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

November 3, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-Nov-03 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 3 November 2008 Lundi 3 novembre 2008

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

SMALL BUSINESS

SMALL BUSINESS

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

SMALL BUSINESS

MANUFACTURING JOBS

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

VIOLENT CRIME

CHILD CARE

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

SCHOOL SAFETY

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SCHOOL SAFETY

SEWAGE SLUDGE

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COLLEGE WEEK

LISGAR GO STATION

INTERVENOR FUNDING

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

CANADIAN FORCES

SMALL BUSINESS

OPTOMETRISTS

CORBROOK

MARJORIE BROOKS

MOTIONS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

PETITIONS

TUITION

CHILD CARE

WAYNE RYCZAK

PROTECTION FOR MINERS

HOSPICES

GASOLINE PRICES

TUITION

CHILD CUSTODY

GASOLINE PRICES

HOSPITAL SERVICES

TOM LONGBOAT

CHILD CUSTODY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ PROFESSIONNELLE

ET L'ASSURANCE CONTRE

LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

The House met at 1030.

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

Prayers.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Charles Sousa: I'd like to welcome in our east gallery today Messieurs Dave Cook and Terrence Butt, both former Mississauga city councillors.

Please join me in congratulating Mr. Cook on his newest book, Fading History. It's a collection of 15 stories about Mississauga's history. This is Mr. Cook's third book about the history of Mississauga. Others include Apple Blossom and Satellite Dishes, a history of Applewood; and From Frozen Ponds to Beehive Glory, a history of Dixie Arena and Beehive hockey club.

I'd also provide thanks to Mr. Butt for helping to finance its publication. Congratulations.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I'd like to introduce to the Legislature my brother Peter, who is in the members' east gallery. Peter is the clinical director for the Brain Injury Services of Northern Ontario. And as you'll be able to tell, he's my younger, slimmer, better-looking brother. Peter, welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We have with us today in the Speaker's gallery David Warner, former Speaker and MPP for Scarborough–Ellesmere; his wife, Pat Warner; his grandson Sebastian Smith and Sebastian's friend Connor Gedney. Please join me in welcoming our guests. Welcome back, Mr. Speaker.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is to the Minister of Small Business and Consumer Services and it has to do with his role as an advocate for small business in his government and especially within cabinet. On October 9, in the Toronto Star, Premier McGuinty was quoted as saying, "The worst thing you could do in an economic slowdown is raise taxes." Minister, why then are you not opposing the bill introduced last week by the Minister of Labour that will force small construction companies in Ontario to pay an additional $11,000 a year?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: Actually, I am very proud of some of the things that we have done for our small business.

Let me tell you, it basically fits in four very neat categories. One is that we have been able to lower taxes and another is that we have, in a very systematic way, actually saved money to small businesses. We also have programs that are actually quite in line with what the small businesses are looking for.

I am delighted that last month was Salute to Small Businesses Month, and I had the chance to go and visit so many small businesses. I want to tell the member opposite that our small businesses are actually thriving, and they're doing quite well in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I listened very closely for an answer there, but I didn't detect one, and that is indeed shameful. They announced this new tax during Small Business Week, doubling the insult to small business and really reflecting on the inability of this particular minister to represent them in the cabinet of the government. You can call it what you want, Minister, but Ontarians know what a tax is. They have learned there hasn't been a Liberal tax that didn't come with a broken promise attached to it.

Now, by introducing this new tax during an economic decline, your government has dealt small businesses in the construction industry, and perhaps for many, the final blow. Minister, is this how the Liberals celebrate Small Business Week in Ontario: with a death march?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: Maybe I need to tell the member—although he voted against it, maybe he still needs to hear about this—that we have actually decreased the taxes on small businesses to the tune of about $750 million in 2007 and 2008. We have also eliminated the capital tax on the small businesses, actually dating back a year, and they are already receiving the refunds on that as well. But, in addition to that, we have also reduced the business taxes on small businesses.

We also have programs that are really very beneficial to small businesses that will make them more competitive and more productive in the marketplace at this point in time, so I'm very proud of what our government has done for small business.

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I sincerely hope that business people across the province are watching and listening to the responses from this minister. I've asked him specifically about a bill that is going to negatively impact on hundreds and hundreds of small businesses across this province. One owner has described it as another nail in the coffin for small companies already working 12 to 14 hours a day trying to keep the bills paid in an economic slowdown. Minister, here you are not answering their questions or their concerns.

The province has seen the loss of 230,000 manufacturing jobs and another 250,000 predicted to disappear. Why are you standing by doing nothing while the Minister of Labour is apparently deliberately killing off opportunities for our people who are going to lose their jobs? These are opportunities in small businesses. Why are you standing by and not even answering questions?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: It's one thing to ask questions in the House and another to actually do something concrete for small businesses. We have systematically reduced red tape on small businesses, we have reduced the paperwork for small businesses, and the measure that the Minister of Labour has taken is to even the playing field for everybody so that the people can be treated right.

Just talking about cutting the red tape: In seven key ministries, we have reduced, in the first phase, 24% of the paperwork burden. In the second eight ministries, we reduced it by another 25%, and we are moving ahead to reduce it in the remaining ministries by another 25%. But we are also moving ahead to automate most of the paperwork that the small businesses have to fill. We are also working closely with the federal government to coordinate the filing of the tax system for the small—

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

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr. Robert Bailey: My question is to the Minister of Small Business and Consumer Services.

The recent answers just show the absolute lunacy behind this new WSIB bill. This bill is not about tackling the underground economy, because during a slowdown, new taxes only drive businesses further underground. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has said as much. Minister, if it's not about the underground economy, then whose interest does this bill serve? Which backroom election promise is your government fulfilling with this bill?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I want to tell the member opposite that I meet with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business on a regular basis, and they are very supportive of the steps that we have taken to support the small business industry in this province. One of the representatives of the CFIB actually sits on our small business agency, so they have input on the kinds of things that we do for small business.

But what I really want to talk about is some of the things that we are actually doing for small business. As I indicated before, we have systematically reduced paperwork for small business. We have programs dedicated to small businesses so that they can be successful in the work that they do, and I will be able to—

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

Mr. Robert Bailey: It's important for Ontarians to know what is behind this government's agenda. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, whose some 43,000 members supply over 50% of Ontario jobs, don't want this bill. They've told us that. They've said this bill does nothing to stop the very underground economy that they are competing against. They have presented upwards of 25,000 objections from their members, who have said that the $11,000 annual WSIB tax is going to put them out of business—shut them down, period. Minister, why aren't you out there doing your job, fighting for the very survival of these small businesses?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I understand that the member from Sarnia—Lambton actually had a very good relationship with Doug Chalmers, the director of Aluma Systems and the former chair of the Sarnia Construction Association. This is what Mr. Chalmers said about this: "Congratulations. Absolutely brilliant. This will make Ontario a safer workplace and improve the quality of life for all of us." This is a friend of the member from Sarnia. I am sure if you are not going to take my advice, then you will take his advice and listen to this.

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

Mr. Robert Bailey: I have spoken to Mr. Chalmers, and when he wrote that original letter, it wasn't his understanding—but I will talk about that again. This government has killed the manufacturing industry with their high taxes and red tape. Now they've set their targets on the small construction companies of this province. We understand that the Small Business Agency of Ontario, which operates under your ministry, looked at this bill over a year ago and said it was a bad idea. Minister, if this bill passes, there won't be any small businesses left in this province and you'll be doing yourself out of a job.

Is that what it's going to take for you to stand up for small business? Do your job and fight against this bill.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: Actually, I want to ask the member from Sarnia if he really believes in what Mr. Chalmers said or not. Does he say that Mr. Chalmers didn't say it, or that he doesn't believe what he said?

I'm actually not sure how many small businesses the member from Sarnia visited, but let me just give you a couple of examples of how many businesses I visited in the month of September, and I did not hear once about this issue from any of those businesses. I visited Samco Machinery. I have been to Methes energy; I have been to ProMation Engineering; I have been to Icyene in Mississauga. I had the chance to go and visit the Toronto Business Development Centre. I visited, actually, five places there. I want to tell you, based on my experience in talking to the small businesses, and maybe this will come as a surprise to the member from Sarnia, if he—

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

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is for the Acting Premier. On Friday, Statistics Canada released its GDP report, which shows serious economic problems in Ontario. Manufacturing employment continued to decline. Construction showed a real retreat.

This economic downturn means that this year, now, and next year, municipalities have to bear increased Ontario Works costs. But the agreement the McGuinty government forced on municipalities does nothing for them this year and does nothing for them in 2009.

My question: How could the McGuinty government pretend that this agreement is going to help municipalities when it does nothing for them in 2008 and nothing for them in 2009, at a time when Ontario Works costs are skyrocketing?

Hon. George Smitherman: On subsequent supplementaries, if they stay on the same theme, I'll be asking the Minister of Municipal Affairs to respond. I wanted to make sure that all members of the House were given the appropriate opportunity to recognize the Minister of Municipal Affairs for this landmark work he has done with municipalities in the province of Ontario.

By coincidence, earlier today I had the privilege of a lengthy meeting with Councillor Peter Hume, from the city of Ottawa, who is the president of AMO. Not only was he still expressing a very positive view about the historic agreement that was reached; he was also very, very pleased that soon the province of Ontario will be flowing $1.1 billion in infrastructure investments to municipalities for this year, something that the president of AMO was very pleased to have coming.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: As usual, this was another McGuinty exercise in promising to maybe, perhaps do something 10 years from now, when the urgent problem is today.

I want to quote someone who says he knows a lot about this: "What happens when the economy goes down? I'll tell you what happens: The welfare caseloads go up, the number of property taxpaying citizens goes down and those who are left are faced with an increasingly difficult burden" that they have to pay. Who said that? Dwight Duncan, the finance minister, just a few years ago. But today, the McGuinty government says to municipalities, "While you're facing tough times, you're on your own in 2008, you're on your own in 2009 and we might spare you $12 million in 2010."

I ask again, how is this helping municipalities at a time when their Ontario Works costs are skyrocketing?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Jim Watson: I'm very, very pleased to answer the honourable member's question and correct him once again.

First of all, the notion that no money is flowing is absolutely ludicrous. When the McGuinty government had the opportunity and the honour to be sworn in, in 2003, we began the process of uploading, whether it's gas tax, land ambulance, public health costs or ODP, ODSP. We have gone from providing our municipal partners with approximately $1.1 billion in 2003 to $2.2 billion this year, and by the time this entire agreement is fully implemented, it will be up to $3.8 billion. That is a 250% increase in support to our partners.

