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

October 7, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-Oct-07 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 7 October 2008 Mardi 7 octobre 2008

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LEGISLATIVE REFORM

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

POVERTY

POVERTY

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

HEALTH PROMOTION

VIOLENT CRIME

TOURISM

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS

CHILD CARE

WINE INDUSTRY

HOSPITAL SERVICES

TANNING SALONS

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

FIREARMS CONTROL

STROKE SURVIVORS

POPE JOHN PAUL II

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COUNTY OF WELLINGTON

SKILLS TRAINING

WHEELABRATOR

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS /

SOUTIENS À L'EMPLOI

YOUTH PROGRAMS

MALLORY FAMILY

FIRE PREVENTION WEEK

INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONTROL

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

INTERNATIONAL PLOWING MATCH

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

APOLOGY ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR

LA PRÉSENTATION D'EXCUSES

TAXATION AMENDMENT ACT

(EQUIPMENT PURCHASED FOR

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES IMPÔTS

(ACHAT D'APPAREILS POUR

LES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES)

MASTER'S COLLEGE

AND SEMINARY ACT, 2008

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

APOLOGY LEGISLATION /

LOI SUR LA PRÉSENTATION D'EXCUSES

APOLOGY LEGISLATION

CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH

APOLOGY LEGISLATION

CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH

APOLOGY LEGISLATION

CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH

DEFERRED VOTES

LEGISLATIVE REFORM

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

WEARING OF RIBBONS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PROVINCIAL ANIMAL

WELFARE ACT, 2008 /

LOI ONTARIENNE DE 2008

SUR LE BIEN-ÊTRE DES ANIMAUX

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

SMALL BUSINESS

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I ask members to join me in the recitation of the Lord's Prayer, followed by the Baha'i prayer.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LEGISLATIVE REFORM

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

Mr. Peter Kormos: On a point of order, Speaker: I made reference to the motion that was passed by the majority of this House, notwithstanding the opposition of the two opposition parties, in particular, the time allocation portion of that motion. It was a motion called for the first time on April 21, as I recall.

It speaks of a "government substantive motion"—and I agree that what we have here is a substantive motion—"to extend or permanently adopt"—and this is a motion to permanently adopt—"the provisional standing orders." It's what I refer to colloquially as a ratification of the provisional standing orders, and that would be fine if it were left at that. However, this isn't a bare motion to merely ratify the provisional standing orders that were passed by the government on May 1, as I recall it. This also includes extensive additions to those provisional orders that were passed on May 1.

The issue here is the one-hour time allocation, and in particular the interesting language of the motion that this House's majority passed on May 1: The "government substantive motion" ... "and any amendments thereto, shall be called for debate.... The debate on such motion shall be limited to one hour...."

Now, this is what's of concern to me: There are two

interpretations, in my respectful submission to you, of that language. One is—and I expect that this is the government's argument—that it's the motion, and that "any amendments thereto" refers to amendments to the standing orders.

I suggest to you that this language is equivocal: "any amendments thereto," I submit to you, could as readily be understood as amendments to the substantive motion. And if that were the case, this motion, which is far more than a ratification motion; which is a motion that goes far beyond merely saying we adopt the provisional orders provided for in the motion that was passed on May 1, I submit then that the language is such that it could equally as readily be interpreted as being "amendments thereto" is restricted to one hour. We don't have amendments to the motion; we have amendments to the standing order.

I say to you that the language permits an

interpretation that it says "amendments to the motion," but there are no amendments to the motion. You can't move amendments until after the motion is moved, and therefore this motion, being far more than a mere ratification motion, is not subject to the one-hour time limit.

I hope I have been clear. And I state further that if there is an equivocal

interpretation, the

interpretation that's most generous is the one that ought to be applicable, and that is the one, of course, that doesn't include the very onerous one-hour time allocation.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd like to thank the honourable member from Welland for his motion. He certainly has raised some points that are worthy of consideration of me as Speaker.

I would like the opportunity to consult with the table on the points that have been raised. I'm going to call a 10-minute recess to have the opportunity to take that under advisement, consult with the table, and respond to the honourable member.

This House is in recess for 10 minutes.

The House recessed from 0907 to 0929.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I need to deal with and reply to the other point of order first, please. Thanks.

I want to thank the member from Welland for his point of order. The relevant part of the motion at issue reads as follows:

"Any government substantive motion to extend or permanently adopt the provisional standing orders, and any amendments thereto, shall be called to debate no later than the third Thursday following the resumption of the House in fall, 2008. The debate on such motion shall be limited to one hour, to be apportioned equally among the recognized parties, at the end of which time the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the motion." I agree with the member from Welland that there are two ways to interpret the motion, depending on how one takes the meaning of the phrase "and any amendments thereto."

On one

interpretation, the one-hour debate is allotted to a motion to either adopt or extend the provisional standing orders. Such a motion would be a substantive government motion, but it would also be fully subject to amendment. Therefore, an amendment from the floor during debate on a motion for extension or adoption which would propose to further amend the provisional standing orders along the lines proposed by the government House leader would be in order. A second

interpretation is that one hour is allotted to debate on a motion to adopt or extend the provisional standing orders and any further amendments to them. This is the

interpretation underlying the form of the motion the government House leader has put before the House.

In my view, it is fortunate for the House that, in effect, either

interpretation essentially takes us to the same place, because neither way of proceeding represents an advantage or disadvantage to any side of the House, and in any event amounts to the same thing in this circumstance, albeit by slightly different procedural means. I find the motion to be in order and to be consistent with the order of the House of May 1, 2008, and with the process it set forth in dealing with our standing orders.

Moreover, a distinct benefit to the House of dealing with all of these amendments as a government notice of motion is that the entire proposal is on the order paper and has been given one day's notice. The alternative would have been for all of the proposed further amendments to be moved spontaneously from the floor during debate. Though this would have been in order, it would not have afforded all members the opportunity to prepare for today's debate.

I thank the member from Welland. The Minister of Government Services on a point of order.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You took the words of my point of order right out of my mouth, so it's now redundant. I thank you for that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Further debate? Move the motion, please.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I move that the standing orders, as amended on May 1, 2008, be further amended as follows and adopted as the permanent standing orders of the House; and

That the permanent standing orders come into force at 12:01 a.m. on the Friday of the week that they are adopted by the House, except standing order 6(

a) which shall come into force at 12:01 a.m. on January 1, 2009. Standing order 6(

a) as it existed immediately prior to the coming into force of the permanent standing orders shall remain in effect until 12:01 a.m. on January 1, 2009.

That the definition of "routine motion" in standing order 2 be amended by striking out "9" in the second line and substituting "6."

That standing order 6(

a) be struck out and the following substituted:

"6(

a) During a Parliament, the House shall meet:

"(

i) from the third Tuesday in February to the first Thursday in June; and

"(ii) from the Monday following Labour Day to the second Thursday in December.

"During these meeting periods, the House shall not meet during the following constituency weeks:

"1. The week prescribed by the regulations made under the Education Act for the school holiday in March;

"2. The week in which Easter Monday falls;

"3. The week in which Victoria Day falls;

"4. The week in which Thanksgiving Day falls;

"5. The week in which Remembrance Day falls, except that if Remembrance Day falls on a Saturday or a Sunday, the House shall instead not meet the week preceding Remembrance Day."

That clauses (

a) and (

b) of standing order 8 be struck out and the following substituted:

"8(

a) the weekly meeting

schedule of the House, when it is in session, shall be"—

Mr. Peter Kormos: "For the House."

Hon. Ted McMeekin: "For the House." I thank the eagle-eyed member opposite for that.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Only one eye working.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: There you go. Better than most of us with two over here. Thank you.

"8.(

a) The weekly meeting

schedule for the House when it is in session shall be:

"(

b) The bells shall be rung for five minutes before the time appointed for the meeting of the House, and at 10:25 a.m. every day, to summon the members, and otherwise at the discretion of the Speaker."

That standing order 8 be amended by adding the following new clauses:

"(c.1) During any morning that the House meets, when the Speaker calls "'orders of the day'" the government House Leader may indicate that no business, or no further business, as the case may be, is to be called that morning, whereupon the Speaker shall without motion immediately recess the House until 10:30 a.m.

"(c.2) No later than 3:15 p.m. on any Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday that the House meets, the government House leader may indicate that no business is to be called during orders of the day on the next day's morning meeting, and in such case the House shall meet at 10:30 a.m. on that next day.

That clause (

d) of standing order 8 be amended by striking out the words "during the week prescribed by the regulations made under the Education Act for the school holiday in March" in the first, second and third lines and substituting "on the day on which there is a general election of members to serve in the Canadian House of Commons".

That standing order 9(

b) be struck out.

That clause (

d) of standing order 9 be amended by striking out the word "routine" in the fourth line.

That clause (

h) of standing order 28 be amended by striking out the word "routine" in the sixth line.

That clause (

a) of standing order 30 be amended by striking out "deferred votes" and substituting "petitions".

That clause (

b) of standing order 30 be amended by striking out "petitions" and substituting "deferred votes".

That clause (

c) of standing order 30 be amended by striking out "and any deferred votes," in the fifth line.

That clause (

c) of standing order 32 be amended by striking out "notwithstanding standing order 46(a)" in the fourth and fifth lines.

That standing order 36 be struck out and the following substituted:

"36. Up to five minutes shall be allotted, immediately preceding 'oral questions' and again immediately upon the resumption of the House in an afternoon meeting, for members to recognize guests."

That clause (

a) of standing order 38 be amended by striking out "4:30 p.m." and "5:00 p.m." in the ninth line and substituting "noon" and "4:00 p.m.", respectively.

That clause (

b) of standing order 38 be amended by striking out "5:45 p.m." in the second line and substituting "6:00 p.m.", and by adding at the end of the clause "or, pursuant to standing order 6(c)(

i) or (ii), to 6:45 p.m., as the case may be."

That clause (

e) of standing order 38 be amended by striking out "5:45" and substituting "6:00".

That clause (

b) of standing order 39 be amended by adding the word "routine" before the word "proceeding" in the second line.

That clause (

c) of standing order 43 be amended by striking out "5:35" in the second line and substituting "5:50".

That clause (

b) of standing order 44 be amended by striking out "5:35" in the fifth line and substituting "5:50".

That standing order 46(

a) be amended by adding the following sentence:

"If at 10:15 a.m. on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday the division bells are ringing for a vote on a motion to adjourn the debate, the Speaker shall interrupt the bell, conduct the division and then immediately recess the House pursuant to standing order 8(a)."

That clause (

b) of standing order 58 be struck out and the following substituted:

"(

b) On the day designated for the presentation of the budget, the Speaker shall recess the House immediately following routine proceedings until 4:00 p.m., except that if routine proceedings have not been completed by 4:00 p.m., the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of the routine proceeding currently occupying the House and immediately call orders of the day."

