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

December 3, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-Dec-03 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 3 December 2008 Mercredi 3 décembre 2008

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CORONERS AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES CORONERS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

MINISTRY SPENDING

BREASTFEEDING

PEDIATRIC FORENSIC

PATHOLOGY INQUIRY

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

ENERGY POLICIES

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

MINISTRY SPENDING

CHILD CARE

USE OF TASERS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

AUTISM TREATMENT

LAKE SIMCOE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE STAFF

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LONG POINT

COOPER MARSH

CONSERVATION AREA

SCHOOL PRINCIPALS

UKRAINIAN GENOCIDE

ROAD SAFETY

UNIVERSITY LABOUR DISPUTE

SCHOOL PRINCIPALS

CHILD ABUSE

TED ROGERS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

(PUPILS WITH DIABETES), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

(ÉLÈVES DIABÉTIQUES)

JOSEPH AND WOLF LEBOVIC JEWISH COMMUNITY CAMPUS ACT, 2008

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

MAYNARD SAM GEORGE

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES /

JOURNÉE INTERNATIONALE DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

MAYNARD SAM GEORGE

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

MAYNARD SAM GEORGE

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES /

JOURNÉE INTERNATIONALE DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

NATIONAL DAY

OF REMEMBRANCE AND ACTION

ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

PETITIONS

CHILD CARE

FIREARMS CONTROL

DIABETES TREATMENT

BATHURST HEIGHTS

ADULT LEARNING CENTRE

FIREARMS CONTROL

LUPUS

CHILD CUSTODY

DIABETES TREATMENT

DRINKING AND DRIVING

DIABETES TREATMENT

CHILD CUSTODY

DIABETES TREATMENT

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ROAD SAFETY ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ ROUTIÈRE

ORDER OF BUSINESS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CORONERS AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES CORONERS

Resuming the debate adjourned on December 2, 2008, on the motion for second reading of Bill 115,

An Act to amend the Coroners Act / Projet de loi 115, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les coroners.

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

Mr. Peter Kormos: I will be sharing the one-hour lead with Andrea Horwath, the member from Hamilton Centre and NDP leadership candidate. She has a strong interest in this issue because of her relentless advocacy in the community of Hamilton, and certainly in this Legislature, including her introduction of private member's legislation in the matter of the tragic death of a boy, Jared Osidacz. She will, I am sure, be addressing that, particularly in the context of the repeal of

section 22 by this legislation.

Look, it's trite, we know. We know what promoted or provoked the vast majority of this bill, and that is the Goudge report. The Goudge report was a lengthy inquiry into primarily, but not solely, the behaviour of a rogue pathologist, one Charles Smith, who New Democrats believe should be held accountable beyond the mere condemnation of his conduct. Countless people suffered unimaginable pain because of Smith's incompetence, his arrogance, his disdain for the truth, his disregard for it–and these people went to jail. You have to understand, we're talking about baby-shaking cases, baby-shaking deaths.

And while it's acknowledged that the science has changed, that wasn't the crux of the issue when it came to Dr. Smith. I'm loath to call him a doctor; I have far too much respect for medical practitioners to call him a doctor.

You also know that when you're sent to jail for a baby murder, you do what's called, in the colloquial, in the lexicon of the pen, "hard time," and you are subjected to abuses, some of which I'll not speak about in the presence of the pages, our young assistants here in this chamber. But most of the community knows full well what I'm talking about.

We are cautiously optimistic about the process that has been embarked on in terms of investigating other baby-shaking cases and, as significantly, the processes being embarked upon to determine a means of compensating the people who suffered at the hands of Smith's arrogance, incompetence and dishonesty—although, for the life of me, I know that money is a means of compensating people, and not an inappropriate one, but certainly an incomplete one.

I've often reflected on the fact that there is only one thing worse than a guilty person who goes free, and that is an innocent person who is found guilty, especially of the most heinous crimes that have attached to them this incredible and, again, entirely appropriate stigma. There is certain criminal conduct that is so opprobrious that it does, as it should, attract as close as we come in our society to shunning, to expelling people from the community—and, as I say, it should.

Perhaps it doesn't even happen often enough, because there are cases where communities are forced to live with these types of incredibly misshaped people in their own neighbourhoods, with no warning and certainly no protection.

We are eager to see this legislation go to committee. We're confident that it will pass. We will be supporting the legislation on second reading, in principle, notwithstanding some serious, grave concerns, in particular with respect to the sections of the bill that have nothing to do with and are in no way responsive to the Goudge recommendations.

One: New Democrats have long been advocates of systems whereby there are mandatory coroners' inquests in certain classes of deaths. One of them is workplace deaths. My colleague Ms.

Horwath, New Democrats in this Legislature and those before us, along with our sisters and brothers in the trade union movement and the labour movement, along with working women and men across this province, have long held the view that workplace deaths—I am more inclined to refer to them as workplace homicides; I'm even more inclined to refer to them as workplace murders—should necessarily become the subject matter of a coroner's inquest. We're therefore very concerned about this legislation, to the extent that it displays a trend away from compulsory inquests.

The argument, of course, is that, "Oh, the coroner from region to region or the chief coroner in the province of Ontario is entirely capable of assessing whether or not a particular death ought to be the subject matter of a coroner's inquest."

Perhaps during committee we'll discover that part of the motivation is cost containment. When one understands that the purpose of a coroner's inquest—not just the legislative purpose but the effect, the net result of a coroner's inquest—is inevitably recommendations by people in the community, based on the evidence they heard during the course of that coroner's inquest, as to how to prevent those types of deaths, one wonders whether cost containment really should be a factor.

We're talking about saving lives. We're not just talking about investigating the cause of death of the deceased; we're talking about saving lives of the living. It reminds me of the mantra we repeat on days of mourning as well as throughout the rest of year: "Mourn for the dead, but fight for the living." The purpose of coroners' inquests is to fight for the living. So we bemoan this movement away from compulsory coroners' inquests.

We, for instance, think that not only should there be coroners' inquests in the event of the murder of working women and men in their workplaces, whether it's by the crane toppling or by the deranged co-worker slaughtering them—we recall the tragedy of the health professional in a hospital slaughtered by a predatory stalker, a doctor in the hospital, in her own workplace, because the existing legislation did not provide the protection that, but for some minor amendments proposed by New Democrats and advocated by all of us, including Ms. Horwath, would have given.

So whether it's the toppling of a crane, the explosion in a small firecracker factory in Port Robinson, the failure of adequate supervision of safety devices or the negligence of a company that refuses to shore up the walls of an excavation, or whether it's the outright physical murder of a worker by a co-worker, we believe that coroners' inquests should be mandatory.

Look, the long-standing provision that persons who die while in custody should become the subject matter of a coroner's inquest is an entirely valid one. Whether criminal or orphaned child, whether young offender or disabled teen, surely people—their families, their parents, their children—should be entitled to know that that child, parent, sister or brother is in one of the safest conceivable places when they're in the care of the state.

We believe there should be some significant consideration, some serious debate around coroners' inquests into highway deaths. What better way for there to be recommendations from the grassroots of the community—just folks—about measures that a government can take to safeguard innocent people using our highways? Perhaps we'd have somewhat more effective policy development than the rather silly proposition, in the view of New Democrats, that young drivers shouldn't be entitled to have more than one young passenger with them in a car.

We have concerns about the bill's tendency to create a trend away from compulsory inquests for certain classes of people. The argument that, "Oh, the coroner can make his or her own decision," is a frail one to say the least; frail because there may well be cases where the circumstances are so obvious and beyond dispute that the inquest process can be a far briefer one than it would be in other cases. But that is the solution, and certainly not the argument for abandoning compulsory inquests.

Section 22 of the Coroners Act is, entirely appropriately, a rarely used provision.

Section 22 allows the Minister of Community Safety to call for an inquest in his or her own right, notwithstanding that the local or regional coroner or the chief coroner may have declined to do so. The member for St. Catharines, the Minister of Transportation, will undoubtedly recall that the most recent time that was invoked was back in 1986, during that two-year period of time when more NDP legislation was passed than ever since here in the province of Ontario. You will recall those two years, 1985 and 1986. The trend for progressive legislation ended abruptly in 1987, but 1985 and 1986 produced some incredibly progressive and enlightened legislation.

But there was the prospect of a person dying in a boating accident. The Solicitor General then was Ken Keyes, who himself had some tragic experience with boating. You'll remember it was on the boat with the OPP where he had a beer. He wasn't drunk, but he drank a beer, and of course the OPP—maybe nothing has really changed, who knows? Who knows what kind of records Julian Fantino keeps? But Ken Keyes was subsequently burned, as they say on the street, in the revelation of this most modest of misdemeanours. It forced him to resign, as I recall—am I correct, Minister of Transportation? Ken Keyes was a very competent cabinet minister, a very competent and responsible Solicitor General.

The argument made in response to questions about why this government feels it's necessary to repeal

section 22, the

section in the current Coroner's Act that provides for the Solicitor General to unilaterally call for an inquest, is that it has almost never been used. That's precisely the point: It should be rarely—and only very rarely—used. It shouldn't be used as a matter of course. It should be utilized in those exceptional circumstances where a consideration of the public interest prevails over the minutiae of the legislation; perhaps where common sense prevails over the letter of the law.

Ken Keyes exercised that discretion back in 1986, some 22 years ago. No coroner was about to call for an inquest, but in fact the inquest was held. The revelations during the course of the inquest were of great interest. Notwithstanding the finding that the boating accident and the apparent deaths were in fact a hoax, as I understand the history of the matter, the jury was still capable of producing recommendations to enhance boater safety. That's a good thing; that's a positive thing.

You know, the Premier's office is surely not the sole source of policy wisdom; there is many a Liberal backbencher, and indeed cabinet minister, who can confirm that. It was David Zimmer, the member from Willowdale, who by kicking and dragging brought the Premier's office to support his private member's bill that enhanced boating safety by ensuring that boaters who were caught driving drunk or impaired lost their motor vehicle driver's licence. The Premier's office did not want to do that; they didn't.

Zimmer had to embarrass them into doing it. I remember that he pulled his early-morning CBC Radio stunt—Andy Barrie. The government House leader was, I suspect, a little disgruntled, because Zimmer bypassed channels. He was not about to stand, cap in hand, as a supplicant at the locked door of the Premier's office, waiting for his turn, which he knew was never going to come because the Premier at the time, as now, Mr. McGuinty, and his minions—his high-priced minions, his minions who are insistent that they know better than anybody and are not afraid to tell you so, the intimate advisers of Mr.

McGuinty—weren't about to let that legislation pass. Zimmer had to abandon the Marquess of Queensberry Rules and, in the course of doing that, did all of us a good service.

