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

October 27, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-Oct-27 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 27 October 2008 Lundi 27 octobre 2008

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

VIOLENT CRIME

VIOLENT CRIME

SKILLS TRAINING

POVERTY

SMALL BUSINESS

YOUTH CRIME

SKILLS TRAINING

ONTARIO ECONOMY

PROPERTY TAXATION

PROPERTY TAXATION

SMALL BUSINESS

MANUFACTURING JOBS

SMALL BUSINESS

SMALL BUSINESS

PROPANE EXPLOSION

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

LEFTY THE GOOSE

CHILD CARE

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

GO TRANSIT

UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

PREMIER'S AWARDS

FOR TEACHING EXCELLENCE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(CHILD PASSENGERS

ON MOTORCYCLES), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(ENFANTS PASSAGERS

SUR DES MOTOCYCLETTES)

PETITIONS

EMERGENCY DISPATCH SERVICES

HOSPICES

FERTILITY TREATMENT

LOGGING ROUTE

CHILD CUSTODY

WORKPLACE HARASSMENT

HOSPITAL FUNDING

FIREARMS CONTROL

HOSPITAL FUNDING

LUPUS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

POPE JOHN PAUL II

OPPOSITION DAY MOTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET MEASURES AND INTERIM

APPROPRIATION ACT, 2008 (NO. 2) /

LOI DE 2008 SUR

LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES

ET L'AFFECTATION ANTICIPÉE

DE CRÉDITS (NO 2)

The House met at 1030.

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

Prayers.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast: Today is the University of Waterloo Deans' Day at Queen's Park, so it's my privilege to welcome in the east gallery this morning representatives from the university. We have Dr. David Johnston, the president and vice-chancellor of the University of Waterloo. We have two–

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: A few more on the list.

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast: That's right, there's a few more to go.

We have two vice-presidents: Amrit Chakma and Meg Beckel. We have a plethora of deans this morning: Ken Coates, Thomas Coleman, Roger Mannell, Adel Sedra, Deep Saini, Terry McMahon. And with us also this morning from the university we have Ross McGregor, Bob Truman, Wanda Richardson and John Stevens.

Please help me in welcoming the University of Waterloo this morning.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the member from Durham, and on behalf of page Kevin Turner, welcome his mother, Denise, and his brother Joshua. They are in the west members' gallery this morning. Welcome.

ORAL QUESTIONS

VIOLENT CRIME

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is to the Attorney General. Over the last two weeks we've seen an alarming number of shootings and homicides that have Ontarians seriously worried about their personal safety in their homes and when they're out in public.

This past weekend a 23-year-old girl from my hometown of Brockville, Bailey Zaveda, was shot and killed. She was a completely innocent bystander in the wrong place at the wrong time. According to police, the alleged shooter has a very extensive criminal record and is a very violent person. We know he had been previously charged in a 2005 shooting.

Attorney General, can you explain the circumstances under which this man, the alleged killer, was on the street?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Of course, all of our sympathies go out to the families affected by this and the communities affected by these terrible tragedies.

I won't speak to the specifics of the case because, as the honourable member knows, I won't interfere with a police investigation. Interfering with a police investigation would do injustice to the very goal that my friend and I share, which is ensuring community safety.

We've taken a very strong stand that's very tough on crime, as a government. We've provided for more police, and we're working with Police Chief Blair, Ian Davidson, who's head of the chiefs of police, and all local chiefs to find the right approach, the best possible approach, for utilizing those officers on the ground. We've made further investments through our guns and gangs task force, and we will continue to make sure that we take the toughest possible approach for the serious and dangerous people who on our —

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: People, I suspect, are sick and tired of that kind of response, getting up and justifying the failings of the justice system. Innocent people, innocent bystanders, are losing their lives, people are invading their homes, because the justice system made decisions that put these people back onto the streets to endanger lives. That's what you're standing up here on a daily basis defending, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

If you really care about public safety, you're going to stand up, allow the debate to occur tomorrow, which you're trying to block, and let us get an insight into what's going on in the system, why it's failing all of us, and do something about it. Will you stand up and give us a straight answer today?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I don't believe that the thousand extra police officers we have put on the street are nothing. I don't believe the 329 new police officers that were announced last Thursday are nothing. I don't believe the $68 million into the guns and gangs task force is nothing.

But my honourable friend should know that the Criminal Code is federal jurisdiction. It's time he picked up the phone and called his friend Harper. When we called for tougher bail laws, he scoffed. When we called for Harper to put in the Nunn commission recommendations on young offenders, he scoffed. He questioned about Harper's crime policy which had nothing about bail. It's time he picked up the phone and recognized federal jurisdiction. Call your chum and do something about it.

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My God, what an alarming abdication of responsibility. Two weeks ago, with the murders of two women in the sanctity of their home—that's a situation where the alleged killer is someone who Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair says never should have been released from jail after he'd been charged with two violent sex assaults. He said the murders could have been and should have been prevented. You know who failed to appeal that bail decision? Your crown. You know who failed to ask for electronic monitoring? Your crown.

Minister, you are responsible for the crown law office in this government. You are the one responsible for the failings of the justice system, the administration of the system, in the province. When are you going to pull back the curtain, let the people know what's going on, and correct the problems?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: There are many things that I would like to say, but I cannot say things that might jeopardize an ongoing prosecution because jeopardizing that would put at risk the very public safety that we are here to protect. We're doing everything within our power to be as tough as possible on the dangerous and the violent.

It is not ours alone. We need the federal government to step up and do what they can. We're glad they brought in tougher bail laws, when we asked, for those who have serious gun crime charges. We're glad they brought in mandatory minimums for serious gun crimes. We're not happy that they did not change the young offender legislation to deal with out-of-control youth. We're not happy they didn't change the two-for-one credit provisions. We're not happy that my honourable friend is not—

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

VIOLENT CRIME

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: We've had so many violent deaths in the past couple of weeks—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): To whom?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Sorry, to the Attorney General: We have families concerned, people worried about walking on the streets. We're talking to people this morning who are worried about going into downtown Toronto, walking the streets, in the evenings because of the deaths that we've seen over the past few months.

I ask the Attorney General, instead of the rhetoric we hear in here on a regular basis blaming the federal government—he has a range of tools; he's responsible for the administration of justice in this province—to stand up today and explain why his crowns failed to appeal the bail release decision and why they failed to request electronic monitoring in terms of the death of those two women.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: The honourable member must know that I am not in a position to comment on the case, but he insists on trying to elicit comments that, if made by me, might endanger the very community safety we are trying to protect. When decisions are made in the justice system, they are made according to the rules that exist. The rules for bail hearing are found in the Criminal Code and in the charter, and the federal government is in charge of the Criminal Code. My honourable friend should know that.

It is time for an end to the rhetoric, I tell my friend. It is time we recognize that there is a partnership. It is time that we recognize that although this government can fund more police officers, as we have—another 329 last Thursday—and we can put in the guns and gangs task force, we can't change the bail rules unless the federal government is onside. It's time for the federal government to come to the table, and we look forward—

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: People viewing this proceeding should not only be alarmed, but they have to just wonder: "Whose side is this guy on? Who is he protecting? Is he protecting the great public in Ontario or is he protecting bureaucrats in a system that's failing public safety in Ontario?"

That's really what's happening here on a regular, consistent basis with this government. I'm not sure what he's afraid of. Pull back the curtains. The system is failing Ontarians on a regular basis. People are dying; innocent people are dying in the sanctity of their own homes. Will you stand up and say you're going to do something about it, and not fight our debate tomorrow, not try to close off debate, and give the people of Ontario and the people of this assembly, who represent Ontarians, an opportunity to take a good look—an inside look at what's happening—at the failings of the system and work together to correct it?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: The debate issues are in the Speaker's hands, not mine. When we moved for reverse onus bail for serious gun crimes, I don't remember the support of the honourable member. When we moved for mandatory minimums for serious gun crimes, I don't remember the support of the honourable member. When we moved to get the federal government to toughen the bail laws for young offenders, the member opposite was nowhere to be seen. When we heard the Prime Minister's proposals for federal crime legislation, and I raised toughening bail laws, the honourable member scoffed. He only wanted to talk about the Prime Minister's proposal.

I say to the honourable member, it's fine just to chase the headline, but when you do, you will always be behind, sir. We want your assistance in toughening the laws that protect our communities—assistance rather than rhetoric from you—

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I've had a 15- or 20-year history of fighting for victims of crime, and if this minister wants to attack my personal integrity and wants to attack my motivation, that is not going to stand up to any kind of scrutiny at all. We're asking legitimate questions; the public are asking legitimate questions. We have real victims of crime because of failings of a system that you are responsible for, Attorney General, your crown law office making decisions that impact the public safety of every one of us—every one of us, and we've seen lives lost as a result of the failings.

We are asking you to do something about it. Stop defending a system that's failing the people of Ontario. When will you start doing that?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: When we propose to do something, the honourable member is not there. When we propose to toughen the bail legislation, we can't count on his support. We do need your support. When we propose to end the two-for-one remission credit, I don't hear the honourable member's support. When we propose to ask the Harper government to toughen the laws to protect Ontarians, with which they have control, I don't see the honourable member's support.

So what I say to him is, when we invest in extra police officers, when we invest in guns and gangs task forces, when we work with the police, we do need the honourable member's support and his party's support to get the federal government to toughen and change the rules with which we all must comply, which deal with the dangerous and serious offenders. When will you stand up for the people of our communities and join with us and ask Harper to change the rules?

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is for the Acting Premier. Seven months ago, the McGuinty government commenced its so-called Second Career program amidst television ads, radio ads and newspaper ads. The McGuinty government couldn't congratulate itself enough about the so-called Second Career program. Now, seven months later, while 230,000 Ontarians have been laid off from their jobs, only 1,100 of those workers have enrolled in the much-ballyhooed Second Career program. That's less than one half of one per cent of the workers who have lost their jobs.

Will the McGuinty government now admit that its much-boasted-about Second Career program has been a dismal and total flop?

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

Hon. John Milloy: I'm sure the honourable member would never want to leave the impression that Second Career is the only program that's available to laid-off workers in the province of Ontario. Through Employment Ontario, 900,000 Ontarians every year have access to support in everything from job search through to training, both long-term and short-term. In terms of short-term training, over the last year we've had about 13,000 people come forward.

