.

The difference is that they would be selling a product that is a pooled product through a public plan, the idea being that when you pool everybody into one larger pool and you make it mandatory that everybody is insured—and one of the big problems we have now is many people can't afford insurance, so they're driving without insurance on our highways, and we know that's a huge issue, because when we get into an accident with somebody like that, it becomes very expensive as far as what the settlements are going to be.

First of all these people are not pooled and paying insurance; they're not paying their part, and it's very risky for those people who actually get in an accident with somebody who's not insured. So the issue is, you make all drivers insured by virtue of their driver's licence and then you basically have after that a publicly pooled system that says, "Because everybody's in the pool, we now have a system of insurance that we're able to provide at a not-for-profit rate of insurance and coverage to all drivers in this province so that they're properly covered." You sell that through your private brokers.

I don't argue for a second that you get rid of the individual brokers. I think the brokers are doing a great job. I've always argued—in fact, my father-in-law was an insurance broker. That's what my father-in-law did until—

Hon. James J. Bradley: The cat's out of the bag now.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, no, my father-in-law owned his own private insurance company and sold automobile insurance. So I don't have a problem—

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: No, he wasn't a pilot either. My dad was—

Mr. Paul Miller: Did you get a discount?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Yes, actually, I did.

Hon. James J. Bradley: How much?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I can't remember. It was 25 years ago. Back then, we didn't pay much for insurance.

My point is that if we're really serious about providing auto insurance in this province at a lesser rate, we should take a look at entering into such a system. Again, I would argue that we do that in consultation with our brokers, because in the end, the brokers do a good job of providing a service to their clientele and they can continue doing so under a public plan, such as they've done in Manitoba and other places.

When the Manitoba system was set up, the public was in favour, but the brokers were opposed. It's interesting now, years after the Manitoba insurance plan was put in place, if you talk to the brokers there in the province of Manitoba, they're saying it's the best thing that ever happened. It's far less administrative for them to be able to sell. They don't have to go through the hoops that they've got to go through now with all the various insurance companies that we have today.

They're making a reasonable return on the policies that they're selling because they're allowed to charge, as they do in the private system, a percentage markup to broker and to sell the insurance. The private brokers have actually quite liked it in Manitoba.

My point is that if the government is serious about getting into providing auto insurance for all people and especially young drivers, I think we should get into a discussion of driver auto. I think that's one of the ways that you're able to do that.

Back to the issue of the younger drivers: I just think the government is missing the point here in saying to young people that they're going to have to be limited to having one person in the car. There are all kinds of examples that have been used. I was listening to Mr.

Runciman, the other day in the House, raise the point that you can have a 19-year-old flying an Airbus somewhere over the Atlantic with 300 passengers in the back, as the co-pilot or as the captain, depending on the airline and how many pilots they've just hired, but when that pilot lands the airplane back in Toronto, at Pearson, and gets inside their car, they can't bring the crew with them. There are all kinds of examples of how this doesn't make any sense.

Again, the argument that young people who go to serve our country in Afghanistan can get into a Hummer and they can carry troops, they can drive anti-personnel carriers, they can fly helicopters, they can drive and fly all kinds of vehicles with multiple passengers on board in much, much more harrowing situations than driving down the QEW or the 401—yet we're saying to young drivers in this province that they can't do that.

This bill is going to get an opportunity to go to committee. Obviously, we're going to have an opportunity at committee to have a discussion about this. I want to implore, just before I finish, the following: (1) the government needs to listen to what people are telling us at committee; (2) there need to be fairly extensive public hearings on this issue.

I would argue that this bill is not one that should just have hearings here in Toronto. This bill needs to travel to different parts of the province of Ontario. Why? Because young people can't afford to come to Toronto to speak on this bill if they're living in Hamilton or Kenora or Kingston or Cornwall or wherever it might be. I'm not arguing that we should go to every municipality in Ontario, but I think we need to have a fair regional representation with where this committee goes so that people are able to come to us and make presentations. I think what we find will be instructive, because, yes, there are two sides to this story.

There are some good parts of this legislation that deal with dropping the blood-alcohol level. I think all of us can get into that debate, and I think most of us are on side with that particular provision. I think it's a question of extending it beyond just age 21. I think we can have a discussion about how we can have more deterrents within the legislation in order to deal with the speeding issues.

Do you want to split my lead?

Mr. Paul Miller: I get 20 minutes, right?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Yes. Do you want to split it? Okay, cool. I'm asking for unanimous consent to split the rest of my lead. If you get up there, I'll be finished in two seconds.

Hon. James J. Bradley: He's getting used to the front row now.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: That's right. He's moving up.

In public hearings, we also have to get into the issue of making sure that we listen not just to young people—and others about this provision of limiting people's ability to have passengers within their car.

With that, I look forward to the committee hearings.

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

Mr. Paul Miller: I rise today to talk about Bill 126. It's an important step on the road to safe transportation in our province. New Democrats support a significant portion of this bill but have raised a number of concerns in the House, particularly when it comes to the passenger restrictions for young drivers with a G2 licence.

First, I do want to clear some things up on Bill 126 for those watching at home.

At the same time as the government introduced the legislation, they introduced the regulations they intend to pass under the legislation. It has created a lot of confusion out there about what's actually in the bill. The passengers provisions, along with the extension of the minimum G1 and G2 learning periods and incremental licence suspensions for novice drivers, are all regulatory changes.

All other changes, like tougher blood-alcohol limits, administrative driver's licence suspensions, laws that make it easier for police to impound vehicles, and increased fines for Highway Traffic Act infractions, are part of the actual bill. Many of these are specific measures that Mothers Against Drunk Driving have been fighting for for years.

For the most part, the New Democrats support the provisions in the actual bill. The alcohol limits, for example, were a long time coming and bring us up to speed with other provinces. In fact, we believe that the provinces and the federal government should examine zero blood-alcohol rules for all drivers, not just those under 21 years old. In many respects, this 21-year-old cut-off is artificial because alcohol impairs all of us.

It's the regulations we have some problems with. The proposed regulation would prevent drivers under age 19 and holding G2 licences for less than a year from carrying more than one passenger; the proposal will exempt family members. Currently, these drivers cannot drive between 12 a.m. and 5 a.m.; the regulation would extend the restriction for 24 hours. New Democrats believe that the regulation is too restrictive and penalizes parents and young people unnecessarily. The regulation prevents carpooling with friends to, as the member from Timmins pointed out, hockey, dances or music lessons.

It places additional strains on busy working families trying to coordinate transportation. This is especially true in rural and northern communities, where public transit is hard to find, if available at all. But more to the point, the government has not demonstrated concretely that the regulation will prevent the death and injury of young drivers.

We know and acknowledge that young drivers disproportionately represent those killed and injured in drunk driving incidents. What we aren't convinced of, however, is whether extending the passenger restriction already in place between 5:01 a.m. and 11:59 p.m. will save lives. Here are some questions for the government and the Minister of Transportation that would allow legislators to address this fundamental question: When a young driver was travelling with other passengers and they were killed or injured on the road, how often did that happen between 5 a.m. and 11 p.m.?

I would expect that the vast majority of these incidents occur at night, which would mean restrictions are not necessary at those hours.

What percentage of incidents between 5 a.m. and 11 p.m. where a vehicle driven by a young driver with more than one passenger crashes, causing injury or death, involved alcohol, speeding or other violations under the Highway Traffic Act? In other words, given that the legislation requires a blood-alcohol content of zero and tightens up penalties on Highway Traffic Act violations, would the daytime restriction be adding anything? Would these drivers who are breaking the law care about breaking another law?