That the following new standing order be added:

"68.1(

a) private members' public bills may be co-sponsored by up to one member from each of the recognized parties, and by any independent member. It shall be the responsibility of the co-sponsors to select which among them will move the motion for introduction and first reading of the bill. Any of the co-sponsors shall be entitled to move the motions for second or third reading of the bill. The names of the co-sponsors shall be indicated on the introduction copy of the bill and shall thereafter be printed on the face of the bill.

"(

b) Any one of the co-sponsors of such a bill may designate the bill as his or her item of business for private members' public business, and any or all of the co-sponsors may speak during the time allotted by standing order 97(a)(i). The member designating the bill for the purposes of private members' public business shall have charge of the bill in any committee.

"(

c) A co-sponsor may withdraw as a sponsor of the bill at any time by providing written notice to the Clerk of the House. His or her name shall be removed from the bill entry on the orders and notices paper, and shall be removed from the face of the bill at any subsequent reprinting of the bill."

That clause (

e) of standing order 125 be deleted and the following substituted:

"(

e) There shall be not less than three hours of debate in the House on such a bill, to take place at a time or times allotted by agreement of the House leaders of the recognized parties."

That the Clerk of the House be authorized and instructed to print a revised edition of the standing orders of the House, renumbering and making such technical and consequential changes as may be deemed necessary.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Mr. McMeekin has moved government notice of motion number 86. I will now ask for debate. I recognize the Minister of Government Services.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Mr. Speaker, it's clear that I've had my share of time on this already, so I'll be sharing my time with the members for Huron—Bruce and London—Fanshawe.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate?

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: I'm very pleased to rise today, and I will be supporting the recommendations going forward on the reform. I wanted to give a bit more detail for those who are listening to us and the debate that will be coming.

Specifically, there are 10 recommendations. From the Liberal apportionment of the committee, these are the recommendations. We also have dissenting reports from the official opposition as well as the third party, but the majority obviously carried the list of the recommendations. I wanted to lay that out. That's the foundation; that's what we ended with and now are debating in the House.

The first recommendation is that question period be scheduled at 10:30 a.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Certainly from the dissenting reports, there has been a great deal of discussion about question period, the time allocation. I wanted to specifically read into the record comments that were made by Dr. Nelson Wiseman. Dr. Wiseman is a professor at the University of Toronto and has been there since 1980. I feel that his comments were certainly on point. To quote:

"More important than the time of question period is how many question periods are held. On that score I note, according to your debate, that Ontario had more sitting days last year than any other Canadian Legislature. Ontario also devotes more time to question period than other Canadian Legislatures, and there's been no proposal to shorten it." That is not part of the recommendation. That's one quote.

A second quote from the same professor:

"The changes to the standing orders mean reorganized schedules for members and the media. I predict that in coming years, if a government proposes to revert to afternoon question periods or to reschedule the time for private members' bills and to reduce time for their debate or to reinstitute evening sessions, such proposals will be vigorously opposed also as an assault on democracy. The provisional changes in the standing orders, in my opinion, are no such threat."

Another comment—and I've lost my pages here now. But one of the things that I wanted to reinforce was that this is a man who has reviewed over the years—for many, many decades. We have heard from him. It's not just the member speaking; it's also Dr. Wiseman speaking. Those recommendations, I believe, are quite pertinent and it will certainly be interesting to see, in time, if in fact he is correct. I think that he is, and there will be a great deal of protest coming the other way. So that's the first point on question period.

The second recommendation is that deferred votes be scheduled immediately following question period and the petitions be scheduled during routine proceedings. This is certainly something that came up in the discussions. This was to give a point in time for deferred votes. A concern was raised by the media, specifically, so that there was a better understanding from all sides about the schedules, how it would go forward and expectations. By scheduling deferred votes following question period, that speaks to the media's concerns and it also speaks to allowing the members better ability to

schedule their day as well and to get to the votes. The people of Ontario want to know, and that's why the media raised the concern, so that all members would be held accountable—transparency—and so they know when the votes are being held.

The third recommendation is that question period be preceded by a five-minute bell. This is certainly something that the member of the official opposition brought forward and we are bringing that forward as a recommendation. We feel that it's important. It's the same as the second recommendation: It's about giving the members the ability to have full comprehension of their

schedule and for it to flow much easier. By allowing the members the five-minute bell, it gives a point in time for question period to begin. It also gives a point in time when the debate ends and it goes forward. This was also a concern that was raised by the media, so that they knew when question period would begin. So it's a set time.

The fourth recommendation: that the legislative calendar, beginning in February, be adjusted to reflect four weeks on and one week off. So I say to you, Mr. Speaker, since there is no comment on that recommendation in the dissenting reports from either the official opposition or the third party, we can only assume that must be a recommendation that they're very supportive of.

One of the things that we all know as members is such a juggle is our constituency work as well as our legislative responsibilities. This gives us more time in our constituency offices and the ability to go out and meet with our people on a regular basis. We know, from the parliamentary calendar being laid out, when we will be back in our ridings, and it gives us greater flexibility to meet with our constituents. It also addresses the concern raised from our employees within the Legislative Assembly, on their allocation of time and how they deal with the bulk of the work through the Legislative Assembly.

It also gives them the opportunity—and I will use this language—to catch up while we are back doing our work with our constituents. I must say that this is something that certainly has been supported. It also reflects much of how Ottawa works as well. It really has been very well received.

Point number five: that the House commence sitting each Monday morning at 10:30 a.m., followed by 9 a.m. on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday morning. This is one of the things that came up in the hearings from our expert witnesses. There was a concern raised that it was very difficult for the set-up and to get the information and technology ready for that early on Monday morning at 9 o'clock. The recommendation coming forward is reflective of that, so the proceedings will begin at 10:30 on Monday to reflect the ability for the staff to get set up for us.

Recommendation number 6 is that routine proceedings be at 1 p.m. on Monday and Thursday, and 3 p.m. on Tuesday and Wednesday. The Monday and Thursday times are different because caucus and cabinet meet on Tuesday and Wednesday. That's the 3 o'clock time, and the 1 o'clock time is for Monday and Thursday. This gives us the ability to have more debate time in the House, and that's what these standing order reforms do: They give us the ability to have more debate time and to also be respectful of caucus time, as well as cabinet time.

Recommendation number 7: that the House should consider reviewing the use of e-petitions. This is something that the committee was just not prepared to move forward with. They felt that it was important that we give it further consideration. I felt, generally, as a member of that committee, that there was support, but we wanted to ensure that we had the information pertinent for the e-petitions, so that was sent back for further review.

The eighth recommendation is that the introduction of guests occur twice per day, once in the morning and once in the afternoon. The duration of that will be five minutes and the introductions will be done by the members; they will have the ability to introduce their guests. The reason this has come up repeatedly is that if we have a guest in the House, we are so pleased when people take the time to come into the House and to listen to the debate and to be interested in their Legislative Assembly.

So we really do, as members, want to take—it's an honour and a privilege for us to be able to introduce our guests, as I'm going to introduce some guests just right now. They're from the riding of Huron—Bruce. That's all I'm going to say. It's for our young page. Welcome.

The ninth recommendation is that private members' business be conducted on Thursday afternoon, with three private members' bills or resolutions debated each day. In the past, as you know, we had two private members' bills. This gives us the ability to move three private members' bills forward. It changed; in the past, it was in the morning, and this is changing it to the afternoon.

We recognize that there is much more work to do with private members' bills, and we certainly stated that in committee. But the emphasis for the private members' bills coming forward—increasing the number—also gives all of us the ability to bring bills and motions forward that are important to the people of Ontario and important to our constituents within our ridings, and we felt it was important to increase that. But I do want to get on the record that we do recognize that there is much more work to do.

I'm now going to go to the 10th recommendation: that private members' bills can be sponsored by more than one member and by members of different parties. Since these came forward, we also have an independent member, and I would be remiss if I didn't recognize the independent member, who is, of course, my neighbour, Bill Murdoch. I just wanted to say how important it is that we all represent—we all work very hard and we recognize that it's an honour and a privilege to represent the people of Ontario, and what we can do to move that forward, I believe, is very important.

Co-sponsoring bills is one way that we can ensure that the importance of private members' business is reflected by all parties—and often it is. As I say to my constituents, if you want to listen to debate when the members are talking about what their thoughts are and they have a longer period of time to talk, and it's more a debate that we're used to, you come to private members' business.

I can tell you that as a new member, when I first arrived at the House here in 2003, I was very impressed with the level of debate in private members' business, and the ability to co-sponsor bills, I believe, will strengthen and move bills forward faster.

I do not want to take any more time, as the member for London—Fanshawe, I know, is anxious to get up and speak. This is reform that, in my opinion, is certainly overdue. Reflecting how the business is conducted in Ontario, reflecting it in this House, is important. I'm always in favour of more debate time and more private members' business.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate? Member for Nepean—Carleton.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Peter Kormos: On a point of order: She indicated that the other Liberal members are going to share their time. Please, Ms. MacLeod, Mr. Ramal wants the floor.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): No, that's not the way it works on a motion like this. We actually go in rotation, notwithstanding the fact that she indicated who the other government speakers were going to be.

Member for Nepean—Carleton.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to—

Mr. Khalil Ramal: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Government Services mentioned, when he was speaking, that he was going to share the time with the member from Huron and myself.

Mr. Peter Kormos: We agree.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): I say to the member for London—Fanshawe, you will get your chance to speak if you are in the House when the rotation comes around and it's your party's turn.

I recognize the member for Nepean—Carleton.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will get more time on the clock. I've just lost one minute.

I appreciate the comments from my colleague from Huron—Bruce. I'd like to split my time with the member for Kitchener—Waterloo.

The member for Huron—Bruce talked about real reform. This is not real reform—they've not reformed parliamentary democracy—or parliamentary reform at all. In fact, their legacy on parliamentary reform is tinkering with our trillium, tinkering with the Lord's Prayer and now tinkering with our question period. This has nothing to do with making Queen's Park more family-friendly. It has everything to do with penalizing the opposition.

It is the rules in democracy that protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, yet in these specific standing orders changes we have once again seen this Liberal government strong-arm the opposition into changes in our daily routine that will not produce any more debate. In fact, we've seen debate die in this chamber. We've gone to more recesses, as we've done today, and we have not been as effective in this chamber as we could have been.

I'd like to talk a little bit about this Liberal report, because it is worth noting that not only the Conservatives but also the New Democrats provided dissenting opinions on this Liberal family-friendly report.