As the honourable member is aware, as part of the budget, we announced that we would be coming forward with a longer-term training program, which went into effect in June, with advertising in July. Since then, we've seen in the most recent statistics about 1,300 people come forward and a lot of very-good-news stories. At the time of introducing it, we made a commitment that we would continue to monitor the program, and if we found that there—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: This is so typical of the McGuinty government. You ask them about their much-boasted-about Second Career program, and they try to talk about everything else but.

But there is a real tragedy here: 230,000 workers who have lost their jobs, lost their livelihoods, many of them losing their homes, many of them losing their families, and the McGuinty government's sole response was the so-called Second Career. You couldn't spend enough money on the television advertising; you couldn't spend enough money on the radio advertising. I'm sure some of you have arthritis in your shoulders from slapping yourselves on the back so many times. But 1,100 workers: That's all who signed up. Do you know why? Because there aren't any jobs. You can talk about retraining all you want; there are fewer jobs this week than there were last week.

When is the McGuinty government going to get it through its thick head that the issue is jobs? You can talk retraining all you want; people want jobs.

Hon. John Milloy: I'm very happy to talk about the 13,000 people who have come forward for short-term training over the last year, I'm very happy to talk about the 1,300 who have come for longer-term training over the last couple of months, and I'm also very happy to talk about the individuals themselves.

Let me tell the honourable member about Second Career. Let me tell him about William, a father of four who was a finishing operator at Shorewood Packaging for 22 years. Through Second Career, he is attending St. Lawrence College to become a child and youth worker. Let me tell you about Sherry Marsh, who was laid off as a sales person from a local furniture store. Second Career is helping her to pursue studies at Georgian College as a registered practical nurse.

Sherry said, "Second Career is allowing me to pursue not just another job, but a job in a stable, secure field where workers get a pension and benefits." Let me tell the honourable member about Robert Gissing, who was laid off from various tech companies—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: You know, anywhere else in the world, if a program had a sign-up rate of less than one half of one per cent, people would say, "There's a problem here." I know if my son came home from school and said, "I got less than one half of one per cent in a test," he would say, "I've got a problem, Dad." But the McGuinty government insists on continuing this fraud, continues to insist that the answer to hundreds of thousands of workers losing their job is a Second Career program that half the workers laid off can't get into.

Most of those who lost their job lost it before Second Career was announced, and many who have tried to get into it find that they don't meet the exemption, the exception and the exclusion clauses that are part of it.

When is the McGuinty government going to level with laid-off workers? Your Second Career program may have involved lots of advertising, but it's a flop in terms of—

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

Hon. John Milloy: The honourable member knows he is wrong. He is wrong when he stands up and singles out one program of a series of programs and says that that is our only response to laid-off workers. Through Employment Ontario, 900,000 workers every year are receiving support. Of those, in the past year, 13,000 have come forward for short-term training.

Our government acknowledged that there was a problem—that we had no long-term training programs available—and over the course of the summer, we brought forward Second Career. At the time of launching Second Career, I made a commitment that we would continue to monitor the program and that, if we found there were obstacles, we would remove those obstacles. On Friday, I stood up and outlined a series of changes to the Second Career program that will make it more accessible so that we can have more Ontarians showing the good-news stories that I just shared with the Legislature.

POVERTY

Mr. Howard Hampton: To the Acting Premier—and it's nice to know that the McGuinty government feels good about a Second Career program that has less than one half of 1% of laid-off workers signing up. But I want to ask about poverty. The Premier says that Ontarians understand that poverty can wait. I have news for the Premier. An Environics poll released today shows that more than 80% of Ontarians agree that government action on poverty is needed now and it's needed now more than ever. When will the McGuinty government listen and take action against poverty instead of telling impoverished people to wait, wait, wait?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the contrary: The honourable member wants to insist on what he thinks he heard, but it's not what was said and it's not reflective of the actions that are being taken. As the Premier had the opportunity to say in the Legislature last week, we are on track to deliver the poverty strategy, which has been the subject of what I might argue is an unprecedented amount of effort on behalf of a lot of the senior leadership in our government.

Even in these times, which recognize that there are challenges in the economy, we're committed to working in a way that sets real targets for the measurable improvement in the reduction of poverty in our society. The honourable member can claim as many times as he wants that this is not true, but these are the actions that we're taking. That strategy will be delivered in December, as was promised.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: The McGuinty government keeps talking about its long-term plan to reduce poverty. Last week, the McGuinty government released its fall economic statement, where it had an opportunity to take action. According to Environics, 90% of Ontarians want more affordable housing. Was there any action on affordable housing? No. Eighty-seven per cent want an above-poverty minimum wage. Any action on that? No. Eighty-five per cent want more low-cost, affordable child care. Any action on that? No. Seventy-seven per cent want increases to social assistance benefits. Any action on that? No.

When is the McGuinty government going to stop talking about poverty and actually start doing something about poverty?

Hon. George Smitherman: The honourable member wants to operate in an environment that pretends that the people of the province of Ontario aren't aware that each and every year there has been an increase in the minimum wage. The people of the province of Ontario, unlike the honourable member, don't pretend that there haven't been increases in social assistance. The people of the province of Ontario are very aware that the honourable member's own party makes great comments in question period, but when it comes to voting, doesn't stand up and support the development of programs like those that are targeted at children—the Ontario child benefit.

The people of the province of Ontario know that our government committed to bringing forward a poverty strategy. That is on track to be announced in December and will reflect our ongoing commitment to the targeted reduction of poverty in the province of Ontario.

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: Once again, the McGuinty government talks about something that might happen in the future. Yes, the child benefit might do something in 2012. All the McGuinty government has done this year is take away the back-to-school clothing allowance from the poorest kids in the province, and you're taking away the winter clothing allowance from the poorest kids in the province.

Minister, you'd be wise to recall something that happened in the last really terrible economic downturn—the Great Depression. Harry Hopkins, one of the people who had to deal with it in the United States, said, "People don't eat in the long run. They eat every day." What is your plan to take on poverty now, as it grows worse, instead of talking about, "In the long run, the McGuinty government might do something"? What's the action plan now?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the contrary, even John Campey, executive director of the Community Social Planning Council of Toronto, said in March that it's reassuring to see that the government has responded to the calls for poverty reduction with some concrete initiatives. The focus on more employment training for Ontarians who are coping with the changing environment and more ESL funding and training for newcomers is recognition that a good job is one of the pathways out of poverty.

I heard the honourable member from Hamilton say in response to the name John Campey, "Well, he's a Liberal." The honourable member ought to get real on knowing whose voice is behind these issues. We're coming forward for the first time with a plan that has the opportunity for targeted reduction in poverty, but it supports initiatives that have been taken: Ontario child benefit; minimum wage increases; social housing assistance increases; $100 million to affordable housing; a new dental program; student nutrition program funding doubled—all of these practical initiatives to help people—

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

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr. Norm Miller: I have a question for the Minister of Small Business and Consumer Services. On Thursday, I urged you to speak with your counterpart the Minister of Labour to represent the concerns of some 25,000 small businesses that have presented letters on the mandatory WSIB policy your government is poised to introduce. This would be a new cost for small business—some $11,000 on average.

My question is simple: Did you discuss the issue with Minister Fonseca, and if so, what was the result of that conversation?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: To the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: What I can tell the member opposite is that I did meet with the CFIB and we had a wholesome discussion on this proposed legislation, if passed, how it would work and the phases it would go through.

We're trying to address a level playing field in construction. Right now it's not a level playing field. There are some who come on to construction sites that are not paying their fair share, not paying their premiums of insurance. We want to make sure that all those working on those construction sites are covered. We want to make sure that those workers, if they do get injured or hurt, are covered and they have benefits in place to take care of themselves.

I hope that the member can understand that and would come aboard to this good policy. This is an initiative that was backed by the Ontario construction industry, the secretariat, the WSIB. We have met with the Council of Ontario Construction Associations. They understand—

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

Mr. Norm Miller: I'm asking the Minister of Small Business: Is he representing the interests of small business? I think you fail to realize just how serious this is for small business.

On the weekend, I attended a 65th wedding anniversary, an event where you don't usually get into too much politics. And what was the topic of discussion? Your mandatory coverage of WSIB.

This morning, before I got in—here is an e-mail I just received, and I'd like to quote from it: "It is difficult enough to keep the bottom line in the black, without the pending changes. Our rate is in the 10% range, which applied to what I take as a salary will be the best part of $10,000. Removing that much from the bottom line would make me rethink the viability of these businesses." These business owners don't want your mandatory coverage, and frankly, they think it's just another money grab, another tax on small business.

Minister, last week I asked you if part of your mandate is to help small business. You said, "Absolutely." Well, why aren't you helping small business now?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Once again, I would say to this member that I cannot understand how he does not find that the importance of the health and safety of those workers on the construction site is paramount to all of this.

I want to just read him a quote. Doug Chalmers, director of Aluma Systems and past chair of the Sarnia Construction Association, said: "Congratulations; absolutely brilliant. This will make Ontario a safer workplace and improve the quality of life for all of us. This is about fairness, it's about health and safety, it's about levelling the playing field, it's about addressing the underground economic activity in construction."

I would hope that the member would get on board and get with it.

YOUTH CRIME

Ms. Andrea Horwath: To the Acting Premier: Well over a year ago, the government asked Ontario's former Chief Justice Roy McMurtry and former Speaker Alvin Curling to prepare a report on how to address youth violence. Meanwhile, we see kids killing kids and stories of street violence hitting the headlines almost every day.

Mounting public concern is everywhere. Where is that report?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Attorney General.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I thank the member for the question. We're all looking forward to the report. We're all looking forward to the public release and discussion of the report. I want to thank, in advance, former Chief Justice McMurtry and former Speaker Alvin Curling for undertaking this task.

It's something that we all believe is extremely important for the future of our communities. We have taken steps as a government to invest in our communities, to make sure young people have opportunities to keep them out of violent activity and gang activity to begin with. An approach this government has taken which is extremely important is to recognize that prevention is the best crime control approach. We're very much looking forward to the release of that report.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I would think many people are looking forward to the report. It's been over a year since they were commissioned to do the work.

