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

April 22, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Apr-22 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 22 April 2009 Mercredi 22 avril 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET MEASURES ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR

LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES

COUNTERING DISTRACTED DRIVING

AND PROMOTING GREEN TRANSPORTATION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 VISANT À COMBATTRE

LA CONDUITE INATTENTIVE

ET À PROMOUVOIR

LES TRANSPORTS ÉCOLOGIQUES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

TAXATION

PROVINCIAL PURCHASING POLICY

ENERGY RATES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

NUCLEAR ENERGY

SPORTS FUNDING

PENSION PLANS

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

ORGAN DONATION

EDUCATION FUNDING

PENSION PLANS

MUNICIPALITIES

ABORIGINAL LAND DISPUTE

EDUCATION FUNDING

UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE FUNDING

DEFERRED VOTES

BUDGET MEASURES ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR

LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GROVES MEMORIAL

COMMUNITY HOSPITAL

RICHARD PATTEN

VOLUNTEERS

TAXATION

ST. PETER PLAYERS

EDUCATION

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

BILAAL RAJAN

GOVERNMENT INVESTMENTS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CRIMINAL RECORD CHECKS

FOR VOLUNTEERS ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LES VÉRIFICATIONS

DU CASIER JUDICIAIRE

DES BÉNÉVOLES

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ABORIGINAL CHILDREN'S SERVICES

EARTH DAY

ABORIGINAL CHILDREN'S SERVICES

EARTH DAY

ABORIGINAL CHILDREN'S SERVICES

EARTH DAY

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

CHILD CUSTODY

PENSION PLANS

AIR QUALITY

SCHOOL FUNDING

PROTECTION OF MINORS

CEMETERIES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

CEMETERIES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

LUPUS

TAXATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TOBACCO DAMAGES

AND HEALTH CARE COSTS

RECOVERY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE RECOUVREMENT

DU MONTANT DES DOMMAGES

ET DU COÛT DES SOINS DE SANTÉ

IMPUTABLES AU TABAC

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET MEASURES ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR

LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 20, 2009, on the motion for second reading of Bill 162,

An Act respecting the budget measures and other matters / Projet de loi 162, Loi concernant les mesures budgétaires et d'autres questions.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I am now required to put the question. Mr. Duncan has moved second reading of Bill 162. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

This vote will be deferred to deferred votes following question period today.

Second reading vote deferred.

COUNTERING DISTRACTED DRIVING

AND PROMOTING GREEN TRANSPORTATION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 VISANT À COMBATTRE

LA CONDUITE INATTENTIVE

ET À PROMOUVOIR

LES TRANSPORTS ÉCOLOGIQUES

Mr. Bradley moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 118,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit the use of devices with display screens and hand-held communication and entertainment devices and to amend the Public Vehicles Act with respect to car pool vehicles / Projet de loi 118, Loi modifiant le Code de la route afin d'interdire l'usage d'appareils à écran et d'appareils portatifs de télécommunications et de divertissement et modifiant la

Loi sur les véhicules de transport en commun à l'égard des véhicules de covoiturage.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I will be sharing my time with my parliamentary assistant, the member for Brampton–Springdale.

I rise in the House today to I guess you'd say continue debate, although I'm beginning debate on third reading of legislation that, if passed, would make Ontario's roads safer and potentially save lives. I do so in the context—some who have been here in the House a while will remember when it was a rarity to have third reading of any particular bill. You had first reading, of course, which is the introduction of the bill, an extensive second reading and then committee; and then it came back for third reading, and it was almost on a nod. The practice has evolved—governments would say unfortunately, oppositions would say fortunately—so that there is now debate on third reading.

What I have been pleased to see with this bill is the degree of unanimity on the principle of the bill. During debate there was discussion about various aspects of the bill; some expressed concerns, some were apprehensive about certain parts of the bill, provisions of the bill. Then we went to committee and the public had an opportunity to make presentations to the committee on the legislation and be questioned by members of the Legislative Assembly who sat on the committee.

Subsequent to that there was clause-by-clause analysis and consideration of the bill, and amendments could be put forward at that particular point in time. Then the legislation, when departing from the committee, discharged from the committee, now comes to us for third reading. I was extremely pleased with the degree of unanimity on the principle of the bill.