I challenge the honourable member to stop denouncing the municipal sector and support them as partners, as we support them.

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: The mayor of Sarnia, a two-time Liberal candidate, says that anybody who thinks this is a good deal obviously thinks Napoleon won at Waterloo.

I want to quote somebody else: "The municipality is put in a position of having to raise property taxes at precisely the time, from an economic perspective, that they shouldn't have to do it. Now as we put these additional costs onto the ... property tax bill, it's going to be even more difficult." That's the situation the McGuinty government has put municipalities in today, in 2008, next year, in 2009, and in 2010 and 2011. What is the McGuinty government's answer? "Oh, we'll do something about it in 2018." How is that a good deal?

Hon. Jim Watson: Well, that's a little rich, coming from a member whose party downloaded hundreds of millions of dollars under the guise of the social contract. Where was the great man of principle then? Did he give up his car and driver? Did he leave cabinet?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Don't stop the clock. Member from Hamilton East—

Mr. Paul Miller: I'll go back to my seat.

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

Hon. Jim Watson: Where was the great man of principle? Did he resign from cabinet, outraged over the downloading his party partook in when it came to the social contract?

Let me quote a gentleman who said: "'I've never seen this in a government at a time like this.' Rodriguez lauded the McGuinty Liberals for talking another step forward in reversing the disastrous downloads of the Harris Conservatives." That's John Rodriguez, a former New Democratic member of Parliament, who is now the mayor of Sudbury.

I need no lessons when it comes to helping and supporting our municipal sector—

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

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mr. Howard Hampton: I think the McGuinty government is protesting against that well-known Liberal, Bob Rae. I say to you: He's all yours; protest against him all you want—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Who is the question to, please?

Mr. Howard Hampton: Again, to the Acting Premier: I want to point out again what's in this deal for municipalities. In 2008, as their Ontario Works skyrocket—nothing. In 2009, as more jobs are lost and Ontario Works costs skyrocket—nothing, In 2010: a paltry $12 million. The costs of court security for municipalities is $525 million a year.

Again, my question to the McGuinty Liberals: At a time when costs for municipalities are skyrocketing, this year, next year, in 2010, do you really think—

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

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Jim Watson: Once again, the honourable member from the NDP has got his facts entirely wrong. He clearly stated that there would be no benefit in 2008 for Ontario municipalities. You're wrong. There's $158 million that has already flowed to the municipal sector. In 2009, we begin the upload of 100% of ODSP administrative costs, saving municipalities $86 million. In 2010, we begin one half of the ODSP benefits cost, saving municipalities $310 million.

I'd much rather quote an esteemed leader named Hazel McCallion, who said, "Downloading is going to end and uploading is going to take over. The water is flowing up rather than down." I'd rather have Hazel McCallion, David Miller, and the president of AMO on my side supporting this deal than the ranting and raving of a failed ideology on the other side—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Howard Hampton: I'm merely going to stick to the facts. AMO itself says that under the McGuinty Liberals, the cost of downloading has gone from $3.2 billion, when the McGuinty Liberals assumed office, to $3.9 billion now. Only the McGuinty Liberals would claim that that's a good deal. But just how this deal works for Hamilton: Ontario Works and court security costs for Hamilton are nearly $25 million a year. Hamilton property taxpayers will still be paying almost all of that by the time the next provincial election comes around. Windsor property taxpayers cover $12 million for Ontario Works and court security alone.

Tell me: What, in this agreement, is going to do anything to relieve the pressure on municipal property taxpayers in Hamilton and Windsor?

Hon. Jim Watson: Let me answer the question directly: The good people of Hamilton, thanks to the work of Ted McMeekin and our good colleague from Hamilton Mountain—strong voices for Hamilton—benefit: $72 million for the people of Hamilton. The good people of Windsor, represented so ably by my colleagues from Essex and our two cabinet colleagues, Ministers Duncan and Pupatello, are going to benefit to the tune of $35.3 million.

Let me quote Eddie Francis, who was a signatory to this important document, when he said:

"Once all in, it's a significant amount of money. That aside, it's the first time in a long time you have social service costs being moved away from the property tax base and the responsibility being parked with the province. That's significant.

"In terms of any argument that it's too slow—we had nothing yesterday. We were paying for all of it. We now have a commitment and timetable to upload it. I will take that any day."

The municipal sector is happy with this—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: Here is the reality: The money that the McGuinty government is going to make available not this year, not next year, but in 2010 and 2011, won't even cover the costs of municipal taxpayers in Windsor and Hamilton, not to speak of all the other municipalities in the province. The McGuinty government continues to say, "But wait for 2018." What we can be sure of is this: Costs will be much higher in 2018. And what we can be sure of with McGuinty government promises is that they're not worth the paper they're printed on. That has been proven over and over and over again.

I ask the question again: When the finance minister himself says this is blatantly unfair, how does the McGuinty government think that this is a good deal for municipalities?

Hon. Jim Watson: I would encourage the leader of the third party to go to the website of the wannabe leader the member from Hamilton, because she has an interesting press release dated August 23, 2008, where she's claiming—I don't know if it's her policy, or the party platform, or the leader's policy, or the leader-in-waiting's policy—that she wouldn't begin her uploading until 2011, at a smaller rate than what we're providing the municipal sector. So we need no lessons from the NDP when it comes to talking about partnerships with the municipal sector.

Let me just tell you a little bit about what we're doing on the infrastructure front. We have seen a $6.6-billion investment in infrastructure directly to the municipal sector and that is going to roads and bridges and community centres and libraries, something that was completely foreign when the NDP were in office. We're building communities with communities—

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

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr. Robert Bailey: My question is for the Minister of Small Business, and it's in regard to the impact of Bill 119 on small businesses. If passed, Bill 119 will put an $11,000 tax on small and medium-sized businesses all around Ontario. Since last week, MPPs' offices have been bombarded with faxes, letters and phone calls indicating that this new tax on small business will mean the death of those businesses. Minister, as this government's protector of small business, will you commit immediately to urge your colleague the government House leader to not shut down debate on this bill, like you are doing with the budget bill later this week?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: Health and safety is important for this government, and that's exactly what we are doing in the construction industry.

We are looking forward to the debate, and I hope the member will participate in this debate. But I really want to ask the member again: Do you agree with Mr. Chalmers or not, when he said, "Congratulations. Absolutely brilliant. This will make Ontario a safer workplace and improve the quality of life for all of us"?

I think the small businesses out there are not looking for a handout; they're looking for our support. Let me just talk about a couple of the support programs that our government has for small businesses. We just introduced an export access program through the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, so that our small businesses can showcase their products not just in North America but anywhere else in the world, wherever they want to do business. That is what is going to help the small businesses grow and prosper in this province—

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

Mr. Robert Bailey: Back to the same minister: Stakeholders from all over Ontario have been firm in their demand that they be heard on this bill in committee and communities across this province. I know that traditionally under this government, committees do not travel when the House is sitting. Minister, would you today commit to urging your government House leader to allow this bill to go to committee and travel the province when the House isn't sitting, so we can hear from our small business people around this province who are fearful of losing their livelihoods?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: Let me tell you, I have been in touch with the small-business community on a regular basis, and I want to tell you that our small-business community, as I said before, is not looking for handouts; they're looking for a little bit of support.

We have 57 enterprise centres in this province that are willing to help our small businesses. We have advisory groups that are out there helping our small businesses. We have also reconfigured our AMIS program so that we can help the manufacturers who are struggling a little bit because of the weak US economy. We have the eastern Ontario economic development fund, solely dedicated to small businesses so that they can take advantage of some of the programs that we have developed in that region, as well.

So I'm very proud of what our government has done and how we have worked in a very collaborative manner with the small-business community. They are very appreciative of what we have—

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

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Deputy Premier. While the McGuinty government has looked on from the sidelines, 230,000 manufacturing jobs have disappeared. New Democrats have laid out a real jobs plan with strategies that have worked successfully elsewhere. One of those is a manufacturing investment tax credit that would reward manufacturers for investing in plant machinery and for creating good-paying jobs. In finance estimates last week, the finance minister commented that the credit was "a worthy idea and something we have to look at seriously."

Deputy Premier, if the manufacturing credit is such a good idea, as the finance minister now says, why hasn't your government taken immediate action to implement it?

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

Hon. Michael Bryant: Let me start by saying, obviously, the Minister of Finance indicated what this government's approach is, particularly during this economic crunch and crisis, which is, if the members come forward with ideas that are of assistance, we certainly want to embrace those ideas, if in fact it's something that the government has not yet been doing. But I will say to the member that there are business tax cuts and credits in place that the member voted against that we put into place to support that particular industry.

The entire purpose of the advanced manufacturing investment strategy is to provide direct assistance to the manufacturing industry in order to help them innovate, grow and retain and grow jobs and I'm happy to talk about the successes of that program today. But again, I say to the member, we welcome all suggestions, as the finance minister said, but we will continue to build on this strategy that will continue to retain and grow jobs in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Michael Prue: I would gladly take credit for having posed that question to the Minister of Finance, but it was not me; it was the Liberal backbencher from Mississauga—Brampton South who raised the question.

The point is that Ontario's manufacturing communities can't wait any longer. Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Quebec introduced exactly this sort of credit years ago. The CAW supports it. The manufacturers and exporters' association supports it. Basically everyone who has anything to say with manufacturing supports that credit.

Will the government take immediate action to implement a manufacturing investment tax credit or will it continue to sit on the sidelines while thousands more good-paying jobs are lost?

Hon. Michael Bryant: Now the idea sounds even more promising, and I just want to congratulate the member from Mississauga for bringing it forward.

Let's be clear: This government provided $190 million in rebates. That's what this government has brought forward in the past and previous budgets. Of those $190 million in rebates, there have been a number of success stories. But let's be clear: The rebate package in the budget that came before this House was brought by this government and was voted against by that member and that party over there.

So I say to the member, while we welcome his encouragement, not only of the member spoken of from Mississauga but also this government's rebate program, it is a little late in the game and the member has not shown a commitment to these rebates up until now. But we welcome his encouragement on this front and look forward to further encouragement on the McGuinty government's programs.

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, you have been asked quite a few questions about the announcement Friday. Let me ask you about its impact on Ottawa.

The city of Ottawa council has spoken to me on numerous occasions about the struggles they face since provincial programs were downloaded onto their backs. Although it has been several years, I know they are still feeling the effects of the early 1990s. Like many municipalities across the province, they struggle to maintain services and infrastructure to residents of communities like those in my riding of Ottawa Centre.