BC introduced a similar restriction in 2003. Is there any evidence to suggest that the rule, by itself, would make our roads safer?

The burden of proof here lies with the minister and the province. If he says the provision will save lives, he has to present evidence to this Legislature that proves that. Let me quote the Toronto Star on this very issue: "These new rules will have repercussions, even for teens who generally drive responsibly. The onus is on the government to demonstrate that they are both reasonable and necessary." November 19, 2008.

We agree and note that these debates and committee presentations will provide ample opportunity for the government to present their case. Statistics alone should not be the impetus for public policy decisions. For that reason, New Democrats will be voting against the bill in second reading. We want this bill to get to committee, so the public can weigh in formally. The committee should travel to communities across this province to get input. After all, the experience in downtown Toronto will be different than that in Windsor, Welland, Sudbury or Thunder Bay.

There's been a lot of public discussion about the number of people, young and old, who have signed on to Facebook to register their position on Bill 126. Given the low voter turnout in elections, it's good to see citizens—especially young people, who disproportionately don't vote—involved on this scale. That is healthy. The last time we checked, the Facebook site had 141,187 members and almost 14,000 messages posted on the virtual wall. No committee has ever experienced that many individual responses.

Allen Kempton, from Anderson Collegiate and Vocational Institute in Durham, writes: "Parts of this bill do make sense, and I see where they are coming from about it, but others just don't. Like, what is such a problem with having a grade 12 student give his friends a ride from school and school-related functions?" Dale Gold, from York University: "The part of the law I really don't agree with is the passengers thing. What if I'm out with friends, I have had no alcohol at all, but my friends have been drinking?

They want to drive home, and I would want to say, 'I can give you all a ride.' But I can't because apparently that would be unsafe. Should I just let them get behind the wheel? I don't think so."

What would happen if I was up north with a friend and we were at a function, not drinking, and coming home I have a medical problem—I may have a seizure. Is my friend not allowed to be in the car with me, or is he going to take over the wheel and drive? Are there going to be exemptions for emergencies? I don't know if we've even discussed that. What if I was out in a rural area and we hit a snowstorm? I am not allowed to have another person in the car for backup? It's no different than being on a plane and the pilot has a heart attack. Thank God we have a co-pilot or someone in the passenger

section who can fly the plane, or we would be in big trouble.

Shayna Briere, from Kitchener: "I understand the speeding and the no-alcohol level thing. But why can't we have more than one friend?"

An editorial in the Toronto Star on November 24 said, "The Liberals did not campaign on these changes in the last election. Rather, they were lobbied to take these steps post-election, by a grieving father, among others. Given that, they should not be rushed through the Legislature."

We hope these voices are heard in committee. Let's not rush through it. New Democrats encourage parents and young people to come to the committee and make a presentation. This is a great opportunity to engage young people in our province in politics. We shouldn't waste this opportunity.

The proposed regulations under Bill 126 extend the length of the G1 and G2 periods. The length of a G1 will go from one year to one and a half years; for drivers registered in an approved driver education course, the length of the G1 will go from eight months to one year. The length of the G2 will go from one year to a year and a half. This is a measure New Democrats support.

We believe that more driver education and public awareness are key to lowering accident, impaired driving and dangerous driving rates in the long run, but we have some serious concerns about the quality of driver education programs in our province. While we support longer G1 and G2 periods so that novice drivers can absorb the education they are receiving, we're not convinced that driver education programs are adequate. We'd like to see more government involvement in driver education.

In last year's Auditor General's report, James McCarter found that 55% of first-time drivers enrolled in a program crashed their cars about 62% more often. In other words, there was a significantly higher collision rate for motorists who signed up for driver education programs compared to those who did not. That's a weird statistic. More worrying is the fact that this number was up 24% since 2000. So things aren't getting better on the roads; they're getting worse. Driver education will play a big role in lowering those numbers.

The Ministry of Transportation did not have an explanation for this statistic. The Auditor General said the province didn't investigate the finding or take a critical look at its accredited driving schools. Here is what the Auditor General had to say at the time:

"They had done very little work at all to see why this is happening. Our question to ministry is, this is pretty significant. Surely you should have investigated this and determined why this is happening so you could take an appropriate action."

The Auditor General then suggested there is evidence to suggest some driving schools are selling graduation certificates without requiring the training. Pretty scary thought: getting a certificate without really completing the course, or without even taking the course. That should be looked at for sure.

Two possible explanations are: systemically bad driver education courses, or some type of—I hate to say it—fraud; requesting more certificates than graduates. There's evidence of these types of fraudulent practices going on. Even after complaints were launched against some driving schools for allegedly sold driver education certificates, the Auditor General said the province didn't even threaten to revoke government accreditation.

Either explanation, bad courses or fraudulent players, points to a real problem with our driver education courses—not to mention the finding that driving instructors are also more likely than average Ontarians to accumulate demerit points. Interesting. People who are training our young drivers are losing points. According to the Auditor General, about 360 instructors, 6.5%, collected demerit points for speeding, not wearing their seat belts and disobeying traffic lights. Wow. So the trainers are probably worse than the people they're training in some cases. We hope the Auditor General follows up on this issue in next week's report.

Last April, the ministry brought forward a new curriculum for driver's ed. We call on the Ministry of Transportation to comprehensively examine whether the curriculum is working and whether they have tackled the fraud in the system.

Ontario should consider revamping its driver education program. We should look to other provinces for the lead. Manitoba teaches their driver's education in high school classrooms. Students and their families are charged $50, with the public insurance system picking up the tab for the remainder of the cost, approximately $300. That includes 34 hours of in-class instruction and 16 hours—eight hours of actual driving—of in-car experience. That's reasonable, affordable and fair.

In Manitoba, all drivers receive the same quality instruction, and given the fact that it's a public system, there's no possibility of fraud. And they're doing innovative things to involve parents in the education process. For example, parents have to fill out a log to demonstrate that the young driver has been on the road with a supervisor for a minimum of 24 hours.

On the other hand, in Ontario, young drivers and families pay upwards of $1,000 to $1,400 depending on the package. The $1,000 package gets students 25 hours in class and 10 hours on the road, but it doesn't include night or snow driving. That costs more. There are countless fly-by-night operations that charge much less but don't provide good driver education.

In Ontario, more money gets Ontario drivers less instruction. It's time we re-evaluated our more-for-less model of driver's ed. Maybe we should follow Manitoba's lead and put a publicly subsidized driver's ed program into our classrooms. You're learning all the things about life; you're learning all about history. Why not learn about how to drive a car in high school as well? It's a good place to start.

New Democrats also want to know what the impact of tougher legislation and regulation will be on a young and novice driver's insurance rates. On top of paying through the roof for driver's ed, drivers are paying unaffordable rates for insurance. With an average insurance bill of $2,300, we pay 80% more than BC residents. While no average is available for young drivers, we know that it's upwards to $4,000 compared to $1,500 for a young driver in Manitoba. That means that unless parents come up with cash for unaffordable rates, young drivers aren't going to get the insurance they need.

I've heard rumours that there might be up to 30% of people on our roads without car insurance—a pretty scary thought. I sure wouldn't want them to hit me because I might have trouble collecting.

What impact will the legislation and regulations have on insurance rates? We don't know for certain, but we are concerned that relatively minor Highway Traffic Act violations will hurt young drivers trying to get already-unaffordable insurance. It is possible that a novice driver receives a 30-day suspension for driving 10 kilometres above the speed limit, and would that drive up his insurance costs for these drivers? New Democrats want to make sure that relatively minor violations don't lead to unreasonable increases in insurance rates.