I mentioned, when I was leading off the second reading of the bill in the House, that my colleague Kevin Flynn from Oakville and my colleague John O'Toole from Durham, among other members of the assembly, but those two in particular, had shown an interest in this subject. I wanted to commend both of those individuals for some of the work they did in the early days when, I might add, it wasn't as popular a concept, yet we could see that in other jurisdictions people were moving forward with legislation of this kind.

I think we all recognize that new technologies have created some tremendous conveniences, but they need to be used with caution. I don't think there is a person anywhere who hasn't texted, e-mailed or talked on the phone while driving, even though we know it is dangerous to do so. Our eyes-on-the-road, hands-on-the-wheel legislation aims to stop the use of hand-held wireless communication devices such as cellphones while driving. The goal is not to inconvenience people but to make our roads safer for them and for everyone else who shares our roads. For safety's sake, drivers should focus on one thing and one thing only: driving.

Research shows that a person who uses a cellphone while driving is four times more likely to be involved in a collision than if that person were simply focused on the task of driving. Who hasn't witnessed a driver who seemed intensely involved in a complex conversation on that person's cellphone, or watched as someone intermittently responded to e-mails or text messages as that person drove? Operating a motor vehicle must never become a secondary task. Driving is always the primary task for anyone who gets behind the wheel; anything less is unacceptable. Drivers focusing on the use of these devices put the lives of pedestrians, other drivers and themselves at serious risk.

Transport Canada estimates that driver distraction is a contributing factor in approximately 20% of collisions on our roads. There should be no doubt that those people who do not focus on the task of driving should in fact not be driving. Those who put others at risk for any reason should not be on the road and should be made to understand the potential consequences of their actions. It is time to take a tough stand and stop this dangerous behaviour on our roads. Our proposed legislation could prevent tragedies before they happen.

With the increasing use of cellphones and other hand-held electronic devices, the time to deal with this issue is now. New technologies do not go away, they proliferate, and the hazards they represent can only increase. This issue will certainly not go away if we just choose to ignore it. We must tackle it head-on, and that's what this legislation is designed to do. If this legislation is passed, it will ban text messaging, e-mailing, dialling and chatting on hand-held wireless communication devices. It will also ban the use of other hand-held electronic entertainment devices while driving.

Let's be clear about one important caveat: Ontario is not proposing an all-out ban on these devices. We are simply asking drivers not to use hand-held wireless communications and electronic entertainment devices while they are driving a vehicle. The use of hands-free wireless communication devices will still be allowed. GPS units mounted on a dashboard will still be permitted as well. I would also like to emphasize that emergency phone calls to 911 using hand-held devices will be allowed. We know that police and emergency service personnel rely on calls from the public reporting collisions or dangerous drivers.

It's just common sense. Any activity that divides a driver's attention from the task of driving should be avoided whenever possible.

This bill is about more than safer roads; it's also about cleaner air. You may have noticed that our proposed legislation is entitled the Countering Distracted Driving and Promoting Green Transportation Act. I would like to take a moment to explain to all members the green component of this legislation. But before I do so, I would like to again acknowledge some of the efforts of one of my colleagues, Gilles Bisson from Timmins—James Bay, who brought forward a private member's bill in this regard, and the expressions that were brought to my attention by others.

Carpools are by definition environmentally friendly transportation solutions. Encouraging more Ontarians to share a ride is part of Ontario's plan to reduce harmful emissions, ease traffic congestion and fight climate change. The current definition of carpooling under the Public Vehicles Act has made it difficult for individuals in certain situations to form carpools to go to and from school, social events and even work. That is why we are proposing an amendment to the Public Vehicles Act that would make it easier for people to carpool.

It would remove the barriers and red tape associated with carpooling in Ontario, in the hope that it will further encourage their use and help remove single-occupant vehicles from Ontario's highways.

In the distracted-driving and carpooling provisions of this legislation, our government has the support of many organizations. The Ontario Medical Association, the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the Canadian Automobile Association, the Ontario Provincial Police, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, the Ontario Safety League and many others stood beside us when we first announced our plans last fall. I would also like to point out that our ministry has listened to industry feedback in response to both of these proposed measures. We both appreciate and have carefully considered their proposals.

If the legislation is passed, we will continue to work together as we develop the supporting regulations.