It's no surprise to learn that my constituents are pleased that over the last few years we have worked diligently with the Ottawa community to make much-needed investments, including the just recently announced $77 million under the Investing in Ontario Act. When you and the Honourable Minister of Finance made that investment, you made it clear in this House that the money could be spent on infrastructure projects.

Minister, can you tell us what is in the review, which you announced Friday, and how that will benefit the city of Ottawa?

Hon. Jim Watson: I'm very proud to answer the honourable member's question for a couple reasons. I happened to be mayor of Ottawa during the downloading of the Harris government, and I was a city councillor during the social contract downloading of the NDP. So the number one, two and three items that the municipal sector has been working on for a long time to get uploaded were ODP, ODSP, Ontario Works and court security and prisoner transportation.

As a result of the consensus agreement reached unanimously by the city of Toronto and AMO, I'm pleased to report that the people of Ottawa, the taxpayers of Ottawa and the municipality of Ottawa, by the time the plan is fully implemented, will save $122 million.

Let me quote my colleague Peter Hume. Peter Hume said, "This report turns the page on a dark

chapter of provincial-municipal fiscal relations. The consensus reflected in this report sets out the changes that reflect the highest priority of our municipal governments and"—

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

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I'm sure that the city of Ottawa is pleased that we are continuing to take steps to alleviate the financial burden they face and to make it easier for them to respond to the infrastructure and services needs in our communities. But we all know that Ontario is facing challenging economic times. There are parts of the economy we can't control: fluctuations in the dollar, interest rates, a weakened US trading partner, high oil prices and competition from overseas.

I'm sure we can all agree that these economic times call for prudent planning, and our Minister of Finance has responded with a strategic five-point plan for the province. Minister, it's no secret that municipalities have been asking us to make it easier for them to plan for the future during these challenging economic times. Can the minister tell us how the review allows cities like Ottawa to plan for the future during these challenging economic times?

Hon. Jim Watson: The fact of the matter is, this gives predictability and stability to the municipal sector, something that they have been looking for for a long time.

My colleague from Carleton—Mississippi Mills says that the mayor of Ottawa doesn't like this government or this agreement. Let me quote from Nepean This Week, where Mayor O'Brien said, "The province of Ontario has never in its history been as good to eastern Ontario and Ottawa as it has been over the last two years while I have been mayor. Our relationship is warm, it's co-operative and it's moving to the future. All I can say is, I'm very, very happy the city of Ottawa is working in this manner with the McGuinty government because they are coming through for the city of Ottawa."

I am proud of the fact that after years and years of downloading under the Conservatives and the NDP, we've turned the page, we're moving forward, we're supporting our municipal partners, we're not name-calling and we're respecting those men and women who serve in counties and in regions and in cities and we will—

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

VIOLENT CRIME

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is for the Attorney General. This past Saturday I attended the funeral of Bailey Zaveda, the Brockville girl killed in the shooting last weekend in downtown Toronto. In making his tribute to Bailey, her brother Ryan expressed the wish that she not become just another crime statistic.

For the last week, we have pointed to the tools that your crown lawyers could have used to keep Bailey's alleged killer, Kyle Weese, off the streets. So I ask you again, Minister, if the police considered Weese to be a dangerous, violent man, why did your crown lawyers cut a deal with him and drop six of seven charges instead of bringing a dangerous offender application to keep him behind bars for good?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: My sympathies and all of our sympathies are with the family and with those deeply touched and affected. We're angry. We're all angry about how this could have happened.

What can be done in the future to make sure that tragedies like this do not happen again? What I say to the honourable member and what I say to the family and to the communities is, we are going to do all that needs to be done. We're going to prosecute those responsible to the full extent of the law and we are going to take measures, right now, within the crowns' office, to do what needs to be done to prevent tragedies like this from happening in the future.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Those are good words, but, Minister, your crowns now have a significant number of tools available to protect the public from high-risk offenders: opposing bail and appealing bad bail decisions, insisting on electronic monitoring, prosecuting bail and probation breaches, opposing high-risk parole releases—I could go on, Minister.

We know that three years ago your government wanted to cut $340 million from the justice system but publicly backed way after the so-called summer of the gun in 2005. Minister, are you making those cuts now behind closed doors? Is this why innocent people are dying?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: When we say that our sympathies are with the victim and with the families and our memories of her will last long beyond today, we are angry at what happened and determined to prevent tragedies like this from happening again.

All those steps have been made over the past five years. We're going to lock the revolving door of justice by doing whatever we can. There are three exit points from justice. There is bail, there is sentencing, and there is parole and what happens after. We are developing a strategy now to do, in the crowns' office, whatever additionally we can do to lock that revolving door of justice to prevent these tragedies from happening in the future.

CHILD CARE

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, in a Toronto Sun

article on October 29, you are quoted as saying, "My ministry has not changed the rules in regard to eligibility in the TCA program. The specification of what 'temporary' means has changed."

Minister, it's obvious that redefining the meaning of the term "temporary" is a change to the eligibility rules. It means that grandchildren being raised by their grandparents no longer qualify for temporary care assistance.

Will this minister commit today to reinstating the old

definitions and

interpretations so that every grandchild being raised by his or her grandparents is eligible for temporary care assistance?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Again, I want to say thank you to the grandparents who believe they have a responsibility towards their children in difficulty.

This government is supporting grandparents by providing temporary care assistance and a host of other programs in the long term. Again, I say to the grandparents that when they qualify for temporary care assistance, they will continue to get temporary care assistance. Besides that, when they receive temporary care assistance, they receive all sorts of other programs like health care, dental, vision, medication, all of these programs that they are entitled to. When it's not temporary anymore, there are other programs that they can apply to and be eligible for.

Mr. Paul Miller: This is unbelievable. The minister knows that grandchildren who are being raised by their grandparents are always in a temporary care situation. A parent can at any time go to the court and regain custody within seven days.

One grandmother called my office on Friday, sobbing. She's 74 years old and has just been diagnosed with cancer. She has been receiving temporary care assistance for nine years. As a direct result of your redefinition of "temporary," she has been cut off and now cannot afford to care for her grandchild. They do not qualify for any other assistance programs that you keep talking about.

The minister can do the only right thing today: Redefine her new definition of "temporary" to include all grandchildren being raised by their grandparents in this province.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: After this member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek blew the whistle on the grandparents, now he's out here telling us that he wants the program to be income-tested and that he also wants to put a time limit on the program. There is no time limit to the program, and the director of the program in each of the municipalities has the flexibility to judge if it's temporary or not.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would just ask the member from Hamilton East, for not the last comment he made but the second-last comment that he made, if he would withdraw it, please.

Mr. Paul Miller: Mr. Speaker, which one would that be?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Withdraw the comment, please.

Mr. Paul Miller: The last comment was "disgrace," or which one—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Withdraw the comment, please.

Mr. Paul Miller: Okay, I withdraw.

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

Mr. Jim Brownell: To the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities: Minister, in my career as an educator, I had the privilege of teaching young people the knowledge and reasoning skills that would serve them later in life and of encouraging them to pursue higher levels of education that would help them to career opportunities that they could be passionate about. Many of my students came from families that didn't have the greatest means of helping their children to be able to go on to post-secondary education. I know that I, myself, would have been unable to pursue post-secondary education without the support and help of the government of the day.

Minister, in today's tough economic climate, is our government prepared to assist students, especially from disadvantaged families, from rural regions like my riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, to access post-secondary education?

Hon. John Milloy: I want to congratulate the member and acknowledge his advocacy on behalf of post-secondary education in this province and the important work that he did as an educator.

I'm pleased to tell him that one of the cornerstones of the Reaching Higher plan was student assistance. Of the $6.2 billion invested, $1.5 billion was specifically geared to allowing greater access for students and to overcome financial burdens.

Under the Reaching Higher plan, we also have the access to opportunities strategy. Last year, we invested $20 million to expand services and supports for aboriginal students, for students with disabilities and for first generation students. We've also expanded French-language studies for francophone students.

Our government has more than doubled the number of students who qualify for non-repayable grants by reinstating access grants, and we changed the criteria so these are available for students from families earning up to $78,000. I'm pleased to say—

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

Mr. Jim Brownell: I know that my constituents will be happy to hear that. Indeed, I try on as many occasions as possible to let my constituents know, both the young men and women looking to pursue higher education for the first time and those recently unemployed individuals looking to upgrade their skills and seeking those new opportunities in life.

Education and opportunity go hand in hand. When you grow your skill sets, you increase the opportunities available. When a community, as a whole, has a higher level of education, it provides opportunities to business, particularly next generation businesses, looking for highly trained individuals to help them pursue their activities.

I believe that our government is providing expanded opportunities to those looking to pursue higher learning. It is equally important that people looking for opportunities know where to find them. Again to the minister: What is our government doing to ensure that the people of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry and all of Ontario are fully informed of the opportunities we have created?

Hon. John Milloy: I thank the member for the question. He raises a very valuable point, that we want to make sure that every student has access to information about all the supports that are available to them as they pursue college or university education.

Information on financial assistance is available on the Ontario student assistance program website and through financial aid offices at every college and university in the province. The OSAP website is well known and extensively used; in fact, over the last 12-month period, the OSAP website received more than six million visits. We've also developed materials aimed specifically at students we are reaching out to through our access to opportunities strategy. Students can visit www.ontario.ca/yourfuture to get information on financial aid. As well, the website provides an online forum for students to get together and share ideas and information on student assistance.

SCHOOL SAFETY

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: To the Minister of Education: My caucus colleagues and I believe in protecting our most vulnerable citizens. Today in the gallery, we have parents of a child who suffered student-on-student abuse, which has gone unanswered by your ministry.

Minister, as usual, you continue to silence the voices of those who desperately need a voice, desperately need a champion and desperately need protection, all for the sake of protecting your reputation in education. I guess if you don't deal with it, it doesn't exist. That's not good enough for me, and it's certainly not good enough for the victims and their families affected by your refusal to implement mandatory reporting. When will you face the facts and finally implement mandatory reporting in your schools?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: First of all, I want to thank the parents who are here today, who are obviously dealing with difficult situations. It is absolutely the intention, and has been the record of this government, to confront the difficult issues of school safety that confront our schools in the province.

When we came into office, we began immediately to revise the legislation that had been put in place by the previous government that did not deal fairly with students across the system, that actually created situations where kids were out of school on limited expulsions without any support programs. That has stopped.