We ask the Liberal government to respond to this issue and we call on those in the insurance industry to come forward in committee to guarantee that minor infractions won't lead to unreasonable increases in insurance costs.

There are obviously some concerns we have with this bill. I believe at the committee level the minister and his staff will take the input from our young drivers and our older drivers in this province because, I believe, they have some valuable information and I hope that they include representatives from the insurance industry because our kids pay horrendous amounts for insurance in this province, and it's not always the young drivers who get into accidents.

There are a lot of older drivers who maybe should go back for retraining and maybe they should—how would I say it?—take a refresher course as soon as possible, because, I must say, I've run into some real dilemmas on the highway and it's not always the young drivers. Some of those kids are actually very responsible and very good drivers.

I can speak from a personal experience. I have three daughters, 27, 25 and 24, and I don't believe—I could be wrong, unless they've hidden it from me—they've had a ticket. I believe they're all responsible drivers. None of them drink when they drive. They're very responsible. They'll have a designated driver if they decide to go out to a pub or whatever the young people do, which I used to do.

A lot of our kids understand the implication of driving and drinking and what it leads to, because, trust me, a lot of them have seen friends of theirs killed in high school and in university and college because of alcohol, or because of an older driver hitting a carload of kids who haven't had a drop. That happens, too.

I'm hoping that the government, before they put this into law, takes a hard look at some of the concerns because, I'll be honest, I have been inundated with calls and e-mails from young people concerned about this bill and the way it's coming forward. I do believe that the transportation minister will take a good, hard look at it and I believe, as my colleague pointed out, that Mr. Bradley has a social conscience and he is a reasonable individual.

We don't want to punish the young people in the province; we want to work with them to make our roads safer and our public safer. I believe genuinely that 99% of the kids out there want to be part of that program; they don't want their rights taken away from them; they want to earn the respect of the elder population. I believe we have a lot of good kids out there who want to get better training. It's very sad when you see these incidents in the paper or funerals of young people who have sometimes innocently been killed by a drunk driver, an older drunk driver, or they themselves have been a little reckless.

It's sad. I don't believe those things will never happen again. I'm not that naive, but I do believe we can cut down the numbers and cut down the percentages.

I want the insurance companies not to gouge the young drivers and not punish the entire population. I think that it should be dealt with on an individual case, not right across the board punishing every young driver. Why should my daughter or your son pay more for some irresponsible person out there who should not even be driving, yet they get punished too? It's just not right. I think Grey Power, the insurance company, should be made for young people, for "young power," as good drivers should be rewarded for their good records as well. I don't think that the present insurance system is correct.

So in closing, I encourage the minister and the committee to work hard, because this is going to have a major impact on a lot of people in our province. I do believe that everybody in this House wants to do the right thing. I hope that we can work together to get this solved.

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

Mr. Mario Sergio: I have listened to the submissions both by the member from Timmins-James Bay, I believe it is, and Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. I can appreciate their comments. However, if we didn't have the foresight of the Minister of Transportation in introducing this bill, we wouldn't be here discussing it today and looking forward to some changes to the Highway Traffic Act.

By no means are we looking at all the young people and young drivers as being bad drivers or being bad young people. The fact is that the percentage of young drivers 19, 20 and under involved in accidents is a very high number.

I have also heard from the two previous members with respect to the fact that maybe changes are needed or required in the education system and stuff like that. That could very well be anything that would enhance the driving of our young people, but there is something that we cannot put in writing and cannot put into legislation, and that is experience. We can't expect that a young driver, a brand new young driver has the experience of the road, road conditions and others—the ability to spot problems as they see them on the road. Those are driving skills that you cannot have in a piece of legislation.

What is important, and I have to commend the Minister of Transportation for introducing the bill—hopefully this will be travelling. Indeed, we take this very seriously. I think both the Premier and the minister have said that this is a very important piece of legislation, that indeed we will be looking at receiving submissions and recommendations. Who knows, we may see good amendments coming out of that that will indeed improve the bill as it is.

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

Mr. Peter Shurman: I listened with interest to my friends from Timmins—James Bay and Hamilton East—Stoney Creek on the question of this bill, which I think even the government is prepared to admit has a number of holes in it at this point. I'm optimistic that, in committee and over time, we'll see some significant change.

I think what we have to look at are restrictions based on experience, not particularly on age. I happen to have a great deal of confidence in young people. I've had in my riding and, indeed, in my business life the opportunity to meet an awful lot of young people. Sure, there are bad apples, but for the most part the tree is in very, very good shape. We're bringing people along.

I listened as my friend from Timmins—James Bay talked about piloting. I share that avocation and have been trained. I've got to tell you, the first instructor that I ever had was a 20-year-old woman who had begun her training at 16. She certainly understood the idea of restraint and care, and I learned that from her. So there's something in this area that you can learn from young people.

As far as the kind of groundswell that you've seen, young people who organize themselves and express themselves—and even the Premier has acknowledged this—have used something that I've also had experience with since its inception, the Internet. I've got a technical background; I've been on the Internet for 20 years—other people, not so much. Having said that, when you look at 170,000 and growing who are saying to the minister, "You've got to take a look at this bill.

You've got to take a look at the concept of restricting us and making us different and discriminating against us on the basis of age by, for example, not allowing the same number of persons in an automobile at the same time as anybody else"—I think that that, again, requires some review. So I urge the minister to consider this as we go forward and I look forward to the hearings on Bill 126.

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

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I appreciate the comments from the member for Timmins—James Bay and the member for Hamilton East, and maybe I could assist them a little bit as we go forward with bringing forward the actual regulations and bill provisions.

First, with the blood alcohol, I would say, yes, zero is the standard that will be put forward in this bill. It will be similar to what happens in all American jurisdictions. Just for members' information, a spoonful of cough medicine or a little bit of rum cake will not affect this. It will be possible to do those sorts of things that one might do if you have a cold, or if you were at grandma's for Christmas dinner.

I also would like to point out to members that the restricted licence in G2, when we're relating that to the number of passengers in the car, would be in place for one year of your G2 licence. It would be similar to what happens right now between midnight and 5 a.m.

Why would a government consider doing this? Well, the government would consider doing this because statistics show that, when you get to more than one passenger in the vehicle under 19, there are twice as many accidents when there are three people in the car—the driver and two others. When there are four, it is triple the number of accidents that that car might be involved in. We think that's significant. We think that's something we might be able to do something about, and we're looking forward to talking about it in committee.

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

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: We are being serenaded by the long-term-care workers outside. They're singing Solidarity Forever. This government, of course, has not lived up to their promises of the last election when they talked about further funding.

I would like to comment that the Minister of Transportation is in the House. We're not supposed to comment on whether people are absent from the House, but I think it's okay to comment when they're in the House. The Minister of Transportation is in the House so often during debate on a bill. If the minister who's carrying the bill is not in the House, I'm sure they're briefed on what goes on in the House. But today, the minister is sitting there and paying attention. I would say to the minister that I am philosophically opposed to any bill that targets one segment of our society.

I can understand where the concept of this bill came from—I may not agree with it, but I understand the concept of it—and I would find it more palatable if we were to target the first three years of your driving experience: Whether you're a teenager, whether you're 40, or whether you're 60, the first time you get a licence, you have these restrictions placed on you. Then it's fair to all of society. But when you target someone who is a teenager for no other reason than the fact they're a teenager, I'm philosophically opposed to that. I think that's unfair.