Road safety is one of this government's top priorities. We need to do everything we can to eliminate dangers on our roads. Our message? That drivers must keep their eyes on the road and hands on the wheel at all times to prevent collisions. We must continue to ensure that we address new risks and hazards as they arise. As with all of the other safety reforms we have introduced, our purpose is to preserve and strengthen Ontario's outstanding record of safety on our roads. We are committed to maintaining Ontario's reputation for having some of the safest roads in all of North America and, indeed, the world.

Bill 118 supports the McGuinty government's commitment to prevent injury and reduce traffic collisions. This proposed legislation will protect families and communities. It will make every Ontarian safer, and I urge all members to support this bill.

As I conclude my remarks on third reading, I would like to again pay tribute to Linda Jeffrey, the parliamentary assistant to the Ministry of Transportation, who has done so much work in regard to guiding this bill both through the Legislature and through committee. I believe she was actually a committee Chair when the legislation started out, but certainly she has carried the ball in committee. Again, I want to emphasize for the public out there more than members of the Legislature, because I think we tend to know that, that the role of a parliamentary assistant is extremely important.

Very often, while ministers are those who are quoted or perhaps receive the accolades—and the brickbats, I might add—it is actually parliamentary assistants who on so many occasions are the ones who are doing the heavy slogging. I can assure you that in the case of this legislation and the previous bill that was passed earlier this week, Linda Jeffrey was, at least as far as the government side is concerned, a person who carried the ball there.

I pay tribute to all members of the Legislature and the legislative committee who made a contribution to this. This is a piece of legislation that I think, Mr. Speaker, engenders the kind of unanimity that perhaps others don't. There are divisive issues in this House and there are those which tend to be based more on consensus. I suggest to you and to members of the House that consensus certainly is significant in this particular case.

So I thank all of those who have been involved. Staff of the Ministry of Transportation have done an outstanding job as well in helping to develop this legislation. In my own personal staff there have been people—I mentioned Michelle Baker previously and Bianca Bruni, both of whom have worked on this, as well as others within my office. I know that the opposition members have had available to them assistance from their research staffs and others in preparing for the legislation.

I thank members of the House for their consideration. I encourage them to pass this legislation and have it in effect at the earliest opportunity. Thank you, and I will now turn it over to Linda Jeffrey.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Brampton—Springdale.

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey: Good morning, Mr. Speaker, and thank you.

I rise in the House this morning to continue discussion on Bill 118, legislation that would help make our province's roads safer by reducing the distractions for drivers.

As Minister Bradley said, Ontario's roads have earned a reputation for being amongst the safest in North America. This is a record we have maintained for more than a decade. But as times change, we need to change with those times. New technologies are creating safety hazards and we need to address them.

To keep Ontario in the vanguard of road safety is a constant challenge. We must always be vigilant and ready to adopt new ways of dealing with today's ever-changing driving environment. Our proposed legislation addresses a timely road safety issue. It is also one that many other provinces, states and countries are beginning to recognize and acknowledge as an emerging danger on our roads. As Minister Bradley pointed out, we cannot underestimate the risks of modern technological distractions as they affect a driver's ability to concentrate on the road.

Drivers who text, e-mail, dial or chat on their cellphones or other kinds of hand-held wireless communication devices instead of focusing on the road ahead are potentially dangerous drivers. Safety must always be a driver's first priority.

The first law of new technology is that it's useful, it will be used; and no one can deny that hand-held devices are useful and very convenient. Wireless phones are among the fastest-growing consumer products in history. In fact, today half of all Canadians are mobile phone customers. The need to regulate their use depends how that use in certain contexts will create dangers and risks for the user and for others. The time to act is now. Now is the time to deal with this issue, before it gets out of hand. Bill 118 will help improve driver safety and, we believe, save lives.

Now is the time to remind drivers to keep their eyes on the road and their hands on the wheel. The evidence speaks for itself.

Research shows that drivers who use hand-held communication and electronic entertainment devices pose a significant risk to pedestrians, other drivers and themselves. For example, two expert studies have shown that there is a four-fold increase in collision risks when drivers are using cellphones. In addition, a US study found that using a hand-held wireless communication device was the most frequent type of secondary task performed by drivers. Results also show that it is the active engagement in a conversation that causes higher levels of driver distraction and not just the manual manipulation of the phone.

Nor should drivers be allowed to divert their attention to hand-held wireless entertainment devices while driving. The same risk is posed by the use of a hand-held electronic entertainment device such as an iPod or other portable MP3 players and gaming devices. Similarly, this bill addresses the hazards of trying to view display screens on devices unrelated to driving, such as laptop computers or DVD players, while driving. At the same time, it is important to remember that there are a number of valid exceptions.