That's why I say we should understand how important coroners' inquests are, because just folks—just folks like the people we represent, just folks like the people next door, just folks like factory labourers, those who are lucky enough to have a job but still despairing over the fact that over the course of the next several months they may lose those jobs too, just folks like retirees, just folks like schoolteachers and nurses and shopkeepers, whose lives revolve around their work, their family, their community, like any jury—are entitled to hear evidence, to draw conclusions, to make findings of fact and to make recommendations, an incredibly important role.

I look forward to this going to committee, because I think it's incredibly important that, with respect to the extent that this bill responds, or purports to respond, to the Goudge report, I dearly look forward to hearing the comments of the Criminal Lawyers' Association, for instance; I look forward to the prospect of hearing, perhaps, from Jim Lockyer, who is just a brilliant legal mind and has led, along with others, the fight for absolving the wrongly convicted.

Let me go back to that again. If there's anything worse than the perpetrator of a heinous crime who somehow is found innocent, it's an innocent person who is found guilty. And we're talking about people who didn't just spend a night in the local lock-up as a result of the findings of guilt. They didn't spend a couple of months in a reformatory; they weren't down there in Orlando, Florida, with that despicable Conrad Black, serving time in a country club and writing columns for—oh, I'm sorry to offend anybody here who remains friends with Conrad Black.

I don't mind him getting six and a half years; I wish it was more—it took the Americans to do it—but I do mind his serving his sentence in a veritable country club, because in a class society like especially the United States, the very wealthy, of course, receive very special treatment.

If there is anything worse than a perpetrator of a horrid offence against another person, perhaps a child—well, literally a child, because that's what we're talking about here—if there is anything worse than a guilty person not being dealt with, it's an innocent person being convicted. We're talking about people who didn't spend just overnight in the hoosegow; they didn't spend a couple of months in a reformatory. They spent years in penitentiaries doing hard time.

I look forward to people like the Criminal Lawyers' Association, like, yes, even the OBA, the Ontario Bar Association, and its criminal branch, people like Jim Lockyer and similarly brilliantly equipped legal minds, telling us the extent to which this bill complies with the Goudge recommendations, whether it's sufficiently responsive to the Goudge recommendations and whether or not it needs fine-tuning, tweaking, tinkering with, amendments—because we're prepared to move amendments to it. We don't see this as a particularly partisan bill but for the repeal of

section 22.

The timing is remarkable, isn't it? The member for Hamilton Centre has been on her feet in this chamber on what I'm sure to some seems like a daily basis—it hasn't been, but it has been on a regular basis—calling for the Solicitor General, the Minister of Community Safety, to exercise his jurisdiction pursuant to

section 22 so that Jared can have a stand-alone coroner's inquest. My colleague is going to address this, I'm sure, in great detail, but understand what that means. What happened here? You had a father murder a child and then, in the course of a standoff with the police, the police were compelled to shoot him. No misconduct has been found or even alleged on the part of police officers. Understand that a mother lost her son and grandparents lost their grandchild, young Jared. He wasn't committing an offence, he hadn't murdered anybody.

He was a kid, a little boy, yet the all-too-frequent failings in the system, yes, that broad system—and we can go through a litany. I can cite Katelynn Sampson—the failings in the system. I can cite other children who, as a result of the under-resourcing of family and children services or the outright incompetence of family and children's services, have been sent to their misery or their death.

But the issue here is two different stories. The issue here is what took the police to the point where they had to use lethal force to protect themselves from Jared's father. Then we have to understand how an innocent child could have been put into a position where he was slaughtered by his own father.

Look, as I said earlier, if there's any place where we should expect our children, our parents, our sisters and brothers to be safe, it should be in the custody of the state, whether it's a psychiatric hospital, whether it's a "hospital" hospital, whether it's a young offender facility, or whether it's a jail. Surely, any child is entitled to expect to be safe when they're with a parent, and we continue to fail so many children in that regard.

I will not comment on the judicial conduct of the judge who handed Katelynn Sampson over to her alleged murderers, because that matter, of course, has been referred to the Ontario Judicial Council for consideration, with the judicial council being asked to determine whether or not there was misconduct or negligence on the part of that judge.

You see, Jared's inquest, if the coroner continues to have his or her way and if this Solicitor General continues to abdicate his responsibility, will be intertwined with the inquest into the death of his murderer. That's bizarre. It's loathsome. There's something incredibly perverse about it. It's the sort of thing that people out there in the community who don't even have to know all of the details, all of the minutiae, find repugnant. It's just unnatural. It doesn't fit.

Look, I'm prepared to concede that the decision is probably—I'm very careful—consistent with the letter of the law. That's why it's absurd, silly and downright foolish for the Solicitor General, the Minister of Community Safety, to say, "Oh well, in this new regime, where the coroner declines to call an inquest, because I'm like"—he shouldn't be the Minister of Community Safety, he should be Pontius Pilate. Pontius Pilate, 2,000 years ago—a few years less than 2,000—did the same thing: He wanted nothing to do with it.

Look, the minister is the guy or the gal who makes the big bucks. They've got the car, they've got the driver, they've got the key to the executive washroom. They don't have to use public facilities like other folks; they don't have to stand beside anybody else at that urinal. The "Honourable," the prestige, the status, the power—why, then, this flight from power? Why do we have a cabinet? Just cut them an extra paycheque every month and forget all this foolishness of the pomp and the ceremony and, "Here comes the Honourable so-and-so"—honourable, my foot.

There's nothing honourable about denying Jared, his grandparents and his mom the dignity of an inquest considering the circumstances around his death that isn't commingled with inquiries into the brutality of a murderous father and a system that doesn't accord that child and his family, that dead child, slaughtered child, murdered child—he was assassinated—that dignity.

That's why Ms. Horwath has been pleading with the minister to exercise his power under

section 22—pleading. I've got to be careful, because Ms. Horwath wants to share this hour; I only have an hour and it's probably not enough. I suppose we'll have an opportunity in committee. She has been pleading for this minister to exercise his jurisdiction. He's saying, "Oh, I want nothing to do with it." He explains that in his brave new world of Bill 115—where once and for all the minister is provided with the pat answer to say, "What power? The Coroners Act doesn't give me the power to order an inquest.

And besides, who needs that power, when it's only been exercised once in the last 22 years?" Well, again, it's a highly discretionary power. It shouldn't be regularly utilized. But you don't address that by saying, "Oh, please, take the power away." That's like the gambling addict who wants to be barred from casinos. What's the minister suggesting? He wants to be barred from using his ministerial discretion?

There used to be, back in the old days—you don't remember, Ms. Horwath; you're too young—the interdict list down at those dark, dreary LCBO stores where you wrote your code number on a piece of paper and passed it through the—

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Oh, I remember those.

Mr. Peter Kormos: If Ms. Horwath remembers it, she was drinking far too young, I'll tell you that. But there was the interdict list where, again, in small-town Ontario, you went to this dusty LCBO store. You recall, Speaker—I know you do—86B: Wasn't that Four Aces wine? But you filled out the slip on a piece of very cheap, newsprinty kind of paper, and I think they only allowed you pencils; they were those little stubby golf pencils, or the pencils you used in bowling alleys.

It was inevitably blunt, so you had to chew it to get the lead exposed, and then you slipped it through a grille and then mysteriously—but there used to be an interdict list. Mr. Martiniuk will remember this, because he was practising law. He, like I, probably acted for more than a few people back in those old days where they were placed on the interdict list, where they couldn't purchase alcohol.

Does the Solicitor General have a problem where he has to be restrained because he just can't control himself? He's just going to be ordering coroners' inquests every which way but loose and every day of the week and month? No. He wants the pay, but he doesn't want the responsibility. He wants the status, but he doesn't want the duty.

New Democrats will be bringing amendments in committee to encourage and facilitate the defeat of that

section of the bill that repeals

section 22. And I say, if anything, New Democrats believe that statutory—not discretionary—coroners' inquests should be expanded and that the minister has to retain the discretion.

The minister says, "Oh, you can go to judicial review." No. Hogwash. Judicial review is to determine the legality of a particular decision. Nobody is suggesting that the Jared decision is illegal. We're just saying it's not in the public interest, and it reveals a total insensitivity to the capacity and a disinterest in the capacity of a coroner's inquest and the capacity of that jury to make recommendations. I say this government is fearful of the recommendations that might flow from a Jared stand-alone inquest because I suspect, based on what I know, that this government has failed children and failed to protect children in this province and failed to protect Jared.

Judicial review? Oh, yeah. Tens of thousands of dollars later in legal fees? Judicial review when you've got a grieving mom or grieving grandparents who are of modest means? They're like most Ontarians. You're going to say, "Oh, go down to Bay Street and hire one of those lawyers with the big gold cufflinks and the Prada shoes and the big fat Mont Blanc pen and the membership in whatever clubs it is that Bay Street lawyers belong to so you can do a judicial review," which probably won't be successful because judicial review doesn't take into consideration anything but the legality of a decision.

I want to make it clear now, on behalf of New Democrats, that we're prepared to be persuaded otherwise, but I suggest that this bill receive public hearings not during the immediate winter break because the availability of most of those people who are going to be most necessary to discuss the matter is going to be limited during the month of January, the peak of the winter holiday season for a whole lot of folks. We suggest that once this bill gets second reading, and we're confident it will before we rise—we want it to get into committee, and we're voting for it in principle so that it can get into committee.

But I tell you, committee will be very determinative of any ongoing support. We want to hear from people about the Goudge recommendations and the extent to which the bill is reflective. We want to hear from people about the abolition of mandatory inquests among certain classes of people. We want to hear about the elimination of the minister's discretion, flight from power. This whole gang might as well just go home and clip their coupons if they are not prepared to accept the responsibilities that go with the office.

I defer now to my colleague from Hamilton Centre.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The Chair recognizes the member for Hamilton Centre.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It's certainly my pleasure to pick up with some comments following the comments made on behalf of New Democrats by my colleague Peter Kormos, from the riding of Welland.

He very clearly set out some of the things that we see in this bill that are positive in response to the Goudge inquiry. I'm not going to focus on that. I think he has done an excellent job of reviewing the pieces of the bill that are long past due, in terms of reform of the system that created the horrible situation in Ontario where people were wrongly accused and convicted of injurious actions against young children.

So I'm going to set that aside and first talk a little bit about the process that happens here when a bill is introduced. A minister introduces a bill, and the people in the Legislature get a quick look, particularly critics and leaders of opposition parties, at what that bill says. The next step, before this step, before the actual second reading debate, is something called the technical briefing.