We know that there are many, many government reports, however, that have been commissioned and they only sit on shelves, gathering dust. So today, will the Acting Premier pledge that recommendations that will come in this report will be implemented and that government is committed to providing the resources? Or is this another report that's destined to languish without funding and support while the roots of youth violence continue to spread unabated by your lack of action?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: We're very much looking forward to the release of the report. As everybody knows, they need to go through certain compilations and translation etc. before they're actually publicly released.

We're absolutely committed to ensuring that our young people have the opportunities that will enable them to reach their full potential. I talked about community investment funds. We have programs to ensure that our youth have employment and training opportunities, that my colleague the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities has been working very hard on; and access programs, to make sure that our young people have opportunities in colleges and universities and apprenticeship training. There are 100,000 more people in colleges and universities now than when we started; 150,000 of them are receiving grants or assistance of some form. This is access to future opportunities.

I'm looking forward to the report, as I know my friend is, and we'll be able to discuss how to move forward on this in the future.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, in June you announced a new Second Career program to help recently laid-off workers go back to school to get a new job. A program like this is crucial at a time when so many people are being laid off in the manufacturing sector and cannot find jobs that match their current skill sets. Training and education are becoming more and more important, and we know that we must reach out to as many people as possible, to make Ontario workers as competitive as possible in today's job market.

Over the past couple of weeks we've heard in this House criticism of Second Career and claims that this program is ineffective and inaccessible, even though I'm sure those who have taken advantage of the program would argue otherwise. Minister, what would you say to the constituents in my riding who have been laid off and who are hesitant to apply to Second Career for fear they would not meet the criteria?

Hon. John Milloy: I appreciate the question because it gives me a chance to reiterate once again that there is support in the province of Ontario for laid-off workers through Employment Ontario; about 900,000 people a year come forward.

This government recognized, however, that within the variety of programs there was no program for long-term training—those interested in going to a community college or a private career college for longer-term training. Therefore, in June we announced the details of the Second Career program and set a target of 20,000 workers over the course of three years. Second Career assists with the costs associated with retraining, including tuition, books and living expenses.

At the time, we acknowledged that this was a new program—in fact, unique in Canada—and we were going to monitor it very closely to make sure there were no obstacles to workers coming forward. And Friday, at George Brown College, I was pleased to announce further changes to the system to enhance it and to remove some of these—

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

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: Thank you, Minister. The fact that you're making changes to make the program more accessible will be good news for many of my constituents.

I recently met with a constituent from my riding who applied for the program but was denied funding because he went back to work. After being laid off, he was forced to take on a minimum-wage job in order to make ends meet, and is now looking for help to set him on a new career path. He's very eager to upgrade his skills but cannot afford to take the time off work and pay to go to college, all the while taking care of his family. I'm sure that his story is not unlike other laid-off workers looking to apply for Second Career.

I also know that many people are unable to apply for the program because they were laid off prior to the year cut-off. Could you please tell me and my constituents what you plan to do to expand access to this invaluable program?

Hon. John Milloy: Certainly. I'm very happy to provide some of the details of what we announced Friday to enhance Second Career and remove some of the obstacles to allow more people to go forward.

First, we're pushing back the entry date. If you've been laid off any time since January 2005, you can now apply for Second Career. This will be particularly helpful to workers in the forestry sector who have lost their jobs in the last few years. Secondly, we recognize that there are situations where people have taken temporary employment just to make ends meet. We believe that they should have access to training too, so we're going to open up Second Career to include them. Third, in cases where the need is great, we'll consider additional financial assistance beyond $28,000, based on individual circumstances.

In addition to these three main changes, we're working to make the application process easier to build in more flexibility around career options.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the finance minister. As you know, sadly, Ontario now joins Prince Edward Island as the only province in all of Canada to be in the red. Your predecessor, Minister Sorbara, had always set aside a $1-billion reserve and then made a commitment to increase that reserve to $1.5 billion. Shockingly, when you knew there were storm clouds on the horizon, when you knew 2008 would be a rough year, you cut that commitment in half, put the reserve at $750 million and reduced the contingency fund by $160 million. If you had kept to the path of your previous finance minister, we'd be in surplus today. Isn't that the true reason why you're in the red, as of last week?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Unlike the member opposite, we made the choice in the budget to continue to invest in health care, education and infrastructure, and we think those are the appropriate decisions. We think that the $1.1 billion that's going out to municipalities in the next couple of weeks is a very good use of public money. We think there were deficits in health care and education left by his government, including a $5.5-billion deficit. So, yes, we did reduce the reserve last year, we did reduce the contingency in order to create jobs, and we'll see the cranes around Ontario.

I'm sure we will be joined by some other governments fairly soon in the deficit category. We will continue to make the proper investments in the areas that I know are not a priority for him. But we think hiring teachers, nurses—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Well, there's the nub of the problem. When you knew or you should have known that the economy was heading downhill, when you saw all the signs in the States, when every bank and every economist were saying that tough times were ahead, you chose to reduce the financial cushions of the province. You cut, basically, the reserve in half and reduced your contingency fund, and now we find ourselves in the red.

After that initial grave error, what did Dwight Duncan and Dalton McGuinty choose to do? Spend, spend, spend. In the first two quarters of this year, some $325 million in unbudgeted spending to make this deficit situation even worse, even though you knew the Bank of Montreal in June had projected that our economy would crawl at 0.2% at most.

Minister, was it not a mistake to go into the spend, spend, spend mode when you should have had prudent spending and tried to help create jobs in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We think that the $3.9 billion in infrastructure was a good expenditure. We think that the $660-million debt repayment was a good expenditure. We think that the investments in health care and education were good. The member opposite will cut health care. He'll cut education. He'll lay off people at the very time we shouldn't be.

I'd remind him what Diane Francis of the National Post said to him the other day: "While I think the deficit is very minuscule considering the size of the budget and considering the mess the world is in, I believe, unlike other Conservatives and business people, that the role of government is appropriate, to be a shock absorber and run deficits if you hit a bump in the economic road."

We are pursuing a policy to protect jobs and investment. Ontario will be better because of it.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Across Ontario, homeowners are getting whacked by this government's broken property assessment system. Fixed-income seniors may be forced out of their lifelong homes. Your only solution to date is a paltry $250 plan that certainly won't help them.

How will this help seniors like those highlighted in yesterday's Liberal newspaper, who live in Richmond Hill and who will now be whacked with property tax bills in excess of $7,000 and $9,000?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Again, the premise of the member's question is inaccurate. Assessment increases do not constitute property tax increases. The member likes to imply that they do; they don't.

The second point I would make to the member is that any increases as a result of this assessment will be phased in over four years.

The Ombudsman and a number of others have recognized the changes we've made to the system. We think the changes are appropriate. Assessment notices are continuing to go out across the province. But again, I stress to those people who are concerned that assessment increases do not constitute tax increases, and in terms of implementation, any assessment increase is to be implemented over four years.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Michael Prue: Perhaps the finance minister is not aware that when your home's property value goes up by $200,000 and $300,000, you can expect property tax increases.

The minister clearly will not admit that these four-year assessments are totally out of whack with the current economic climate. Properties are in fact losing value today, but assessments reflect values from January 1, 2008. Since the current economic tsunami, house prices have dropped by 10% or more in some locations. Fixed-income folks who are struggling to stay in their homes cannot bear this volatility and uncertainty.

Why won't this government consider keeping assessments at 2005 level values and freezing them there until properties are sold, as we have suggested?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: What the member proposes would have different tax assessments for identical properties on the same street. It just doesn't work well. I would remind him that over four years, increases that are on assessment rolls do not have to become property tax increases. The member knows full well that it's the tax rate times the assessment value that determines that. Tax rates can be adjusted to reflect the increase.

The final thing I would say: When given a chance to help senior citizens with their property taxes, this member voted against the senior citizen property tax credit. I would say, with respect, $250 is a lot of money in the first year, rising to $600. The member tries to have it both ways. He won't defend seniors and property taxpayers. This government has and will continue to do so, even if—

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

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr. David Zimmer: I too have a short but indeed important question for the Minister of Finance. Last week, I received a letter from Patricia Sillers, one of my constituents in Willowdale. She says in her letter, "Because I am a fixed-income pensioner living in Willowdale, I am worried about the new property assessment on my condominium. With the sudden downturn in the economy, my small nest egg has shrunk alarmingly, and the thought of my increased property taxes is truly scary…. There must be many folks in the same situation. This would be a terrible time to raise property taxes."

Speaker, through you to the minister, what are we going to do about this? It's a serious problem for fixed-income pensioners in Willowdale and Ontario.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The member is quite right about assessment notices going out. Again, I introduced the—

Mr. Paul Miller: How come he's right and I'm wrong?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Well, unlike the NDP, he voted for the seniors' property tax credit. What a ridiculous lot over there.

I say to the member, he's right that an increase in assessment does not lead to a property tax increase. I thank him for supporting the seniors' property tax credit, which the NDP voted against three times. They know that this government protects and the NDP casts into the waves because they really don't care. This government did the seniors' property tax credit. It was the appropriate response, and we appreciated his support on that vote.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. David Zimmer: Minister, I read with interest this weekend in the Toronto Star the

article on property assessments. I know it's not easy for homeowners to appeal their assessments. I hear a lot about that in the constituency office. It's a complicated process. People don't understand it; they don't understand the method, the math, and they don't understand some of the philosophy behind it. In fact, the Ombudsman has even conducted an investigation into this issue.

Minister, has anything happened to make it easier for homeowners to deal with their assessment appeal notices?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Yes. The member opposite will be aware that the Ombudsman did quite a sweeping look at MPAC and what MPAC involves. There were 21 recommendations. I am pleased to tell the member that we've implemented all of those recommendations, including reverse onus, which is something that we thought was the appropriate course of action to take.

I'll remind the member of what the Ombudsman himself said: "The Municipal Property Assessment Corp. (MPAC) and the government have come closer to Getting it Right ... by implementing my recommendations for reforming property assessment in Ontario.... newly introduced legislation will bring greater fairness to the system of property assessment and appeal."