It suggests, "Before reviewing the standing orders, it is useful to review the chronology of significant events that preceded the 2008 provisional standing order changes." It says, in the first bullet, "On December 11, 2007, the House ordered 'that the House leaders of the recognized parties shall agree to terms, and an all-party panel composed of no more than two members from each recognized party shall be appointed to make recommendations to the Speaker on ways to make working at the Ontario Legislature more family-friendly for'" MPPs.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, I raised this issue five times in this chamber. In fact, not only did I raise it in the chamber but I've written several times to the government House leader asking when those committee hearings or those panel hearings would actually be called. December 11, 2007, and here we are today, in October 2008, and that panel has not yet met, despite an all-party commitment to do so. I rose five times in the Legislature, on December 6 and 13, April 8, 16 and 17. I also wrote to the House leader on January 25 and April 7 requesting that the panel be struck.

The last time I wrote to the government House leader—and I've still not seen a response—was on Monday, July 21. We then began hearings here on the legislative changes, which my colleague will get into in full detail later on. But there was only one thing that we all agreed on in that committee, and that was that we should have a five-minute bell before question period.

I'm very shocked that the Liberals would want to, under the guise of making Queen's Park more family-friendly, take our daily proceedings to what it has become today, which is nothing more than a daily mishmash of chaos, one that breaks routine proceedings, one that breaks debate, one that has seen debate die in the chamber because the government is unwilling to put forward meaningful legislation.

So here we are today. On December 11, 2007, we made a commitment to make this Legislature more family-friendly. Instead of making the Legislature more family-friendly and looking at this institution as a whole in terms of parliamentary democracy, the Liberal government has decided that it would tinker with the rules in this place to make them look better so that they can control what goes on in this chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for this opportunity. I want to let the Liberals know that I will not be supporting their heavy-handedness in this chamber, nor will I ever support it in their committee. I will look forward to listening not only to my colleague from Kitchener—Waterloo but also to my colleague from Welland, who I know will bring so many concerns to the table.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate?

Mr. Peter Kormos: Thank you kindly, Speaker. I regret this day as much as I did back on May 1, and, preceding that, April 21 of this year, when the provisional orders were first called, with the vote on May 1, and now today.

Look, I've been around here a little bit—not as long as Jim Bradley, not as long as Norm Sterling, but I've been around here a little bit. I have had occasion to decry and bemoan the government's rewriting of standing orders, whether it was David Peterson and the Liberals—you recall that, colleagues—and then again the Liberals' best friend, Bob Rae, and his tinkering with the standing orders, and then the Conservatives, the so-called Baird amendments. Majority governments, each and every one of them, huge majorities, disdainful of the opposition, just as this government is.

I don't relish today's motion or today's debate or the inevitable vote, time-allocated. The government used its majority to ensure that there would be but one hour to discuss these permanent changes to the standing orders. I want you to understand that, in an effort to ensure there would still be some room for reflection and—dare I say it?—common sense, knowing full well this government's capacity as a majority government to impose even the most undemocratic measures on this chamber, New Democrats very clearly offered to let these provisional standing orders remain as but provisional standing orders.

Because you know as well as I do that once they become permanent—and that's what this motion is about—there's no turning back, is there? Never will there be any turning back.

There will be subsequent governments, and they won't be Liberal governments, and some of these Liberal members will be sitting in opposition. Some of them will. As sure as God made little apples, some of these Liberal members will be sitting—how many, it's not for me to say. But sure as God made little apples, some of these Liberal members will be sitting in opposition, and then they'll be fretting and moaning about how unfair the standing orders are to the opposition. It's not just a matter of convenience. The opposition role is a very important role in a parliamentary democracy.

You, above all, above any other, understand that. Good government is as much about good opposition as it is anything else, isn't it, Speaker?

The opposition has a very important job to do. One of them is to hold the government's feet to the fire, and one of the tools is question period, and the vehicle to communicate question period out there to the general public is the media. The media—the fourth and fifth estates—are the eyes and the ears of 13 million Ontarians. Don't think for a minute that moving question period now even further down into the morning doesn't have design to it on the part of the Liberal government.

Its purpose is to bury question period as far down on the agenda as possible and, quite frankly, to make this place irrelevant after 11:30. Hell's bells, if you come here on a Wednesday afternoon or a Tuesday afternoon, when you've got those big gaps in the middle of the day, the government's hard-pressed to keep enough people to here maintain quorum, aren't they?

Mr. Michael A. Brown: Look at the crowd you've got.

Mr. Peter Kormos: You know full well what I'm talking about.

This government, Mr. McGuinty and his Liberals, are trivializing Parliament. That causes me great concern. Oh, not so much for myself. Heck, in 20 years' time I'm not going to be here. Make no mistake about it; in 20 years' time, I'm not going to be here. Mr. Hillier may well be here, Billy Murdoch will be here. Hell, Billy Murdoch may be leader of the Conservative Party long before 20 years, let me tell you that. There's more than a modest likelihood of that happening.

But I'm more interested in the crisis this creates for young parliamentarians, for newly elected members. I've been blessed. I've been incredibly fortunate. I tell you, being elected here in 1988, I came here, I suspect, in the best of times and have witnessed the worst of things. I came here when this place was a much more lively forum for legitimate debate and exchange, where the debate was as aggressive as anybody could imagine but where the level of civility was still much higher than it has been ever since—and I suspect Mrs.

Witmer may well agree with me, if she's given the opportunity—when the relevance of the discussion was significant and when question period was truly a vehicle, a means, a process whereby the public had their say.

These are frightening times. We've got an economy that's going to hell in a handbasket real fast. Almost a quarter of a million workers already lost their jobs, and a quarter million to come. And finally, you've got a finance minister who might concede a shortfall in revenues, but you've got global economic leaders who are talking about global depression. Never has Parliament been more important, more relevant, and never has it been more shameful for a government like this government to trivialize, diminish, undermine, gut the role of Parliament.

Over my couple of decades here, I've seen the increasing transfers of power into the Premier's office, and it's not been a pleasant sight, and I've bemoaned each and every turn on the way. But we've never seen more power isolated and restricted to the Premier's office than we've witnessed today. It's not a matter of backbenchers not having any power; it's a matter of cabinet ministers not having any power. It's a matter of unelected people making political decisions about the future of this province, and that's not democracy, is it? That's not democracy.

I found it quite peculiar, but nonetheless revealing, that this morning, when the Premier was confronted by the press, the media, the newspaper and television and radio journalists, one Lee Greenberg, Queen's Park press gallery member, put to the Premier, "Premier, why are you suspending the House for election day? The NDP says you're doing it to free up political staff to get out to vote." Oh, and let's understand that this motion also contains a new holiday for MPPs.

This motion contains yet another holiday for MPPs—not for workers, not for the civil service, not for legislative staff, but a new holiday for MPPs. This motion contains a provision that this provincial Parliament shall not sit on the day on which there is a general election of members to serve in the Canadian House of Commons.

Oh, I hear some heckling from across the way about, "Oh, so we can go home to vote?" You've never heard of advance polls, never heard of going to the district returning office and voting any time you want prior to the election? Working people, the ones who are still fortunate enough to be working, you know, the women and men who start work at 5:30 and 6 in the morning—

Mr. Bruce Crozier: Hyperbole.

Mr. Peter Kormos: "Hyperbole," the member says. Now Hansard has it. Hyperbole? That's how out of touch the Liberals are. The suggestion is that somehow it's not true that working women and men start working at 5:30 or 6 in the morning—out of touch, no contact with reality whatsoever. I think it's downright pathological—it could warrant medical intervention—to be that out of touch with reality, for the Liberal government to suggest that somehow it's hyperbolic—an interesting use of the word, isn't it?—to talk about workers starting work at 5:30 and 6 in the morning.

I don't know about where you come from, Speaker, but where I come from, hard-working women and men, the ones still fortunate enough to have jobs in Dalton McGuinty's Ontario, wake up at 4 and 4:30 so they can get to work by 5:30. And they're out there in the blistery, blustery, cold, bitter winter January and February days, laying brick and pouring concrete and building things. If you're the single mom from Thorold or Port Colborne or Welland or Wainfleet, you're at that hotel in Niagara Falls, cleaning other people's messes as you clean hotel rooms for $10 an hour.

Then you start your second job at 3 in the afternoon at the 7-Eleven, because that's what it takes, again for $9 an hour now, to put food on the table for your kids.

Oh, politicians moan and groan, "Oh, we work so hard. Oh, politicians work so hard." There's nary a blister to be seen in this joint, is there? The most frequent injury is a paper cut or the occasional bruised ego. Work hard? I'll tell you who works hard. People who work hard are like folks down where I come from. They're folks who work and earn far, far less than what MPPs are paid.

This motion creates a holiday, a special holiday, for what the government obviously sees as very special people—MPPs. You don't have to come to work on federal election days. Why, once again, isn't it strange that somehow 107 MPPs can't go to advance polls, that somehow 107 MPPs can't go to the returning office and vote in the perpetual advance poll that's in every returning office across the province?

You see, down where I come from, like most places in Ontario, indeed all of Ontario, on election day, those folks fortunate enough to work are going to go to work in the morning—and it's usually both spouses when you've got a two-spouse family. They're going to come home tired in the evening, in the dark, and they're going to make supper and then they're going to scramble to get to the poll to vote. That's how they do it. But no, that's not good enough for MPPs, is it?

So you see, it's passing strange that when Mr. McGuinty is confronted with this, this morning, by Lee Greenberg, who says, "Premier, why are you suspending the House for election day? The NDP says that you're doing it to free up political staff to get out the vote"—indeed, the NDP did say that; I said that—the Premier replies, "That's an interesting theory." Listen to this, please.

The Premier replies, "That's an interesting theory, but actually there is agreement that the provincial Legislature should not sit on federal election days." Somehow the Premier is so out of touch with reality or so disconnected or in fact has been told that there's agreement—there's no agreement. Horse feathers, absolute horse feathers. The fact that there's no agreement is because New Democrats wouldn't agree to that, because they said, "No, there's important public business to be dealt with." But the reason that New Democrats wouldn't agree is why it's in the motion.

It's absolutely untrue to suggest that there's a precedent, because while there have been a couple of times in the far past when there was agreement in the House not to sit on federal election days, in the most recent federal elections where the House was sitting, the House sat.

So I find it strange that the Premier would somehow think that there's an agreement. Far be it from me to suggest that he's not telling the truth. I wouldn't do that. I will not accuse the Premier of lying about that; I won't. I will not accuse the Premier of lying when he told Lee Greenberg that there's an agreement about not sitting on October 14. Far be from me to accuse the Premier of lying; I simply won't do it.