I took advantage of the technical briefing, because I was shocked, in hearing the minister's comments when he introduced the bill, to find out that in fact

section 22 of the Coroners Act will be amended by this bill to, in effect, remove the opportunity of the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services to call an inquest on his own, outside of what's happening in the coroner's office. I attended this technical briefing with research staff from the New Democratic Party. We got walked through what they call an "information deck," which is a package of points that outline the purpose of the bill and what the effects of the changes are. I was extremely taken aback that on page 6 of the technical briefing, the description of the removal of this power in terms of

section 22, the removal of the ability of the minister to call an inquest, was in there. Upon seeing it, of course, we asked the staff who were giving us the technical briefing, "Where does that particular recommendation come from? Why is it that the minister has decided or the ministry has decided to remove the power of the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services to call an inquest, to direct that an inquest be held?" We were told at that technical briefing that it was something that Justice Goudge was fine with. We asked specifically, "Does this come from the Goudge recommendations?

Was this a part of what Justice Goudge said needed to be done to reform the system?" We were told, "Yes, he has no problem with it."

We of course were a bit taken aback, because we don't recall having seen that in the recommendations that came out of the Goudge report. So, of course, we did some homework, and lo and behold, when we looked at the Goudge report, specifically around whether there were recommendations on

section 22, what did we find? In volume 3 of Justice Goudge's report, under the heading of "Enhancing Oversight and Accountability," it says this: "The governing council should report on an annual basis to the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, and the governing council's annual report should be made available to the public"—a nice oversight type of recommendation.

And it goes on to say this: "The ministry should also retain the ability, as it does now, to fulfill certain functions in relation to the" Ontario chief coroner's office, "including directing an inquest, in accordance with s. 22 of the Coroners Act." It goes on to say that the governing council would also be required to approve the budget etc.

So here we are in the province of Ontario, with reforms coming as a result of the work done by Justice Goudge—important, important reforms; absolutely. That's why, as my colleague from Welland indicated, we're definitely going to support this at second reading till we get it into committee. But here we have a technical briefing where we are told exactly the opposite of what's in the Goudge recommendations. In fact, the Goudge recommendations are very clear. Justice Goudge says the minister should be retaining his opportunity, retaining the

section 22 right, to order an inquest.

So while this bill purports to create a new system with greater checks and balances, with better oversight, in effect it takes away the most important, the highest, the utmost level of oversight that is available in the province of Ontario; that is, the ultimate ability, responsibility, accountability of the minister responsible to call for an inquest to occur.

The context of my concern around this bill relates specifically to an incident that occurred quite some time ago now; in fact, it occurred in 2006. That incident was the brutal murder, the slaying, of a young boy named Jared Osidacz in the town of Brantford.

I met Jared's mother for the first time when I was sitting on a committee that was reviewing the private member's bill called initially Jared's Law, and then Kevin and Jared's Law. I have to tell you, it was one of the most difficult committee meetings I have ever had to sit in on. We had woman after woman after woman testifying at this committee about the brutality of domestic violence, the fear that they had for their lives and their children's lives, and how the systems—not one system, but many systems—in this province are not there for women, and they are not there for their vulnerable children.

We heard from Julie Craven, the mother of Jared Osidacz, the mother whose son was stabbed to death by his father, the mother of the son whose father was then killed by police as he went after the mother and tried to kill her. We sat in that room, hearing testimony from this woman, who could barely speak through her pain, through her anguish, through her utter stress at having to recall that horrific night when her child was murdered and her ex-husband came after her.

It became very clear from her testimony, and the testimony of Kevin Latimer's mother as well, that there are problems within the systems of—and certainly not making any accusations about this particular situation with Jared. The systemic issues around domestic violence and our lack of ability to take seriously the risks that women and children are put in constantly in this province is reprehensible. It's reprehensible. We heard that systems like children's aid societies, systems like bail, systems like the bail—what is it when you have the requirements of people who are out on bail? You have the—

Mr. Peter Kormos: The terms.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The deterrents?

Mr. Peter Kormos: The release terms.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The terms of release, that's right—the systems that are supposed to be in place to protect women.

Those include things like counselling for violent men, things like orders so that there can't be any opportunity for perpetrators of violence to come in close contact with women particularly, and there are situations set up where children receive opportunities to visit with the violent partner in a place of safety that is away from the other spouse but is supervised—supervised access. Failings in those systems occur continuously and constantly in this province, and have still not been addressed by this government.

In this situation with Jared Osidacz particularly, there was a history of domestic violence. Jared's father had been convicted four years previously of domestic violence perpetrated against Julie Craven.

Now, here we are, two years since Jared's death. Two—not one, but two—times now, the inquest—not the inquest for Jared but the inquest that is being held specifically because police were involved in the shooting of his father in order to save his mother—the joint inquest, which is not good enough, but that inquest itself has been postponed twice now. The last time it was postponed was, curiously, right around the time that this bill was introduced in the Legislature. But the fact of the matter is that this joint inquest is not going to be looking at domestic violence.

In fact, this inquest is not going to be dealing at all with the estrangement between the two parents, with the fact that Jared used to have to have supervised access, but that that was changed to unsupervised access, with his father. Those facts are not going to come out because the inquest that is going to be held into Jared's death, tied to his father's death, will not include every decision or detail concerning Family Court and criminal proceedings. In fact, we understand that events that may form part of the history of the situation are being considered to be too remote, too far in the past.

Four years went by between the serious situation of Julie Craven being beaten mercilessly by her now dead ex-husband, Jared's father, who mercilessly used her body as a battering ram to knock in a door.

The facts are on the record in Hansard from that committee hearing if anybody is interested in reading them. Bill 89, I believe, was the bill. I invite you to read it. It's disturbing—at the utmost, disturbing. And here we are, where the coroner is saying that these domestic violence incidents, this history, this reality, this brutality that this man was capable of and perpetrated against his spouse a couple of years before, have nothing to do with and are irrelevant to the murderous rampage that he went on the night he murdered Jared.

How can that be? We know that child deaths in this province are almost exclusively—not exclusively but almost exclusively—perpetrated by a parent, usually within the context of a broader situation of ongoing family violence. I'm wearing a button today. We were allowed to wear it starting December 1.

The button is in acknowledgment of and recognition that very soon, on December 6, we're going to be recognizing and pausing for the national day of mourning in memory of the Montreal massacre, the massacring, the brutal slaying, of a number of women students at École Polytechnique in Montreal, a slaying of women because they are women—because they were women. That's the only reason they were killed. They were killed because they were women, and Marc Lépine killed them because he thought they were feminists and he didn't like feminists, and so they didn't deserve to live.

This culture of violence against women continues in this province. So I ask the government this and I ask the minister this: Why does this minister not believe that there is a public interest in the calling of an independent inquest into Jared's murder? I do believe that there is a public interest. There is a public interest. There is a women's interest, and that makes it a public interest because women are part of the public.

There is an interest to determine why system after system failed Julie Craven and failed Jared Osidacz, not for the purposes of blame, but for the purposes of ultimately putting in place the systems that in fact will save the next Jared, will prevent the next Julie from being a victim of a violent partner. If that is not the ultimate responsibility of a government and of a minister, then I don't know what is.

Instead, what do we have? We have a minister who refuses to call that inquest and then turns around and decides that never again in the province of Ontario will a Solicitor General, a Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, who's responsible—I guess women and their children are not part of the community safety mandate. I don't know why. It seems to me they should be a big part of the community safety mandate. But now, with this bill passing in its current form, removing

section 22—and remember, removing it against the recommendations of Justice Goudge—we are going to have in Ontario a complete lack of ability for a minister of the crown, a person in ultimate authority and accountability, to decide whether or not it's in the public interest to hold an inquest.

What is the purpose of an inquest? It's not to lay the blame; it's to be able to make changes that are in the public interest. It's the ability to make changes so that deaths of a similar nature can be prevented in the future.

We see this government finally, we hope, we understand—we're waiting in anticipation of this government bringing forward changes to the Occupational Health and Safety Act to address, respond to—a long, long past due response, mind you, but perhaps it's coming—recommendations that come from the inquest into the death of Lori Dupont, the nurse who was brutally killed by her ex-love-interest at her workplace, a hospital. We know that the same thing happened to a woman named Gillian Hadley, who was killed at her workplace by a supervisor who was harassing her for many, many months and years.

The government has not moved on either of those issues. We heard recently that the government is going to be bringing forward something. Let's hope that something includes the right to refuse for workers who are being harassed or bullied or face violence in their workplaces, so that they can protect themselves. But that won't be enough, because what needs to happen is the amendment needs to be made to this very bill so that the ultimate responsibility of the minister remains in place to call inquests in the public interest.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I'm pleased to stand up in my place and comment on the speech by the member from Welland and the member from Hamilton Centre. I have been listening for an hour to both speeches, and I'm glad to see the third party supporting the principle of the bill. I agree that when this bill goes to committee, it's going to see a lot of enhancement. We're going to listen to many people give us their input. Hopefully, we'll come out with a strong bill to serve the people of Ontario.

I want to commend the minister for bringing a bill to strengthen the safety of the people of Ontario. I know the member opposite does not like

section 22, which takes the power away from the minister to call inquests. I was listening to the member from Hamilton Centre, and I remember that that hearing for Kevin and Jared's Law was painful, to hear all the people who came on that day to tell us their sad and horrible stories.

I agree we should do something in this province, especially elected officials, to protect innocent people. It's important to make sure all the pathologists and the coroners in the province of Ontario are qualified when they are dealing with such an important issue, dealing with crime and violence against women, against children, against innocent people wherever they live in the province of Ontario.

We heard the member opposite stand up in her place many different times and ask the minister to call for inquests. I think this is an important issue. When the minister gives the power to the chief coroner, who is an expert in the field, to perform his or her duty on behalf of the province of Ontario, I think that is very important, because you take the political interest away from the minister and put it in experts' hands in order to exercise their power to protect the people of Ontario. And the people and the families have a right to ask for inquests, through a judicial review, in order to make sure that issue is being dealt with.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O'Toole: I'm always pleased to respond to the member for Welland, Mr. Kormos, and the member for Hamilton Centre, Ms. Horwath, commenting on Bill 115, which is the act to amend the Coroners Act. In fact, it's a very technical bill. I think there are seven sections here—I just had a quick read through it—and in the

preamble there's a lot of detail in the first three or four pages to show you the seven specific sections that it covers. This comes from the report presented by Justice Goudge. I think it's important, when you look at the terms of reference. The inquiry was to mandate a systemic review. It's really looking at the rather questionable work done by Charles Smith, at that time the chief forensic pathologist, in pediatric forensic pathology specifically.

Now, the member for Hamilton Centre was commenting more about a domestic violence issue and how it applies to the inquest, and I support that. I think if you look, there's a bill before the House as well that we will be talking about, Bill 133, and that is the Family Statute Law Amendment Act. In that act, we requested, on domestic violence—I have a private member's bill, Bill 10. It's called the Lori Dupont Act and it deals with restraining orders. Restraining orders are part of the problem in domestic violence. What my bill does is something that I believe the government members should pay attention to.