Currently, my parliamentary assistant, the member for Guelph, is leading the safe schools action team. They are looking at what kinds of reporting gaps exist among the different legislation, and we will be addressing those gaps.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: Those revisions are not effective. They are an insult to families in the gallery today who have children who have suffered the unimaginable at the hands of childhood perpetrators. The bottom line is that your trumped-up excuse for the safety plan in schools is not keeping our students safe at all from perpetrators. The safety plans have no teeth and there are no penalties for reoffending other than a mild scolding.

Minister, the student-on-student attacks are not isolated incidents and not just in one school board. They are happening across our province. The issue needs to be addressed now. Minister, will you finally stand up for the vulnerable students who have lost their voice in your education system and provide them with a date—they need a date—when you will implement mandatory reporting in our schools?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: There are two million students who go to school in this province every day in 5,000 publicly funded schools. There is more money in this system to provide caring adults—whether it's teachers, social workers or psychologists—with $43 million this year alone to increase those supports. What's unacceptable is for any member of this House to make a political spectacle of the trials that parents have to deal with. I understand that there are difficult situations that parents go through.

But what this government will not do is cut loose a student who is struggling—whether that student is a victim or whether that student is a perpetrator. It is our responsibility, as the adults in government, as the adults in charge, to make sure that every student in our system has a chance to be a functioning citizen. If we don't pay now, we pay later. We need those kids functioning now.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. The member for Beaches—East York.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Madam Minister, how often did participants in the government's by-invitation-only poverty consultations ask that better access to safe and affordable housing be part of the government's upcoming poverty reduction plan?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: There is no question that housing is a very important component of any poverty reduction strategy. That is why we are having a separate, long-term affordable housing strategy that will be developed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. We know that without stable housing, kids can't thrive at school. Without stable housing, kids can't have the roots in their community that they need. Did we hear about housing? Absolutely. Are we prepared to address housing? Absolutely.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: I'm glad to hear that the minister at least acknowledges that it should be a priority. Affordable housing was the top anti-poverty priority for Ontarians in last week's Environics poll. It was also the most-often-mentioned concern in letters from organizations during the consultations. It was the number one concern raised at our party's eight open town hall meetings. Hundreds of thousands of Ontarians are waiting for affordable housing up to 20 years.

But in the last week there was nothing at all to help cash-strapped municipalities deal with this housing crisis in the funding announcement on Friday. My question to you is, will you promise now that your poverty plan will include a long-overdue new investment in affordable housing to address the crisis situation that Ontarians find themselves in today?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Jim Watson: Let me once again correct the record from the NDP. The fact of the matter is we've already delivered $100 million—the largest single repair and rehabilitation fund in Ontario's history. Secondly, we campaigned in the last election that we would put together a long-term affordable housing strategy; we are going to do that. Thirdly, let me just talk about the NDP promises, because they put out their document and they're calling for 12,000 rent supplements. Already, this government has delivered 35,000 rent supplements. They call for 7,000 affordable housing units.

Already we have delivered 14,900 affordable housing units. This side of the House is completely underwhelmed by the ambitions of the NDP. We suggest that the honourable member look at our track record, what we've done and the partnerships that we've developed with—

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr. David Zimmer: My question is for the Minister of Tourism. Ontario's Environmental Commissioner has released his report for 2007-08. The Environmental Commissioner reported on the government's compliance with the Environmental Bill of Rights. The commissioner also announced that the Ministry of Tourism has earned both an award and an honourable mention for its leadership in environmental issues.

Minister, what was the award for? What was the honourable mention for? What does it mean for Ontario?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I'd like to thank the member for Willowdale. In fact, he is correct. The Ministry of Tourism's agency, the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, has won an ECO Recognition Award from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. I appreciate the opportunity to celebrate with them this achievement.

The centre won its award for its Zero Waste events. The Metro Toronto Convention Centre offers several eco-friendly options, including recycling and energy efficiency conservation for conventions and meetings. In fact, I'm proud to point out that they have already offered 14 Zero Waste events at the publication of the report of the Environmental Commissioner, and on average, the waste diversion of these events is 97%.

The 97% waste diversion rate for these 14 events saved a total of 57 trees, 75,000 litres of water, almost 40,000 kilowatts of energy, over 16,000 litres of—

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

Mr. David Zimmer: Eco-tourism is popular in the tourism sector. The Zero Waste events that the Metro convention centre offers are an option that benefit those looking to mitigate their ecological footprint and practise waste diversion when they're choosing a site to have an international conference or event.

As I said in my first question, I know that another agency of the ministry has received an honourable mention from the Environmental Commissioner. Minister, what was the honourable mention for? What does that mean for Ontario?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: The St. Lawrence Parks Commission, an agency of the Ministry of Tourism, received an honourable mention for its initiative, the initiative that they've undertaken with the Thousand Islands-Frontenac Arch Biosphere Reserve. This honourable mention was awarded to the ministry for its ongoing partnership efforts with the biosphere in promoting environmental protection, sustainable development and cultural awareness.

The biosphere has several environmentally focused programs and initiatives, including eco-tours, species-at-risk programs, from-farm-to-table programs, sustainable tourism workshops and environmental education networks. The Frontenac Arch Biosphere, which is a UNESCO-designated reserve, is only one of 13 such reserves in Canada.

I'm very proud of the work of the St. Lawrence Parks Commission and of the Metro Toronto Convention Centre for proceeding in these environmentally sensitive ways—

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

SCHOOL SAFETY

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Minister of Education. Minister, my constituent is sitting in the gallery here today and the fact of the matter is, if she had not been a teacher in the school where her child was subjected to student-on-student abuse, that child would not have had a safe refuge in that school. This child would ask his mother and his counsellor why he had to change his routines and why he was being punished for telling, while the student who abused him could do whatever he pleased. This is a disgrace, Minister. Your ministry knew about this in 2007, yet you did nothing. Why are you continuing to cover this issue up at the expense of this vulnerable child?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just ask the member to withdraw the last comment that she made, please.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I will withdraw that.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I don't know the specific situation to which the member opposite is referring, but what I can say is that we have required schools across the province to implement anti-bullying strategies. We have increased the resources that are available to schools. We've increased the resources so that buildings can be reconfigured to make them safer, in terms of being able to see the front doors. The most important thing we've done is we've increased the number of adults in our schools. There are thousands more teachers, thousands more support workers, psychologists and social workers.

The point is—and I answered this in the question previously—that all the students in our schools need to have the supports they require so that they can succeed. Whether that student is a victim of an incident or whether that student is a perpetrator, we have to keep all of those kids very close to us, because—

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Minister, you can say that you're not aware of this all you like, but the fact is these parents had to go to the media in 2007 out of sheer desperation because your ministry refused to do anything for them. The time for ignoring these parents and all the other families who have the courage to come forward is over. Please tell us when you're going to implement mandatory reporting of these incidents in schools so that police and counsellors and other parties can finally come to help these children.

Hon. Kathleen Wynne: First of all, I'd be happy to talk with these parents. Again, I haven't met with them specifically; I'd be happy to do that. As I have said previously, the safe schools action team is looking where there are gaps in reporting. There are provisions for mandatory reporting that are included in a number of pieces of legislation. Where there are gaps, we are going to be working to address those.

But the most important thing we can do is to make sure that our schools have the resources that they need to prevent violent incidents from happening in the first place. The most important thing we can do, when an incident takes place, is to make sure that the young people involved get the supports they need to get them back on track, and that is what we have been doing on this side of the House. We have been putting resources into the system to ensure that every child, every student in our system, gets the supports that they need—not just some of the students, as the member opposite would suggest that some students—

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

SEWAGE SLUDGE

M me France Gélinas: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. As the minister responsible for the health of Ontarians, is the minister concerned about the health impact of eating food that has been fertilized with our sewers?

Hon. David Caplan: I'm going to refer this question to the Minister of Agriculture.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: It's a very important question indeed. I'm happy that I have the opportunity to again address this in the House. I think that with respect to the spreading of non-agricultural source material, I did indicate in the House last week that there has been a posting on the Environmental Bill of Rights registry, and that the Ministry of the Environment is carefully reviewing the input that we would have received on that. That would include the spreading of sewage sludge.

I think it's also important to have the people understand that before anything is spread on a farm property, it has to be treated. There is also a requirement for the operator to have a certificate of approval from the Ministry of the Environment. There are very clear and stringent guidelines with respect to—

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

M me France Gélinas: I asked the question of the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care because I want to know if he's concerned about the health of the people of Ontario, because Ontarians have concerns about the health impact of eating foods from farmland fertilized with sewage sludge. Environmentalists, farmers, activists, doctors and scientists all suggest we hold off applying sewage sludge until more studies have been done to test its impact on our health.

Why won't the Minister of Health heed the lessons of previous public health crises and stand up for the health of Ontarians with an immediate moratorium on using sewage sludge as a fertilizer on farms?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I think it's important to provide a little more information to the people in the assembly on this issue. With respect to the sludge that is spread in the province of Ontario, 85% of it is for forage crops and not for food crops. When it is used for food crops, there is an additional regulatory regimen that must be met.

Our government is absolutely very concerned and focused on ensuring that we have the safest and best-quality food. That is why we have put on the Environmental Bill of Rights registry the draft NASM—non-agricultural source material—regulation. We are very cognizant of wanting to protect our food products; we are very eager. If the honourable member is aware of studies or cases where the spreading of this product has been linked to a health issue—it's our information on this side of the House that that has not been the case. That's not—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you, Minister. Question period has ended.

This House stands recessed until 1 p.m.

The House recessed from 1135 to 1300.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COLLEGE WEEK

Mr. Jim Wilson: I rise in the House today to recognize College Week and the important role our community colleges play in strengthening the economy through the skilled trades.

As the Ontario economy faces significant challenges, I know the staff at our colleges are working hard to provide the necessary education and training needed to strengthen every sector of the economy. This week, we are celebrating the work colleges do in training workers in the skilled trades from automotive mechanics, electricians and carpentry.

Over 90% of college graduates find long-term, stable employment within six months of graduating. This is an outstanding track record and good reason for us to celebrate the contribution of our colleges.

More and more people are recognizing the value of a college education. Enrolment in colleges has seen a steady increase. This year, first-year enrolment at Ontario's colleges was 5.6% higher than it was in 2007.

In my riding of Simcoe—Grey, we are fortunate to have Georgian College and its president, Brian Tamblyn. At Georgian, just like other colleges across the province, they have close ties to industry, and industry is involved in making programs up to date and relevant to the workplace. These partnerships are important and contribute to strengthening the economy.

The PC caucus is very proud of the college system established by Premier Davis in the 1960s, and we invite all members, and indeed all Ontarians, to join us in this week's celebrations.