One Robert Benzie of the Toronto Star then says to the Premier, "But you sat in the last two." Answer from the Premier: "Yeah, but we're going to change that." And can I insert a little editorial here?—"and a whole lot of other things too." Murray Campbell, Globe and Mail, to the Premier: "Why? Agreement among whom?" Answer: "Ah, the ah, the parties."

No agreement—government brute force is using its majority to impose its will when it has no regard for process. I like the Government House leader. I like him. I have a great deal of affection for him. I have a great deal of regard for him, but I have sympathy for him because he's the House leader in name only. The House leader's office doesn't call the shots for the government. Caucus doesn't call the shots. The Premier's office does. It's frustrating as all get-out and more than a little bit embarrassing for the government House leader, and for us. I don't want to speak for Ms.

Witmer, but I think we share his embarrassment from time to time. He's got to go scurrying off to the minions in the Premier's office to check out a particular proposal, whether or not it's going to be agreeable, before he can say or do anything about it.

MPPs give themselves election day off—that's what this motion does. That's what this motion does. Unbelievable. Do you realize how working folks are going to respond to that? Yet another holiday for MPPs in the province of Ontario. Those hard-working MPPs will have hands as soft as babies' bottoms.

Before I exhaust the mere 20 minutes that's available to me, there's a revolutionary initiative on the part of the government to restore announcing of guests to the member himself or herself. Look, far be it from me to oppose that. I suppose it's the highlight of some of the backbenchers' careers, amongst the Liberal benches, to be able to announce somebody from their community. But if that's your only access to Hansard, then by all means, do it.

I, for one, will continue to use the Speaker, and the Speaker has made it clear that he will be available to introduce guests when guests are present here in the chamber. I have no objection to guests being acknowledged; of course they should be. It boggles the mind that it's the highlight of the political careers of Liberal backbenchers to be able to get two lines in Hansard, announcing John and Wanda from Hometown, Ontario. God bless John and Wanda. I'm glad they came to Queen's Park. You're welcome any time.

But down where I come from, folks expect me to be talking about their jobs, their children's education, public health care and public safety. Did I mention New Democrats aren't supporting this motion? Perhaps I should make that very clear; I didn't want to be equivocal at all about our position in this matter. I regret this. I may well have the opportunity, but I'm not the sort of person—ask my colleagues—who says, "I told you so."

Mr. Gilles Bisson: That's right.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Ask my NDP colleagues whether I've ever had occasion to say, "I told you so," to them.

Mr. Paul Miller: Never.

Mr. Peter Kormos: I'm not that kind of person, but I suspect that I may well, if so blessed with the opportunity to be here an election from now, have the opportunity to say to some Liberals, "I told you so." It's a shameful day, a regrettable day, a sad day; it's not a day to be proud of at all. It's not a good day for democracy and not a good day for Ontario's Parliament. Thank you kindly, Speaker, for your patience with me.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate? I recognize the deputy leader of the official opposition.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to join my colleague who spoke earlier on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus regarding the change to the standing orders. As my colleague has already pointed out, we actually were quite shocked at some of the decisions that have been made as far as changes to the standing orders are concerned and, also, the manner in which the standing orders were introduced.

As my colleague the member for Nepean—Carleton has pointed out, there was an agreement that the parties would meet and take a look at how they could make this Legislature more family-friendly for all members of the provincial Parliament. Regrettably, that committee never did meet. There was no prior discussion about making any changes to the standing orders. In fact, the first time that we in the Progressive Conservative caucus became aware of the changes was when the media received a copy of those changes before we did and the calls started coming in and the media were looking for our response.

I would say in that way, I agree with the member for Welland. The government did certainly, in that particular case, demonstrate their disdain for the opposition in the fact that they were going to be imposing standing orders in this House with little opportunity for real debate, real consultation and any attempt at consensus-making. That brings us to today.

We have a report and recommendations before us. I can say to you, despite the fact that there were public hearings and despite the fact that we had little in the way of any expert witness coming forward, there was only one thing that the opposition agreed with the government on, and that is the fact that there's a need for a five-minute bell before the start of question period, which currently is at 10:45, but which is going to be moved to an earlier time.

We do take exception to some of the comments that were made this morning by the member from Huron—Bruce, where she said that it appears that all people agree. The reality is, we don't agree, we do have a dissenting opinion, and we won't be supporting the motion.

I just want to give a few initial thoughts about the report that was submitted by the Liberal government. As I say, the only thing that there was agreement on was the fact that there would be the five minutes.

They refer in the report to expert testimony. We only had one outsider's opinion, and that was Professor Nelson Wiseman. He actually asked us if question period time had been changed, which we thought was quite interesting. The public was not at all involved. There was no unanimous support for what the Liberal government was doing. We had a public that was totally disinterested in this particular issue.

I think the committee and the report should refrain from making comments that would prejudge the opinions of all members of the Legislature. For example, a comment was made that members are generally satisfied with having morning/afternoon meetings instead of afternoon/evening. Well, the members of this House were never polled, and you can't arrive at that type of statement because we never had the opportunity. A statement was made that most members prefer the afternoon time slot for private members' business. Again, members were not polled, and so that statement certainly is not valid.

The other thing about the splitting of routine proceedings: We're very concerned about what's happened in this House, despite the comments made by the member from Huron—Bruce about more debate time in the House. We actually are seeing less debate time in the House because of the splitting of the debate time. In fact, do you know that between May 5 and June 18, because of the new schedule, we actually lost and didn't debate for 34 hours and 12 minutes? This new debate time is not leading to more time spent on actual debate. I think it's important that some of those things get on the record.

I want to just go and deal with some of the other concerns that we have. As I say, there was little attempt to get any consensus. There was little opportunity for us to have any input into these changes. It was obvious that the government, with the introduction of the changes, had their mind made up. I think it was an attempt to somehow give less and less opportunity for the public to have input into these proceedings. We now have question period in the morning. I think most of us would say that in the afternoon, you could roll a cannon through this House because there's not much going on. So there's less opportunity for anybody to get involved.

But you know what? We recognize the need for standing order changes. We indicated, as far back as February 28 of this year, that we wanted to work with the government. We wanted these standing orders to be tested. We were quite amenable; in fact, we presented another model with an afternoon start time for question period at 1 o'clock, which would have allowed for the same number of hours of debate but would have kept routine proceedings together, and would have allowed more opportunity for people to properly prepare for question period. The government ignored that request and bulldozed ahead to where we are today.

We continue to take issue with the fact that question period is in the morning. We believe it is an attempt by the government to avoid public and media scrutiny. In fact, now, at the end of question period, they know that the reporters have to file their stories, and if some of the ministers stay in here long enough, they can actually avoid the press. We saw that happen last week. We, on the other hand, don't have the same resources and staff that the government does, and I can tell you, the morning clips aren't always ready at 8 o'clock.

It makes it pretty tough with limited staff and limited resources to have all the information that you need, particularly now when question period is being moved even earlier to 10:30.

The other thing that's happened, I've noticed, is that we have these awards ceremonies—I know there are a few this month—and the Lieutenant Governor continues to have these in the morning. We used to attend them on behalf of our members, but I can tell you, I've got two this month. I have a responsibility to be here in this House, and so I can't attend those ceremonies with people in my community who are receiving awards. Nobody ever took that into consideration. Maybe we should be rescheduling those ceremonies to the afternoon, when we, as MPPs, could be there to support the people in our communities who are getting awards.

So we believe this new question period time, which is shifting to 10:30, simply provides the government with an opportunity to avoid public and media scrutiny because they know that the media need to file their stories by lunchtime, and the media simply don't have the same opportunity and the same access.

We had representation from the Queen's Park press gallery, and they actually stated, "The new timing of question period and cabinet and caucus meetings has directly led to what the press gallery strongly feels is reduced access to cabinet ministers." So you know what? They acknowledged too that there was less opportunity. They also refer to the fact that they have this noon crunch time.

If you take a look at the

schedule as it exists and as it's going to be changing, you'll see that it's really quite unpredictable. It's inefficient. It's undemocratic. It's erratic. It's centred around question period to the extent where the other routine proceedings just don't seem to matter anymore. That results in a minimized role of the Legislature and its elected non-cabinet officials. We would argue that the way routine proceedings has been split really does impede the smooth operation of the Legislature, and people aren't quite sure what's happening when.

Even the Clerk of the Assembly indicated that we might consider reuniting routine proceedings and having them all within one time period rather than what we do today.

It is that change where we have divided routine proceedings that has led to the large gaps in the

schedule that we have today and this unused debate time which I referred to. Between May 5 and June 18, we lost a total of 34 hours and 12 minutes of debate time because the House adjourned early. Now, given that the House is supposed to sit for 27 hours per week under the provisional standing orders, do you realize that this new debate time didn't give us more debate? We actually lost five complete sitting days, or more than a complete week of sitting time. So for the government to argue that this is more debate time is hogwash. It simply isn't happening.

We should have reunited routine proceedings, which includes oral questions, or question period; it should have been in the afternoon, when more time is available; and we should have made sure that ministers' statements and petitions and everything was back together. The

schedule now allows for less public and media scrutiny.

As far as the introduction of guests, we were quite happy to have the Speaker continue to do the introduction of the guests.

We're happy there is going to be a bell to signal the start of question period, but it's not going to solve the much greater problem of the disjointed proceedings in the House. I think that's one of the big problems with all of this.

I would say to the government that you've created a situation where petitions are now being punted out of prime spot. Again, I think you are displaying your lack of concern for backbenchers. If we take a look at the role that you've given for private members' business, you've now put it on Thursday afternoon, again an example of total disdain and disrespect for the role of the MPPs. You've given it the obvious—you've relegated it to bottom-of-the-barrel status. At that time of day on a Thursday, with no government business left to be debated, there are few people left in this House.

Even though you've added one more slot for a private member's bill, the reality is, unless you change the process, it is never going to see the light of day.

We would like to see us take a look at what happens in other jurisdictions, such as Alberta, where private members' bills can be referred to a policy field committee after first reading or cabinet ministers can transfer them to government business.

You trial-ballooned the House schedule; the member from Huron—Bruce said, "Well, they must have supported it." The reality is, we never saw the revised parliamentary calendar, so we couldn't respond to it.

We were shocked to see this suggestion that we begin accepting online petitions—that was never discussed—and we were surprised that the Premier pre-empted the committee's report when he launched an e-petition on September 22, sending the false signal that online petitions are accepted in Ontario.

We believe that these changes that have been made to the standing orders should have more appropriately been dealt with by the House leaders. We should have made sure that all people had an opportunity for real input. Based on the report that we have here today, it doesn't reflect our concerns and it doesn't reflect the concerns of the third party. It is simply an attempt by the government to avoid the scrutiny of the public, of the media, and the whole hearing process turned into a pointless, patronizing exercise, which didn't benefit the people in the province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate? Seeing no further debate, Mr. McMeekin has moved government notice of motion number 86. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote being requested, pursuant to standing order 9(d), the vote will be held this afternoon during deferred votes.