It allows access to a restraining order seven days a week, 24 hours a day, using a judge or a JP. That would allow the police to intervene.

There is a provision within that bill that I think is strong. It makes it a criminal offence to violate a restraining order. But how does it apply to this? It's to have the inquest and the inquiry and to make sure there is oversight within that process. That is the bill we're talking about today and we would be supportive of most of the stuff that is in Bill 155.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Dave Levac: I want to thank the members for Welland and Hamilton Centre, obviously, for their passionate and usual way of expressing their concerns about the bill. What I did hear in that, and I ask the member to confirm that, was that there was at least support for second reading to get this bill to committee and to open it to the public hearings that we anticipate we will be doing in order to get the best.

I have carriage of the bill and my intention is to do in this House as I've always done, and I committed to in the last bill, and that is to be as open and fair as possible, to ensure that the voices of those who need to be heard are heard and to listen carefully to any of the amendments that are put forward for us to make this bill an even better bill.

I believe that the Legislature has been taking that responsibility seriously and we do so in these particular cases. I would remind everyone in this place—and I don't think I need to, but I want to say it—that no one has a monopoly on the passion and the concern that we have for domestic violence, that we have for children who have been killed without answers. That's precisely why this recommendation and this bill are coming forward as a result of the inquiry.

Most importantly, I want to make a comment to ensure that I keep myself focused on this as best as I possibly can—because it cannot be done, to put your feet into the shoes of the people who were affected by Dr. Smith—to ensure that the report that was done, the inquiry, is taken advantage of, that our present legislative amendments and changes make it an even better place for us to protect children and to protect the people of the province of Ontario.

Having said that, I appreciate both members' comments and concerns that are being raised. We'll listen to them very carefully and get to committee where we can make some actual changes that would benefit the province of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I'm pleased also to rise today to comment on the remarks made, both by the member for Welland and the member for Hamilton Centre.

I had the experience of testifying at a coroner's inquest some 20 years ago and this was in my capacity as medical officer of health. The case was a very tragic one where a young girl in a group home in York region was one of the first people to have been identified as in fact having died from E. coli 0157, which of course has now become such a well-known very serious illness.

At that time, I remember being very impressed by the depth with which the coroner and the jury investigated this particular situation. Their focus was totally on the potential future prevention of similar occurrences. It was very much as a consequence of that very broad-ranging and thorough investigation that attention was drawn to this particular organism and the potential causes. In this case, it happened to be undercooked hamburger. We were able to start that public health education process to ensure that people understood that.

So when I hear my colleagues from the third party make these remarks regarding their concerns about the thoroughness of the investigations, I would certainly have to concur, not knowing the full circumstances. We know that in this legislation, the coroner would still be required to conduct a thorough investigation of all cases. I'm hoping, as my colleague from Brant says, that in committee we can explore to the full extent how that will be done.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Response?

Mr. Peter Kormos: The question that remains begged as a result of the observation that the very unworthy Charles Smith had a lengthy career in his office—and it remains begged because the government refuses to acknowledge the issue, never mind attempt to rectify it—is, what kind of culture would nurture and sustain a Charles Smith? Was it a one-man operation? There are all sorts of levels of oversight. There were crown attorneys who clearly relished the evidence of one Charles Smith, because it allowed for and supported convictions. We have to question why this culture was sustained, how it developed in the first place, and why the government refuses to address that now.

There were colleagues of Smith who didn't challenge his remarkable batting record of 1,000. There were crown attorneys who didn't challenge it. There were police officers who didn't challenge it. And, by God, there were judges who didn't challenge it. So let's not make Charles Smith the mere scapegoat. It is all too convenient. He wasn't the only player in the criminal justice system: crown attorneys, police, judges, colleagues, other doctors—all of whom must bear culpability and none of whom are being questioned by this government. This government circles the wagons once again and builds this wall of silence over a despicable state of affairs.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): This House is in recess until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Michael Prue: I rise to commend Zac Baum, the page from the great riding of Beaches—East York. He has family here today in the members' west gallery. I would like to introduce his parents and family: Kathy Hick, Joel Baum, Jackie Hick, David Baum, Marsha Baum and Joi Cole. They're all here to watch Zac do wonderful work in this Legislature.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: The grade 10 students and teachers from St. Augustine Catholic High School in Markham will be joining us very shortly.

M me France Gélinas: I would like to introduce Edith Kernerman, co-director of the Newman Breastfeeding Clinic, Lori Levere from the Ontario Breastfeeding Committee, Joanne Gilmore from the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario, and many moms and their toddlers or infants who are here with us today in the west gallery.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would like to introduce some representatives from the Ontario Principals' Council who are with us today: Laura Hodgins, Lisa Vincent, Doug Morrell, Vicki Shannon, Lona Dabouf, Ken Arnott, Rick Clarke and Mike Benson. Thank you very much for joining us.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: A question for the Premier: We know that close to a quarter of a million manufacturing jobs have been lost in the past four years in Ontario. We're looking at plant closure announcements almost every week. The province is running a deficit. Now, for the first time in our history, we're a have-not province.

Your government's response yesterday to our economic challenges was a symbolic restraint announcement. Premier, this isn't tightening your belt in tough economic times and it's not, to use your finance minister's word, a "modest" effort. In effect, it's really a meaningless effort. You're clearly not committed to getting your spending under control.

Premier, I give you one example: Are you aware of the spending practices of your appointee as president of the WSIB, and if not, why not?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, to the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that the announcement I made yesterday is in fact the third step in terms of what I would call the various restraint initiatives we have undertaken. It began with our budget last March wherein we clearly signalled that the Ontario economy was challenged, that we thought our revenues would not grow as rapidly as they had, and we laid out a number of undertakings, set up a contingency and built a reserve.

That was followed by my fall statement, providing for another $108 million in savings, and it was followed by yesterday's step that provided for still more that were not, as the Premier and I both indicated, large money issues but were very important in terms of tone.

We continue to work with our partners as we move through the most challenging times the world economy has seen—

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Well, we're talking about symbolism here, to use the minister's own words. I asked him a specific question about one of their senior mandarins—and we know that Ontarians are tightening their belts; many facing a very uncertain future in this economic climate. We have a Liberal appointee as president of the WSIB, one Jill Hutcheon, who last year drew a salary of $360,000 plus $123,000 as Deputy Minister of Labour. She spent almost 7,000 taxpayer dollars on a two-day conference in New York in April. Minister, why would you and your seatmate allow your appointees to lead such lavish lifestyles at the expense of taxpayers?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: There is no doubt that within an organization as large as the government of Ontario and the broader public service, there will be expenditures that, frankly, I think all of us would question.

I think all of us in this House need to move beyond what I would call "gotcha" politics and start talking about the real challenges in the economy.

I won't go over the luxury box your government had at the Air Canada Centre. I wouldn't want to do that.

We will continue to work with our partners, both through collective bargaining and in the broader public sector, to move toward restraint and to continue to make the investments that we need to make to stimulate jobs and growth in our—

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Moving toward a snail's pace at best.

Back to the minister: When we're looking for symbolism, Ms. Hutcheon can be the poster girl for the extravagances of this Liberal government. They're cutting back in hospitals, they don't have money to fight poverty, but their appointee can luxuriate at the Waldorf-Astoria in New York, one of the most expensive hotels in the United States, and do it on the taxpayers' dime.

Minister, isn't Ms. Hutcheon's disregard for the way tax dollars are spent the real symbol of the hollowness of this government's commitment to restraint?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Beginning in the 2008 budget, we laid out a prudent, very modest rate of growth in expenditures, designed to protect vital public services. Following with that, we have talked in our five-point plan about building partnerships.

We continue to believe in the principles of collective bargaining. We will continue to work toward agreements that, in our view, protect the public interest, recognizing that the men and women on the front lines, whether nurses, doctors, teachers or public servants, continue to earn pay and spend their pay in communities right across Ontario. That's an important principle.

We have outlined more than a billion dollars in savings throughout the course of this year. We enhanced that by an additional $110 million in the fall statement.

We will continue to take a prudent, balanced, careful approach to managing the affairs of Ontario so that we can protect vital public services and continue to—

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

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: To the Premier—and I trust that viewers and listeners are noting that the minister is not addressing in any way, shape or form the specifics I'm raising.

I have a little more regarding this government's hollow commitment to restraint and their poster-girl appointee, Ms. Hutcheon.

Premier, Ms. Hutcheon drew almost half a million dollars in salary in 2007. We would hope that she and your other appointees could pay for their own perks without sticking it to taxpayers, but in March of this year, taxpayers paid $300 to have the folks at Auto Groom detail her car for her high-society stay in New York.

Premier, do you endorse this kind of spending by Liberal appointees?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I thank the member for the question.

As the member knows, anybody working for the public sector should always be mindful of their actions and how they may be perceived by others.

The WSIB has policies in place for travel, for expenditures. The WSIB is audited regularly by the Provincial Auditor. They do have a finance committee, they do have a board, and they do look to make prudent decisions when it comes to their policies, when it comes to their travel.

In the case of Ms. Hutcheon, I can say that she was somebody who was appointed under the Conservative government and worked as a deputy minister at the Ministry of Labour.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I guess it's appropriate that the minister responded to this—he's the guy responsible for kicking business in this province in the knees when they're down.

I want to go back to Ms. Hutcheon again. You appointed her to the WSIB. It's not only detailing her car; taxpayers paid her gas bills for weekends at the cottage, and they paid over $2,000 in meals for her each year. Minister, is this why you personally passed a law to saddle small businesses in this province with an extra $11,000 in WSIB premiums? Is this just to cover Ms. Hutcheon's expense account?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I would like to thank the member for the question and the opportunity to thank all those members in this House who stood up in favour of mandatory coverage for construction workers, a high-risk industry, who stood up for fairness in this House. Thank you very much to all the members who stood up for fairness, for a level playing field, who stood up for 400,000 construction workers so that when they go to work they know that they're safe, they're being taken care of, and if they are hurt or injured, that they do have those benefits that will be brought forward to them by the WSIB.

I thank those members. For the other ones who did not stand up for those 400,000 construction workers, shame on you.

Interjection.

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Well, someone over here suggested the minister's next dinner will be on Pat Dillon—no doubt.

The Premier is supposed to set an example in this province, and he has done nothing to curb the clear sense of entitlement shared by senior government officials, especially Liberal appointees. We've identified outrageous spending on the taxpayers' tab for over a six-month period.

Two years ago, Jill Hutcheon attended a conference in Boston, again at taxpayer expense, called "Dealing with an Angry Public." Its purpose: "How can you avoid disaster when your organization has triggered a crisis that threatens your reputation and your image?"

Minister, does your WSIB president intend to use the lessons she learned from that conference to curb her outrageous spending?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I say to the member that as public servants, we should all be mindful of expenses, but I also say to Mr. Runciman, leader of the official opposition, who spent hundreds of dollars in fancy Yorkville restaurants, why should taxpayers—I say, sir, why should taxpayers pay $140 for a Bistro 990 bill of yours?