Again, I stress that an increase in assessment does not necessarily mean an increase in property taxes, number one. Number two, the property tax credit for seniors like your constituent who corresponded with you will help people like that very directly. I only wish the NDP had voted for that instead of taking the kinds of—

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

SMALL BUSINESS

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is for the Minister of Small Business. Minister, in today's economic environment, where we learn daily about small business failures and job losses, are you and your government prepared to give fair and preferential treatment to Ontario and Canadian companies bidding on services and goods for your government in order to keep the jobs here and people off welfare?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I want to thank the member for asking this question.

Actually, our government has been working in a very systematic manner, since we took power in 2003, to make it easier for small businesses to sell to the government. We have made it easier for them to actually get onto the vendors' list so that they can be considered for business with the government. Not only that, but we have also taken steps to make it easier for them to sell to the government, that reduce the paperwork burden for them, so that it is not inconvenient for them to sell to the government.

I will be able to talk about more in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Well, Minister, I don't believe that it's working.

Recently, the Ministry of Correctional Services tendered an RFP for sweaters to be worn by Ontario law enforcement officials. Specifically, they did specify a garment that was to be made by Ingo, a Waterloo-based company, and they were identified for future procurement. Lo and behold, once the tendering process was complete, a decision was made to purchase the garments from Mexico.

Considering the turbulent economic times, does the minister not agree with me that you should be doing all you can to advocate for small businesses and look at a made-in-Ontario policy when possible?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: As I said earlier, the first step in selling any goods to the government is to make sure that you get on the vendors' list. The second step is that you have to then make a competitive bid. The third way we have made it easier for the small businesses is that in case they don't get the business in the first place, at least we tell them why they didn't get it so that the next time around they are in a more competitive position to bid for the government business. Do you know that has never happened under other governments, when the Conservatives were in power?

We have made it much, much easier for them to get onto the vendors list and sell to the government. In cases where they fail, they know why they failed so that they can be in a better position to bid for the business the next time around.

I agree that we have to make sure that small businesses are in the position to get to some of the Ontario government business, because—

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

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Paul Miller: To the Minister of Economic Development and Trade—I'll give you a rest today, Speaker: Minister, last week in the SooToday, in an

article by the MPP for Sault Ste. Marie, he claimed that $23 million was approved through the Ministry of Economic Development to support the creation of a new pipe plant. Has this money been approved specifically for the creation of a new pipe plant? Has this program been approved?

Hon. Michael Bryant: I say to the member, he will be aware of the process that's in place. I obviously work closely with the member from Sault Ste. Marie to ensure that the various programs that are in place follow the procedures and programs in order to allow for an official announcement.

I appreciate that the member is standing up, presumably in support of this, and I know that the member from Sault Ste. Marie does as well. When it's appropriate for it to be publicly announced, we will certainly do that, but I want to add that this is a program that's going to benefit that community in a wide variety of ways. Obviously, the member is seeking to highlight that, and I appreciate that.

Mr. Paul Miller: The MPP for Sault Ste. Marie also said in his article, "Hopefully Essar Algoma Steel management and union can come to an agreement that would see a similar facility opened in Sault Ste. Marie." A few weeks ago, the president of Local 2251 met with Essar Steel Algoma, but there were no negative discussions like the MPP alludes to.

The person who can tell us if the $23 million is slated for a pipe mill in Sault Ste. Marie is the minister. Will he tell us now if a pipe mill will be located in Sault Ste. Marie?

Hon. Michael Bryant: I know that the member advocates on behalf of his community. Certainly the member for Sault Ste. Marie does as well. He has been doing so for the past five-plus years as the member, and he does a very good job.

Interjections.

Hon. Michael Bryant: I agree. He'll continue to do that. I know that the member certainly wouldn't want to be critical of a member of provincial Parliament standing up for his particular region and his riding. If he is adding his voice of support, we appreciate that. If he is seeking to criticize the member for standing up for his riding, I beg to disagree. The member of Sault Ste. Marie, Mr. Orazietti, is doing a fantastic job advocating on behalf of his community. He works with all members of this government in order to get the best for his community, and we certainly all applaud him for that.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: My question is for the Minister of Government Services. As I'm sure is the case for most of my colleagues, many of my constituents own or work for small or medium-sized businesses. In fact, 99% of Ontario's firms are small and medium enterprises that generate over $250 billion in economic activity annually. When small businesses are starting up in my riding or are in a position to expand, there is a certain number of permits and licences that are needed, not only from this level of government but from municipalities and the federal government as well.

While these regulatory steps are necessary, the act of figuring out which ones apply to one's business endeavours can be overwhelming.

Minister, what is this government doing to make it easier for small businesses in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex to get on their feet or, as well, to expand?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I'm pleased to answer this question at this time, especially given that October has been recognized as Small Business Month. The McGuinty government knows that many entrepreneurs can spend weeks trying to research all the permits and licences that they may need to expand their business. Having owned a small business myself, I understand this first-hand.

One of the ways that our government does offer help is with BizPal, which stands for business permits and licences. It's a free online service that saves businesses time by providing a customized list of the permits and licences they may need from time to time from all levels of government: municipal, provincial and federal. It all comes to them within minutes and it's offered up through Service Ontario. BizPal helps small businesses to be efficient and helps build a better relationship between government—

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

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: I'm glad to hear that this government is making strides in helping Ontario's small businesses, especially in these economically challenging times.

The minister mentioned that BizPal combines the permits and licences from all levels of government, including municipalities. I'm sure that municipalities in my riding appreciate the help in trying to streamline any permits and licensing that small businesses in our communities need. However, I would appreciate some assurance that BizPal is in fact helping our municipalities deal with potential overlap and inefficiencies and that it's working efficiently. Can the minister assure the House that BizPal is helping our municipalities and not creating another unnecessary burden on them?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Well, I sure can give that assurance. Small businesses have come to expect nothing less from the McGuinty government. I can tell you that, to date, there are some 66 Ontario municipalities, representing 54% of the province's population, which offer the BizPal service, with many others eager—in fact, they are lining up—to plug into this service. That's no surprise, because it's such a great service. We've heard great reactions from all over Ontario. From Muskoka, the mayor has said that this innovative online tool has simplified the process of obtaining business permits and other regulatory requirements.

I'm pleased to hear feedback like this as BizPal is launched in more and more municipalities. It's a service that businesses have come to expect from our government and it's one we're pleased to deliver.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is to the Minister of Small Business. Is the minister aware that his government's hostile business climate is forcing a 40-year-old manufacturing company in Mississauga, in the minister's own city, Plastmade Industries Ltd., to consider moving its assembly operations to Mexico?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: Let me tell you, this is small business month, and I had the opportunity to go around and visit a lot of locations and see a lot of our small businesses in action. I'm very proud to say that our small businesses are actually doing well and are alive and are thriving.

Just to give you an example, last week, actually on Friday, I had the chance to visit Kawartha Lakes, along with the member from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock. There I had the chance to visit five businesses in Kawartha Lakes which are doing extremely well.

There's no doubt that some businesses are facing some challenges, especially in the manufacturing sector, and our government has worked very closely with them to make sure that their needs get addressed. We have the programs to help them out, not only to actually sell their products abroad, but to become more efficient and productive in Ontario as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Ted Arnott: Well, it's obvious that the minister didn't tour Plastmade in Mississauga, as I did on October 17, touring this impressive facility and meeting its productive workforce. But it's a shrinking workforce. Plastmade now has 40 employees, down from over 100 a while ago.

The accumulated burden of this government's Liberal red tape is forcing small businesses out of the country or out of business entirely. We are hearing about the newly overzealous and authoritarian attitude within the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of the Environment, and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. Combined with this government's crushing tax burden and the uncertain economic climate, it's no surprise that companies like Plastmade are seeking alternatives in order to survive.

When will this minister stand up for small business, as is his mandate? When will he give small business a reason for hope in Ontario's economic future?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: The member opposite has quoted one business. Let me give you three examples in Mississauga of the companies that have been doing extremely well that I had the chance to visit last week.

Actually, I had the chance to visit a company called Icynene. They are in the insulation business. They have created a real niche market in that business, and this company has grown to become a $100-million company.

Then I had the chance to visit Promation, which is in the automation business. It used to be in the auto business, but now they're producing parts for the nuclear industry. So they have done a great transition in that business.

Then I had the chance to visit Methes, which is in the biofuel diesel business. They have actually created a real niche market in that business.

There is another company called 2Source in Mississauga, which has created a great niche in the bushings business.

So there are a lot a good businesses around that are doing extremely well and—

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

PROPANE EXPLOSION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: To the Minister of Small Business and Consumer Services: The minister has a committee that's reviewing right now the storage, handling, location and transport of propane. Strangely, the role that industry self-regulation played in last August's propane explosion is not being examined at all. There's no mention of it in the public discussion document. Will the minister explicitly instruct the propane safety review to examine the Technical Standards and Safety Authority's model of self-regulation and self-governance?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: A couple of weeks ago, I actually asked the two prominent experts in Canada to look at propane rules and regulations, and that report is due in 45 days. I expect it to be in the first week of November, and they are doing great work. Actually, I have asked both opposition critics to submit whatever they think is appropriate that this review needs to look at, and I encourage them to do it. Their mandate is to give me the recommendations so that we can improve propane safety, because safety comes first for us. We need to make sure that consumers are protected, our households are protected and the residents of Ontario are protected.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Maybe the minister doesn't open his mail, but I did send a letter of request asking him that very issue that I'm speaking to him about today, and that is the fact that we have to look at the entire governance structure, not just the regulations. The propane safety review is only focusing on the regulations, not the regulator itself.

Ontarians know that there's something fundamentally wrong with the regulator. It took a minister's order for the regulator to conduct an Ontario-wide compliance check, where it found—and we know this—that half of the province's large propane facilities are out of compliance. Seven posted immediate hazards as a result, yet the minister refuses to have his team of experts look at the regulator itself. Why won't the minister explicitly instruct, as I asked in the letter and as I'm asking again today, the propane safety review to examine the TSSA's self-regulation model?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: It's really interesting for this member to ask this question. This regulation model was started under the NDP, and the Conservatives implemented it.