If you're 25 and you just got your driver's licence, and you may have a similar learning curve—in fact, your learning curve will probably be a little slower than it would be if you were a teenager, because we know that during those teenage years from 14, 15, to 18, 19 or so you learn at a very rapid pace. I think the minister should consider making that as a change.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): I let it go this time, but I just say to all honourable members that the standing orders don't allow us to refer to whether a member is in the House or not in the House.

The honourable member for Timmins—James Bay has two minutes to respond.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I want to thank members for the comments that they made; I listened intently to them. I don't agree with everything that's been said, but let me just take on a couple of things.

The parliamentary assistant says, "Well, when you look at the stats there are more accidents happening when there are more passengers in the car." This is basically the argument that he makes. When you take—

Mr. Michael A. Brown: No. Young drivers.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, this is the point I'm making. First of all, I think that's true not just for young drivers. I think that's true overall. If there is a distraction in the car, certainly there can be an accident, and that is as likely to happen to a 30-year-old as an 18-year-old. So I just say, be careful with the stats, because I've been listening to some of the people who have been speaking, who have far more knowledge on this than we do, and there is a discrepancy within the data that you're talking about.

The bigger issue here is, are we all in agreement that we need to find ways to make our highways safer? The answer is yes. Are there provisions in the bill that are a step in the right direction? I think, clearly, the blood alcohol one is one of those. But the real issue, to me, is twofold. It's that this is a highly discriminatory bill. We're going to treat younger people as a different class of citizens. I think that's the issue that really bothers me.

If we want to make our roads safer, then let's have some standards and training that will apply to all drivers so that we make the roads as safe as possible for all passengers and drivers on the highways and streets across this province. But to just point the finger at younger drivers, I think, is highly unfair. As I pointed out earlier, a young person, at 17, can serve their country, and we think that's a great standard and we're proud that they do so, but we're saying they are lesser citizens when it comes to their ability to drive a car.

So I just think we should really be treading very carefully down this road.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you very much. It being just about 10:15 a.m., this House stands in recess until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1011 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of page Sarah Danchuk, we would like to welcome her mother, Carol Danchuk, and her father, Nick Danchuk, to the public galleries this morning.

MEMBER'S BIRTHDAY

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We'd just like to congratulate the honourable member from Oxford, Ernie Hardeman, on his birthday today. Happy birthday, Ernie.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is for the Minister of Health. The Ontario Hospital Association has stated that a majority of Ontario hospitals are facing "serious financial challenges." We hear on a daily basis about hospitals that are being forced to fire nurses, cut beds, cut services, eliminate emergency rooms, and people who are postponing surgery—they're closing surgical units, operating rooms.

I want to ask you, what plan do you have to deal with the crisis that we are seeing today in our hospitals when they don't have enough funding to balance their budget, when the costs have increased?

Hon. David Caplan: First of all, I'd like to say to the member, I reject the premise of her question. The crisis that we had in health care under her government is when there were absolute cuts: an immediate 7% cut to funding for our health care partners. Those days are over. They would come back, however, I would say to the member opposite, if her plan to cut the Ontario health premium—a $3-billion cut to health care—were ever implemented.

This government has the courage to invest in our vital health care services. Since 2003, we've embarked on a plan of unprecedented investment to build a more sustainable health care system in Ontario. Health care spending has increased by 37% since 2003-04, the highest level that it has ever been in the province of Ontario. So to highlight: a 32% increase to hospital funding, a province-wide wait time initiative that has seen—

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Despite the rhetoric, this government still has no plan, and that's the biggest problem that we face today. It also stands in stark contrast to the plan we had. We actually increased hospital base funding by 40%. I'm very proud of the continuum of care that we created.

But I say to you today, we are seeing cuts on an annual basis, whether it's Barrie, Owen Sound, Cambridge, Quinte, St. Mary's, or Kingston General, who have cut 157 full-time positions and eliminated 20 beds. I ask you today: You've had five years to address growing hospital volumes as well as developing a population needs-based funding formula. When are you going to get the job done?

Hon. David Caplan: The member opposite can fabricate all she wishes. However, the truth of the matter is that those members cut services to health care, fired thousands of nurses right across the province, closed 28 hospitals in the province of Ontario. By stark contrast, 630,000 more Ontarians have access to a family doctor who did not previously; 8,900 more nurses have been hired; we've had a 50% increase, a $1-billion increase, to long-term care. The plan is working and it's going to continue.

The health care sector continues to rise as a dominant employer in Ontario now and will for years to come. Our population continues to age, and demands on our health care system will continue to increase.

Patient care will remain my top priority. That means we're going to hire more nurses; we're going to recruit more doctors. We need them in our hospitals, we need them in our long-term-care—

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: This minister has now been in his place for several months, and I can tell you that people in the province are pretty tired of the rhetoric, reaching back, trying to communicate messages which are not truthful. For example, we increased funding by $10 billion, despite the fact that the Chrétien Liberals cut health payments by $2.8 billion. So maybe you'd better speak the truth.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd just ask the honourable member to withdraw the comment, please.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Oh, certainly, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Withdraw.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Yes, withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. David Caplan: I'm happy to compare the record of this government with the record of this member and her government any day of the week. Their record is one of firing health care professionals. Their record is one of closing hospitals. Our record: We are rebuilding hospitals; over 100 health care capital projects; over 8,900 nurses hired here in the province of Ontario in our first five years alone; and a plan to hire an additional 9,000.

We have worked very hard to eliminate a hidden deficit left behind by the members opposite, while at the same time improving the level of care and the level of service in our communities.

This member, unfortunately, has no creditability when it comes to health care in the province of Ontario, given the sorry record, given the sorry state of affairs, that she and her colleagues—the member can read old Conservative Party press releases all she wishes. But—

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

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: My question is to the Deputy Premier.

Yesterday, we heard that you have appointed Jim Arnett as your special adviser on the auto industry. It's good to see that you've finally recognized that your auto strategy is broken and needs fixing. Today's official opening of the Toyota plant is good news, to be sure, but the industry as a whole, as you know, is reeling. While I'm confident in the expertise of Mr. Arnett, I'm hopeful that you will also engage in significant consultations with other interested parties, consider various points of view, and listen carefully to critics of all stripes.

Deputy Leader, can you promise here today that your new auto strategy will include broad and meaningful consultation?

Hon. George Smitherman: I want to say to the honourable member that I understand that when you have the word "opposition" in your title, it does set you up for a certain kind of contrast.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Nobody would know better than you.

Hon. George Smitherman: Indeed, as the honourable member said, at different times I've had that role, which I consider to be a privileged one as well.

I think that people watching the honourable member and listening to his words—as if the circumstances which are well known to people with respect to the economic challenges are something that are just Ontario circumstances. So the honourable member's criticism about the auto strategy and the like does seem a little bit odd, especially considering that that member and his party voted constantly against supporting the emergence of a bigger and stronger automotive sector in the province of Ontario.

Jim Arnett is a quality individual. We have confidence in the work that he'll do. I'll be happy, by way of supplementary, to tell—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I'm a little disappointed in that answer. I'm a little skeptical, because this government has shown very little willingness to co-operate or listen. They have a nasty reputation for formulating policy alone and sticking to it at all costs. Whether it's because of stubbornness, pride or blind ambition, it is inappropriate during this harsh economic crisis. Minister, why should we believe you this time?

Hon. George Smitherman: Not a lot of value added on the honourable member's part, in terms of the quality of the question that he's asking. Everybody recognizes that the automotive sector—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I ask the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook, who is not in his seat, to withdraw the comment that he just made.

Mr. Tim Hudak: I withdraw.