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is for the Premier—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. The member from Davenport and the Minister of Transportation.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The Minister of Transportation is defying the Chair.

Leader of the third party.

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, the McGuinty government unveiled its so-called "restraint" package. My question is this: How can the Premier describe a $3,000-a-year pay increase for himself as restraint?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Beginning in the March 2008 budget, we laid out a number of restraint measures that were designed to help see Ontario through what we perceived then to be very challenging times. Clearly, things have become even more difficult. I think people around the world recognize that. In the fall statement, we added on a number of other measures up to $110 million. Yesterday, we took still further measures. We believe these are the appropriate steps to take under the current circumstances.

We continue to work with our partners in the broader public sector, with our bargaining agents, to find a way to manage our expenses in a way that protects public services, particularly health care and education.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: Well, the question was very specific to the Premier. The Premier calls this restraint. A $3,000 increase in pay amounts to about 10 weeks of work for someone on minimum wage and the Premier hands himself that pay increase and says he's restraining himself. This is on top of the 40% pay increase the Premier gave to himself over the last 19 months. My question is this: How does the Premier's $3,000 pay increase, which he calls restraint, help the hundreds of thousands of Ontarians who are now out of work under the McGuinty government?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Broadly, in terms of the challenges before us, we will continue to work with our partners. We will continue to find restraint measures that we feel are balanced and reflect the broad need of the public we serve as well as the taxpayers who must pay the bill. We will continue to build partnerships. We will continue, for instance, unlike previous governments, to bargain freely and collectively to find agreements with the unions both within the public sector and the broader public sector. There's no doubt there are difficulties. There's no doubt that families are facing enormous challenges.

The packages we're putting forward, the packages we've laid out since March of last year, are designed to protect vital public services and, yes, keep people in the public service working because those people pay taxes, go shopping and help—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: The Premier gives himself the equivalent of 10 weeks of full-time work by someone working for minimum wage and he calls it restraint for himself. He's really hurting as a result of this restraint. My question was, how does this help the hundreds of thousands of workers who've lost their jobs under the McGuinty government? For example, 130 workers at Longlac industries have found that they are out of work now—not a temporary shutdown but a permanent shutdown. What does the Premier's $3,000 pay increase, that he calls restraint, do for those 130 workers who have no paycheque now?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We will continue to take restraint initiatives that we believe protect vital public services. There's no doubt that families are challenged with unemployment, whether in the forestry sector or the manufacturing sector. There's no doubt that the programs we have introduced are helping to alleviate that problem, whether you are talking about AMIS, the Next Generation of Jobs Fund or the forestry sector protection fund. I remind the member opposite: You, sir, voted against every one of those initiatives.

Finally, unlike the member opposite, we will not impose freezes on our public servants. We will not impose freezes on the broader public sector. We don't believe in stripping collective agreements; we don't believe in that approach. As we said, as part of our five-point plan we will continue to work with our partners. Our partners include the unions that represent our employees and the unions that represent employees in the broader public sector and in the education sector. That's the balanced, right, prudent approach in difficult times, with a plan that will do more to help people through the challenging times.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr. Howard Hampton: Again to the Premier: I'm not surprised that the Premier doesn't want to answer the questions about his own $3,000 pay increase, which he calls restraint. But my question is this: Premier, we have seen hospital after hospital cutting nurses, cutting hospital services and cutting hospital workers. The latest today is Burlington's Joseph Brant hospital, which is cutting another 25 positions because of chronic underfunding from the McGuinty government. How does the Premier's $3,000 pay increase, which he calls restraint, help that hospital and those 25 hospital workers who are now out of work?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Thank you very much. I'm pleased to take the opportunity to speak to this issue. I know that the members opposite raised the issue of health care funding. Again, just for purposes of accuracy, which I find is always helpful in this place, we have increased funding overall for health care in the past five years by some 37%. Hospitals have received increases of funding that total over 30%. The fact of the matter is that there have been dramatic new increases in funding for virtually every aspect of our health care sector and new aspects which had not been funded in the past.

We have more doctors, we have more nurses and we have shorter wait times as a result of those investments. That's the truth. There is now more money for health care, including hospitals, than ever before.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: The Premier says there is more money for hospitals. Under the McGuinty government, more of the health budget is going to profit-driven Bay Street corporations, which are more involved in the health care system under the McGuinty government than ever before in the history of Ontario. That's what's really happening.

But again, the Premier fails to answer the question: How does his $3,000 pay increase, which he calls restraint, help all those health care workers and hospital workers who are being laid off at hospital after hospital across the province? But more than that, while the Premier says he's restraining himself, we find more children in Ontario living in poverty and we find more children in Ontario being forced to go to food banks. How does the $3,000 pay increase the Premier gave to himself, which he calls restraint, help those kids who have to go to a food bank and those kids who are more and more forced into poverty?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: A few things—there was so much raised in that particular question. One is, my friend is mired in an old ideological swamp that says that you can't enlist the support of the private sector when it comes to building more hospitals more quickly to meet the needs of Ontario families. I'm not prepared to support that kind of argument.

With respect to help for our children, I know that my honourable colleague is looking very much forward to the announcement that we're going to be making tomorrow. The fact of the matter is, we're going to move forward. We'll take a decided step. It will be a progressive step when it comes to providing more support for our children growing up in poverty in the province of Ontario. I've said before that it's one thing to lend a hand to poor kids in good times, but it's particularly challenging to do so in challenging times. Notwithstanding our times, we will find a way to move forward.

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: The Premier was so challenged, he gave himself a $3,000 pay increase on top of the 40% pay increase he's given himself over the last 19 months. Obviously, Premier, you can't be too challenged when you can find that kind of money for those kinds of pay increases for yourself and every other MPP.

Again, I return to the question. How does this so-called restraint package, which is very much a phony restraint package—I think that's obvious to everyone—help the hundreds of thousands who are unemployed in Ontario? How does that help people who are struggling on a minimum wage that is less than a living wage? How does that help kids, more and more of whom are living in poverty? How does that help kids, more and more of whom are being forced to go to food banks? How does any of this so-called restraint package—phony restraint package—do anything—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know that my honourable colleague does understand, although he's not prepared to demonstrate that today, that we have been pursuing prudence and responsible management of the people's finances for five years now. In our first mandate, we found over $800 million in savings. As the Minister of Finance mentioned a moment ago, in our recent fall economic statement we indicated we'll find another $108 million in savings in there.

Yesterday, there was also another announcement, and we indicated that it would be somewhat modest given the numbers that we are dealing with, but we are not prepared to do what my friend wants us to do. He wants us to impose a wage freeze on our public service and the broader public sector. I'm not prepared to do that. We are at the table; we are engaged in collective bargaining. We will pursue that responsibly both on behalf of those people with whom we are privileged to work and on behalf of taxpayers, the people whom we all work for.

MINISTRY SPENDING

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is for the Minister of Government Services. Why did the minister authorize $108,000 in hotel spending at Canada's most luxurious hotel, the Fairmont Royal York, during the 2008 recession?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I'd appreciate a few more details from the member with respect to the specific expenditure that she's talking about. We, of course, have a process—excuse my voice—in government traditionally, where we're looking at facilities or whatever, where we take bids for various services that are available. We do that in a clear and transparent way and we do the best to contain the costs whenever we can.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: So he didn't know the question, but he apparently joins John Cusack, Bill Clinton and Queen Elizabeth II as one of the most famous guests at the Royal York Hotel. Spending $108,000 at the Royal York Hotel during a recession is a blatant misuse of taxpayer dollars. Still more upsetting, if he would like more details: His hotel and conference budget grew by 78% in the last year over the year previously, during a recession, to half a million dollars. It's outrageous.

Can the minister tell the Ontario public why, at a time when taxpayers are tightening their belts, his department is opening up the purse strings for stays at the Royal York Hotel and other luxury hotels in this province?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: We're absolutely committed, in our ministry, to prudent and responsible fiscal management—I hope Hansard's picking this up. Our annual engagement sessions for staff and managers take place all across Ontario in various places, and they're chosen only after carefully comparing multiple locations based on pricing, facilities, services received and past experience at the venue that's being used.

That's my response to a general question. I still haven't heard any specifics from the honourable member.

BREASTFEEDING

M me France Gélinas: My question is for the Premier. Can the Premier explain to the breastfeeding women in the gallery and to all Ontarians why Ontario is one of only two provinces without a breastfeeding strategy, when research has shown that breastfeeding lowers health care costs, improves health outcomes for both moms and babies, and is recognized worldwide as the perfect food for infants?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health Promotion.

Hon. Margarett R. Best: First of all, I'd like to thank the member opposite for the question. I certainly would like to take this opportunity to welcome all the mothers who are in the Legislature today with all those beautiful babies. Welcome.

I would like to also say that as a mother of three children, I certainly understand the need to support all mothers during this very important step of life. We continue to provide Ontarians with support they need to raise their children to become healthy, active adults. I am a mother who breast-fed my children and certainly appreciate the importance of breastfeeding. I feel privileged to be part of a government that not only understands this issue, but supports it with programs. This government introduced the Motherisk program at the Hospital for Sick Children to support—

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

M me France Gélinas: We want the province to commit to a breastfeeding strategy. It is the first step in meeting the WHO and UNICEF Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative. Did you know that only two hospitals in Ontario, two local health units and one community health centre have achieved this status? Most public health units are only able to provide a limited amount of help to breastfeeding mothers. The stats speak for themselves: 90% of women want to breastfeed; 20% succeed.

This is not enough. Women need more support in order to do what's best for their babies. The mothers and babies who are with us today in the gallery want to know, why is it that Ontario continues to treat women's and children's health as not worthy of investment?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Again, I want to say that we certainly support all mothers who want to breastfeed their children. We understand the importance of healthy children and how important breastfeeding is to that, and we want to continue to work with our mothers, with communities and also with the member opposite. I certainly am willing to sit down with her to talk about this issue and find ways in which we can continue to support our mothers, our infants and our children—these beautiful children who are here today and all the children in Ontario.

We certainly feel that it is our privilege to be able to help to support breastfeeding. Breastfeeding is such an important step in the life of a mother and her child, and we want to ensure that this important step is supported and continued. We also brought in the Ontario midwifery program, which includes breastfeeding instruction with midwife support. In addition, our Telehealth line links mothers to registered nurses who can answer questions and provide advice regarding this very important stage in a mother's and an infant's life—

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

PEDIATRIC FORENSIC

PATHOLOGY INQUIRY

Mr. Bill Mauro: It's now been two months since Justice Stephen Goudge made his recommendations on pediatric forensic pathology in the wake of the terrible tragedies caused by the work of Dr. Charles Smith. At that time, the Attorney General committed to develop a compensation framework for those who suffered injustice and to establish a medical-legal review of convictions involving shaken baby deaths.