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): It being very close to 10:45, I would ask the members to stand by, pending the return of the Speaker for question period.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good morning, members. There are some guests we'd like to welcome to Queen's Park today.

On behalf of page Marissa Scott, her mother, Liz Scott; her twin brother, Ethan Scott; her grandfather Frank Golding; and her grandmother Janie Golding, in the members' gallery. Welcome today.

On behalf of the member from Kenora—Rainy River, we'd like to welcome a 29-member delegation of governors, politicians and policy advisors from the Social Democratic Party of Sweden in the west public gallery. Welcome to Queen's Park and the Ontario Legislature today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Minister, yesterday you suggested to the media that your upcoming economic statement will be printed in red ink, and obviously that has generated even more concern among Ontarians about your ability, let alone your willingness, to deal with economic challenges.

Perhaps you could give us some insights in terms of your ability and willingness by giving us an update today on how much progress you've made with respect to the $1 billion included in your budget, where you stressed that to achieve a balanced budget seven months ago you would be looking for $1 billion in savings and efficiencies. Can you give us an update on the progress there?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I think Ontarians can be confident that the government and its five-point plan are managing the challenges in the world economy today as best as can be done. In addition to what the Leader of the Opposition cited in terms of our own internal management opportunities, where we identify savings to be able to invest in things like infrastructure, quality education, quality health care, factors that are important to invest in at a time of economic challenge, we continue to work on a monthly basis through the treasury board and the Management Board of Cabinet.

We will be updating the budget numbers on October 22, and I look forward to an opportunity to debate all of that with the leader and others in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I would suggest an important component of getting through difficult times is having confidence in the people making decisions in dealing with the provincial economy. It's regrettable the minister doesn't want to be more forthcoming with the assembly or the people of this province.

We saw more turmoil in the financial markets yesterday. People are rightfully worried: business owners, factory workers, retirees, people just starting out, young people. They're looking for answers.

Minister, will you at least advise us today of the status of the $800-million rainy-day fund? How much is available today to help us weather this situation?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: What I can say is this government identified the challenges in the Ontario economy more than a year ago. We began significant investments in infrastructure. Just last month, the Premier announced $1.1 billion to assist our municipalities. We identified a year ago, particularly for those families who are faced with the prospect of unemployment, the need for skills training and invested more than $1.5 billion in skills training, and today there are people across the province learning new skills that will help them and their families through this situation.

This government recognized the need for targeted tax relief aimed at manufacturers and foresters as part of a broader solution. Those are the steps that will see Ontario through these challenging times, and we will emerge stronger, better and better equipped to—

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: The question was to address the concerns of Ontarians, and we get two non-answers. Ontarians have to be—at least the few who get to view our proceedings these days—truly disappointed in the minister's responses. Despite what his Premier described this morning as Ontarians' tremendous anxiety about the state of the economy, we only hear innocuous platitudes from the Minister of Finance.

Minister, will you commit today, in recognition of the gravity of the situation, to an earlier presentation of your economic update and that it will include a detailed plan to address revenue shortfalls and ballooning public sector compensation commitments?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Ontarians support the need for investments in infrastructure, which this government is doing. Ontarians recognize the need to invest in the next generation of jobs, the need to attract new technologies, new jobs to this province. Ontarians embrace the need for better skills training so that we can match people to jobs, and Ontarians most of all recognize the challenge in the world economy today.

They recognize and are concerned, obviously, about a range of factors, but what they know is that governments must respond in a balanced and prudent fashion that recognizes that investments in infrastructure, investments in skills training and investments in a range of new technologies are important. Finally, they recognize the need for partnership between governments and others in the—

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

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is also for the Minister of Finance. Experts have been repeatedly saying that the mortgage and credit meltdown in the US would affect financial markets worldwide. Our party has warned you repeatedly, Minister, for over a year of the economic storm clouds gathering over Ontario. Now it's pouring rain, and yet I am shocked to see your reaction in the press yesterday.

If experts saw the warning signs, and we saw the warning signs, as the chief financial officer of Ontario, Minister, how could you have missed them on the horizon? The question is: Are you negligent or just incompetent?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd just ask the member to withdraw the comment, the very final comment that he made, please.

Mr. Peter Shurman: I withdraw the comment, Speaker. Thank you.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I think Ontarians expect us to show some civility as we debate these very challenging issues.

Some three years ago, this government set up Reaching Higher, which has invested billions in education, just what we need at this time, and that member voted against it. Last year, in infrastructure—you could see the projects up and down the 401—another $9.9 billion that's employing Ontarians and dealing with long-term structural challenges. You, sir, voted against every single dollar. We're investing more than a billion and a half in training dollars to help unemployed Ontarians. You, sir, voted against it.

The time is for a serious and civil debate on these important issues—

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

Mr. Peter Shurman: This past June, our leader, John Tory, demanded an emergency debate on the economy and an immediate economic and financial update. We have persisted; you just resisted. You didn't want to cancel your summer vacation plans.

The Premier told Ontarians that this too shall pass. We've been warning you for the last two years that your high-taxing and high-spending policies would leave this province ill-prepared to deal with an economic crisis, and you dismissed it and procrastinated.

Now you change your tune and you say the world is a different place. Well, no kidding. What you are really saying is that you don't have any plan for saving people's jobs, their homes, their savings. In fact you don't have a clue, do you?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In the budgets of 2006, 2007, 2008 and even before, this government identified and enumerated the challenges that faced the economy. What we did was make unprecedented investments in post-secondary education, unprecedented investments in infrastructure, unprecedented investments in attracting new high-technology jobs to this economy, and we have worked diligently to try to build partnerships with our municipal partners, First Nations and, indeed, even the federal government.

The challenges in the world economy are real. The issues resonate with Ontarians. This government has responded time and again to prepare us for this, and I say it's the right plan at this time. Ontario will be better and stronger for it when—

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

Mr. Peter Shurman: The minister talks about investments. Ontarians have seen this movie before. It starred Liberal Premier David Peterson, who recklessly spent this province into a huge deficit. It co-starred the new Liberal Bob Rae, who then spent Ontario through a recession. The idea that the government can spend itself into prosperity did not work then and it won't work now. You say you're looking at previous downturns to indicate the way forward. You've screwed things up over five years.

Will you at least commit to Ontarians that you won't kick them when they're down, that you won't raise their taxes, that you won't introduce any new taxes in your October 22 economic statement?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I want to reassure Ontarians that the kinds of investments we are making are the types of investments that will help them and their families. Our five-point plan, which sees us investing in infrastructure, sees us investing in new jobs and skills training, sees us building partnerships, is the right approach. I can assure them that this government that balanced a $5-billion deficit that was left by that member and his party will continue to act prudently and responsibly, making investments where they are needed, making them in a targeted fashion, responding to the needs and interests of Ontario families right across this province.

The challenge is on this Legislature to respond to those families. We are doing that with a comprehensive approach. We'll continue to maintain that and make adjustments where needed, recognizing that Ontario families are counting on us to lead the way through this challenging time.

POVERTY

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Premier. As the Premier knows, Ontarians and their families are hurting. Tens of thousands of well-paying manufacturing jobs have been lost in recent months. Today's Vital Signs report shows that family poverty rates have risen 10% in Toronto since the year 2000.

At times like these, governments have a choice. They can throw up their arms and say that nothing can be done, or they can show leadership by assisting those who are losing their jobs and falling into poverty.

My question to the Premier: Would the Premier please state clearly, once and for all, that his government will be there for those Ontarians most affected by these difficult economic times and that the October 22 economic statement will contain specific measures detailing this commitment?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm pleased to speak to this issue. Let me start, first of all, generally, by acknowledging what Ontarians are experiencing both in their homes and in their businesses. There's tremendous economic turbulence being felt south of the border, over in Europe, and in the Asian community as well. I think Ontarians understand that we are not entirely immune from what goes on outside our borders.

I think we also need to acknowledge something we did at the beginning of our first mandate. We recognized that the dollar was going up and, unlike previous times, it was going to stay up. We recognized that oil was going to go up and, unlike previous times, it was going to stay up. We recognized that for the very first time the full consequences of globalization would be visited on Ontarians, especially on our businesses. We anticipated that. We took some steps to address that, and in the supplemental I'll speak to those.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Michael Prue: If the Premier recognized all of that, then I hope the Premier has an answer for the second part.

In economic downturns, active government engagement is more important than ever. As economist Mike McCracken wrote in last Saturday's Toronto Star, "The sensible approach in a recession is to stimulate the economy with government spending in areas that help people obtain work."

Will the Premier pledge to Ontarians that his government will make a commitment to these kinds of investments, programs and supports when it issues its October 22 economic statement?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, recognizing as we did the global economic realities when we first formed the government, we took a number of steps and we moved very quickly. I think it was four years ago that we put out our Reaching Higher plan, a massive $6.2-billion investment in post-secondary studies. That means that today we have 100,000 more young people in our colleges and universities. In our last three budgets, we also invested massive amounts in infrastructure. Today, as a result of that, there are over a dozen major projects under way in Ontario, employing over 10,000 workers.

Three years ago, we understood the value of innovation, so we created a brand new Ministry of Research and Innovation. So far, we've invested $1.5 billion in over 1,000 projects to help build the new jobs of the future. Those are steps that we took several years ago.

We have a solid plan in place. We will continue to move forward on that plan.

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

Mr. Michael Prue: I'd like to remind the Premier that my two questions have been about the poor and poverty, and you have yet to say a word about them.

The Premier sometimes speaks as though protecting those at risk of poverty during an economic slowdown is irresponsible and pointless. Even as the ranks of the poor are swelling day by day, the Premier has suggested that the government has to "focus on core priorities," and its poverty reduction strategy seems not to be a priority any longer.

Will the Premier agree that now is not the time to backtrack on government action to support the economically vulnerable, but rather it is the time to invest in Ontarians to ensure that as many people as possible are healthy, productive and fully contributing members to our province?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'll try to speak more specifically to the question. I think one of the things we enjoy here in this House is the opportunity, the responsibility and the privilege to give expression to the values that we share as Ontarians. I think, in the face of an economic downturn, as our revenues shrink, Ontarians expect us to manage carefully, to act responsibly, to be thoughtful and particularly to protect those who experience real challenges as a result of this downturn.

So we will protect those public services that families have to be able to count on and we will find a way, notwithstanding our economic challenges, to move forward in a real and meaningful way to lend greater assistance to people growing up in poverty in the province of Ontario.