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

Hon. George Smitherman: I think it's very, very important—

Mr. Peter Kormos: He's got to withdraw from his own seat.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I ask the honourable member to return to his seat, please, and withdraw the comment that he made. I ask him to withdraw the comment that he made.

Mr. Tim Hudak: From my own seat, I withdraw the comment from the other seat.

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

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: As representatives, we in the opposition want to bring forward the ideas of our constituents. We want to share the knowledge we have gained from our own consultations, but unless you give us a forum and unless you allow for real consultation, we will only see more of the same, more talk and more games.

We saw it during their phony, self-congratulatory debate on the economy. What a political game that was. We see it every day in committee, where all the opposition amendments are routinely squashed. We saw it when they refused to form all-party committees, as requested my by colleague from Newmarket—Aurora. We saw it in the young drivers' bill, where the people who were most affected were talked down to and ignored—the teenage drivers. Again and again this government acts alone. Minister, how will you include opposition voices and when will you begin to sincerely listen to what is being said?

Hon. George Smitherman: When the member has something of quality to offer would be a good starting point, because in three questions, all that the honourable member had to offer was a litany of partisan digs. As an example, he talks about how circumstances at the committee haven't worked out as the member might have hoped, but he fails to recognize that when he was a member of the party that was a government, they didn't even have committees.

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

POVERTY

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is to the Acting Premier. After 1,400 days in office, the McGuinty government finally promised a poverty plan. Today, another 430 days after that, the McGuinty government now says that it has a plan, but that's all it is, a plan, and a plan that ignores hundreds of thousands of Ontarians who struggle in poverty—youth, people with disabilities, laid-off older workers, new immigrants, people of colour and aboriginal people. But the question is this: How many more days, months and years will Ontarians have to wait for the actual investments to take on poverty, not just the plan?

Hon. George Smitherman: We're into one of these rather awkward moments where the forward gaze of the leader of the third party has outstripped information available to him. I know that he wants to foreshadow negative and pessimistic circumstances, but what people in the province of Ontario—the hundreds and the thousands who offered contributions through the course of a very important, crucial and well-informed discussion on poverty—will see is a government that's committed to moving forward in a fashion which uses real measures and targets. This is historic in the province of Ontario.

On the matter of investments, the honourable member really does need to take a review of the public accounts, which will be a very, very powerful demonstration of the extraordinary contribution that has been made by our government to the circumstances for people living in poverty and to the services that those same individuals call upon. There is more that needs to be done and today's report will—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: Well, the McGuinty government talks about something being outstripped. The only thing that's been outstripped is a McGuinty government that has talked about poverty for five years and done next to nothing as poverty has increased and deepened in the province of Ontario.

The reality is that if anything is going to be done about poverty, the minimum wage will have to become a living wage. Will we see an announcement today to increase the minimum wage to $10.25 an hour now and $11 an hour by 2011? Will we see a commitment today to fund 7,000 affordable housing units this year? Will we see a commitment today to have a full Ontario child benefit now, not waiting until 2011? Will we see a commitment to social assistance benefits that actually cover the cost of rent, of keeping a roof over someone's head? Will we see a commitment to any of—

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

Hon. George Smitherman: I want to thank the honourable member for the question, because as he enumerated all of those sub-questions, those themes, he actually helped to illustrate the areas where our government has been active already. Past actions are a very, very good demonstration of future intentions. The Ontario child benefit has emerged as a substantial financial contribution to the families who are living in lower-income circumstances in the province of Ontario.

The minimum wage that the honourable member asked about has been raised five times. I would say that our commitment to continue to raise the minimum wage is one of those things which have been supported by the people of the Ontario. They had an opportunity in the last election to support the honourable member and his party's call for the increase all at once, and that didn't happen. But we've moved forward five times, and we'll continue to move forward with meaningful increases in the—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: Again, I asked if the government was going to commit to any of these things, and again silence from the McGuinty government, just as there has been next to silence on an issue of a dental program, something that was announced now almost a year and a half ago, and not one red cent has gone into a dental program for low-income families, low-income kids.

Government talks again about the minimum wage. The fact of the matter is Ontario's minimum wage is a poverty minimum wage. It doesn't come anywhere close to the cost of living.

We return to the question at hand again: Will there be a substantial new investment in these things which people living in poverty say would really make a difference, or are we simply going to hear more talk, more promises to maybe, perhaps, possibly do something in the—

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

Hon. George Smitherman: It sounds like the honourable member used the last few words of his question to define his time in politics.

What this bill is going to be about is the real measures and targets that have been called for by so many of the hundreds of thousands of people who participated in the discussion over the course of the last many, many months. We're proud of the work that our cabinet colleague Deb Matthews has led, as an individual who is able to bring to that effort the capacity, from a statistician's standpoint, to analyze the numbers and circumstances for people and the heart of someone who's very dedicated to making improvements in these areas.

Through hundreds of millions of dollars of investments so far, in things like the Ontario child benefit, we've made a meaningful difference in the lives of Ontarians, and especially Ontario's children, living in lower-income circumstances. Today's announcement will be a demonstration of the government's commitment to be held accountable to work alongside others as we—

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

POVERTY

Mr. Howard Hampton: To the acting Premier: The reality is that this has been a government for five years, a government that has talked about poverty for five years, but a government that has lacked any sense of urgency of addressing poverty for five years. This is a government that thinks it's fine to increase its own pay by 40% in 19 months, but says to people who can barely keep a roof over their heads, no increase in the housing allowance in social assistance benefits to cover housing.

This is a government, once again, that says, "Oh, yes, there will be a child benefit, but you have to wait five years before anything meaningful happens from a child benefit." This is a government that says, "Yes, we'll raise the minimum wage, but we're going to keep it a poverty wage."

The question again is: We hear this government talk about a plan. Are there going to be any real, actual, new investments—

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

Hon. George Smitherman: Firstly, the honourable member's characterizations of the Ontario child benefit, which has received hundreds of millions of dollars of investment on an ongoing basis, which rises every year and will continue to do so, is an example of a place where the member's credibility runs up against reality.

We know the honourable member wants to characterize these efforts in a negative fashion—of course, that's his responsibility—but I think that what we see today in the actions that will be taken by our government is, for the first time in the history of the province of Ontario, the willingness on the part of a government to adopt real measures and targets. This holds us collectively accountable to progress in this very, very crucial area.

We're undertaking this in difficult and challenging economic times, for sure, but there's a strong demonstration associated with today's activities of a contribution and commitment to the people of the province of Ontario who are living in impoverished circumstances.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: The McGuinty government wants to talk about "for the first time in Ontario." What's really happening is, for the first time in Ontario, just in the last weeks, we are seeing reports that more people are being forced to food banks than ever before in the history of the province, and that more children are living in poverty than ever before in the history of the province. That's what's really historic about the last week or so, the last month or so. But what we want to see is, is there going to be anything besides a promise to possibly, maybe, perhaps, do something about poverty in five years?

Children can't wait five years to eat. They need to eat every day. What's the McGuinty government going to do to really address poverty instead of talking about five years from now?

Hon. George Smitherman: Children do need to eat every day, and I thank the honourable member for raising the issue of student nutrition, which has experienced, just this year, a doubling. This is an example where the honourable member's credibility really runs shy. He said for the first time in Ontario, in the last few weeks and months, that food bank use, as an example, has been on the rise. This is the best example of a point we have been making for a long, long time, that for five years in the province of Ontario the honourable member was on a prolonged bathroom break. We know that Ontario has faced challenging circumstances—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just would say to all the members that the personal shots across the floor from all sides—and it's on all sides; I just ask that we would have some respect for the each other within this chamber.