My question is for the Attorney General: What steps have been taken to act on these commitments?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I thank the member for the question. I know the members of the House and all parties are very thankful to Justice Goudge for the important work that he did, and determined to make sure that we move forward and remove the shadow of suspicion or right injustices where they've occurred.

Yesterday, I announced the formation of two teams to proceed with two of Justice Goudge's recommendations. One, he recommended that the province determine if we could set up a viable compensation framework for those who had been affected by Dr. Smith's work.

I'm pleased that former Associate Chief Justice of Ontario Coulter Osborne, Bonnie Tough, who's a civil litigator, and Michele Smith from our ministry have agreed to set up that team. We also set up a medical-legal team to review all of the shaken baby cases, and I will speak about—

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

Mr. Bill Mauro: I thank the Attorney General for that update.

I was wondering if the Attorney General could elaborate further on the steps ahead as he sees them. I would like to know what kind of work the Dr. Smith compensation framework advice committee and the Shaken-Baby death review team will be doing over the coming months. Would the AG be able to tell us what steps are ahead?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: The team with respect to the so-called shaken baby cases—let's be clear. There are 142 cases that are going to be reviewed. Nobody is suggesting that anything at the time of their disposition through the court process was incorrect. The issue that Justice Goudge identified is that the science has evolved. So we want to make sure that we all got it right.

We've got a medical-legal team. Former Associate Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice Donald Ebbs is going to be joined by Marie Henein, a defence council; Mary Nethery of the ministry; Dr. Michael Pollanen, Ontario's chief forensic pathologist; and Dr. Dirk Huyer, regional supervising coroner. What they're going to be doing, similar to what was done in Great Britain several years ago, is be reviewing all of these to see if any require further investigation. We want to make sure that we got it right.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is for the Premier. Premier, yesterday you announced a hiring freeze on full-time positions in your government and the Ontario public service, claiming that Ontario has to tighten its belt. Apparently, that does not apply to you, as you just recently hired a sixth—yes, a sixth—communications adviser at over $80,000 a year. Perhaps you feel your image needs improvement or maybe another staffer can find a positive spin on Ontario being a have-not province. Either way, you must be thrilled that you were able to squeeze in yet one more full-time employee before your announcement.

Can you please explain to Ontarians why you need another communications adviser, and why taxpayers are footing the bill for more staff in the Premier's office, when so many around the province have no job at all?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Of course, I have an office budget, and we exercise our discretion in the most responsible fashion possible. I think my friend does not have the benefit of having been here during the course of the previous government, and he might want to check out—I think it was Gord Haugh. I can't recall the exact figure—

Interjections.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: —$350,000 comes to mind. I think if we were to make those kinds of comparisons, an objective observer would come to the conclusion that we continue to act responsibly and with prudence, especially given our circumstances.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Shurman: Perhaps the Premier wants to deal in the past. I want to deal in the present. Premier, your answer only shows that you are more interested in spinning your message than leading by example and showing real restraint in your own spending, more interested in spinning your message than helping Ontarians put food on the table. Premier, is this new communications adviser also going to get the 1.5% pay raise announced yesterday or will you finally practise what you preach and trim your bloated office staff?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: In terms of office spending overall, between 2006-07 and 2007-08, on a budget that is about $2.9 million, I think it went up about $11,000 year over year. I need to confirm this, but I think the honourable colleague is talking about our replacing someone who is on maternity leave. I think that's what we are talking about but I'll look to confirm that.

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

ENERGY POLICIES

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Premier: Would he please explain why world-renowned scientist David Suzuki quit his voluntary role in the government's powerWISE energy conservation advertising campaign?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure.

Hon. George Smitherman: I want to say to the honourable member that yesterday was a day when I was privileged to participate with Dr. Suzuki and the alliance around the green energy act to see diaries from his summer events. I spoke with him on the phone yesterday, as did the Premier. I think that all of the people in Ontario can look forward very soon to two new David Suzuki ads on the powerWISE campaign as part of the continuing series.

But the honourable member raises a legitimate point, for sure. We have some work to do to convince Dr. Suzuki to continue to play that role, but I'm pretty confident of it. We demonstrated last night, point on point, our desire to work alongside those at the alliance of the green energy act to enhance further Ontario's adoption of renewable energy, a primary concern of Dr. Suzuki and one that we share.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Last night at a public forum, Dr. Suzuki said to Minister Smitherman: "'When ... you said that nuclear is non-negotiable and [you were] building ... two new plants, I quit powerWISE. I said that's it for me. And I regret it because those were really powerful ads. [But] it became clear that the government didn't give a shit about showing that you could actually reduce'"—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I remind the honourable member that she cannot say indirectly what you are prohibited from saying directly. I would ask the honourable member to withdraw the comment.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker, but Dr. Suzuki doesn't. Why won't the Premier listen to Dr. Suzuki and put a hold on building costly non-renewable nuclear plants until the government has fully pursued the untapped potential for conservation and renewable energy in Ontario?

Hon. George Smitherman: Maybe if the honourable member had taken the time to participate in the forum—she didn't; she wasn't there—she also would have laid out any one of the number of quotes that Dr. Suzuki offered which are extraordinarily positive about the efforts we've undertaken. At the heart of the matter we do have an honest difference of opinion. We do believe, in the province of Ontario, that nuclear energy, which has been providing around 50% of our base load energy for decades now, continues to be a necessity in Ontario. We're going to continue to work with Dr.

Suzuki, with the alliance and the green energy act to enhance Ontario's opportunities for the adoption of renewable energy. I do recommend to the honourable member that, instead of taking only one comment that suits her needs, she take the opportunity to learn a little about all the things that were discussed last night. I think it was an informative discussion overall.

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

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

Mrs. Van Bommel: My question is for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. I understand that you recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the Anishinabek Nation of Ontario to establish a bilateral round table. Some of the communities that are located in my riding are members of the Anishinabek nation, and I appreciate how significant an agreement like that is to them. Generation after generation, governments have failed to make significant progress in improving opportunities and the quality of life for our First Nations and Metis.

Would the minister tell us how memorandums of understanding like the one that he just signed contribute to improving opportunities for aboriginal communities?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I thank the member for the question, and I thank her for her advice and guidance as she works with First Nations communities within her riding as well.

The Anishinabek round table will provide us with an historic opportunity to work together, government to government, to discuss issues of mutual concern related to health, social services, education, lands, resources and many other issues.

This agreement helps cement the bond between the Anishinabek Nation and the government of Ontario, but there's a personal side to this as well: It cements the bond between me, as Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, and Grand Chief Beaucage. Grand Chief Beaucage is a visionary leader who has shown real leadership on social issues such as substance abuse prevention and enhancing economic development opportunities for First Nations communities.

We are making historic gains in building a strong relationship with the First Nations, Metis and Inuit people of this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: I'm confident that you will not let this House lose sight of the importance of the work that we still have to do in conjunction with our Metis and First Nations partners.

The efforts of this government have been making an important relationship with aboriginal people in Ontario and are certainly evident in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

In addition to the creation of the Anishinabek round table, I know that the transfer of Ipperwash Provincial Park to the Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point First Nation is currently being worked on. Minister, could you please tell us more about this initiative?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Absolutely. I'm looking forward to visiting the member's riding soon to meet with the Kettle and Stony Point First Nation and spend some time in beautiful Ipperwash park.

We've established a joint Ipperwash park resolution table with the Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point First Nation and the residents of Aazhoodena, the First Nation members who reside at Camp Ipperwash and Ipperwash park. The resolution table is developing an interim plan with the local community to determine how the land will be used and managed until the transfer of the park is completed. This government is acting on the recommendations of the Ipperwash inquiry and we're building stronger relationships.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all of those who worked so hard to make all of this possible, in particular Sam George. His demonstration of courage and perseverance makes him a role model not only for the First Nations communities, but all Ontarians.

I welcome all members to join us this afternoon as we present a member's—

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

MINISTRY SPENDING

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, at a time of fiscal uncertainty, you and your ministry refuse to tighten your belts. You're spending almost $10,000 a day on hotels, and there's no sign of stopping. Minister, can you tell Ontarians why you are cutting $25 million from their school repair budget when you increased your hotel and conference budget by 45.6% in one year?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The reality is that in order to provide professional development opportunities, in order to be able to provide training opportunities, and in order, right now, to deal with labour issues, we need to have space in which those conversations can happen.

We are a government that has worked with people in the sector, with teachers, with education assistants, with principals, to make sure that they have the opportunities to come together, to share their learnings, and to improve the learning opportunities for kids in schools. That takes time, and it takes opportunities for people to come together.

The reality is that there is not always a government room available for that kind of interaction, so those hotel costs are incurred in aid of those kinds of labour and training—

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

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: We've known for two years, Minister, that we have been heading into very turbulent economic times, and restraint should have been part of the plan. The answers that you're giving to the question today don't show any of that priority-setting. Your refusal to rein in your spending during tough times is really an affront to the hard-working taxpayers of Ontario who are losing their jobs and finding themselves in very unfortunate, difficult, challenging times. They're being asked to tighten their belts, but the Premier is telling them to go out and spend, spend more money. Imagine what that accommodation money could do in a classroom.

Minister, will you acknowledge that your financial priorities are not where they should be and address the fiscal mismanagement in your ministry now?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Here's what I'll acknowledge: What we're committed to is improving the learning of our teachers, improving the learning of our students and improving the opportunities for professional development for all of our education workers.

When I look at 2001-02, $311,000 was spent at just two Toronto hotels by the Ministry of Education under that government's watch. The priority then had nothing to do with professional development for teachers. It had nothing to do with improved conditions for students. It had nothing to do with high-quality, publicly funded education. On this side of the House, we believe in high-quality, publicly funded education. We believe in better conditions for our kids in our schools, better learning opportunities.

The members opposite are on record as believing in private education. They are not champions of publicly funded education, so I wouldn't expect them to understand that we need—

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

CHILD CARE

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I've raised the issue of temporary care assistance funding in this House many times. The minister's responses have attempted to muddy the issue, wrongly accusing me of calling for means-testing, calling for elimination of the program, calling me a whistle-blower. This minister needs to remember that it was the grandparents who came to speak with her and raise their issues and that I have helped them by bringing their issues to this House.

It's almost Christmas. Will the minister respond to the season and direct that another memorandum be sent out to ensure temporary care assistance eligibility for all at-risk grandchildren? Merry Christmas.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Again, this member is trying to scare grandparents and every other individual who is taking care of grandchildren. This government is supporting these grandparents. We have met with grandparents many, many times, and I'm always open to meet with them.