POVERTY

Mr. Michael Prue: To continue in this same line, as of July 31 the government had received at least 92 submissions to its poverty consultations. These are detailed submissions from diverse groups that include low-income people who have thought deeply about how best to reduce poverty, their own and others. The government has said that it is taking seriously the recommendations from these groups, some of which could be implemented immediately.

Can the Premier indicate which of the many recommendations of these 92 contained in the submissions will be included in the October 22 economic statement?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I do want to acknowledge the tremendous interest that has been generated by our commitment to reduce poverty in this province. Across the province, people have gathered around their kitchen tables, around boardroom tables and have really started to talk about solutions. They started to talk about what can we do as a community, what can we do as a business community or a faith community, what can we do to improve opportunities for people living in poverty in this province.

They also, of course, have given us some really good advice on what they expect us to do, what they expect the federal government to do. We are moving very quickly towards the release of our poverty reduction strategy. I look forward to the time when we do that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplemental?

Mr. Michael Prue: I think moving quickly would be a commitment to contain something in the October 22 statement. The government may not have had time to read the submissions, but we have. There are several priorities that are shared by many of the organizations. Two of the most commonly mentioned priorities are the need to increase access to affordable housing and the need to increase access to public child care. Today's Vital Signs report shows that housing is becoming less and less affordable; half of all renters in Toronto now pay more than a third of their income in rent.

Could the minister affirm to Ontarians that these are, indeed, important components of a poverty reduction plan and that a significant down payment on affordable housing and children will be introduced on October 22?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I'm going to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to talk about this multi-pronged question.

Hon. Jim Watson: The honourable member does bring up a very valid point. Housing is an important component of the poverty reduction strategy and this has been front and centre at public consultations that I've held in my riding and other members have held in their ridings. That's why we're proud of the fact that we're the government that did sign the affordable housing program agreement with the previous federal government. To date, 6,301 units have been built; 2,063 are under construction; 3,650 are awaiting planning approval; and the remainder, 8,737, are with local service managers.

All of the money has been allocated. It's in the field, and houses are being built. Do we have to do more? Yes, and we encourage the federal government to come to the table and help us with the affordable housing program.

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

Mr. Michael Prue: Back to whichever minister will be handed the ball in the next round: Addressing poverty today reduces costs that governments must bear tomorrow. Investing $1 in child care saves $3 in future social costs. Investing $1 in affordable housing saves $4 in emergency shelter costs or up to $12 in hospitals and prisons. Poverty reduction matters to Ontarians. A recent survey found that it was the fourth most important issue in this federal election.

Will whoever assure Ontarians that the government is not going to go slow on poverty reduction, but will move ahead strongly by committing in the upcoming budget and in the upcoming financial statement to reducing poverty by at least 25% in the next five years, and by making a significant down payment for poverty reduction initiatives?

Hon. Jim Watson: I refer to the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The statistics that the member opposite cites are exactly the reason that we are moving forward on poverty reduction. We acknowledge that we can't afford the levels of poverty that we currently have. We are committed to reducing poverty in this province. The Ontario child benefit, which was introduced in the March 2007 budget, is in the hands of families across the province right now. Many people said, on the poverty reduction consultations, "What we need is more money in our pocket." The Ontario child benefit does exactly that: It puts more money in people's pockets.

On the child care front, I think it's very important to acknowledge the progress that we've made, despite the cuts to our child care funding from the federal government—

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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: My question is for the Premier. Your new Minister of International Trade is travelling in Saudi Arabia, a trip funded by Ontario's taxpayers. There was no press release, no details released. Sound familiar?

What companies went with her, what contracts do they hope to obtain, and what will be the cost to Ontario taxpayers, Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: One of the ways that we've always understood that we need to put more muscle into our economic growth—we've got so many of our eggs in the US export market that we knew we had to expand. So we have opened up a number of international offices, for example. We now have a minister devoted exclusively to pursuing international trade opportunities. Minister Pupatello is in the Middle East. She is visiting the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. She's leading 20 Ontario companies to a networking exhibition in the UAE.

We have heard for a long time about the vitality associated with the UAE, particularly Dubai, as a new financial sector. We know it's time for Ontarians to exploit opportunities in that part of the world, and that's what we're doing.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: It wasn't long ago that the Premier promised Ontario a Fiat auto plant. He went to Italy, only to return empty-handed. It was embarrassing for the Premier and it was also embarrassing for Ontario. Is this trip to Saudi Arabia simply another junket paid for by taxpayers, and can we expect the same results again?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know that, notwithstanding the wording of that question, the honourable member recognizes that it's absolutely essential, in an era of globalization, that we reach out to the rest of the world, that we find new opportunities, that we increase new trade ties, that we find more markets for Ontario innovators and entrepreneurs to sell their products, and that we lure new foreign direct investment into Ontario to secure new investment here and create new job opportunities here. That's exactly the kind of initiative that Ms. Pupatello is pursuing.

We don't necessarily get the answer we're looking for every time, we don't necessarily get the answer we're looking for right away, but I know that Ontarians expect us to work as hard as we can, and we'll continue to pursue these opportunities

HEALTH PROMOTION

M me France Gélinas: My question is for the Minister of Health Promotion. In the gallery today there are 27 visitors from the Swedish Social Democratic Party. They are here to learn about the health status of Ontarians. Sweden has been a leader in developing comprehensive health goals that recognize the social determinants of health. They have set goals to improve economic and social security, to improve working lives and to improve community and social participation, because those are important to keep people healthy.

Does the government recognize and seek to improve the many social and economic conditions that influence health status, and what targets have they set?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister.

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I thank the member opposite for her question. This government is certainly very concerned about the health of Ontarians—and of all the people of Ontario. That is why this government has started this Ministry of Health promotion, which was introduced in 2005, to address the issues of health promotion in terms of keeping people healthy. This government recognizes that when we keep people healthy in Ontario, it will be a tremendous benefit, not just to us as members of communities in Ontario, but also to the health care system in Ontario.

We continue to work with all kinds of programs in this particular ministry that address the issue of health promotion in terms of chronic disease prevention, injury prevention, and the Smoke-Free Ontario Act.

M me France Gélinas: Mr. Speaker, this party certainly welcomes a health promotion ministry, but it's hard to consider it a priority when the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care spends $45 billion and the Ministry of Health $130 million. There is a wide spread here. We can see where the priority is. In 2006, the government pledged to develop a 10-year health strategy, and they held consultations about it, but this process seems to be going nowhere.

Experience in Sweden shows that setting goals for improving working conditions, income security, social equality and the environment pays huge benefits to improving population health. Does the minister agree that there is a need to set measurable targets for health improvement—of health goals, as the Swedish would say—that focus on the social determinants of health? Will the government develop such goals as part of their 10-year health strategy?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I agree with the member opposite that we do need to set targets to determine the health of Ontarians. We certainly have been doing that in the Ministry of Health Promotion. Part of the things that we do in this particular ministry that are aimed again at keeping Ontarians healthy include having 49 new satellite community health centres, which are part of the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and are in our communities to assist our Ontarians in moving forward with keeping healthier. We also have a diabetes prevention strategy; recently our government introduced a $741-million diabetes prevention strategy. We continue to move forward—

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

VIOLENT CRIME

Mrs. Laura Albanese: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. As you are aware, the city of Toronto, including my riding of York South—Weston has experienced a rash of shootings over the past several weeks. One incident in particular has significantly shaken our community. A few weeks ago, an 18-year-old was gunned down while waiting at a bus stop.

Since that horrific accident, I have met with local residents, the business improvement association and 12 division of the Toronto Police Service to get a better grasp of what steps our community could be taking to tackle violent crime in the area. The meeting was attended by actively engaged neighbours, as well as the Spice Isle Association, who work to cultivate good communications between police and the community. I was pleased to see that there was a very active partner at the table, the Eglinton Hill BIA.

All of these partners are working to make sure that the communities engage, talk about crime, and how we can prevent—

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

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I want to thank the member for outlining the question so well and for her incredible advocacy within her own community. Crime of any type deeply affects our community, and that's why we as a government will do everything we can possibly do. That's why we're investing $37 million a year in the Safer Communities—1,000 Officers program, which has translated into 250 new police officers for the Toronto Police Service. That's why we're funding the previous government's community policing program: $68 million is invested each year to ensure that we have 2,000 more police officers on the—

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

Mrs. Laura Albanese: It is so important to have a continued commitment to stopping the spread of violent crime. Increasing the number of police on our streets is a crucial part of reducing crime, and a real connection to the community is needed to achieve tangible results.

In my meeting with the local staff sergeant, we talked about community policing at length. This approach helps to break down the barriers between local residents and the police, leading to greater co-operation and ultimately to more success in keeping our streets safe.

The residents of York South—Weston work directly with both community police liaison committees of officers of 12 division and 31 division on issues of community safety. This interaction develops trust and promotes open dialogue with concerned citizens.

Can the minister please explain to the House what actions this government is taking to further the community policing approach in Ontario?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: That is a very important question. Our government is investing $73 million a year on the guns and gangs strategy. We're also making very significant investments in the Toronto anti-violence intervention strategy, known as TAVIS. We're also investing in the provincial anti-violence intervention strategy, known as PAVIS. But you know what? We have to invest in other programs as well, so we are investing $28 million to create a youth opportunity strategy to help young people faced with challenges achieve success.

This important strategy includes a summer jobs for youth program, developing skills for future careers in policing, youth and policing initiatives and school-based prevention programs.

Listen, this strategy has to encompass all sectors within the province of Ontario. I'm pleased with the efforts—

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

TOURISM

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is for the Premier and it concerns tourism. Our tourism industry is beginning to wonder whether the tourism competitiveness study is really just an $8-million farewell tour for the member from Vaughan. Over the years, Ontario tourism has been studied and studied and studied. In fact, we've counted 21 separate studies and reports in recent years, yet the challenges remain. The tourism competitiveness study could have been done at no incremental cost to the taxpayer and could have been completed in 90 days, in time for last summer's tourism season.

How can the Premier justify such imprudent spending of $8 million of taxpayers' dollars when he is asking Ontarians to tighten their belts?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Tourism.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the competitiveness study, having just been at the opening of the Ontario Tourism Summit which is happening today in Toronto, with over 400 to 500 participants. It is an exciting opportunity for our Ontario tourism marketing partners to gather together and talk about how we can improve tourism for the province.

We've been working closely with our partners for a number of years, and my predecessors Minister Fonseca and Minister Bradley have worked closely with our partners and answered their concerns and their requests for a competitiveness study, which was promised in our platform, which was announced in last year's budget and which is moving forward under the able leadership of Greg Sorbara, who is well respected within the industry. They are delighted with the work he is doing, the travel he has done across the province, his discussions with a variety of stakeholders within the tourism industry and outside as we set the platform and the stage for moving forward with our tourism—

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

Mr. Ted Arnott: If the member for Vaughan is going to be named the tourism czar and if only he can find the solutions to the problems facing tourism, he could have been appointed to a select committee of the Legislature and the study could have been done in 90 days at absolutely no incremental cost to the taxpayer.