LISGAR GO STATION

Mr. Bob Delaney: Improvements to Mississauga's newest GO train station continue. Today, November 3, 2008, construction began at the Lisgar GO station for a wind turbine system. This is a pilot project to reduce electricity demand from the power grid and to generate the power used by the station. Local students sometimes ask me what Ontario is doing to generate renewable energy in their neighbourhood. This project is one example.

Work includes the construction of a 50-kilowatt wind turbine with foundation, a service access road and electrical work. Project completion is scheduled for early spring 2009.

Commuters, such as me, using the Lisgar GO train station will not find their access to their new station affected in any significant way. However, notices will be updated and posted as required. The majority of the construction work is north of the station access road on Argentia Road and away from the existing station and tracks.

Lisgar is the newest and greenest GO train station on the Milton line. It was designed from the very outset to accommodate the third track that will be completed as part of the $17-billion Move Ontario 2020 program in the upcoming years. This project will enable commuters on the Milton line to have all-day traffic-free train service into and out of Toronto.

INTERVENOR FUNDING

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: Three weeks ago in my constituency office in Kanata, I met a wonderful young woman, Caitlin Ryan. She's an incredible 16-year-old woman who just wants to go to university and live a normal life, but Caitlin is deaf, and unfortunately, she's going blind as well.

Through an interpreter, Caitlin explained to me that she will soon require an intervenor to act as her eyes and her ears in everything she does. We all read the Helen Keller story and remember her teacher, Annie Sullivan. She was, before the role had a name, an intervenor. I might add that Helen Keller was fortunate in having an intervenor 24/7. Caitlin has help for only three hours a week outside of the time that she spends in school.

Ontario has a shortage of people who help people who are blind and deaf at the same time. They are called intervenors. The only training program is at George Brown College here in Toronto. I'd like to encourage the government to create a program in other colleges across Ontario to expand the access to intervenor services outside the Greater Toronto Area.

I want to take this opportunity to ask the Minister of Community and Social Services, on behalf of a wonderful young woman, Caitlin Ryan, to meet with her as soon as possible. I know—

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

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: This winter, hundreds will die on our streets, either directly or indirectly. The homeless population is at greatly increased risk of violence, disease and suicide. Some will simply freeze to death. Meanwhile, both federal and provincial governments ignore the problem.

The McGuinty Liberals promised new builds of 20,000 a year back in 2003 and have delivered a tiny fraction, with the result that 125,000 families languish on the waiting list for five to 20 years. Environics and anti-poverty forums cite housing as their primary concern, to no avail. With the economy slowing, history has proven that housing starts begun by governments can actually assist economic recovery. So, what is the McGuinty Liberal government waiting for?

Federally, the Toronto Disaster Relief Committee has requested that all Ontarians sign on to their petition, "Housing Not War," calling for 1% of the budget to kick-start affordable housing across the country instead of spending untold billions on war.

For the homeless and the families waiting—sometimes dying—for affordable housing, concerted efforts of both levels of government are essential for what has been, for years now, a national and provincial disaster.

Anti-poverty activists are tired of being addressed by McGuinty cabinet ministers. In the immortal words of Michael Shapcott of the Wellesley Institute, "We don't want to be addressed; we want an address."

CANADIAN FORCES

Mr. Jim Brownell: Recently, in my riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, we were fortunate to have a visit and a two-day docking of the naval frigate HMCS Charlottetown. The ability to tour the ship provided constituents of the riding with a first-hand look into the world of our armed forces.

After being stationed in the Middle East, providing protection for citizens against the world drug trade and other threats, this frigate had been doing a tour of the St. Lawrence River and Great Lakes to promote the Canadian navy.

I highly recommend touring the Charlottetown or any other ship in the Canadian navy, if you have the opportunity, not only to marvel at the sophistication of a naval vessel but also to provide encouragement to the many men and women who serve in our armed forces, and to convey that we appreciate the job they do around the world.

The docking in Cornwall had a very large impact on one local family in my riding. The Shaver family, from the town of Newington, were reunited with their son, Jamie, who serves as one of the 255 members of the Charlottetown's crew.

Servicemen and women like Jamie work in the service of our nation and live under the constant threat that they may be sent to dangerous and unstable areas of the world in order to provide security to those who need their help.

It makes me very proud that this young man and many other men and women from my riding and from across Ontario have chosen to dedicate their lives to service in the armed forces. They risk their safety so that we can continue to enjoy the benefits our free society offers, such as being in this Legislature.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr. Robert Bailey: I rise today to bring forward our concerns about the government's WSIB bill, Bill 119.

Today we asked the minister responsible for small business, the government's protector of small business, where he was and what he has done to stop this new tax. He couldn't answer that question. Many small business owners have told us they will simply have no choice but to go out of business. We know they have told the government the same thing.

Since debate started, we have been inundated with calls, letters and faxes from small business owners complaining about lack of consultation on a bill that, if passed, will put a new $11,000-a-year tax on small and medium-sized businesses. With opposition to this bill growing daily, we are getting increasingly concerned that the government may attempt to cut off debate and limit the amount of time this bill is studied in committee.

The PC caucus here at Queen's Park wants to see Bill 119 referred to a standing committee and sent on the road around Ontario for extensive consultations. We hope the government doesn't think they can cut off debate on this new tax and not hear from those stakeholders who will be so dramatically impacted. We are calling today for the McGuinty government to allow committee hearings around this province on this very important issue.

OPTOMETRISTS

Mr. Khalil Ramal: It's a privilege for me to welcome the Ontario Association of Optometrists, an organization that for nearly 100 years has proudly supported the optometry profession in our province and raised public awareness about the importance of regular eye exams and good eye health through its focus on advocacy, community and education.

Ontario's optometrists provide front-line eye health and vision care to more than three million people a year. By detecting, diagnosing and prescribing appropriate treatments, optometrists care for people's vision and help prevent visual losses.

The OAO also contributes to Optometry Giving Sight, an initiative that helps 300 million people around the world who are blind or vision-impaired simply because they don't have access to eye exams or a pair of glasses.

I would like to invite all members of this House to come down to the dining room. There's a reception put on by the optometry association from 4 to 6 o'clock. I think it's very important for all the members of this place to learn about optometry. I think it's a very good group.

I want to welcome Dr. John Astles, who is with us here today, representing the optometrists.

Again, I remind all the members: 4 to 6. There's a good reception downstairs to learn about the eyes and how important optometrists are for the whole province.

CORBROOK

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I rise in the House today to speak about a very special organization in York South—Weston that I had the pleasure of visiting recently. Corbrook provides vital employment services for people living with disabilities. Originally founded as an organization for individuals with cerebral palsy, this year the group celebrates their 50th anniversary.

It offers work opportunities in their own packaging facility. Connected to their main location, the hands-on training facility builds important work experience and creates jobs in the riding of York South—Weston. With the help of Corbrook's work program, individuals with disabilities gain valuable experience which can then be used to integrate people into the wider workforce if they wish.

Corbrook also encourages participation in their REVEL program, which adds recreational activities, literacy programs and support structures to the resources made available by the organization.

Funded through the Ministry of Community and Social Services, Corbrook is an important organization in York South—Weston and I would like to take this opportunity to recognize their work and staff. With 28 staff, a deeply committed board and the capacity to serve up to 165 participants, as well as a second location in Scarborough, Corbrook represents a truly innovative approach to helping people with disabilities live productive and engaging lives once they have finished school.

MARJORIE BROOKS

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I recently had the pleasure of attending the presentation of Ontario's Medal for Good Citizenship. My constituent Marjorie Brooks was recognized for her 60 years of volunteer work in Guelph.

In the 1960s, as coordinator for the TB association in Wellington county, Marj initiated an asthma training program and taught an anti-smoking program at elementary schools. During the 1970s, Marj was involved in the establishment of Wyndham House, a residence for homeless teenage girls in Guelph. But it was primarily for her involvement with the Guelph-Wellington branch of Stroke Recovery Canada that she was awarded the Medal for Good Citizenship.

After a lifetime of volunteerism, Marj herself suffered a stroke in 1997. As she recovered, she joined the Guelph-Wellington Stroke Recovery Group, and within two years was coordinating the group from her home.

She has dedicated herself to providing support for stroke survivors, visiting them while still in the hospital and providing them with important information about local services. Marj initiated a program that pairs a stroke survivor with a student from the University of Guelph to provide companionship, encouragement and assistance with exercises.

She coordinates monthly educational meetings for stroke survivors and caregivers, bimonthly newsletters and public awareness events during Stroke Recovery Awareness Month.

Congratulations, Marjorie. You are truly a deserving recipient of the Medal for Good Citizenship.

MOTIONS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice with regard to Remembrance Day and the late Charlie Fox.

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

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I move that on Tuesday, November 4, 2008, following statements by ministers and responses, and prior to petitions, up to seven minutes be allotted to each party to speak on Remembrance Day and the passing of Charlie Fox.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS

TUITION

Mr. Jim Wilson: "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas undergraduate tuition fees in Ontario have increased by 195% since 1990 and are the third-highest in all of the provinces in Canada; and

"Whereas average student debt in Ontario has skyrocketed by 250% in the last 15 years to over $25,000 for four years of study; and

"Whereas international students pay three to four times more for the same education, and domestic students in professional programs such as law or medicine pay as much tuition as $20,000 per year; and

"Whereas 70% of new jobs require post-secondary education, and fees reduce the opportunity for many low- and middle-income families while magnifying barriers for aboriginal, rural, racialized and other marginalized students; and

"Whereas Ontario currently provides the lowest per capita funding for post-secondary education in Canada, while many countries fully fund higher education and charge little or no fees for college and university; and

"Whereas public opinion polls show that nearly three quarters of Ontarians think the government's Reaching Higher framework for tuition fee increases of 20% to 36% over four years is unfair;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, support the Canadian Federation of Students' call to immediately drop tuition fees to 2004 levels and petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to introduce a new framework that:

"

(1) Reduces tuition and ancillary fees annually for students.

"

(2) Converts a portion of every student loan into a grant.

"

(3) Increases per student funding above the national average."

I thank the Canadian Federation of Students for this petition. I agree with it and I will sign it.

CHILD CARE

M me France Gélinas: I have a petition from the people of Nickel Belt and Sudbury:

"Whereas the amendment to Bill C-210, known as the kinship bill, has passed to the third party child services review board. This amendment does not extend payment to all grandparents and kin 'who previously' were granted custody of their kinship children;

We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"We, the undersigned, do request the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to extend payments to all grandparents and kin who have been given custody of their kinship children. These payments were not included in the recent amendment and this discriminates against these grandparents as well as these kin children."