But they all came to me with information that they received from this member—information that was wrong. Even general manager Joe-Anne Priel from Hamilton is supporting what the government here is doing. She is saying that the way that Hamilton is looking after these cases is on an individual basis. There's no time limit. The rule that she is following now is the rule that she was following last—

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

Mr. Paul Miller: Stay tuned. I'll be calling the minister on those accusations.

When the grandparents of ROCK, Raising Our Children's Kids, met with the minister in June, they asked that those families cut off since 2004 be reinstated and that those whose applications have not been accepted since 2004 be accepted. Rather than address the basic issue, the ministry issued punitive new eligibility criteria, causing huge upset for these at-risk children.

Will the minister turn her attention to the actual request from that June meeting and issue a directive clearly stating that those families cut off from TCA since 2004 be reinstated and those applications not accepted since 2004 now be accepted?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Again, we have two notes here: one from the Peterborough OW administrator, and this time from the Hamilton administrator, that the rules have not been changed. The rules that they are following are the same rules that they were following before. Again she said here: "It should be noted that province-wide, the city of Hamilton has one of the highest ratios of active temporary care per capita. The number of temporary care cases has remained consistent at approximately 260 cases or 3%"—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I ask the honourable member to withdraw the comment that I believe I heard.

Mr. Paul Miller: What was that, Mr. Speaker? What did you hear? I didn't say anything wrong, Mr. Speaker. What did I say? Would you please tell me what I said?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Would you just withdraw the comment, please?

Mr. Paul Miller: I don't know what I'm supposed to withdraw. What did I—I don't know what I said.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Unparliamentary language that I believe you said under your breath.

Mr. Paul Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think you're picking on me, but I'll withdraw.

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

USE OF TASERS

Mr. Khalil Ramal: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Many of my constituents of London—Fanshawe have expressed concern over the use of tasers by police services in Ontario. These are concerns that I share. As the number of these types of weapons has increased in police forces across the province and the country, questions have been raised about the procedures surrounding their use, the qualifications needed for an officer to carry one and the training required to use one safely.

I recognize that police officers have a very difficult and challenging job, and I know I speak for all members when I express my appreciation for their commitment to public safety. However, I need to ask the minister, what safeguards are in place to ensure the proper usage of and training for tasers in Ontario?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: There is absolutely no question that we have to ensure that Ontarians feel safe. We have to take every measure possible to ensure that happens. Many of my constituents have expressed concerns with regard to the use of tasers as well.

There are a number of types of weapons that have been included in police forces across Ontario. The taser is an option for the police officer to use. It is an option to lethal use of force, and we understand that police officers have limited usage of tasers; they go to front-line supervisors or they go to critical response teams. In the event that a police officer has to use a taser, there is a requirement for him or her to file a full report.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I want to thank the minister for his response. What I'm wondering is whether or not the minister has plans to evaluate the policies and procedures currently in place for officers to carry these types of devices.

I know that the RCMP public complaints commission just this year completed their study into the use of tasers by the RCMP and made several recommendations with respect to training and policies for police forces. Can the minister advise the House and tell us if he is putting something in place similar to the RCMP in order to make sure the people of Ontario are safe and the police are using all this equipment in a professional way?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Speaker, he should feel very comfortable that, yes, indeed, my ministry is undergoing a review of tasers. We're doing that in conjunction with our policing partners, with our police standards experts and with our municipalities. This review began earlier this year. We're hoping that the review will be finished some time in the new year. This review will certainly look at best practices, not only in Ontario and across North America but also in the United Kingdom.

At the end of the day, we want to ensure that Ontario is the model for the way tasers are used. We are proud of the oversight and the accountability that is in place now, and we want to build on that strategy.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question to the Premier: At the end of the day yesterday, your finance minister dribbled out a rather meagre, so-called restraint package. But let's look at your overall record, Premier.

As you know, the McGuinty government has added more jobs to government payroll than all of the other provinces combined. Under the McGuinty government, the sunshine list bloated by some 27% last year, to the point where now the number of government workers on the sunshine list of $100,000 or over is equal to the size of the city of Welland, and there are currently 154 job postings online worth $11 million in salaries.

Premier, given that record, shouldn't your minister have done something significant rather than simply symbolic?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: As the Minister of Finance has indicated, this was only the third step in a series of ongoing measures to demonstrate restraint on behalf of Ontario taxpayers. I don't know if my colleague is suggesting that we lay off those nurses, those MRI/CT technologists, the personal support workers, the home care workers, the public health unit inspectors, the water inspectors, the meat inspectors, the labour inspectors, the teachers, the librarians, the guidance counsellors, the youth workers, the autism therapists, the police officers and the many others whom we've now hired. Is he now recommending that we let those people go?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I'd actually like to see him go after his new kingdom of spin doctors, to the Premier with the largest entourage in the history of the province of Ontario, that follows him around from place to place. If anybody is laying off the nurses, the MRI technicians, the front-line health care workers, it's his health minister who is laying those people off in the province of Ontario today.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member for Thunder Bay—Atikokan.

Please continue.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Thank you, Speaker.

The Premier also knows that today is the one-month anniversary of Ontario becoming a have-not province. For the first time in the history of Confederation, Ontario is on the welfare rolls of Canada. So not only didn't you bring forward any kind of restraint in spending, you have yet to produce any plan to grow us out of have-not status.

Premier, when it comes to finding a way to grow us, you become a have-not Premier. Where is your plan to create jobs in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I guess a few things on this score. Number one, I would really love to get the support of my honourable colleague opposite on this matter. He's adopting a line that comes out of Ottawa and it's something that transcends partisan colour in Ottawa, I must say, as well. The truth is that this year Ontario taxpayers have sent $23.5 billion to Ottawa for distribution to the rest of the country. The truth is, this year there are only three net contributors to the federation: Ontario, Alberta and BC, and if you add the other two together, we supply 40% more than the other two combined.

With respect to our public service costs, I want to tell you once again that we have reduced the overall cost of government administration from 15% in 2003-04 to 12% in 2007-08. Finally, we have the lowest number of public service employees per capita of any province in Canada.

AUTISM TREATMENT

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The question is to the Premier. Why does this government still not have an IBI/ABA pilot program in place being run with regional agencies and school boards almost two years after being told that's exactly what's needed?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Education.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you, Mr. Premier. I think the member opposite knows full well that I have been working very closely with the Minister of Children and Youth Services; that, in fact, we have seven pilots right now in the province where the IBI providers are working with the education system to provide a continuum of service. That's what parents have asked us for. Parents have said, "I want to know when my child is ready to move into the school system and then I want to know that the supports are there for my child." Those pilots are in place.

We are working on doubling the pilots for next year and we're learning from what we've done already. In fact, the results look to be very, very promising for kids being able to have that continuum of service that they're looking for.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This minister knows very well that a couple of hours of professional activity for teaching assistants is not enough to help children with ABA or IBI in the classroom. The reality is, parents are very well aware that their children are not getting the supports they need. They're not getting the assistance they need to have an equal opportunity at education as every other child in this province. The minister knows also that tomorrow, the Supreme Court of Canada is going to be ruling on this government's obligation to provide IBI/ABA to all Ontario children with autism.

My question is this: When is this government going to get serious about its obligation and stop forcing parents to sell their homes to be able to afford the services that are needed for their children, for IBI and ABA?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What this minister knows is that moral indignation is not going to solve this problem. What's going to solve this problem is investing in training. We have spent $15 million on training staff to understand what the ABA approach is and how it works. We are creating multidisciplinary teams, because one of the things that parents have said is that all of the service providers need to be wrapped around an individual child, because when one service provider isn't talking to the school system and isn't talking to another service provider, the child doesn't get the integrated service that he or she needs.

What the Ministry of Children and Youth Services and I are doing: We are coordinating services, we are making sure that those community services dovetail with what's being offered in the schools, and the training for our educators is ongoing. It's not a one-time fix. It's something that is ongoing, and we will continue to work to meet those kids' needs.

LAKE SIMCOE

Mr. Mike Colle: I have a question to the Minister of the Environment. Monday was a historic day for the residents of the Lake Simcoe watershed. As you know, that precious lake is very fragile. After 200 years with so many people living around it, so much recreational activity, all the boats, all the lack of attention, finally the government has done something to protect this precious, gorgeous Lake Simcoe. As Annabel Slaight, the co-founder of the Ladies of the Lake, has said, we are getting to the protection of this great lake and beautiful watershed just in the nick of time—just in time, Minister.

The question I have for you is, can you outline to this House and to all the people who care so much about Lake Simcoe what kind of co-operative actions you will continue to undertake in the future to make sure everybody plays a role in protective actions for this wonderful—

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

Hon. John Gerretsen: First of all, I'd like to thank the member for his ongoing support, because he has been concerned about the lake, as has the member from Barrie, as have been members from all sides of the House. I'd first of all like to thank all of the members of the House who actually passed this bill unanimously, which I think is very significant.

The bill is all about restoring the health and the ecosystem of the lake; it's all about reducing the phosphorus levels in the lake; it's about reintroducing the cold water fishery that's in the lake; it's about dealing with the climate change issues, and also dealing with the invasive species that are now attacking the lake. It calls for a plan, and we're currently developing the plan. There has been an awful lot of consultation with an awful lot of people about this. I want to make sure that the health of the lake is absolutely protected. That's what it's all about.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Mike Colle: Minister, as we know, the passage of this bill is a landmark event, but it's only the first step. There has to be a follow-up now, and what will be in the follow-up to protect—

Interjections.

Mr. Mike Colle: They laugh at this lake, but it's not only the lake; it's all the watershed around it. The land is also important because, if you pollute the land around the lake, you pollute the lake. The NDP doesn't understand that. Explain that to them, Mr. Minister.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Yes. It's enabling legislation that will now allow us to develop a plan to protect the lake and the watershed, which includes the 35 different rivers and streams that flow into the lake as well.

We're in the process of doing that, but it couldn't have been done without the tremendous help over the last 20 years or so by LSEMS, the Lake Simcoe environmental management strategy, by the Ladies of the Lake, by Campaign Lake Simcoe, by the stakeholder groups that we had involved. It's all going to be based on science. We certainly thank the science community for making sure we're on the right track, and the stakeholder advisory committee as well.

This plan that we're developing is one that we can all be proud of. Years from now, children and their children will thank us for protecting this lake, which, without the action this government has taken, simply wouldn't have happened.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. The time for question period has expired. This House stands recessed until 3 o'clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1134 to 1500.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Brad Duguid: It's my honour to introduce to the Legislature Sam George, his wife, Veronica, and his friends and family, Murray Klippenstein, Deputy Grand Chief Glen Hare, Bob Goulais, Tammy Jackson, Jeffrey Jackson, Irvin George, Basil Alexander, Laurie Hardwick, Nathan Wright, Elizabeth Smith-VanBeek, Alex Farquhar, and Katherine Hensel. They're here to honour Sam and his good work, and I thank them for coming and joining us today.