The Premier's refusal to answer this question shows that he is oblivious to the concerns of the tourism industry. While people are losing sleep because of their worries about their savings, their homes and their jobs, the government blew $2.3 million on a one-night party at the Windsor casino, possibly the most lavish, expensive and self-indulgent bash in Ontario's history. When many Ontarians couldn't afford holidays this past summer, this government wasted millions on hotel rooms—some ministries up by almost 50%.

Will the minister commit to reining in the government's wasteful spending addictions and will the Premier follow the example set by millions of Ontarians who are having to tighten their belts because of this economic crisis?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I appreciate the opportunity to continue to discuss what we're doing with the tourism industry in partnership. As the member opposite knows, he was invited to attend the summit. I understand his staff is there today and I think he'll be attending tonight or this afternoon—and I hope you will, because I can tell you that through my participation this morning, the 400 people who are there are very excited about the competitiveness study. They're very supportive of this initiative. They're also very supportive of the other expenditures that we've made in the tourism industry to try to support the tourism industry in this difficult time.

Since 2006, we've invested 14.5 million new dollars through our economic stimulation packages to enhance our Ontario festivals. Through our There's No Place Like This campaign, we've encouraged Ontarians to visit Ontario, and we've seen a 5% increase in our domestic tourism this year. We've also seen that campaign expand into the States through an additional investment of $20 million, and we're targeting markets such as Boston—

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

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. In rubber-stamping a major hospital restructuring without hearing the public, the local health integration network for Hamilton has shown that it lacks the process, the analytical skill and the capacity to make good and thoughtful decisions.

Hamilton city council, our Hamilton and District Labour Council, our EMS paramedics, hospital doctors and the community at large are all demanding that the LHIN live up to its mandate and hold proper public hearings. Will the minister side with our community and tell the long-elected LHIN board to start over because the government actually wants a proper process with full community participation and input?

Hon. David Caplan: In fact, it is people in the local community, both at Hamilton Health Sciences and at the local health integration network, who have been able to craft this plan and deliver I think what's going to be better health care for Hamiltonians.

I quote Dr. Robert Issenman, professor at McMaster University. He says: "This plan is a 'win-win' for adults. Saying yes to this plan opens the door to the most modern medical care for the most people, supporting the health and growth of the city." This member should be aware that Hamilton city council has declared their goal is to make Hamilton the best place in the world to raise a child. In fact, these decisions are in keeping with the desire identified by Hamilton city council to do just that.

In fact, I would go further. I have more information for the member about some of the local decisions and the local benefits of the plan, and I would be happy to offer those in the supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I certainly do know what the goals and priorities of my community are because I actually listen to what the community says when big plans are coming forward. Our community is saying very loudly and strongly that they're not happy with the process that the LHIN undertook.

In fact, a board member from the LHIN actually resigned. Stephen Birch quit the LHIN board after the sham job it did of researching and analyzing the Hamilton hospital proposal. He says the LHIN's weakness does not bode well for the future of health care in Hamilton and that the LHIN of Hamilton, Niagara, Haldimand and Brock has actually made a huge mistake.

The Ontario Ombudsman has the authority to investigate LHIN networks, and I have requested that he launch an investigation into the LHIN in our community. Does the minister support having the Ombudsman review this LHIN and its failure to live up to its mandate and insist on community consultation, or is he okay with the failed process that happened with our LHIN in our region?

Hon. David Caplan: Nothing could be further from the truth than what the member suggests. In fact, in today's Hamilton Spectator, under the heading which says, "LHIN Showed Leadership," I'd like to quote the

article from Lee Prokaska for the member opposite: "It's time to let go of parochial concerns and emotional rhetoric and accept that Hamilton Health Sciences' restructuring of its facilities is a good thing, not just for Hamiltonians, but also for those in the broad geographic area served by our city's hospitals.

"The restructuring, which will see a paediatric emergency room at the McMaster site and other specialties focused in other sites, will provide our community with unprecedented specialty strength and facilities capable of attracting world-class medical talent.

"There is no evidence these changes—even the lack of adult ER services at Mac—will be anything but good for everyone in the HHS"—

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

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr. Jeff Leal: My question is for the Minister of Transportation.

I know that both the minister and our government make transportation a high priority, particularly in developing new transportation links in the riding of Peterborough. With the busy schedules that most people living and working in Ontario maintain, getting from point A to B as quickly as possible is vital to their lives. Many residents of Peterborough who travel to Toronto for work and for pleasure are eager to see the completion of the extension of the 407. People travelling to Peterborough or to cottage country from the GTA are looking forward to having the opportunity to use the 407 extension to Highway 115 north as an alternative route.

To the Minister of Transportation: Please provide those interested in the 407 extension with a timeline as to when they can expect this important project to be completed.

Hon. James J. Bradley: That's an excellent question, I must say. Transportation, as he knows, is a priority of this particular government. That is why we are working to complete the 407 east environmental assessment study. In fact, we plan to submit the EA for review and approval in mid-2009, and this project is scheduled for completion as early as 2013.

A preferred route has been selected for a new east-west transportation corridor to extend Highway 407 easterly to Highway 35/115, and two north-south links connecting Highway 401 to the proposed extension of Highway 407, one in west Durham and one in east Durham.

I'm sure the member would be interested to know that we're looking at both a highway and a transitway expansion. This is part of our commitment to getting people out of their personal—

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

Mr. Jeff Leal: A topic that is being widely discussed in Peterborough today is the train. Another transportation issue that has seen a great deal of media coverage in my riding is the possibility of re-established train service to Peterborough. Those who travel back and forth to the GTA on a daily or weekly basis are very interested, as we are, in this initiative. Currently, the only transportation available for commuters is bus service or driving their own vehicles.

With the high cost of gasoline and the need to reduce the number of vehicles on our highways for sound environmental reasons, the possibility of alternative means of travel such as rail service is attractive. Train service would offer commuters an opportunity to travel to the GTA without having the worry of dealing with traffic volumes or weather conditions.

Would the Minister of Transportation provide the residents of Peterborough with an update on this initiative?

Hon. James J. Bradley: First, I'd like to acknowledge the tireless work of the provincial member for Peterborough on transportation issues.

Since 2003, this government has invested more than $72 million in the city of Peterborough for transit, highway, municipal roads and bridges. We recognize the transit needs of the residents of Peterborough. In March we announced, together with the federal government, $195 million in public transit capital trust funding, committing to initiating a joint study of a possible Peterborough commuter rail line, accelerating the extension of the GO rail service from Lakeshore east to Bowmanville, launching GO bus service to Peterborough.

The joint study on the introduction of a passenger rail service to Peterborough will be led by Metrolinx, the regional transit planning authority. The joint federal and provincial study is expected to begin this fall. I—

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

TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS

Mr. Norm Miller: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. The 2009-19 Nipissing Forest forest management plan is currently being developed. The proposed route for moving logs out of the Nipissing Forest is through the village of Restoule, along Hawthorne Drive. Community members are very concerned about the safety of residents. Minister, will you review the proposed route to ensure that the concerns of the community are being considered?

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: I thank the member for the question. Absolutely, we're committed to work with the community. We recognize that there's a balance within the community, ensuring that there's safety in movement of the logs, and at the same time we want to ensure employment within the community and that there is a balance. So we are more than committed to work with the community to find the safest way to move the logs through, recognizing that there are limitations. We've had a number of meetings with the community. We have looked at alternative routes.

I know they recently had another meeting at the beginning of the month with the community. I'm waiting for the results of that discussion. But I can assure the member that we will include safety as a top priority in any final decision and that the community will have input.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Norm Miller: Thank you for that response, Minister. Hawthorne Drive is a narrow road. It's quite steep in some places and includes a one-lane bridge. It goes right through the village of Restoule, very close to homes. Along the proposed route are the Restoule branch of the Canadian Legion and two churches.

Residents of all ages have written to me, they've written to you and they've written to Nipissing Forest Resource Management Inc. to demand that an alternative route be selected. The good news is, there are two possible routes that cross private property and are considered to be feasible alternatives. Minister, will you listen to the concerns of the community and push for the selection of one of the feasible alternative routes?

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: I'd like to reiterate: We are prepared to look at all resolutions. We recognize that the people of Restoule themselves want to have a logging industry and that they just have some concerns around the safety of the delivery of those logs, and we share those concerns. So if we can have a resolution that really addresses all of those issues, then you have my commitment that we will be doing that. That consultation is taking place. It may be an alternative that we look to private land. We will investigate all sources for alternatives for the people of Restoule.

CHILD CARE

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. On June 9, I raised the issue that the ministry is allowing Hamilton OW to cut off grandparents who are raising their grandchildren from temporary care assistance while grandparents in other municipalities continue to receive this assistance. The minister admitted, "Different municipalities have applied different rules, and I thank the member from the NDP for bringing this to my attention. We need to review it. We cannot apply rules in different areas differently." What has this minister done since June 9, when she recognized this problem about applying her ministry's rule differently?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: This is a very good question, and I thank the member for raising that with me. Yes, indeed it was true: Different municipalities would apply different rules. So I've asked—and it was done—the staff from the ministry to give extra training to the member municipalities to make sure that the rules are applied the same all over. This being said, I'm not asking the director of services to not use his or her judgment for special circumstances. The training has been done, and let's hope that the rules will be applied the same way in different municipalities.

Mr. Paul Miller: Minister, I'm not quite sure you answered the question. You're either going to apply the rules or you're not going to apply the rules. Are you going to cut everybody off or are you just going to cut some off? Today will be the second time my staff has met with Hamilton OW on this issue. How many times has this minister or her staff met with the OW management to let them know that they are applying the rules, as she said, "differently"? Minister, the time for studies, reviews and talk is over. Will you direct the Hamilton OW to reinstate temporary care assistance to Hamilton grandparents raising their grandchildren immediately? This is a disgrace.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I think that I was clear, but if someone wants to help me say it in clearer language than I did—I said that what the member raised with me, after investigation, was right, so I've asked staff from my ministry to make sure that they have written rules and that there was extra training to municipal members to make sure that the rules are applied the same all over the province. This being said, I am not asking the director of services in municipalities to not use his or her judgment in special circumstances.

WINE INDUSTRY

Mr. Bruce Crozier: My question is for the Minister of Government Services. According to the Wine Council of Ontario, when an Ontario consumer purchases local Ontario wines, that consumer is contributing $8.48 per litre to the local economy. This is compared to buying a litre of imported wine, which only contributes some 67 cents. In the last fiscal year alone, the Ontario wine industry contributed $529 million to the Ontario economy, a jump of more than 160% over the last decade. Clearly, the industry is having a significant impact on our economy.