Having said that, I think the TSSA over the years has done a very good job. I'm very proud of the fact that they have done that great job, but we need to make sure that Ontario residents are safe. That's why we ordered this review. I want to make sure that the review is conducted as thoroughly as possible so that the residents of Ontario are always safe. I'm glad for the kind of work they're doing, and I want to encourage the member to submit the kinds of recommendations they have to the panel.

Interjection.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I said "to the panel."

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My question is to the Minister of Research and Innovation. Menova Energy Inc., a company which is based in Ottawa, is a 100% Canadian-owned-and-operated company committed to providing affordable solar energy solutions for the industrial, commercial and institutional markets. Menova's Power-Spar system is a technology which provides solar electricity, heating and lighting solutions. The platform is compatible with geothermal and thermal air conditioning applications.

The key benefits of the Power-Spar system are green, zero-emission generation of heat and electricity; immunity from rising energy costs, since the price of energy from the sun will not escalate with time; amortize energy costs at about 50% of what consumers currently pay for propane and electric heat; and a reliable and independent system that assists your office or business to function without interruption during power shortages, high costs, peak demand or blackouts.

Can the minister please explain what our government is doing to foster green technology companies, such as Menova, in the province?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank my friend for the question in regard to Menova. The new economy in the 21st century is going to be green. The question is, where is that commercialization going to happen? Menova is a great example of the types of companies that are building out right now in the province of Ontario. Menova is due to an Ottawa-based innovation in regard to a new product called the Power-Spar. That Power-Spar is being installed at the new Wal-Mart in Markham, one of the largest ones in the world. It's a demonstration plant for Wal-Mart but it's also part of our innovation demonstration funding.

I was talking to the president and he said, "This" project is a result " ... of Ontario's growing world leadership in solar energy. The Menova technology was developed in Ontario and will remain in Ontario thanks to the forward-looking policies and commitment from this provincial government"—Dave Gerwing, president of Menova Energy Inc.

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

I wish to inform the House that the ruling and response to the point of order raised by the Minister of Tourism on Thursday last will be given this afternoon prior to orders of the day. This House stands recessed until 1 p.m.

The House recessed from 1136 to 1300.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Norm Miller: The McGuinty government has announced it will exercise prudence through uncertain financial times. I would like to inform the government members opposite of the meaning of "prudent" from the Canadian Oxford Dictionary: "(1) careful to provide for the future." "(2) discreet or cautious; circumspect." "(3) having or exercising good judgment."

Let's take a look at some examples of this government's prudent spending: $6 million to remove the "C" from the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. logo; $2.3 million for the opening gala of Caesars Windsor casino—that's in addition to the $400 million for casino renovations; $2 million for the incomplete report by Alvin Curling on youth violence; $219,000 to redesign the Ontario trillium logo so it looks like either the Liberal Party logo or three men in a tub—one or the other; $200,000 by the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal in court costs to try to gag lottery fraud victim Bob Edmonds; $600,000 to fight parents of autistic children in court.

The question is, is it prudent to increase overall government spending from $68 billion to $96 billion in good times so there's no money left for bad times? The answer is, absolutely no. Shame on the McGuinty government for not being better guardians of taxpayers' hard-earned money.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Ms. Laurel C. Broten: It gives me great pleasure to rise today and speak to this House about our government's initiatives in ensuring worker safety across Ontario. Ontario's workers are among the most productive in this nation, and our government is committed to having the highest safety standards to protect workers and their families. I know that this is of critical importance in my own community of Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

As a key part of our injury prevention strategy, inspectors blitzed industrial workplaces over the last month to eliminate specific hazards that could lead to falls. Prior safety blitzes have already yielded tremendous results for both employees and for businesses.

The Ministry of Labour compliance program that ran from April 1, 2004, to March 31, 2008, reduced the workplace injury rate by 20%, more than 50,000 incidents. Because of the drop in the annual rate of lost-time injuries, employers have avoided about $5 billion in direct and indirect costs during the last four years.

Reduced injuries also lead to less strain on the health care system and fewer workers off the job, more productive communities and more family-friendly workplaces. They also increase productivity for Ontario's economy.

The McGuinty government recognizes the skill and value of Ontario's workers, and while there is more to do, our government will continue to work hard to ensure the safety of workers across the province, in each of our communities and in each of our families.

LEFTY THE GOOSE

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: As I'm sure you all know, I don't usually stand up to defend a lefty, but today I want to talk about a lefty in my riding. This lefty has garnered much public sympathy and I've had more than 80 calls and e-mails to my office to save Lefty.

To those members of the third party who think I may be standing up for one of them, I apologize. The lefty I'm speaking about today is a much higher form of life—a Canada goose that lives in Paul Lindsay Park in Stittsville—so named because it is missing its right wing. Lefty is unable to fly south for the winter, causing many people to worry it will freeze or starve.

As I said, I've received more than 80 calls and e-mails about Lefty last week, so I am working with the Canadian Wildlife Service, an agency of Environment Canada, which is responsible for migratory birds, to find a way to help poor Lefty.

I want to take this opportunity to thank those residents of Stittsville who have contacted my office about Lefty and let them know that migratory birds are not a responsibility of the province but of the federal government, but I am doing my best to make sure their concerns are heard by that government and something is done for Lefty.

CHILD CARE

Mr. Paul Miller: The October 2007 temporary care assistance directive, under "Duration of Care," stated its intent to be available to children under 18 years of age for as long as they require it, and that it may be only needed for weeks or it may be needed for years. This has been deleted from the new policy.

It also said that an adult providing temporary care may be a person awarded legal guardianship or custody by a court but has no legal obligation to support the child, and can include both temporary and permanent orders.

The July 2008 policy changes so that the existence of any legal custody order, whether it be permanent or temporary, is grounds to be denied this assistance. In every case where grandparents are raising their grandchildren, they always face their grandchildren being taken away by the parents, even with a custody order; it's always temporary.

Also, the new July directive uses "settled intent" as the grounds to deny TCA: the child's length of stay in the home; physical accommodation in the home for the child; the existence of a legal custody order; involvement in medical, educational and recreational activities of the child; and/or ongoing decisions about the health and well-being of the child.

A foster parent, unrelated, who receives $900 a month as a caregiver is expected to be involved in all of these usual child-rearing activities, but a related grandparent who does these same things, who receives $231 for the first child and $188 for each additional child, under the new directive faces being cut off from this meagre subsistence funding.

This financial attack on grandparents, these unsung heroes trying to raise their grandchildren as part of their—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Member from Eglinton—Lawrence.

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

Mr. Mike Colle: Many workers in my riding of Eglinton—Lawrence and many workers in the city of Toronto are perplexed as to why they are not eligible for employment insurance. Many of these workers have paid into employment insurance for years and years, yet when they try to apply for insurance benefits, they are told they do not qualify because they live in Ontario.

The question I have is, why is it that the federal employment insurance surplus now stands at a total of over $54 billion that the workers have paid into, yet the workers, when they ask for a contribution back to them in insurance while they try to find another job, are not eligible? They say they're eligible in Nova Scotia, they are eligible in Quebec, they are eligible in PEI, yet in Ontario, if you're out of work, you can't get employment insurance.

They think this is unfair. They have asked all of us in the province of Ontario who sit here in this Legislature to stand up on their behalf and ask that they be treated, in these hard times, like workers in other provinces.

The question is, why do the workers in Ontario not qualify for employment insurance when they have already contributed to it?

GO TRANSIT

Mr. Ted Arnott: The trains that take people to work every day are critical to our economy, environment and quality of life. That's why I was pleased this spring when GO Transit announced its environmental assessment to extend rail service from Georgetown through Acton to Guelph and Kitchener—Waterloo. Working with the member for Kitchener—Waterloo, we have supported this vision for years.

Even though the McGuinty Liberals' financial mismanagement has weakened our economy, the need for this GO service extension remains well established. If the McGuinty government demands that municipalities adhere to its Places to Grow population growth targets, it has no excuse to delay this crucial transportation infrastructure project. It's crucial because of worsening traffic congestion, the still-high cost of gasoline, and our environmental obligations to future generations.

In a meeting I convened with representatives from GO Transit and the town of Halton Hills on October 9 here at Queen's Park, we discussed the many merits of this project. Mayor Rick Bonnette, Councillor John Duncan, and Director of Infrastructure Services Chris Mills and I all made a compelling case for this project, including a new stop in the Acton/Rockwood area. But without a commitment from the government of Ontario, these new trains will never even leave the station.

Future generations will look back and ask of us: Did we act? If not, why not? I urge the Minister of Transportation to act. I urge him to commit to make this project a goal.

UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast: Born and raised in Kitchener-Waterloo, I am proud to acknowledge that today is the University of Waterloo's Deans' Day here at Queen's Park.

The University of Waterloo celebrated its 50th anniversary last year. It's also my alma mater—St. Jerome's College, University of Waterloo. Deans' Day is an opportunity for the deans of various faculties to make themselves available all day at Queen's Park to meet with members and ministry staff and pose the question: "What can we do to better serve your needs?"—a truly progressive approach in this global knowledge market.

The president of the university and vice chancellor is David Johnston, who is here meeting with ministries all day. He is joined today by a large delegation of deans, over 15 university staff and faculty, to whom I personally would like to say thank you.

The University of Waterloo was founded 50 years ago on the forward-looking premise that, with the help of community and business leaders, they would create a program to train engineers and technicians—not only classroom instruction but also with co-operative practical experience. This continues, with the training of highly qualified people on a global level: proof positive, in this competitive, knowledge-based global economy, that the University of Waterloo continues to be a world leader.

It's with great pleasure that we welcome these world leaders to Queen's Park today.

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

Mr. Phil McNeely: The McGuinty government is setting the most aggressive wait time targets for general surgeries in Canada as part of an expansion of its successful wait times strategy. We are the first government to disclose wait times in Ontario's hospitals, available at

www.ontariowaittimes.com . That's why I am proud of our government for expanding our strategy so that wait times continue to decline.

Since 2003, wait times in five key areas have been reduced: cataract surgery by 63%, down 195 days; hip replacements by 52%, down 181 days; knee replacements by 51%, down 228 days; cancer surgery by 19%, down 15 days; angiography by 53%, down 30 days; angioplasty by 50%, down 14 days; MRI by 18%, down 22 days; and CT scans by 46%, 31 days less. Our wait times strategy is working, and more Ontarians are getting the care they need sooner.