Hon. George Smitherman: I'm sorry. Mr. Speaker, perhaps "missing in action" would be a more appropriate way to characterize the honourable member's circumstances. He comes to the Legislature today and he pretends that the circumstances that are present in the world are circumstances that have never been seen before. We will rise to the challenge and work with Ontario—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: I think what we've seen here is an indication of the sincerity of the McGuinty government.

For example, in Peel region, 45% of newcomers with children under age six live in poverty, says the director of Family Services of Peel. She says, "This is startling news, a wake-up call to all of us." What is the response of the McGuinty government's spokesperson? He refers to bathroom breaks. I think what we're seeing here is a real indication of the lack of sincerity of the McGuinty government. They will promise, they will talk, they will develop a plan, but when you look at the details, it's always about something that might perhaps, possibly, maybe happen five years from now.

The question remains: As more kids are forced to food banks, as more kids are living in poverty, what's the McGuinty government actually going to do today, other than refer to bathroom breaks?

Hon. George Smitherman: Well, the honourable member didn't like the point, but he wants to belabour it. It's a very, very direct reflection on the fact that the honourable member for five years—

Interjections.

Hon. George Smitherman: For five years, the honourable member was part of a government in challenging economic times that saw welfare roles double. But he brings to this Legislature today a statement that led with the comment that only in the last weeks and months have the people in the province of Ontario been faced with the challenges that they're facing. This is an assertion which has no foundation in fact and is irresponsible.

At the heart of it, what we see from the efforts of our government is a willingness to adopt real measures and targets upon which we will all be held accountable as we move forward in partnership with dedicated advocates and others across Ontario to address the underlying circumstances for people in this province who live in poverty. We do those on behalf of those people—

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

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is to the Deputy Premier as well and, as he knows, we only have four sitting days left in this chamber.

For months now, if not years, we have been expressing concerns from the official opposition's perspective with respect to the economic challenges this province is facing. We've asked for a jobs plan. We've asked for meaningful restraint. Just earlier today, we heard that Henniges Automotive in Welland has announced they're laying off over 300 people at the end of January. Minister, we've seen you increase spending, going from a $5-billion surplus to a $500-million deficit. The province is now in have-not status. We see the Minister of Finance talk about symbolic restraint. With four days left, when are we going to see a real jobs plan and a real restraint program?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: This government is going to continue to work with all families and communities who have lost work as a result of the crisis going on in the world economy. We have invested, for instance—and I'll go through the full list—$9.9 billion in infrastructure, which has created more than 100,000 jobs. Those jobs are on the street today. There's no doubt that there's more to do.

In terms of restraint, we have laid out $1.1 billion in our budget of last year. In my fall statement we added another $110 million across a range of things, including travel and accommodation. Finally, the other day we laid out further restraint measures. There's more to do. We're taking—

Hon. Gerry Phillips: Step by step.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: My colleague says we're going to take a step-by-step approach to this, and we will be better and stronger when we get out of this situation.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: They're great at announcements but that's about as far as it goes. We talk about symbolism with respect to restraint. The real symbol with respect to this government's approach to spending—we highlighted at least two yesterday.

One was your appointed president of the WSIB making close to half a million dollars a year, living an extravagant lifestyle, staying at the Waldorf-Astoria for $1,300 a night; your Minister of Government Services spending $108,000 last year at the Royal York; these people—your people, your government, Minister, your appointees—exploiting their access to scarce tax dollars. Apparently you're addicted to reruns of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. Minister, you're the Liberal Robin Leach in this picture.

We ask you once again, when are we going to see a real, meaningful restraint program on the part of your government?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Tell us about it, Robin.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member for Renfrew.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The leader of the third party may want to turn to his colleague next to him and ask him why he spent $1,000 a month on alcohol and food as a minister. He may want to ask why Mr. Flaherty stayed at the Willard Hotel, and The Pierre hotel in New York, and why his colleague travelled to Tokyo and Hong Kong, all on the taxpayers' expense.

You know, there is always more to do—oh, we've got the list and I'll be happy to table it. There's a lot more. There's always more to do, and we welcome the conversion on the road to Damascus by the opposition on these issues. Frankly—

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

POVERTY

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is for the Deputy Premier. Ontarians living in poverty have waited a long, long time for this day, including the adult with autism from Barrie who works hard to augment her ODSP benefits, only to have half of her earnings clawed back by this government; including the 45-year-old auto parts worker in St. Thomas whose employment benefits have run out and who can no longer afford to pay the rent; and including the 21-year-old from London saddled with student debt and unable to find a full-time job. What is this government planning to do for adults in serious need?

Hon. George Smitherman: I want to say to the honourable member that we've noted, of course, his very genuine interest in matters related to poverty. That's why I know that he'll be looking forward to this afternoon and what it holds. At the heart of it, what he'll see on the part of the government is a willingness to imbed the principles of real targets and measures that can hold us all accountable to the progress that's necessary for people who are living in impoverished circumstances.

He spoke first off about a circumstance with ODSP. In this example, already there have been, I think, two occasions when the amount of resource that an individual could earn would be exempt from clawback, or other reforms. This is a substantial improvement over the record that past parties had with respect to ODSP and is a further example of how we've been working to try and enhance the revenue generation, income earning potential of people living on ODSP.

Mr. Michael Prue: The fact still remains that you are clawing back money from people with Down's syndrome and autism, and it is a shame.

Something that we often hear from modest-income Ontarians is that poverty is all about the shame of being treated as though one were less worthy, one were less human than those who do not live in poverty. Disabled adults are penalized for trying to lift themselves out of poverty. Shelter allowances continue to be grossly inadequate, and the minimum wage won't increase now when workers need it the most. Why won't this government recognize that poor adults deserve our help too?

Hon. George Smitherman: The honourable member in his very question has made a misstatement. The minimum wage indeed has already moved five times, and it will continue to move forward. We've laid out that plan. There's certainty in it for the individuals who are earning it and for the companies that are working and obligated to pay it. We've been able to make increases in the minimum wage, just as we've been able to substantially free up resources for earning potential for people living on Ontario disability support.

I accept the honourable member's point that he would like to see that at higher levels, or no clawback indeed, but I remind the honourable member that that has not been the history in this place. When people who sit around him were around, the clawback was far more extraordinary and the disincentive to earn income for people on ODSP was much, much greater. We've made substantial progress in that very area, and I thank the honourable member for bringing it to the attention of the Legislature today.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Jeff Leal: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, in the poverty consultations in Peterborough in May and June, many community groups raised the issue of adequate affordable housing. I know that you have been to Peterborough to visit new housing projects like the 60-unit Myrtle Terrace project that was funded through the affordable housing program. But some housing units in Peterborough are aging, falling into disrepair. There are 2,000 social housing units in the city, Minister. People in Peterborough who rely on affordable housing can't wait for repairs.

They need money now. I know Peterborough council is working hard. Minister, I'm demanding today to know, what are we doing for those units?

Hon. Jim Watson: Mr. Speaker, I didn't write that question.

Let me begin by thanking the honourable member, who served on Peterborough council for 18 years and together with Mayor Ayotte has done such good work in providing their share of funds for social housing. But they are not in it alone. The McGuinty government is there with the good people of Peterborough, and in the 2008 budget, my colleague Minister Duncan provided $100 million province-wide for housing repair funds. Peterborough's share was close to $850,000.