Minister, as we face challenging times with our manufacturing sector, the Ontario wine industry is a welcome bright light. Knowing this, what exactly is the government doing to foster the continuing growth of Ontario's wine industry?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I want to thank the member for Essex for his question. He's been a tireless champion of the wineries in his riding and across Ontario. That's why he recently won the wine council award for advocacy.

And he's right: The Ontario grape and wine industry is an important contributor to our economy, and it has grown over the past decade to now support almost 7,000 jobs. Since 2004, the McGuinty government has invested more than $25 million in the grape and wine industry, including funding for marketing and research for Ontario wineries that sell VQA wines to the LCBO. The government has also established a wine secretariat, chaired by the member from St. Catharines. Without a doubt, this government wants to ensure the grape and wine industry continues to be strong and viable in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Bruce Crozier: I want to thank the minister for providing some insight about what we're doing to strengthen Ontario's wine industry. However, along with being a significant player in the economy, Ontario's wine industry also plays a major role in this province's tourism sector. In fact, Ontario's wine regions attract almost a million tourists annually. I know the government implemented a by-the-glass liquor licence in May of this year, allowing Ontario wineries and breweries to sell and serve their wine and beer for consumption in single servings from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m.

However, in order to enhance the tourism experience, wineries asked that the hours be extended beyond the 6 p.m. cut-off, allowing tourists to extend their visit to the wineries.

Can the minister inform the House as to whether you've listened to the concerns of our wineries in their efforts to—

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

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I'm pleased to announce that we have listened. How can you have an advocate like this without listening?

I'm pleased to announce that, effective August 13, 2008, the hours of sale and service under the by-the-glass liquor licence have been extended to 9 p.m. This change was introduced after broad consultation with stakeholders and is designed to further enhance the ability of Ontario wineries and breweries to provide a first-rate tourist experience.

We're committed to that. We're pleased to make this change. We believe the change will help the tourism industry. Again, I want to applaud the member from Essex for his wonderful advocacy on behalf of his wineries.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: My question is for the Premier. Premier, in 2005, your government ordered the region of Halton to grow, and grow they did. Milton is the fastest-growing community in Canada, but your plan was sloppy and somewhat reckless. Halton doesn't have adequate health care facilities. The new Oakville hospital is delayed and the much-needed expansion is not even on the books. The situation is so dire that the chair of Halton region has just tabled a motion to suspend all further development in Halton until your government fulfills its promises. Premier, do you understand the severity of this situation?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. David Caplan: In fact, we are engaged in the largest expansion of hospital capital facilities this province has ever seen—over 100 projects. And I regret to inform you, when this member was on this side of the House, he did not take even a moment's notice or any bit of effort to get them moving along. It was this government, this Premier, this Ministry of Health, working with our colleagues in infrastructure, that have got these projects going.

I'm very proud that we're seeing in Halton region a move toward a new Oakville Trafalgar Memorial Hospital. I'm pleased that we're seeing this expansion right across the province. We are going through further rounds of capital planning. I have said to the member in the past, and I'll say in the future, that we want to get to all of the various sites right across the province—

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

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I want the people of Halton to understand this government's planning process, although "government planning" is an oxymoron, looking at their record.

They have made no less than four announcements in the past about their grand plans for the Halton hospital. They alerted the media, made colourful signs and smiled for the photographers, but when they decided to stall the project, delay it for a year, they made no announcements. They hid from view and they made excuses. Now the municipal government is threatening to stop issuing building permits until you act, until you fulfill your promises.

If Halton completely stops growing, the negative economic impact and social effects will be huge. What immediate action are you going to take to solve this issue for the people of Halton, and when will they get the health care that they deserve?

Hon. David Caplan: In fact, base funding for Halton health sciences has increased by almost 53%, a recognition that we need to be able to provide additional resources. I want to contrast that with this member and the avowed position of him and his party to cut $3 billion out of our health care system. Undoubtedly, that would affect Halton health sciences; undoubtedly, that would see a reduction in patient service that I know that Oakville and Halton residents desperately would not want to see.

I know that I was, along with Kevin Flynn, able to provide the deed to a wonderful site that will house the new Halton health sciences building. I know that we've moved along, through the great work that Infrastructure Ontario has done, to be able to realize these kinds of capital projects. I know that these take time and I know that—

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

TANNING SALONS

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. A Canadian Cancer Society report points to the risk posed by tanning beds and the need for stronger regulation of tanning salons. More than 50,000 Ontario youth use tanning beds, which contribute to skin cancer. Skin cancer is the second most common cancer among young people. The Canadian Cancer Society report found that 60% of Toronto salons did not prevent youth under the age of 16 from using the tanning beds as they are supposed to under Health Canada guidelines.

Will the government heed the cancer society's recommendation to ban the provision of tanning salon services to youth under 18?

Hon. David Caplan: To the Minister of Health Promotion.

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I thank the member opposite for the question. The Ministry of Health Promotion is aware of the concerns about the impact of exposure to ultraviolet radiation in tanning salons and its links to skin cancer.

The regulation of tanning beds falls under the federal Radiation Emitting Devices Act, which is administered by Health Canada. Health Canada guidelines for tanning salon owners, operators and users do not recommend the use of tanning beds for children under the age of 16. They also state that, depending on provincial and territorial regulations, a minor may require written parental consent for using tanning beds.

I believe it's important that we look at this as a very important issue. I certainly believe that parents also have a very important role to play in ensuring that children under the age of 16 do not use tanning beds.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: We don't disagree that the federal government has a role to play, but so does the Ministry of Health Promotion. You could put forward a bill that addresses the need to ban advertising to youth, you could improve staff training at the salon to make sure they are aware of UV damage, you could create a registry of all tanning salons, and you could better monitor the use of those salons by youth, just as examples coming from the other side of the House. It is up to your government to be proactive on those issues.

When does the minister plan to take this public health issue seriously and bring forward a comprehensive plan of action within her mandate to protect the health of the people of Ontario?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: The Ministry of Health Promotion is committed to supporting the importance of public awareness about the use of tanning salons. As well, I would like to recognize my colleague Khalil Ramal, the member from London—Fanshawe, for his leadership on this issue. He introduced a private member's bill, Bill 83, which is currently before a standing committee. We're looking forward to hearing what the committee has to say about the bill.

We are very, very aware of the importance of keeping our children healthy, and we will continue to look at this issue. It's a very important issue to us and to me as the Minister of Health Promotion. We will continue to work to increase public awareness about the use of and the risks associated with tanning beds.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The time for question period has ended.

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Bob Delaney: I have a petition that has been submitted to me by a number of the surgeons at Credit Valley hospital, from signatures collected from among their patients. It reads as follows:

"Whereas wait times for access to surgical procedures in the western GTA area served by the Mississauga Halton LHIN are growing despite the vigorous capital project activity at the hospitals within the Mississauga Halton LHIN boundaries; and

"Whereas 'day surgery' procedures could be performed in an off-site facility, thus greatly increasing the ability of surgeons to perform more procedures, alleviating wait times for patients, and freeing up operating theatre space in hospitals for more complex procedures that may require post-operative intensive care unit support and a longer length of stay in hospital;

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

"That the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care allocate funds in its 2008-09 capital budget to begin planning and construction of an ambulatory surgery centre located in western Mississauga to serve the Mississauga-Halton area and enable greater access to 'day surgery' procedures that comprise about four fifths of all surgical procedures performed."

It's an excellent petition. I'm pleased to sign and support it and to ask page Timothy to carry it for me.

FIREARMS CONTROL

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

"Whereas innocent people are being victimized by the growing number of unlawful firearms in our communities; and

"Whereas police officers, military personnel and lawfully licensed persons are the only people allowed to possess firearms; and

"Whereas a growing number of unlawful firearms are transported, smuggled and found in motor vehicles; and

"Whereas impounding motor vehicles and suspending driver's licences of persons possessing unlawful firearms in motor vehicles would aid the police in their efforts to make our streets safer;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to pass Bill 56, entitled the Unlawful Firearms in Vehicles Act, 2008, into law, so that we can reduce the number of crimes involving firearms in our communities."

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

STROKE SURVIVORS

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

"Whereas there is a complete lack of government-funded outpatient therapy for stroke survivors upon discharge from hospital in the city of Cambridge, Ontario; and

"Whereas, on October 29, 2004, a state-of-the-art government-funded outpatient hospital program, which included therapy programs for stroke survivors discharged from the hospital, was cut by the Cambridge Memorial Hospital due to a lack of provincial funds;

"We, the undersigned stroke survivors, caregivers, family members and friends of stroke survivors in Cambridge, Ontario, draw your attention to the following:

"That the absence of a government-funded outpatient therapy program leaves many stroke survivors who are unable to pay for private therapy with a gap in services. As a result of this lack of therapy, many survivors despair and regress; and

"That therapy is critical to restoring a survivor's ability to function and become rehabilitated and reintegrated in the community, as opposed to being forced to enter a long-term-care facility, thus saving the system money while greatly improving the quality of life for stroke survivors and their families; and

"That the outpatient therapy is relatively inexpensive. A full-time physiotherapist and occupational therapist and half-time speech-language pathologist and social worker required to deliver the service cost less per day than one bed in the hospital;

"Therefore, we request that the Ontario government give priority to restoring a government-funded outpatient therapy program in Cambridge, Ontario, to provide desperately needed rehabilitation for stroke survivors (and others with similar needs) after discharge from hospital."

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

POPE JOHN PAUL II

Mr. Bob Delaney: I'm pleased to accept a petition that's addressed to the Parliament of Ontario from among the parishioners of our Polish church in Mississauga, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the legacy of Pope John Paul II reflects his lifelong commitment to international understanding, peace and the defence of equality and human rights;

"Whereas his legacy has an all-embracing meaning that is particularly relevant to Canada's multi-faith and multicultural traditions;

"Whereas, as one of the great spiritual leaders of contemporary times, Pope John Paul II visited Ontario during his pontificate of more than 25 years and, on his visits, was enthusiastically greeted by Ontario's diverse religious and cultural communities;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to grant speedy passage into law of the private member's bill

An Act to proclaim Pope John Paul II Day."

I'm also pleased to acknowledge the efforts of my colleague from Newmarket—Aurora to support this petition, and ask page Michael to carry it for me.

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

Mr. Mike Colle: I have a petition with hundreds and hundreds of names on it. It's compiled by the good people at Global Pet Foods on Eglinton Avenue in my riding. They signed this petition in support of Bill 50, the Provincial A