What's more, the Champlain LHIN is receiving over $1.8 million from our government to fund an additional 1,477 surgeries. Minister Caplan was in town recently to announce that. The Ottawa Hospital is receiving more than $156,000 to fund 26 more surgeries.

Thanks to our government for showing real leadership on wait times and giving our LHINs the money needed to fund more surgeries in our communities.

PREMIER'S AWARDS

FOR TEACHING EXCELLENCE

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House to inform members that nominations are now being accepted for the Premier's Awards for Teaching Excellence.

Each school day, parents hand over their most precious gift—their children—to teachers. With this gesture of trust comes the challenge of guiding our youth to becoming effective, empowered and creative adults. The McGuinty government commends the work that teachers and school board staff do in helping students to reach their full potential, and the Premier's Awards are a great way to recognize those individuals who make a difference in education.

Starting today, parents, students, educators and community members can nominate an outstanding educator or support staff worker for an award. The deadline for nominations is January 31, 2009.

The Minister of Education recently launched the third year of this highly successful program that, over the last two years, has seen more than 2,000 nominations be received and 30 educators and support staff workers be recognized with this prestigious award.

These awards signify the McGuinty government's commitment to our education system and understanding that teachers are its backbone. So I encourage all members in the House and all Ontarians to recognize the efforts of Ontario's teachers, not just until January 30 but throughout the whole year.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(CHILD PASSENGERS

ON MOTORCYCLES), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(ENFANTS PASSAGERS

SUR DES MOTOCYCLETTES)

Ms. Jaczek moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 117,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit the driving and operation of motorcycles with child passengers / Projet de loi 117, Loi modifiant le Code de la route afin d'interdire la conduite et l'utilisation de motocyclettes transportant des enfants comme passagers.

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

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member for a short statement.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: The bill amends the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit driving or operating a motorcycle on a highway while a person under the age of 14 is a passenger on the motorcycle with a view to promoting safety on Ontario's roads and protecting youth from preventable injuries.

PETITIONS

EMERGENCY DISPATCH SERVICES

Mr. Norm Miller: I have a petition with hundreds of signatures to do with 911 services in Parry Sound—Muskoka. It reads:

"Whereas the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care is considering relocating emergency ambulance and fire dispatch services currently provided by Muskoka Ambulance Communications Service to the city of Barrie; and

"Whereas up to 40% of all calls received are from cellphones from people unfamiliar with the area; and

"Whereas Parry Sound—Muskoka residents have grave concerns about the effect on emergency response times if dispatch services are provided by dispatchers who are not familiar with the area; and

"Whereas 16 Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care-funded jobs, held by qualified communication officers from local communities, may be lost as a result of the relocation of dispatch services to the city of Barrie,

"Now therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario put the safety, health and economic concerns of the people of Parry Sound—Muskoka ahead of government efficiency interests and ensure that emergency dispatch services continue to be provided locally by Muskoka Ambulance Communications Service."

I support this petition.

HOSPICES

Mr. Mike Colle: I have a petition from the Hospice Association of Ontario.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

"Whereas a residential hospice (usually about 8 to 10 beds) provides around-the-clock care to terminally ill patients and support to their families;

"Whereas hospice services are provided free of charge;

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

I support this and I'll affix my name to it.

FERTILITY TREATMENT

Mr. Pat Hoy: "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the prevalence and growing incidence of infertility in our population is a medical issue that demands the attention of our public health care system and should be placed on the agenda for funding;

"Whereas fertility treatment, including in vitro fertilization, is a proven medical solution that is unfairly limited to those with the financial means to pursue it and that it should receive significant coverage through the Ontario health care system as soon as possible;

"Whereas in vitro fertilization should be fully funded when deemed medically necessary, without discrimination based on cause or gender; and

"Whereas it is long overdue that financial assistance for fertility treatment be offered to Ontarians;

"We, the undersigned residents of the province of Ontario, request that the Ontario provincial government address this important issue. We strongly support the inclusion of financial assistance by the Ontario Ministry of Health under the Ontario health care program for all fertility treatment for Ontarians, male and female."

I've signed this petition, along with folks from Tilbury, North Buxton, Cottam, Wheatley and Chatham.

LOGGING ROUTE

Mr. Norm Miller: I have a petition to do with forestry and logging trucks going through the village of Restoule. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Nipissing forest management plan proposes to use Hawthorne Drive in Restoule, which features a single-lane bridge and narrow and steep sections; and

"Whereas area residents have grave concerns about community safety, traffic speed, truck noise and general wear and tear of Hawthorne Drive and the bridge in the village of Restoule; and

"Whereas the proposed route travels past the Restoule Canadian Legion and two churches; and

"Whereas alternative routes are possible via Odorizzi Road and Block 09-056;

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

"That the government of Ontario put the safety and concerns of the people of Restoule ahead of logging interests and ensure an alternate route is selected for the Nipissing forest management plan."

I support this petition.

CHILD CUSTODY

Mr. Kim Craitor: I'm pleased to introduce this petition in respect to Bill 33, affectionately known as a grandparents' bill. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WORKPLACE HARASSMENT

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas workplace harassment (physical and psychological) and violence need to be defined as violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act so that it is dealt with as quickly and earnestly by employers as other health and safety issues and;

"Whereas employers will have a legal avenue/obligation to deal with workplace harassment and violence in all its forms, including psychological harassment, and;

"Whereas Bill 29 would make it law to protect workers from workplace harassment by giving workers the right to refuse to work after harassment has occurred, require an investigation of allegations of workplace-related harassment, and oblige employers to prevent further occurrences of workplace-related harassment;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to treat workplace harassment and violence as a serious health and safety issue by passing MPP Andrea Horwath's Bill 29, which would bring workplace harassment and violence under the scope of the Occupational Health And Safety Act."

I agree with it, have signed it and send it to the table with page Emily.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Bob Delaney: I have a petition here that was circulated by Kay Dryden of Falconer Drive in Meadowvale, Streetsville. It is to the Ontario Legislative of Assembly. It's about the western Mississauga ambulatory surgery centre, and 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."

I am pleased to sign and support this petition and to ask page Helen to carry it for me.

FIREARMS CONTROL

Mr. Mike Colle: I've got a petition against illegal guns in cars.

To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the growing number of unlawful firearms in motor vehicles is threatening innocent citizens and our police officers;

"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 being found in motor vehicles; and

"Whereas impounding motor vehicles and suspending driver's licences of persons possessing unlawful firearms 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.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Jeff Leal: I'm very pleased today to introduce a petition on behalf of Heather Hughes, who lives in Mississauga, Ontario.

"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."

I agree with this petition and will sign it and give it to page Laura.

LUPUS

Mr. Kim Craitor: I'm pleased to introduce this petition. As you know, October is Lupus Awareness Month. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas systemic lupus erythematosus is under-recognized as a global health problem by public health professionals and governments, driving the need for greater awareness; and

"Whereas medical research on lupus and efforts to develop safer and more effective therapies for the disease are underfunded in comparison with diseases of other comparable magnitude and severity; and

"Whereas no safe and effective drugs for lupus have been introduced in more than 40 years. Current drugs for lupus are very toxic and can cause other life-threatening health problems that can be worse than the primary disease;

"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to assist financially with media campaigns to bring about knowledge of systemic lupus erythematosus and the signs and symptoms of this disease to all citizens of Ontario.

"We further petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to provide funding for research currently being undertaken in lupus clinics throughout Ontario."

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

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just want to remind members, and I've made this reminder on a number of occasions, we do need to look out for and ensure the health and safety of our interpreters. When you have your BlackBerry on your desk and you are speaking and your BlackBerry goes off, we can all hear this hum in the room. The hum is one thing, but we need to think about our interpreters, because that hum is very much humming in their ears. We do not want to cause ear damage or loss of hearing to our interpreters.

So I would just caution and remind all members that if you're going to be speaking, leave your BlackBerry outside, in the galleries, so that there's no chance of it going off.

The member from Simcoe North.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the government-appointed supervisor of the Huronia District Hospital (HDH) has recommended a merger of HDH with the Penetanguishene General Hospital (PGH);

"Whereas the supervisor recommended changes to the governance of the hospital to eliminate community memberships and the democratic selection and governance of the hospital board and directors based on an ideology and not on the wishes of the community;

"Whereas the supervisor has also recommended the splitting up and divestment of the mental health centre in Penetanguishene, creating uncertainty in the future of mental health beds and services; and

"Whereas hospital mergers and restructuring under the local health integration network can result in a loss in the total number of hospital beds and services provided to a community,

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

"We call on the government of Ontario to

"Protect the current level of beds and services at all sites in Midland and Penetanguishene; and

"Protect the community memberships and the democratic governance of the new hospital created by the merger of HDH and PGH."

I'll sign this.

POPE JOHN PAUL II

Mr. Bob Delaney: I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario. I would join my colleague from Newmarket—Aurora who often reads this, and it goes 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" in Ontario.

I'm pleased to sign this and to ask page Kevin to carry it for me.

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

OPPOSITION DAY MOTION

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On Thursday October 23, 2008, the Minister of Tourism, Ms. Smith, rose on a point of order to express her concerns about the opposition day motion that appeared on that day's orders and notices paper and that is scheduled for debate tomorrow. The motion calls for a public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the release on bail of an individual who is named in the motion. The member was of the view that the motion, which stands in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr.

Runciman, violates the sub judice convention as well as the sub judice provision in our standing orders. The member for Whitby—Oshawa, Mrs. Elliott, also spoke to the matter, and I have also reviewed the written submission of the Leader of the Opposition.

Having had the opportunity to review the members' submissions in Thursday's Hansard, other recent Hansards, the written submission of the Leader of the Opposition, previous rulings and precedents, and the parliamentary authorities on sub judice, I am now ready to rule on the point of order.

Let me begin by reviewing the meaning of sub judice. As I indicated in an address to the House on May 8, 2008:

"Sub judice, in brief, is a voluntary restriction on the part of a legislative body to refrain from discussing matters that are before a judicial or quasi-judicial body. In other words, it is a self-imposed restriction that the Legislative Assembly places upon itself so as to avoid prejudice to a judicial case. At its core is the principle that the separation between legislative and judicial bodies is to be respected."