I fully support this petition, will affix my name to it and send it with page Andrew.

WAYNE RYCZAK

Mr. Kim Craitor: I'm pleased to introduce this petition on behalf of my riding of Niagara Falls and the riding of St. Catharines. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Wayne Ryczak was sentenced to 30 months plus one day for the murder of Stephanie Beck, we assert that this disposition was too lenient. We believe that, as a victim, Beck was discriminated against because of her engagement in the sex trade as a street-level sex worker. Ryczak was released one day after his sentence, with just 14 months served. Members of this community are shocked and outraged by the inappropriateness of this decision and request intervention of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"As members of this community, we assert that this sentence, 30 months plus one day, is a shameful miscarriage of justice. We ask that this sentence be appealed in the interests of the victim, the victim's family, and public safety."

I'm pleased to sign my signature in support of this petition.

PROTECTION FOR MINERS

M me France Gélinas: I have a petition from the people of North Bay and Mattawa.

"Whereas the current legislation contained in the Ontario health and safety act and regulations for mines and mining plants does not adequately protect the lives of miners, we request revisions to the act;

"Lyle Everett Defoe and the scoop tram he was operating fell 150 feet down an open stope (July 23, 2007). Lyle was 25 years and 15 days old when he was killed at Xstrata Kidd Creek mine site, Timmins.

"Section R-60" of the mining regulations says, "'A shaft, raise or other opening in an underground mine shall be securely fenced, covered or otherwise guarded...' The stope where Lyle was killed was protected by a length of orange plastic snow fence and a rope with a warning sign. These barriers would not have been visible if the bucket of the scoop tram was raised. Lyle's body was recovered from behind the scoop tram."

They ask the Legislative assembly as follows:

"Concrete berms must be mandatory to protect all open stopes and raises;

"All miners and contractors working underground must have working communication devices and personal locators;

"All equipment involved in injuries and fatalities must be recovered and examined unless such recovery would endanger the lives of others; and

"The entire act must be reviewed and amended to better protect underground workers."

I fully support this petition, will affix my name to it and send it to the table with Laura.

HOSPICES

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas hospices on church or hospital property do not pay taxes;

"Whereas hospices are not-for-profit organizations providing emotional, spiritual and bereavement support and respite care to terminally ill individuals and their family members;

"Whereas a residential hospice (usually an eight-to-10-bed home-like facility) provides around-the-clock care to terminally ill individuals and support to their families;

"Whereas hospice services are provided free of charge;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to allow hospices across the province to be exempt from municipal taxes."

I support this and will send it with Faye to the table.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. John O'Toole: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the few times that I get to speak. I'll read a petition. It reads as follows:

"Whereas high gasoline prices are now unaffordable for the average person; and

"Whereas the McGuinty government's tax on a litre of gasoline is 14.7 cents; and

"Whereas the federal government's tax on a litre of gasoline is 10 cents ...;

"Therefore, we the undersigned hereby petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows"—

Mr. Mike Colle: That's not true. Tell the truth.

Mr. John O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, the truth is—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member for Eglinton—Lawrence, please withdraw the comment.

Mr. Mike Colle: I withdraw the comment.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I don't need the assistance from the member for Durham to conduct my job as Speaker, thank you very much.

Mr. John O'Toole: Thank you very much, Speaker. With all the greatest respect, I'll continue. Maybe I should start at the beginning.

"Whereas high gasoline prices are now unaffordable for the average person; and

"Whereas the McGuinty government's tax on a litre of gasoline is 14.7 cents; and

"Whereas the federal government's tax on a litre of gasoline is 10 cents plus the GST;

"Therefore, we the undersigned hereby petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"

(1) That the McGuinty government immediately freeze gas prices for a temporary period until world" oil "prices moderate" and stabilize.

"

(2) That the McGuinty government and the federal government immediately lower or eliminate their tax on gas for a temporary period until world oil prices" and other crises "moderate.

"

(3) That the McGuinty government immediately initiate a royal commission to investigate the predatory gas prices charged by oil companies operating in Ontario."

I'm pleased to sign and endorse this and present it to Chloe.

TUITION

M me France Gélinas: I have a petition from the students from the general assembly of Laurentian University:

"Whereas undergraduate tuition fees in Ontario have increased by 195% since 1990 and are the third-highest in all of the provinces in Canada; and

"Whereas average student debt in Ontario has skyrocketed by 250% in the last 15 years to over $25,000 for four years of study; and

"Whereas international students pay three to four times more for the same education, and domestic students in professional programs such as law or medicine pay as much tuition as $20,000 per year; and

"Whereas 70% of new jobs require post-secondary education, and fees reduce the opportunity for many low- and middle-income families while magnifying barriers for aboriginal, rural, racialized and other marginalized students; and

"Whereas Ontario currently provides the lowest per capita funding for post-secondary education in Canada, while many countries fully fund higher education and charge little or no fees for college and university; and

"Whereas public opinion polls show that nearly three quarters of Ontarians think the government's Reaching Higher framework for tuition fee increases of 20% to 36% over four years is unfair;"

Therefore, they ask the Legislative Assembly to introduce a new framework that would do three things: reduce tuition and ancillary fees annually for students, convert a portion of every student loan into a grant and increase per student funding above the national average.

I fully support this petition, will affix my name to it and send it to the Clerk with Andrew.

CHILD CUSTODY

Mr. Jim Brownell: I have a petition from a number of citizens from my constituency.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the people of Ontario, deserve and have the right to request an amendment to the Children's Law Reform Act to emphasize the importance of children's relationships with their parents and grandparents.

"Whereas subsection 20(2.1) requires parents and others with custody of children to refrain from unreasonably placing obstacles to personal relations between the children and their grandparents; and

"Whereas subsection 24(2) contains a list of matters that a court must consider when determining the best interests of a child. The bill amends that subsection to include a specific reference to the importance of maintaining emotional ties between children and grandparents; and

"Whereas subsection 24(2.1) requires a court that is considering custody of or access to a child to give effect to the principle that a child should have as much contact with each parent and grandparent as is consistent with the best interests of the child; and

"Whereas subsection 24(2.2) requires a court that is considering custody of a child to take into consideration each applicant's willingness to facilitate as much contact between the child and each parent and grandparent as is consistent with the best interests of the child;

"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to amend the Children's Law Reform Act to emphasize the importance of children's relationships with their parents and grandparents."

As I agree with this petition, I shall affix my signature and send it to the clerks table.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Freeze Gas Prices,

"Whereas gasoline prices have increased at alarming rates during the past year; and

"Whereas the high and different gas prices in different areas of Ontario have caused confusion and unfair hardship on hard-working Cambridge families; and

"Whereas the false promises of Premier McGuinty adversely affect the trust between Ontarians and their elected representatives;

"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"

(1) That the McGuinty government immediately freeze gas prices for a temporary period until world oil prices moderate; and

"

(2) That the McGuinty government immediately initiate a royal commission to investigate the predatory gas prices charged by oil companies operating in Ontario."

As I agree with the contents of this petition, I affix my name thereto.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Bob Delaney: I have a petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly that was very kindly sent to me by Dr. Uzma Ahmed, who practises medicine out of the Meadowvale Town Centre medical centre. It has been signed by a number of her patients. It reads as follows:

"Whereas some 20,000 people each year choose to make their home in Mississauga, and a Halton-Peel District Health Council capacity study stated that Credit Valley Hospital should be operating 435 beds by now, and 514 beds by 2016"—and we go to the final part.

"That the ministry of Health and Long-Term Care undertake specific measures to ensure the allocation of capital funds … at Credit Valley Hospital to ensure the ongoing acute care needs of the patients and families served by the hospital are met in a timely and professional manner…."

I'm pleased to sign and support this, and to ask page Adriane to carry it for me.

TOM LONGBOAT

Mr. Mike Colle: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Tom Longboat, a proud son of the Onondaga nation, was one of the most internationally celebrated athletes in Canadian history;

"Whereas Tom Longboat was voted as Canada's number one athlete of the 20th century by Maclean's magazine for his record-breaking marathon and long-distance triumphs against the world's best;

"Whereas Tom Longboat fought for his country in World War I and was wounded twice during his tour of duty;

"Whereas Tom Longboat is a proud symbol of the outstanding achievements and contributions of Canada's aboriginal people;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to recognize June 4 as Tom Longboat Day in Ontario."

I support this petition and will affix my name to it.

CHILD CUSTODY

Mr. Kim Craitor: I'm pleased to introduce this petition, and I want to thank Alex Alexander from Brooklin, Ontario, for providing me with hundreds of petitions on this. It says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the people of Ontario, deserve and have the right to request an amendment to the Children's Law Reform Act to emphasize the importance of children's relationships with their parents and grandparents, as requested in Bill 33.

"Whereas subsection 20(2.1) requires parents and others with custody of children to refrain from unreasonably placing obstacles to personal relations between the children and their grandparents; and

"Whereas subsection 24(2) contains a list of matters that a court must consider when determining the best interests of a child. The bill amends that subsection to include a specific reference to the importance of maintaining emotional ties between children and grandparents; and

"Whereas subsection 24(2.1) requires a court that is considering custody of or access to a child to give effect to the principle that a child should have as much contact with each parent and grandparent as is consistent with the best interests of the child; and

"Whereas subsection 24(2.2) requires a court that is considering custody of a child to take into consideration each applicant's willingness to facilitate as much contact between the child and each parent and grandparent as is consistent with the best interests of the child;

"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to amend the Children's Law Reform Act to emphasize the importance of children's relationships with their parents and grandparents."

I'm pleased to sign my signature in support of this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 114,

An Act respecting Budget measures, interim appropriations and other matters, to amend the Ottawa Congress Centre Act and to enact the Ontario Capital Growth Corporation Act, 2008, when Bill 114 is next called as a government order the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment and at such time the bill shall be ordered referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs; and

That except in the case of a recorded division arising from morning orders of the day, pursuant to standing order 9(c), no deferral of the second reading vote shall be permitted; and

That the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs meet on Thursday, November 6, 2008 from 9 a.m. to 10:25 a.m. for the purpose of public hearings on Bill 114, and on the same day at 2:30 p.m. for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 114; and

That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the clerk of the committee shall be 12 noon on Wednesday, November 5, 2008. On Thursday, November 6, 2008, at no later than 5 p.m. those amendments which have not been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. The committee shall be authorized to meet beyond the normal hour of adjournment until completion of clause-by-clause consideration.