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: In the gallery are my constituents Brooke and Jade Bordman, six-year-old twins from the riding of Cambridge who suffer from type 1 diabetes, along with their parents, Terry and Beata Borden, and their older sister Fallon.

Mr. John O'Toole: I'm very pleased to introduce, in the visitors' gallery, two of my constituents, Jim and Sue Dacosta, who have been big supporters of Bethesda House, a women's shelter in my riding of Durham. I'm pleased to welcome them here today.

LEGISLATIVE STAFF

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Today, we recognized a number of staff from the Ontario Legislature and I want to take this opportunity to recognize them formally in the chamber.

From the Office of the Clerk: Eileen Rosemond, 35 years of service; Maureen Henry, 25 years; Robert Cowieson, 25 years; Deborah Ceasar, 25 years.

From the legislative services division: Karyn Leonard, 35 years; Kathryn MacGregor, 30 years; Janet McKenzie, 30 years; Rocco Rampino, 30 years; Louise Tomlinson, 30 years; Ambrose Chiu, 30 years; James Floros, 30 years; Dimitrios Jim Petselis, 25 years; Estelita Chan, 25 years; Susan Bercasio, 25 years.

From the Sergeant-at-Arms division: John Fraser, 35 years; Humphrey Lau, 30 years; Joe Alaksa, 25 years.

From the legislative library: Janice Cole Mabee, 25 years; Elaine Campbell, 25 years; Rosie Salvo, 25 years; Philip Kaye, 25 years.

Congratulations to all of these individuals. We thank them for their work and their support of all of us here at the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LONG POINT

Mr. Toby Barrett: I rise today to talk about what could be one of the world's seven wonders of nature, Long Point. It's a sandspit in the rich riding of Haldimand—Norfolk.

Long Point juts over 30 miles into Lake Erie and has already claimed the fame of being Canada's longest sandspit and may well be the world's longest sandspit in fresh water.

Long Point can be seen from outer space and is usually a fixture on television weather maps. Further, Long Point is designated as a world biosphere area by UNESCO.

It's a great place to go in the summer. It has some of the world's longest white, sandy beaches and has become quite a destination for migratory bird lovers. It's also the national headquarters for Bird Studies Canada.

Long Point is truly unique. We feel we're blessed that it's in our area. If you haven't been down to Long Point, I invite you down, and you can see for yourself that it's most deserving of being one of the seven wonders of nature. I ask people to visit www.new7wonders.com before December 31 and cast your vote if you agree. I know that people down in Long Point country would appreciate the support.

COOPER MARSH

CONSERVATION AREA

Mr. Jim Brownell: Located on the shores of Lake St. Francis in my riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, Cooper Marsh Conservation Area is part of the larger Charlottenburgh Marsh. This is one of the most significant wetlands in all of Ontario. Serving as both a wildlife preserve and an education centre under the mandate of the Raisin Region Conservation Authority, Cooper Marsh provides opportunities for visitors, both young and old, to learn more about the great varieties of animals and birds that call the marsh their home.

Walking along the eight kilometres of boardwalks and trails, visitors have an opportunity to see some of the more than 130 species of birds, including the great white egret, the black-crowned heron and the osprey.

Cooper Marsh itself benefits from the support of the Cooper Marsh Conservators, a group of local citizens with a passion for protecting wildlife and wetlands and ensuring this great general public area is open for the public to be informed of the significance of a wildlife refuge. With the support of the St. Lawrence River Institute, the conservators have helped to raise awareness about the flora and fauna of our environment and the responsibilities we have, in terms of protecting the environment.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Cooper Marsh Conservators, the St. Lawrence River Institute and the Raisin Region Conservation Authority for the good work they do all year round to maintain and protect Cooper Marsh. I would also like to encourage all members to come to the riding, visit Cooper Marsh and experience this wonderful wildlife refuge for themselves.

SCHOOL PRINCIPALS

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: I rise in the House today to recognize the Ontario Principals' Council for their hard work, their dedication, and their commitment to our students and to educators across this province.

Through their efforts, Ontario will continue to graduate the best and the brightest as they prepare our students to enter a competitive global marketplace. Principals set the tone of our schools' learning environment. They create order out of chaos and wear many hats during the course of the day, too many to mention in the time I've been allotted.

I've had the pleasure of meeting with the OPC representatives today, and their interest in overcoming the obstacles to succession planning for principals and teachers struck a real chord with me. We, as legislators, as parents and grandparents, must ensure that our educators are in a strong position that best meets their needs as well as the interests of the schools they work in and the students they serve.

Succession planning is the key to any dynamic organization and our school system is no different. I credit the OPC for raising this issue and I look forward to any opportunity in the near future to assist them with this objective. Thank you to them for the great work that they do and the legacy that they are leaving us all.

UKRAINIAN GENOCIDE

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I rise in the House today to honour Ukrainian Holodomor survivors. On November 30, people from across London remembered the Ukrainian genocide, better known as the Holodomor, which translates from Ukrainian into "murder by hunger."

My riding of London—Fanshawe is blessed to have survivors of the Holodomor as citizens. They were the guests of honour at the commemoration held at the London Ukrainian Centre where bread and prayers were offered. Along with representatives from the city, the province and the federal government, we paid our respects to the survivors and those who have moved on to a better place. It was a reminder of the need to be conscious and grateful for being in a peaceful country.

In May of this year, our nation recognized the horrific tragedy as genocide by forced starvation, which killed between seven million and 10 million people, with one third of them being children. Bread was taken from the mouths of the dying and the population was stripped of every possession.

I would like to use this opportunity to encourage my colleagues and fellow Ontarians to read about the Holodomor and participate in any future commemorations. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to do it.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr. Ted Arnott: Like all MPPs, my office has received an extraordinary number of e-mails from constituents who want this government to put the brakes on Bill 126. It's clear the McGuinty government failed to anticipate such a strong public backlash from both young drivers and their parents.

Today, more than 142,000 people are part of the Facebook group to protest this legislation. Many of my constituents share their views, including a 19-year-old who has a standing agreement with his friends to pick them up any time, day or night, if they've been drinking. Also concerned is Rein Kao, a father of three who notes that in rural and semi-rural parts of Ontario, this legislation creates far more difficulties than it resolves.

Of course, there is always room for improvement, especially in preventing drinking and driving, but instead of ramming through this hefty 57-page bill that has already ignited such strong opposition, the government must follow the lead of the PC caucus. The government must hold full public hearings on Bill 126.

John Tory has already started the dialogue. Tonight, he will be holding an online discussion about this legislation at ontariopc.com, and I encourage everyone, including the Minister of Health, to log on and participate.

We need a bill that is sensible and enforceable while taking into account the realities of life, especially in rural and small-town Ontario. Let's take the time to get this right.

UNIVERSITY LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I was just outside, where there is a demonstration of about 300 people who are sessional contract workers at York University. They are worried, because they say, and I say, we are witnessing across Ontario a move away from full-time secure jobs to part-time, sessional, contract teaching jobs. This, they argue, as I do, is a very disturbing trend.

Members of CUPE do more than half of the classroom teaching at York University—more than half—yet their contracts represent just 7.5% of the university's $848-million annual budget. This has been appropriately called the Wal-Martification of universities.

Contract sessional workers have no job security. They live on subsistence wages, and many have to apply for their jobs every four months. While university presidents, vice-presidents and administrators earn anywhere from $200,000 to $500,000, excluding their car allowance, house allowance and million-dollar payouts, those who do the bulk of the teaching at York University live on subsistence wages. It's wrong, and it is outrageous.

We want the students to go back to classes that are taught by workers who are treated fairly and compensated adequately. Forcing them to go back to work is not the answer. Fair compensation—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Eglinton—Lawrence.

SCHOOL PRINCIPALS

Mr. Mike Colle: It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House to talk about how far the province of Ontario has come in the area of publicly funded education. Today is Principals' Day here at the Legislature, and we are celebrating their hard work and dedication to student achievement across the province. The McGuinty government commends the work principals and vice-principals do on a daily basis to help students reach their full potential. They play a critical role in fulfilling educational priorities, increasing student achievement and restoring public confidence in our schools.

To recognize and strengthen the role of principals in our schools, the McGuinty Liberals recently launched the Ontario leadership strategy. This is a comprehensive plan designed to attract skilled and passionate school leaders. Through collaboration with various partners and the Ministry of Education, the strategy provides new principals and vice-principals with the supports they need to develop as leaders so they can continue to support student achievement. The strategy signifies the McGuinty government's commitment to our education system and understanding that principals are critical to students' academic achievement.

I encourage all members of this House and all Ontarians to recognize the efforts of Ontario's principals and vice-principals, not just today but throughout the year. There is a saying among all of us who have had children and grandchildren in the school system and in our great neighbourhood schools: If you've got a good principal, you've got a great school. That is the combination we need to make education go forward.

CHILD ABUSE

Mr. Jeff Leal: Boost Child Abuse Prevention and Intervention opened an office in my riding of Peterborough on Monday, December 1, 2008. Boost is a community-based agency that works very hard to prevent abuse and violence in the lives of children, young people and their families. With the opening of this office, the central region has a child victim/witness support program with offices in Peterborough and Barrie. This program prepares and supports a child going through the criminal justice system.

Testifying in court is an intimidating experience for most adults. Imagine how frightening it would be for a child. Boost prepares these children for this life experience in a way that reduces further trauma. They also work with the community, providing education to better understand the role a child plays in the justice system, and advocate for children, youth and their families or support persons.

As we know, October was Child Abuse Prevention Month. This year marks the fourth year of Boost's Go Purple for Prevention campaign to raise awareness of abuse and violence in the lives of children. Inspired by Boost, close to 70 cities and towns across this great province have proclaimed October as Child Abuse Prevention Month. I'm pleased to stand here today and congratulate Boost for the excellent work they do, and welcome them to my riding of Peterborough.

TED ROGERS

Mrs. Laura Albanese: Yesterday, December 2, 2008, marked the passing of Ted Rogers, one of Canada's most prominent figures and media icons.

I had the opportunity to meet him on several occasions while working at OMNI television, one of the many TV stations, radio stations and print media that he owned across the country.

I remember him as a towering, cordial man, very passionate about his work. The numerous media articles that were published yesterday used many adjectives to describe Ted Rogers: a great businessman, master of the communication universe in Canada, a philanthropist, a visionary, fearless, risk-embracing in business.

Let me share with this House how I witnessed, in my own way, his pioneering vision and his risk-taking. In 1986, he took over a modest multilingual TV station founded by another Canadian ethnic media pioneer, Dan Iannuzzi. It was a time when few believed in the potential and the growth of ethno-cultural media in Canada. Ted Rogers, however, took the risk willingly. Under his leadership and with his investments, t