As the Leader of the Opposition points out in his written submission, Ontario Speakers have generally been predisposed to giving considerable leeway to members who exercise their parliamentary responsibilities and privileges—for example, when they introduce bills, move motions, place oral questions, present petitions, table written questions and participate in debate pursuant to the standing orders. This predisposition is tantamount to a presumption, albeit a rebuttable one, that the member should not be unduly fettered in the exercise of his or her parliamentary responsibilities and privileges.

My responsibility as Speaker in the case at hand is to determine, first, whether the opposition motion offends our sub judice rule, and then whether it offends our sub judice convention, and so I shall address each issue in turn.

Though a strict

interpretation of standing order 23(

g) would limit the rule to "debate," in my view this does not necessarily save a motion from its application.

A motion provides the context of the debate and is the prelude to it. A motion is not exempt from debate—quite obviously—so it must be subject to the rules of debate. I am therefore satisfied that the motion is not exempt from being looked at by me in the light of the standing order. Nevertheless, even if I were to accept an argument to the contrary, this is moot because I still must turn to whether the motion offends the sub judice convention.

I begin by noting that, in other jurisdictions, the convention does apply to motions. For example, Marleau and Monpetit's House of Commons Procedure and Practice states as follows at page 534:

"During debate, restrictions are placed on the freedom of members of Parliament to make reference to matters awaiting judicial decisions in the interests of justice and fair play. Such matters are also barred from being the subject of motions or questions in the House."

In a similar vein, the UK House of Commons has a sub judice rule that codifies its convention. According to page 437 of the 23rd edition of Erskine May, it applies to "any motion, debate or question."

In addition, the Australian House of Representatives Practice states the following at page 505 of the fifth edition:

"Notwithstanding its fundamental right and duty to consider any matter if it is thought to be in the public interest, the House imposes a restriction on itself in the case of matters awaiting or under adjudication in a court of law. This is known as the sub judice convention. The convention is that, subject to the right of the House to legislate on any matter, matters awaiting adjudication in a court of law should not be brought forward in debate, motions or questions."

The application of the convention to motions has been specifically accepted in Ontario by virtue of a ruling that can be found at page 305 of the Journals for June 21, 2006. I too accept the view that motions are subject to our sub judice convention.

In so doing, I am cognizant of what happened on May 14, 2001, a day when there was a debate on an opposition day motion seeking a commission of inquiry into the 1995 shooting death of Dudley George at Ipperwash Provincial Park. No point of order was raised on the orderliness of that motion, but it is noteworthy that while there was an ongoing civil proceeding at the time of the debate, related criminal proceedings had been fully disposed of.

Parliamentary authorities are in agreement that the sub judice rule and convention are more relevant to criminal proceedings than to civil proceedings because there is more potential for prejudice to the former compared to the latter. Moreover, the motion was worded in a general way; it simply called for an inquiry into the incident.

In his written submission, the Leader of the Opposition also referred to an opposition day motion that was debated on November 28, 2006. This motion called on the government to make certain changes to the justice system, including the bail system. Like the Ipperwash motion, it did not identify the name of any individual who might be involved in an ongoing court proceeding.

In the case at hand, I appreciate the efforts of the member for Whitby—Oshawa to create a workaround on the issue before me. The member suggests that the debate on the motion could focus on general application of the rules regarding the apprehension of persons charged with serious criminal offences, instead of on the specifics of any case before the courts.

The difficulty that I have with this approach is that it cannot be reconciled with the motion. This motion not only does not address the general application of such rules, but it also identifies, in every one of its clauses, the names of individuals associated with a very serious incident that is still before the criminal courts. It also draws conclusions on certain evidence and on the actions of officials involved in the administration of criminal justice in Ontario. Absent these specifics and written a very different way, it is likely such a motion could have proceeded, as was the case with the opposition day motion about the justice system in Ontario that was put forward in November 2006.

However, we are dealing with the motion as it is written. So for the reasons I already cited, I am satisfied that the presumption against the application of the convention has been rebutted. I find that the motion offends the sub judice convention in that it offers much potential for prejudice to an ongoing criminal proceeding, and so I am ordering that the motion be removed from the Orders and Notices paper.

In his written submission, the Leader of the Opposition made remarks about the placement of oral questions in past question periods, including the placement of questions in recent question periods on the same matter as that mentioned in the opposition day motion. As I have indicated, oral questions are approached differently than motions. However, I do have concerns about recent questions that address the same matter as the opposition day motion. I note that the Attorney General in every instance declined to address the substantive question on the basis that the matters being raised were still before the courts.

The Attorney General's approach was consistent with the pre-existing practice. In a ruling at page 305 of the Journals for June 21, 2006, the Speaker addressed this very issue in the following terms:

"The voluntary nature of the sub judice convention means that every member must be careful to refrain from making comments in debate, motions or questions.

"In debate, this self-regulation is essential. In oral question period, Speakers largely rely upon the ministers to whom questions are addressed to decide if further discussion of the matter might prejudice a matter before a court, or other judicial or quasi-judicial body, or tribunal. And while ministers have every right to decline to answer a question which in their view rubs up against the sub judice convention, members in framing questions must also be cognizant of their responsibility in this regard.

"Indeed, the very posing of a question may cross the sub judice line, but the conundrum for all is that, regardless of the subsequent actions of the Speaker or anyone else, the damage may already have been done….

"[T]he sub judice convention relies for its effectiveness upon the goodwill of all members in voluntarily refraining from discussing matters before courts or judicial bodies. I think it is worth reminding members that extreme caution should always be the order of the day whenever such matters arise as a topic of discussion in this chamber."

I also want to quote from paragraph 192 of the 1999 First Report of the UK Parliament's Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, as follows:

"It is important that a debate, a committee hearing, or any other parliamentary proceeding should not prejudice a fair trial, especially a criminal trial. But it is not only a question of prejudicing a fair trial. Parliament is in a particularly authoritative position and its proceedings attract much publicity. The proper relationship between Parliament and the courts requires that the courts should be left to get on with their work.

No matter how great the pressure at times from interest groups or constituents, Parliament should not permit itself to appear as an alternative forum for canvassing the rights and wrongs of issues being considered by the judicial arm of the state on evidence yet to be presented and tested. Although the risk of actual prejudice is greater in a jury trial, it would not be right to remove appeal cases or other cases tried without a jury from the operation of the rule.

Restrictions on media comment are limited to not prejudicing the trial, but Parliament needs to be especially careful: It is important constitutionally, and essential for public confidence, that the judiciary should be seen to be independent of political pressures. Thus, restrictions on parliamentary debate should sometimes exceed those on media comment."

I hope that these statements offer members some helpful guidance when they exercise their parliamentary responsibilities and privileges in the future.

Before concluding, I want to address the timing of this point of order last Thursday. I think it would have been preferable and helpful to the Speaker if the point had been raised when the Leader of the Opposition, in whose name the motion stands, was in the chamber, so that he could have listened and responded to that point of order. Members will know that a point of order does not require notice and that the Speaker cannot direct that such a courtesy be extended.

Moreover, notice is not often feasible, since a point of order has to be raised at the earliest opportunity, regardless of whether or not a member affected by it is in the House. Nevertheless, I am left with a lingering unease. I think there was room for greater consideration in this case, especially since opposition day motions are such an important means by which the opposition holds the government of the day to account.

I thank the Minister of Tourism and the member from Whitby—Oshawa for speaking to the matter last Thursday and the Leader of the Opposition for his written submission. Again, I hope that this ruling offers all members some guidance on sub judice issues.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: We respect your findings and certainly will not take issue with them. But in anticipation of that possible finding on your part, we did draft an alternative with no reference to specific cases, worded in a very general way which essentially is calling for a public inquiry into Ontario's bail system. I would ask for unanimous consent that we can file that and use this revised motion for discussion and debate in the allocated time period tomorrow afternoon.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The Attorney General on the same point of order.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I haven't seen the motion and I'm wondering if we could address this in terms of unanimous consent later in the day when I've had an opportunity to take a look at it and consult with the House leader.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Welland on the same point of order.

Mr. Peter Kormos: I should indicate that I have had the opportunity to see it, and not for any particular reason other than the fact that I have. It's the view of the NDP that the proposed motion defers to the Speaker's ruling in every respect, and I want to indicate that New Democrats will be prepared to give our unanimous consent to its replacing the current motion on the order paper.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: If I could just have the opportunity to have a look at it and consult with the House leader, I would be most appreciative. Apparently, there's a House leaders' meeting today at 2 p.m., I'm told, so maybe if we could address this shortly after that. And if I could just ask the Speaker: I don't know the appropriate procedure, but maybe after that there's an opportunity to call for unanimous consent again after the House leaders have had the opportunity to have a discussion.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would appreciate the House leaders looking at this issue at the earliest opportunity, and if that opportunity presents itself this afternoon, I'm sure the Speaker will allow for that notice of motion. But I do need to qualify that, notwithstanding any unanimous consent that may be given, the motion will certainly still be reviewed by the Speaker.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET MEASURES AND INTERIM

APPROPRIATION ACT, 2008 (NO. 2) /

LOI DE 2008 SUR

LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES

ET L'AFFECTATION ANTICIPÉE

DE CRÉDITS (NO 2)

Mr. Bentley, on behalf of Mr. Duncan, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 114,

An Act respecting Budget measures, interim appropriations and other matters, to amend the Ottawa Congress Centre Act and to enact the Ontario Capital Growth Corporation Act, 2008 / Projet de loi 114, Loi concernant les mesures budgétaires, l'affectation anticipée de crédits et d'autres questions, modifiant la

Loi sur le Centre des congrès d'Ottawa et édictant la Loi de 2008 sur la Société ontarienne de financement de la croissance.

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

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I am in the delightful position of indicating to the Speaker that I am going to share virtually all of my time with the member from Ottawa Centre. In fact, I'm anxious to hear what he has to say.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Thanks for the vote of confidence from the Attorney General and from the honourable member from Nepean—Carleton. I'm looking forward to what I say as well in the next 20 or 25 minutes.