When this funding was announced by my colleague the member from Peterborough, Susan Bacque of the housing division of Peterborough said, "This is very good news." I understand that Peterborough will be putting the money towards new doors, upgraded heating and plumbing, and energy-efficient upgrades. We look forward to working with the people of Peterborough to ensure adequate and affordable housing in that community.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary? The member for Oakville.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: In Halton, there's also a need for affordable housing. I know my own community of Oakville is doing what it can to invest in affordable housing. No doubt the uploads this government just announced last month are going to help.

The Tories downloaded services, including housing, onto my municipality. They provided no support for municipal service. The Harris-Eves and the Hudak Tories have forced these costs onto municipalities.

Minister, as a former councillor myself, I know the importance of provincial and federal dollars for housing. Municipalities can't go it alone. They need the province and the federal government at the table.

Minister, what can you do to support my community's efforts to invest in affordable housing for the citizens of Oakville?

Hon. Jim Watson: I thank the honourable member from Oakville, because he, too, served for many years on municipal council and understood the damage that was done by the previous government when the downloading took place.

We're doing our share. Halton region has received $1.83 million to help with social housing repairs in the region. Halton region also, as a result of the Investing in Ontario Act, received $41.7 million. The town of Oakville itself received $7.4 million.

I know that Mayor Burton has a passion and interest, as the member from Oakville does, with respect to social housing

I'm hoping that municipalities will use a portion of the Investing in Ontario Act for social housing repair and new builds, because it is eligible, it is qualified, for that.

Next year, we are going to be beginning consultations on a long-term affordable housing strategy. We look forward to coming into Halton region and other parts of the province to hear, first-hand, good ideas and good suggestions on how to improve—

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

MINISTRY SPENDING

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is to the Minister of Health Promotion. The 2006-07 public accounts for your ministry state that nearly $1.1 million was paid to a company by the name of Bensimon Byrne, a very Liberal-friendly ad agency, to put it mildly. More than anything, this company is known for producing the famous Dalton McGuinty promise-breaking "I won't raise your taxes" ads. Minister, can you tell the members of this Legislature what Ontario taxpayers received in return for that nearly $1.1 million?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I thank the member opposite for the question. I would like to take the information that the member opposite has provided and I will look into it further and provide her with an answer to that question.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Minister, earlier this year, I requested the order paper question of the regional breakdown of what you've allocated for advertising for the Smoke-Free Ontario Act. Since 2006, your own ministry spent over $10.2 million on media buying services. That's almost $14,000 per day, every day. So we've already asked you earlier this year to provide breakdowns.

You need to be honest with the people of Ontario. We're certainly living in tough economic times, when we have to tighten our belts. We want some accountability from the ministry on what she's spending the money on. We've already asked the order paper question, and we didn't get an answer. When will the minister provide this answer?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I'm certainly going to take this opportunity to talk about some of the ways our money is spent in the Ministry of Health Promotion to address the issue of smoking, smoking cessation and smoking prevention.

As you know and as the member opposite knows, smoking is the number one preventable cause of death in Ontario. In fact, 13,000 Ontarians die each year from smoking. As a result of that, we invest in many different smoking cessation products.

We have to tell you about the products. We've provided close to $15 million for cessation programs in 2007 and 2008. To date, $8.9 million dollars has been approved to support cessation—

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

CHILD CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This is a question to the Deputy Premier.

The availability of licensed, affordable, not-for-profit, publicly funded child care must be a priority for poverty reduction in the province of Ontario. Only 12% of Ontario families have access to child care in this province. There are more than 23,000 eligible children on waiting lists in this province who are unable to obtain subsidies for affordable, licensed child care.

As part of her poverty reduction strategy, will the Minister of Children and Youth Services be committing to adequate, stable core funding to meet the need for child care spaces in Ontario for all families?

Hon. George Smitherman: I do want to thank the honourable member for the question and encourage her to watch, with interest, the announcements today and the actions that stem from them. There are associated with the issue of poverty, of course, a wide variety of influences; the honourable member has raised an additional one. That's why, at the heart of it, we viewed the word "comprehensive" as essential to the work that's being undertaken.

I think that the honourable member will see, from the announcements that take place, the work that the minister has done in leading our government forward and creating a framework that will allow for targets and measures to be adopted against which we can all be held accountable and that we can all strive to make progress, even in these uncertain and challenging economic times.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: In the response I heard nothing about child care, nothing at all. The reality is that struggling families in this province are desperate to break the cycle of poverty, and it's very clear that a robust child care program can break the cycle of poverty.

This government has talked about a full-day learning program. Nobody even knows when or if it's going to be implemented, but what we do know is that's not a substitute for child care for all children of all ages in this province. We want to know, and we want to know very clearly from this government: Do they have a commitment to implement a child care program for all of the children of this province that is affordable, that is accessible universally and that is reliant on the QUAD principles, as was once their plan some seven or five years ago?

Hon. George Smitherman: I want to thank the honourable member. The honourable member knows of the Best Start circumstances in the Hamilton community that has led to the creation of more than 2,000 child care spots. We think this is a very strong example of the commitment that our government has made. But, like I said earlier, we recognize there is a wide variety of areas that can benefit from additional resource and that families and children living in poverty can benefit from.

But at the heart of it, we think that it's important that there be targets and measures associated with that, that we can hold accountable the resources that are put into the system to make sure they're achieving the resources that are desired.

On the matter of full-day kindergarten, I want to say to the honourable member that there are exciting opportunities that will be forthcoming, and I appreciate, again, the honourable member raising an issue which demonstrates further the government's commitment to our youngest citizens.

MENTAL HEALTH AND

ADDICTION SERVICES

Mrs. Liz Sandals: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. I spent many years working within the Ontario education system, both as a school trustee and chair of the safe schools action team. I've often heard from educators who told me how challenging it can be to help troubled students find appropriate mental health supports. I know the government is committed to connecting Ontarians of all ages with needed mental health programs.

It is a difficult task and one this government has been working to achieve since it was elected in 2003, but I have still heard accusations from some of my constituents that we have not done enough yet. Can the Minister of Health reassure the House that we are working to improve mental health services in Ontario?

Hon. David Caplan: I want to thank the member from Guelph for the question. I'd like to assure her and her constituents and, indeed, all Ontarians that mental health and addictions are one of my top priorities. Our government will continue to work hard to improve the capacity and the quality of Ontario's mental health system.

I'm pleased to inform the House that today more than 200,000 Ontarians who did not have access to mental health services in the year 2003 are getting the help they need. Since being elected, we have increased funding to community mental health agencies by more than $200 million. That's a 50% increase to over 300 community mental health agencies. I believe the way we deal, as a society, with those living with mental health issues, in many ways is a measure of us as a compassionate society. I know Ontarians are compassionate people. That is why I'm confident that we will have the support we need to continue improving the province's mental health and addiction services.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I'm happy to hear that mental health is one of the minister's top priorities, and I know in my riding of Guelph, one of the big steps forward has to be to introduce an assertive community treatment team to help people in the community with really complex needs.

But to truly improve Ontario's mental health system, we need to better understand the needs of the people who use it. Too often there is a stigma around mental health and addiction issues. Thankfully, it seems times are changing. Today, there is greater awareness of mental health issues than there was when the McGuinty government first took office. I'm confident that greater awareness can create a momentum for change.

I ask the Minister of Health, what more can be done to improve awareness of mental health issues and to improve the services that we are providing?

Hon. David Caplan: I again thank the member for the question.

I do think that members from all parties in this House can agree that we need to work together on this important issue. As a province and as a government, we need to speak more openly about mental health and addictions. I'm sure that the province is ready for a constructive conversation.