Any division required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 129(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Monday, November 17, 2008. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

That upon receiving the report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading which order may be called on that same day; and

That on the day the order for third reading of the bill is called, one hour shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, apportioned equally among the recognized parties. At the end of this time the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

That the vote on third reading may be deferred pursuant to standing order 28(h); and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to 10 minutes.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Mrs. Dombrowsky has moved government notice of motion number 88. Debate?

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: I'm pleased today to be able to enter into the debate in respect to this particular motion as it relates to Bill 114. It gives me an opportunity to review and reflect, in a very short period of time, on some of the initiatives the government has taken over the past five years in respect to its budgetary strategies. Often, what best reflects on where one might go in the future is a bit of a review of some history as to where we've come from over a relatively short period of time, and it reflects on what our objectives are in the context of a plan for the province of Ontario.

We know that in 2003, when we took office, things were in a different situation than they are now, but we used that particular opportunity, as we moved into 2004, to bring forward into this Legislature a strategy and a budget plan to bring the province back to fiscal health. We set out a plan to clearly eliminate a deficit and bring the budget into balance. At that time, we spoke to the balance being during the first mandate. We did that.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Point of order.

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: We did it in expedited fashion—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Excuse me. There has been a point of order.

Mr. Peter Kormos: On a point of order: I do want to indicate that I, for one, appreciate the Chair becoming a little firmer in terms of the standing orders and the parliamentary rules.

We're debating a time allocation motion. That's the whole thing. We're not debating Bill 114. We should be, but we're not, because it is a time allocation motion. So I say that this speaker shouldn't go in the back door when he can't get in the front door, and he should restrict himself to the time allocation motion and not Bill 114.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): I thank the member for the point and remind members that we should be debating the motion on the floor.

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: Although I appreciate the interjection from the member opposite, it does eat up the clock, unfortunately, in that process.

The time allocation motion clearly speaks to our objectives as it relates to budgetary strategies and the capacity for the province to move forward.

After having dealt with things in 2004, we found ourselves moving on to the year 2005, when we set out a strategy at that point to invest in people in this province, having dealt with the fiscal health of the province earlier to that. The Reaching Higher plan set out opportunities in post-secondary education for college and university students to gain new opportunities as we move forward to meet the job demands of today in a time of some fiscal crisis that we find ourselves in.

As we moved forward into the year 2006, the third full year of our mandate during that period of time, we talked about the need to build opportunity.

Mr. Peter Kormos: On a point of order: If the member wants to explain why the government, pursuant to this motion, is only going to allow one hour and 25 minutes for public presentations, then that would be entirely in order. I welcome him to explain why the government is only going to allow 1 hour and 25 minutes for public participation. However, he's not discussing the motion. It's a lengthy motion. Good grief, a moron could debate for 20 minutes on this. There's—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): I would ask the member from Welland to withdraw that remark.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Withdraw.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Once again, I thank the member for Welland for the point, and remind members to be debating the motion that was put forward by the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: May I suggest that the member opposite certainly will have an opportunity, as the time for this motion is divided equally among the parties, to prove his point during the time he has to speak to it, as opposed to the interjections that he chooses.

We continue to move forward on an economic plan that requires us to debate various bills, including this one, that we will have in committee as early as this coming week.

We understand the importance of fiscal health in the province, we understand the importance to build on the strengths of people in this province and we understand the importance of building opportunities through infrastructure development within the province of Ontario. Recently, in planning on building a stronger Ontario, we committed over $1.5 billion to a jobs-to-skills action plan. We've had lots of debate in here recently, both on Bill 114 as well as on the Premier's motion and opposition day motions, on the need to build on the future of this province.

How better to do that than to invest many millions, if not billions, of dollars in preparing people for the new economy, which we're all faced with.

One of the things we've wanted to achieve recently: We've been dealing with matters in the standing committee on finance, part of which is a strategy whereby we can go out to the people in the province of Ontario because they want the opportunity as well to input on—

Mr. Randy Hillier: On a point of order, Speaker:

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Excuse me for a minute, member for Pickering. Member for—

Mr. Randy Hillier: Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Close. Thank you.

Mr. Randy Hillier: There have been two points of orders raised already. The member opposite from Ajax—Pickering refuses to speak to this motion. It is unacceptable that the speaker opposite is not addressing the subject and is really in contempt of this House when he's talking about some other subject.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): I would ask the member to simply state what the point of order is that he is referring to. Once again, I will remind the members that we are debating a motion that was brought forward by the government on time allocation. This motion does, of course, refer to a certain piece of legislation, but I expect that all members, as they debate this motion, would keep in mind that in fact it is the motion that we're debating. I would expect to hear from all sides a relationship back to the motion that's on the floor.

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: In the very limited amount of time I have left, because some considerable amount has been eaten up on various motions from the side opposite, I'm going to be asking the members of this Legislature for support for the time allocation motion as it relates to Bill 114 so we can move forward as a province on those matters that we've speaking to that we set out in a strategic fashion. Those are matters of creating jobs in this province and improving the competitiveness for tomorrow in this province, and Speaker—

Mr. Peter Kormos: On a point of order—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): The member from Welland on a point of order.

Mr. Peter Kormos: I expect, and I trust that the Chair does too, advocates of this motion to be explaining why they are going to be supporting the motion. I will have no difficulty explaining why I'll be opposing it. That is speaking with all due respect to the matter that's been called. Now, with respect, if the speaker is expanding the scope of debate here, I respect that as well and look forward to the opportunity to utilize that standard.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): I thank the member for the point. As I mentioned, I will be listening very carefully, as is the role of Chair, to make sure that members are coming back to the motion on the floor. We all know that members use all kinds of methods in terms of getting to their point, but I ask members to leave it to the Chair to ensure that the debate is indeed relating to the motion that is on the floor.

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: My final few seconds: This House has been a good teacher in respect to speaking to motions before the House, and the member opposite is one of the best in teaching that particular strategy.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Further debate?

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: I want to indicate to you that I'm speaking in opposition to this motion because we are considering under Bill 114 an omnibus act,

an act which deals with 23 different statutes. I want to refer to some of the groups that might want to make a public presentation as a result of their being included in this act. I also want to express my concern that we are passing this motion today, November 3, and by November 6 everything is going to be done. There's going to be no opportunity for the committee of the Legislature to advertise in the paper, or to advertise at all—even on the parliamentary channel—to call for people to come in front of the committee to make their presentation and put forward their thoughts with regard to this particular bill.

I also point out that this particular motion provides for, I think, an hour and 25 minutes for public hearings on Thursday, November 6. That very afternoon, at 2:30, they're going to have what they call a clause-by-clause session. The clause-by-clause session goes through the particular bill and looks at each section, and people put forward amendments.

You tell me: How on earth can we go through a normal legislative process hearing public hearings in the morning for an hour and 25 minutes, and then expect the opposition parties or the public to come forward with meaningful and thoughtful amendments to the legislation presented by the government on 23 different statutes?

I would like to home in on some of the concerns that some people might have in this province with regard to

schedule W, which is the last act that they deal with in this particular omnibus bill, the Tobacco Tax Act, which is a very lengthy part of the bill; it takes up about half of the bill. It refers, just in that one out of 23 different pieces of legislation, to wholesalers of tobacco, retailers of cigars and retailers of cigarettes. It refers to a whole host of people in our Ontario community. What notice are those people going to have of the hour-and-25-minute hearings that are going to occur this Thursday morning?

What opportunity are the people who are involved with the sale of tobacco going to have with the new seizure powers given to officials under that particular act? For instance, the act allows the seizure of unmarked cigarettes if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person is in possession of more than 200 unmarked cigarettes. Quite frankly, I agree with putting that in the bill, but I do think that people who are involved in this particular business should have the opportunity to come in front of the Legislature and make their case.

As well, they might have a better section—I know this government is all-seeing and all-knowledgeable with regard to everything—but quite frankly, sometimes a smart government listens and takes a better suggestion from the people who are involved in that particular industry.

This act deals with a whole bunch of other things as well. It deals with, for instance, our Ottawa Congress Centre. It changes the name of our Ottawa Congress Centre to something else. It's a minor change. It changes it to the Ottawa Convention Centre Corporation Act. I presume that the board of the Ottawa Congress Centre, as it now is, is in favour of the Congress Centre Act, but I don't know whether they're in favour of it. I believe that if they are not in favour of it, they should have the opportunity to come here to the Legislature and make their case as to whether they might want another name for that particular act.

We could go through,

section by section, act by act and make the case that the Ontario public, the people who are involved with this change of legislation, are being shut out by this closure motion, a closure motion which touches many people across Ontario, many businesses across Ontario, and shows the disdain that this government has for the normal processes that we have in place in this Legislature. Those processes are to be guarded. They are to be guarded by us in opposition. They should be guarded by every member of this Legislature to ensure that people in Ontario, groups that are affected by legislation have the opportunity to participate.

This motion, with its very, very short time frame—the idea that here it is on Monday afternoon and the motion says that by November 6 the bill's going to be finished in committee. And guess what? It's going to come back to this Legislature and they're going to allow—even if we hear something from somebody in that hour and 25 minutes of huge public hearings, even if we hear something from them, the bill is going to be wrapped up in the afternoon.

Presumably the government has fouled up the bill in some way. They've probably already got the amendments in their pocket now. We in the opposition do not have those same kinds of resources to develop that kind of thing. We rely on those groups that would come for public hearings in the morning to say, "Look, Conservatives, NDP, we think the bill should be amended this way or that way." Well, we're going to have all of about three hours to put our amendments together and have them debated in the afternoon. It just shows the disdain that this government has for the process that should be in place.

Reasoned amendments should be able to come forward, and they should be able to accept them and deal with them in a logical and reasonable fashion.

So it is without doubt that I cannot support this particular motion. I think it's poorly put forward, it's poorly timed. Nobody in the public, outside of this debate and those listening to this debate, was aware or would be aware there were going to be any public hearings. I suspect come Thursday morning, when we are going to have these hearings from 9 to 10:25, an hour and 25 minutes, probably nobody will show up because they will have figured it out as well.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Done deal.

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: You know, it's a done deal. This government isn't interested in legislating through the processes that we have here—the participation, the democratic rights of people to come forward and their piece about the legislation and put forward other suggestions. It continues to amaze me about this government. We put forward a motion, for instance, last week to have a committee that had five Liberals, five opposition and a Liberal chairman in place to hear—

Mr. Bob Delaney: On a point of order, Madam Chair: Pursuant to standing order 23(b)(i), my esteemed colleague on the opposite side seems to have strayed from his discussion of the topic of the bill. His discussion was interesting, and he seems to have drifted into a discussion of a motion already dealt with last week.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Thank you for the point. Again, the motion before us is the one that's being debated. I know that the member for Carleton—Mississippi Mills will be getting back to the motion that's on the floor. Thank you.