I'm pleased to rise today and speak about Bill 114, the Budget Measures and Interim Appropriation Act, 2008. On March 25, my colleague the Honourable Dwight Duncan rose to present the McGuinty government's fifth provincial budget. Through measures in the 2008 Ontario budget, we continue to implement our government's economic plan with a broad approach to stimulate investment and address the economic challenges faced by our province today. It was the first budget of the McGuinty government's second mandate.

The 2008 budget continued our strategic investments in Ontario's greatest strength, its people. Since 2003, the McGuinty government has invested in programs and services to help Ontario's people and families reach their full potential: publicly funded education, universal health care, modern infrastructure, support for vulnerable citizens and a greener Ontario.

Just talking about my own community in Ottawa, we have seen tremendous growth and investment in that great city of ours. Over half a billion dollars has been invested in our health care sector in Ottawa, with expansion taking place virtually at every single hospital that lies within that city boundary. Montfort, CHEO, the Ottawa Hospital—both the general and the civic campus—and the Queensway Carleton Hospital have seen the major investment and expansion that is taking place.

In post-secondary education—I have alluded to many times in this chamber that Carleton University is in my riding of Ottawa Centre, and the University of Ottawa is next door in Ottawa—Vanier—there has been a 20% increase in the operating budget for post-secondary education in Ottawa. Besides the two universities, we've got La Cité collégiale and Algonquin College as well in the city of Ottawa.

In our elementary and secondary education, we've seen a 20% per pupil increase in investment in our school boards. These have been tremendous investments since 2000, since the McGuinty government took office, in the city of Ottawa.

The McGuinty government has been able to support these priorities in Ottawa and across the province to help people and families because of its disciplined and prudent fiscal management and because of our five-point economic plan.

This comprehensive and balanced plan continues to respond to the needs of individuals, families and businesses by investing in skills and knowledge, including enhancements to the Second Career strategy; investing in infrastructure, including $1.1 billion to municipalities this year alone through the Investing in Ontario Act, 2008; and through strategic tax cuts for business to encourage investment, including retroactively eliminating the capital tax for manufacturing- and resource-based sectors, resulting in a $190-million rebate right at the time when these companies need it the most; strengthening the environment for innovation, including proposing a 10-year tax break for new businesses that commercialize Canadian research through the Ideas for the Future Act; and lastly, forming key partnerships at home and internationally.

We have worked hard to build partnerships with key sectors of the economy—aboriginal peoples, municipalities and others—to encourage growth, and we will continue to press the federal government for fairness. Our five-point economic plan is working. Since the McGuinty government took office in 2003, the Ontario economy has grown in a number of areas. In spite of challenges in the manufacturing and forestry sectors, we have half a million net new jobs, and real wages continue to rise. Unemployment is lower than it was in 2003, while the labour force has grown.

We made these gains despite rising oil prices, a weak US dollar and a slowing US economy. The McGuinty government's five-point economic plan has helped prepare Ontario to weather the current economic uncertainty.

The world's reality has changed dramatically in the last few weeks, and so has Ontario's. The slowing US economy and global financial situation are causing significant uncertainty. On a daily basis, we're seeing our markets and economies changing. The five-point economic plan will continue to guide us while we respond to the rapidly changing world economy.

Our government will do everything it can to protect the gains made by Ontario while taking a balanced, comprehensive approach to future growth. In his fall economic statement, Minister Duncan outlined some of the challenges facing Ontario's economy. We know that certain sectors, some communities and too many families are struggling. The 2008 budget acknowledges and addresses these sectors, these communities and these families. On October 22 we introduced Bill 114, the Budget Measures and Interim Appropriation Act, 2008. If passed, this new legislation would help seniors, families and businesses weather these challenging economic times.

Let me talk about taking care of our families. Ontario families are concerned about their investments, their pensions, their mortgages and their savings. Some are experiencing job losses, particularly in the manufacturing and forestry sectors. Ontarians are concerned about how they will be able to afford care for elderly parents and relatives while balancing full-time jobs and taking care of their own children.

To help families cope with these very real challenges, the McGuinty government is proposing to initiate a new property tax exemption for temporary residential dwellings that are built on the same parcel of land as an existing house to accommodate a senior family member. These are known as granny flats. By being able to build a granny flat, elderly relatives can remain close to their families, while the associated tax exemption will put more money in the pockets of hard-working Ontarians.

Taking care of Ontario's families has been a priority for the McGuinty government for the last five years, and we continue to make it a priority through unprecedented investments in health care, education, infrastructure and skills training, which create jobs now and improves productivity in the longer term.

Many Ontario seniors are concerned that recent market turbulence will put their pensions and retirement savings at risk. Financial markets are volatile, as the last few weeks have demonstrated. Pension funds, RRSPs and retirement income vehicles have all been affected. Markets, however, have historically recovered and pension funds are long-term investments. It is important to remind ourselves that pension entitlements are usually paid out over many years and retirement savings come from a combination of pension income, accumulated savings and investment returns.

Ontario property and sales tax credits provide property and sales tax assistance to seniors with modest incomes. Since 2003, our government has made several improvements to these credits to ensure that they better reflect the circumstances facing our seniors.

We would like to take that one step further by proposing an amendment to the Income Tax Act which would increase the 2008 Ontario property and sales tax credit threshold for senior couples to $24,300 from $23,820 in 2007. This change will benefit senior couples who rely on the guaranteed minimum income from federal and provincial programs.

About 76,000 Ontarians reside in long-term-care homes. As part of Bill 114, we are also proposing an amendment to the Assessment Act that would implement our 2008 budget commitment to preserve the historic tax exemption for long-term-care homes established under the Charitable Institutions Act. This would maintain the quality of care provided to seniors residing in these homes and support increases in the long-term-care capacity.

Let me take some time to talk about the initiatives we have taken and continue to take to lower business costs. Our government knows that businesses want choice, less red tape and improved efficiency in the services they get from government. To this end, as I have said, we developed the five-point economic plan to encourage long-term sustainable economic development. Training and education enable people to get the highly skilled jobs that will improve Ontario's productivity. The plan has seen unprecedented investments made in post-secondary education, innovation and infrastructure.

Our five-point economic plan is working. We have taken steps to reduce the administrative burden on businesses. This summer, we launched ONT-TAXS, Ontario's tax service to reduce the administrative burden on businesses. Our first step was establishing a single toll-free number for tax administration help and information.

This past June, we replaced 39 ministry telephone numbers with one toll-free number, and businesses will soon have 24/7 access to taxation information and services online, including account inquiry, tax filing, tax payment, and change of information. These new systems will make it easier for businesses to get the information they need when they need it.

Our government also introduced one common business number as Ontario has joined the federal government and other provinces in using the federal business number to securely identify a business and its associated tax program.

We have also cut costs and improved efficiency for Ontario's businesses by harmonizing federal and Ontario corporate income tax administration. This will save businesses up to $190 million a year in administrative costs and corporate income tax savings. Streamlining the tax system through a single combined federal and Ontario corporate income tax return means one tax form, one tax collector and one set of income tax rules for 2009 and subsequent tax years.

This means that corporate taxpayers in Ontario will see a 50% reduction in the number of notices of assessment and corporate tax audits now that the CRA, the Canada Revenue Agency, will be performing these functions on behalf of Ontario; a 20% reduction in the total number of papers of their tax return; a 28% reduction in the number of fields that need to be entered on their tax return; and a 50% reduction in filing requirements for objections as a result of the standardization of federal and provincial appeals procedures.

This translates into a lot less paperwork, leaving business owners and managers more time to run their businesses.

For several years now, we have been partnering with key sectors of the Ontario economy and other jurisdictions to encourage economic growth. We made it clear we were ready to work with Ontario businesses to partner with those that wanted to grow by investing in their workers and new technologies. Since then, through support from Ontario, the auto industry has announced nearly $7.5 billion in new investments right here in Ontario.

To encourage an innovative economy, we need to attract and keep the best and brightest. Earlier this year, we launched the Next Generation of Jobs Fund, a $1.15-billion strategy to help innovative companies keep pace with changes in the global economy and secure new knowledge-based jobs and investments in Ontario. We also appointed a new Minister of International Trade and Investment who will work exclusively on promoting Ontario to the world and attracting new investment and trade opportunities.

The McGuinty government is also very aware of the impact that taxes have on Ontario businesses, and we knew lowering business costs would help businesses succeed and create more jobs. That is why, since 2004, we have cut business taxes by more than $1.5 billion. Fully phased in, our tax cuts will save Ontario businesses nearly $3 billion annually.

Small businesses are the economic backbone of Ontario's communities, accounting for approximately 40% of employment in the province. Retroactive to January 1, 2007, we have increased the small business deduction threshold by $100,000, to $500,000, up from $400,000. This initiative will provide thousands of small businesses across the province with about $100 million of tax relief over a four-year period. More than 20% of this tax relief will go to small businesses in the resource and manufacturing sectors. We are also paralleling the capital cost allowance measures announced in the 2007 and 2008 federal budgets that benefit manufacturing and support clean energy generation.

We have a competitive corporate tax system in Ontario. Our combined general and manufacturing corporate income tax rates are almost seven percentage points lower than those of our main trading partners, the American Great Lakes states. We have already taken measures to help protect existing jobs, stimulate investment in new jobs, and provide immediate cash flow to those industries most in need of working capital.

We have also legislated a plan to eliminate capital tax on July 1, 2010, 18 months earlier than scheduled in the 2004 budget. We are also cutting high business education tax rates by $540 million over seven years. This is expected to benefit more than half a million businesses in 321 municipalities across this great province of ours.

All of those tax relief measures are intended to encourage job creation and economic growth, and they support the Ontario government's action plan for the economy.

In the 2008 budget, we announced $750 million of tax reductions for business, primarily benefiting the manufacturing and resource sectors, over four years starting in 2007-08. We all know Ontario is a province rich in natural resources, but a weaker US dollar and a troubled global economy have put stress on Ontario's resource companies, which employ thousands of workers across the province. Bill 114 takes further action to reduce the pressure on our resource industries by extending the property tax exemption for minerals to include limestone, gravel and other mineral aggregates, so that all mineral substances will receive consistent prop