That's why I want to take this moment to thank the member from Whitby—Oshawa. She has proposed creating a select committee to develop a comprehensive Ontario mental health and addiction strategy. The member opposite is starting a much-needed dialogue.

We have made significant investments, but we want to find ways to link these efforts in a more coordinated fashion. I'm excited to work in partnership with stakeholders, with experts, with health care workers and indeed with all of our colleagues in the House. Together we can develop a long-term—

Interjection.

Hon. David Caplan: Well, maybe not the member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

Together we can develop a long-term mental health and addiction strategy that will improve mental health—

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

UNIVERSITY LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is to the Deputy Premier.

This week, York University students as well as CUPE held demonstrations at Queen's Park in protest of the York University strike. Both sides are clearly frustrated with the four-week-old work stoppage and are reaching out to the government.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. If the members want to have a discussion, I'd encourage them to go to the outer antes to have that discussion and to not be hollering across the floor. I'm trying to listen to a question, and there's a minister who's trying to listen to the question as well.

Mr. Peter Shurman: Thank you, Speaker.

Both sides in this strike are clearly frustrated with the four-week-old work stoppage and are reaching out to the government. The mediator has been unsuccessful. The strike isn't any closer to being resolved than it was on the day it started, perhaps less so.

Deputy Premier, I have repeatedly asked for back-to-work legislation so the students can return to their studies. Is today the day that you'll see the light and end the strike?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. John Milloy: As I had a chance to say earlier this week, the honourable member doesn't have any monopoly in this Legislature on concern for students. I think all members are concerned about the situation facing students at York University.

Universities, as the member knows, are autonomous institutions.

All of us call, on both sides, to get back to the bargaining table and to reach an agreement as quickly as possible so that the students can resume their work in the classroom.

The government, as the member knows, has offered mediation, and we have a mediator on-site who is trying to work with both sides.

Again, I think every member of this Legislature calls on both sides to get back to the bargaining table and reach an agreement as quickly as possible.

Mr. Peter Shurman: This is double-talk.

With questions, statements and a private member's bill, I have attempted to get this government moving in the right direction. I ask that the government table and pass back-to-work legislation before this Legislature rises for the winter break next week.

The university has stated that it cannot go any further and has offered binding arbitration. Students, who are paying the highest price in the strike yet don't have a voice at the table, were here this week asking for your help, and so was the union.

Are you really willing to go on your winter break, enjoy the holiday season, and completely abandon 50,000 students, whose only hope to salvage their academic year is to have this Legislature pass back-to-work legislation?

I ask again: Will you finally step up to the table, put back-to-work legislation on it and end the strike?

Hon. John Milloy: Again, the member seems to come across as though he has a monopoly on concern for students. Every member of this Legislature is concerned about the situation at York University.

I think the member has to acknowledge the fact that York University is an autonomous institution.

All of us are concerned about what's going on there, and all of us urge both sides to get back to the table as quickly as possible. Through the offices of the Ministry of Labour, we have a mediator who's on-site, who's working with both sides, and we call on them, in the strongest terms possible, to return to the bargaining table for the best interests of the students.

HIGHWAY 406

Mr. Peter Kormos: I have a question to the Minister of Transportation. Does the minister understand how important it is to resume the four-laning and extension project of Highway 406, especially when the region has been so hard hit with job losses and when regional leaders are scouring the globe, desperately looking for job-creating investment?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Yes, I do. I know sometimes we say, "Thank you for asking that question," and sometimes it's not always sincere when the questions come. This one is sincere. I know of the member's genuine interest in the expansion of Highway 406. He will know that our government expanded the full four lanes to Port Robinson Road, and he will know that it's important to continue that expansion.

I can report to him that the planning and preliminary design study is under way for the widening of the next

section of Highway 406 from two to four lanes between Port Robinson Road and East Main Street in Welland. As part of the planning study, a range of options will be considered for the design of the termination of the 406 extension and East Main Street. In the supplementary, I'll elaborate.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Kormos: Knowing, as you do, Minister, that the crisis in lost jobs is as bad in Port Colborne as it is in St. Catharines, Niagara Falls and Hamilton, will you tell us now that those plans include ensuring that the city of Port Colborne and that four-laned Highway 3, with its connection to the Peace Bridge and the QEW, is a part of the plan, in terms of the extension of Highway 406, to assist that hard-hit region in attempting to recover from these desperate economic times?

Hon. James J. Bradley: The member makes a very good point when he says that when we are developing these highways and widening them and expanding them, it's not only for the purpose of meeting the existing situation in terms of traffic flow, but for assisting in economic development. I can tell him that it's anticipated that the study I made reference to will be completed in the spring of 2009. It will be followed by detailed design, property acquisition and the remaining environmental approvals.

We're making every effort towards getting the project under way by the summer of 2011. Construction timing is dependent on obtaining environmental approvals, property and funding. And yes, further study will go into the road as it leaves Welland and heads down towards Port Colborne. The municipal officials there have made representations. I've met with them, and the member has expressed his view on this. I thank him for raising the profile of this issue at the appropriate time.

CLASS SIZE

Mr. David Orazietti: My question is for the Minister of Education. As a former educator, I know first-hand the importance of investing in our youth so that they can reach their full potential, especially in today's knowledge-based economy.

Yesterday, when looking at the primary class size numbers in my riding of Sault Ste. Marie, released by your ministry for the current school year, they showed that 90% of primary classes in the Huron-Superior Catholic District School Board and the Algoma District School Board now have 20 or fewer students, and 100% of students attending schools at both local boards are learning in classrooms with 23 or fewer students. This means more individual attention for some of our youngest learners, and this is absolutely crucial to building a solid foundation for learning. Yet members of the opposition say our cap is overly rigid and that we are inadequately supporting these lower class sizes.

Minister, can you clarify this issue for members of the House?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you to the member for his question. He is truly a tireless advocate for education in Sault Ste. Marie and across the province.

Because of his experience as an educator, he knows how important it is that our youngest students have the opportunity to have access to their teachers and smaller classes. In fact, across the province, we now have over 90% of those primary classes at 20 students or fewer. That is a huge accomplishment, considering that when we came to office in 2003, only 31% of those classes were at 20 students or fewer. So that means that 540,000 students are now getting more support, which is up from only 166,000 five years ago.

We know from the research that if we can get those class sizes lower in the early years so that they have access to teachers, those kids will do—

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

Mr. David Orazietti: Thank you, Minister. This is indeed progress. Smaller class sizes have been identified as a priority by educators across the province, as studies show that greater attention in the early years leads to increased success for students throughout their school career.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank parents, teachers, students, principals, support staff and all educators who have partnered with us to make the positive impact in Sault Ste. Marie's elementary schools and in elementary schools across the province.

Some Ontarians are concerned that the reduction in primary class sizes has led to other challenges. Issues have been raised that our plan is not flexible enough to respond to local needs, and it's causing class sizes to balloon in grades 4 to 8. Minister, can you comment on the flexibility of our plan regarding class size challenges in grades 4 to 8, please?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We know that you can't just magically reduce class size without making investments, so in Algoma there are 23 additional primary class size teachers, and in the Huron-Superior Catholic District School Board there are 27, which means that we have made the investment to get new teachers into the system. What that means is that the average class sizes in the grade 4-to-8 panel have not been affected as they might have been had we not made those investments. In fact, the averages have actually gone down in grades 4 to 8 from 25.7 students to 24.9 students. The impact has not been what it would have been had we not made the investments.

We knew when we came into office and we put this plan in place that 100% of classes at 20 students or fewer was going to be too rigid. That's why we introduced the flexibility of 90% of classes at 20 students or fewer—

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

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. In the central east re