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: Madam Speaker, I'm using it as an example of the disdain of this government demonstrated in this motion—a disdain for hearing anything from the opposition and trying to retain control of the process from start to finish without any interruption. That's effectively what this motion does, Madam Speaker.

I was saying that the whole idea of the Legislature, and what I think people out there would really like us to do in here, is to sit around after the government has made the proposal, have a reasonable discussion, come to a consensus of some sort with regard to the legislative matters—knowing that the government always has more votes than the combined opposition, but at least listening to some argument about the various pieces of legislation, the sections in those legislations, because notwithstanding the cynicism towards politicians, we all want to make a constructive effort to try to deal with laws and make them more reasonable for our citizens.

That's what the process is supposed to be about. But as I mentioned before, when we tried last week to put forward an evenly structured committee, with the hammer quite frankly in the hands of the Liberal chairman, we didn't see any effort by this government to include opposition members of the Legislature, or frankly backbenchers, in trying to deal with our economic crisis. That's a much larger issue than the issue at hand with regard to Bill 114.

I think I have said my bit. Unfortunately, this is a very, very disturbing move on the part of the government to close this down, with one hour and 25 minutes of public hearings and probably 15 minutes of clause-by-clause—I don't think the opposition will be in a position to come forward with reasoned amendments in the afternoon, three hours after there might have been some meaningful input from the public at large.

I conclude by saying I will not support this under any circumstances. This government is out of control with regard to making their will stronger and stronger. They seek more and more power in this place, and this is bad for all of Ontario, especially when we are in very difficult times. They should be opening up their hearts and their heads to all useful suggestions that are made here. I know they have to govern, but on this particular bill there's not a heck of a lot of urgency; therefore, they could have the time to listen thoughtfully, not only to us but to the public, pay attention and make their legislation better for all Ontarians.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Further debate?

Mr. Peter Kormos: I regret that the grade 5 students at Earl Beatty school had to move on. They are constituents of Michael Prue, who was prepared to take them through this motion exhaustively.

Let's understand why a government brings in this kind of motion. The motion has its roots in what I call the common law of time allocation, and it still exists. One can apply to the Speaker to shut down debate, prevailing upon the Speaker to determine that there has been exhaustive review or consideration of the matter at hand.

Speakers were loath to exercise that power—they were very, very cautious—because exhaustive debate implies a lot of things. It could mean that all the facets have been examined, or it could mean the opportunity for every member of this chamber to address an important and very fundamental issue in the province of Ontario, not for the purpose of being dilatory but because we have a crisis.

Recall October 22, when this bill, Bill 114, received first reading. It was the day of the interim economic report. People were hanging on by their fingernails across the province, expecting to hear some response to the crisis of joblessness, weren't they? We in the opposition were—how does one say it?—cautiously, oh, so cautiously, optimistic that the government would adopt some of the proposals that have been put forth. Lord knows, the government tried to explain to the public that it was reaching out and that it wanted to hear a thorough canvassing of all of the options.

You see, when you debate a bill, the subject matter of that debate is not just what's in the bill; it's what's not in the bill.

So I take this a little personally, because I haven't had a chance to take my place here to address Bill 114 and what it purports to represent. I've got 800 John Deere workers down in Welland who were pink-slipped last month, and I take this personally, because I think those workers and their families have a right to have their interests spoken to. So why does the government move a time allocation motion? There could be a level of urgency. There could be a need to implement the policies promptly. So here, as we debate this motion that warrants the consideration of the contents of 114—urgency, you say? Urgency?

The amendments to the Legal Aid Services Act,

schedule K: Is there anything urgent about those? Is there a time frame in which they have to be enacted or else they lose their impact or significance? Of course not. The amendments to the Ottawa Congress Centre Act,

schedule P: Is there an element of urgency there? It's changing the name from the Ottawa Congress Centre Act to the Ottawa Convention Centre Corporation Act. Please—urgency? I think not. Who would dare suggest there is urgency? Who would dare suggest that there's anything in this legislation that speaks to 800 John Deere workers down in Welland? Who would dare suggest that there's anything in this legislation that speaks to the workers at Abitibi in Thorold, who are all pink-slipped for the month of November? A whole plant, the month of November—gone.

The timing is remarkable, isn't it, at a time when hard-working families are planning on maybe buying the family something special because it's Christmas time, to lose their paycheque for that month. Who would dare suggest that there's anything in the bill that speaks to those workers? Who would dare suggest there's anything in this bill that talks to the total of 1,300 jobs that have been eliminated at Sterling Truck in St. Thomas? Who would dare suggest that, let's say, the amendments to the Electricity Act—because I see the amendment here—that amendment speaks to the GDX Automotive workers in Welland?

Three hundred jobs lost last month. Who would dare suggest that anything in this Bill 114, speaks to the 320 workers at PPG Canada in Mississauga and Owen Sound? Those jobs are gone.

Earlier today I was told that the Premier—our Premier, Mr. McGuinty—seemed somewhat pleased that Ontario had acquired have-not status. Pleased? Is that anything to celebrate? The McGuinty Liberals have dragged the economy to hell in a hand basket, and it's not over yet. Then they try to pretend that they want to hear from members opposite. How do they listen to members opposite when they shut down debate? Public participation in the committee is one of the most important things that happen here at Queen's Park, or in any assembly, for that matter. It really is. You've been involved in it.

You have the folks out there, a whole lot of people who take a whole lot of time preparing very careful submissions in an effort to be of some assistance to a government, and then want their brief 10, 15, 20 minutes before a committee. Well, this government has ensured, with this legislation, that the committee—and you'll recall that it was the Premier who crowed about his finance committee. Mr. Prue will undoubtedly talk about this before these two hours are over.

The Premier is saying, "Well, no, this is the committee where you deal with these things." But what has the Premier done, what has Mr. McGuinty done to 13 million Ontarians and a quarter of a million workers whose jobs have been taken from them? He slams the door in their faces.

This motion doesn't just display contempt for this Parliament; it displays disdain for the working women and men of this province. It displays disdain and disregard for seniors whose modest savings have been all but wiped out over the course of the last few months, after they were told they were doing the right thing by investing in what they were assured were relatively conservative mutual funds by any number of bank managers and financial advisers. This government shows disdain with this motion for young people in this province, who, notwithstanding the best education any generation ever got, don't have jobs to go to.

There was no mistake about the effort on the part of the government to link its ballyhooed economic statement of October 22 and this legislation, Bill 114, was there? Why, the finance minister, Mr. Duncan, was dressed in his finest—he's a fine dresser; far more expensive clothing than I have ever worn. I expect the accompaniments—the cuff links, the Rolex watches, the Mont Blanc pens—are far more expensive than anything I could ever afford. And those Prada shoes—I don't know what they are.

I buy my boots from Elio's, down in Thorold—Canadian made, compared to the sweaters about which our Conservative colleagues blew the whistle on this government, the sweater purchase for Ontario Provincial Police officers.

Interjection: RCMP.

Mr. Peter Kormos: RCMP? The contract was stolen from a Kitchener company and its workers and sent to Mexico.

You see, I take this very personally. I wanted the modest opportunity that the debate around Bill 114 would have given me to talk about these very sorts of things, and the folks down where I come from expected me to have that time.

You heard Mr. Prue and others observe over and over again that there's nothing in Bill 114, nor in the economic statement that preceded it, that even spoke of, never mind to, poverty.

I've got folks down where I come from—and I think every member of this chamber has seen folks in their ridings—who are getting poorer as we speak, losing their jobs: the 500 jobs at Volvo in Goderich or the 2,000 jobs at Progressive plastics or the 400 jobs at Magna's Formet Industries factory in St. Thomas.

The fears—I read in the paper just today, "Ford Sales Down 25%." St. Thomas workers—I know those workers; I've been down there, and I have the greatest regard for the auto workers at the St. Thomas plant. I read just the other weekend in the New York Times that the city of New York is banning black cars, those limo-style cars, because they contribute too much to the carbon footprint in the city itself. I don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know what's going to happen to that Ford Crown Vic/Mercury Marquis assembly line in St. Thomas.

See, there were people here, hard-working members of the chamber—I suspect, in all three parties—who are convinced that Bill 114 was going to give them the chance to speak about those things on behalf of their constituents; who believed—however naive it has become to believe this, to dare believe it—that they could contribute to the committee process by opening the doors to the committee process to their constituents, inviting people to come to Queen's Park, to come to Toronto, make a contribution and talk about Bill 114 and what it does—if they believe it does—or what it doesn't do to improve their lot in life.

An hour and 25 minutes for public hearings? Let's assume there are—help me with this—15 minutes per presentation. That allows five and a half presentations. Let's say there are minutes per presentation. That gives you eight and a half.

People thought they were going to get their say. The Premier says he wants to listen to the opposition and he is prepared to reach out. I'm prepared to say to you, Madam Speaker, that I expected to have the opportunity to point out that in Bill 114 there is not one, not a single one, of the very valid recommendations that the NDP had been, quite frankly, harping on, the kind of recommendations that could help save jobs, protect existing jobs, and, yes, maybe even restore some of the jobs that have been lost.

New Democrats expected to be able to speak to that. New Democrats expected to be able to sit in committee and make amendments to this legislation wherever it was possible so that there might be some consideration in that committee, because that's what the Premier said was supposed to take place. He didn't want to buy the proposal of Mr. Runciman and Mr. Hudak and the Conservatives, a multipartisan or tripartite committee.

The Premier said, "No, it's in the finance committee that you do this stuff." We said, "Okay; fine." We live with the fact that we've got a majority that's prepared to use its brute force to shut down debate and to ram legislation through regardless of the ill effect it has on so many hard-working Ontarian folks.

For the briefest of moments, I believed the Premier when he said that the finance committee was where that stuff was going to take place. I thought Bill 114 was going to be the vehicle. I'm sorry if I was presumptuous.

I apologize if I assumed too much, but I don't think I was alone, because the Premier said, "That's where you discuss these things—in the finance committee." We thought Bill 114 was going to be the vehicle, the medium, the process in which we could discuss those things; maybe about the process wherein we could propose an immediate increase in the Ontario minimum wage to help lift those workers out of poverty; maybe the place where we could talk about a strong, across-the-board, Buy Ontario policy, because, Lord knows, Bill 114 doesn't talk about it, does it?

My, how interesting. I wonder how interesting and how much impact a Buy Ontario policy would have had on John Deere's decision. They manufacture those little four-wheel motorized vehicles, the styl