Bill 118 would allow the use of hands-free wireless communications devices such as Bluetooth devices, GPS units that are integrated into the vehicle or mounted on a dashboard, calls to 911, and use by emergency service personnel.

We're not alone in our thinking here. We have the support of many organizations that agree that now is the time to put a stop to distracted drivers who continue to text, e-mail and chat on their hand-held cellphones. We heard from a number of deputations who came to committee, one of those being the Sudbury and District Health Unit. They sent us a very thoughtful letter that I thought I would read into the record this morning. They indicate that, on behalf of the Sudbury and District Health Unit, they are writing to express their support of Bill 118:

"Mobile communications have become a part of everyday life as a means of keeping in touch with family, friends as well as participating in work activities while in transit from one place to another. One of the main reasons people give for purchasing a mobile phone is to be able to use it in emergencies ... yet recent estimates show that 85% of cellphone users use their phone while driving ... and 60% of their cellphone usage occurs while driving.... Cellphones are creating driver distraction and increasing the risk of injury and death on our roads.

"Research has shown that drivers are four times more likely to have a motor vehicle collision while using a cellular telephone than when not using a cellular telephone, a risk similar to driving with a blood alcohol level at the legal limit.... In fact, cellphones may actually exhibit greater impairments than intoxicated drivers, and hands-free cellphones are no different than hand-held cellphones....

Some may think that public education would be sufficient to have people refrain from cellphone use while driving but in a recent poll, 60% of drivers indicated that they would not stop using cell phones when driving even when told their cellphone use makes them four times more likely to be involved in a collision.... Research participants commented that they had observed others driving erratically while using a cellphone but rarely thought cellphone use affected their driving, showing a disparity between self-perception and their actual driving performance."

The Sudbury and District Health Unit ends by saying:

"We believe that in passing Bill 118, Countering Distracted Driving and Promoting Green Transportation Act, 2008, we are one step closer in improving the safety of our roads and reducing motor-vehicle-related injuries and deaths in Ontario."

If this legislation is passed, Ontario will join more than 50 worldwide jurisdictions that have laws in place to deal with this type of driver distraction. In Canada, similar restrictions are in place in Nova Scotia, Quebec, and Newfoundland and Labrador. In the United States, California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, New York and Washington have also taken action. Here at home, the Ontario Medical Association has urged this government to address the dangers of driving while using a cellphone.

Back in October, when we first announced our plans to move forward with this legislation, a number of our road safety partners stood beside us to lend their support. The minister mentioned many of them: the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the Canadian Automobile Association, the Ontario Provincial Police, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, the Ontario Safety League and many, many others.

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind members of some of the supportive words we received from those organizations on the days we heard from deputants. Deputy Commissioner Larry Beechey, speaking on behalf of the Ontario Provincial Police, noted that this legislation will help Ontarians get the message that "driving is not a part-time job; it's a full-time job.... Every one of our faculties is required to operate a motor vehicle." He sees this legislation as being a great tool for law enforcement officers across this province.

We heard from Dr. Suzanne Strasberg, president-elect of the Ontario Medical Association and a family doctor. She emphasized the importance of this legislation in preventing injuries by changing driver behaviour. "Every day," said Dr. Strasberg, "we see victims of road collisions, whether it be trauma in the emergency room or the ongoing treatment of injuries in a clinical setting.... Not only will this ban address the dangers caused by drivers distracted by their cellphones, BlackBerries and other hand-held devices, but it has begun a dialogue among the people of Ontario."

It is a fact that Bill 118 is about changing driver behaviour, and changing behaviour is an enormous task that can't be accomplished overnight. There will, of course, always be those who think the rules do not apply to them, which is why Bill 118 carries a fine of between $60 and $500 upon conviction. With the help of police, our safety partners and the people of Ontario, we know that this legislation can make our roads safer places for everyone. Together, we must do more to save lives, prevent injuries and keep our communities safe.

Our eyes-on-the-road, hands-on-the-wheel approach will actively prevent tragedies before they happen. It's time for our government to make the call to end this type of distracted driving.

As Minister Bradley noted, this bill also contains amendments to the Public Vehicles Act for removing restrictions on carpooling. We are proposing to amend the definition of a carpool vehicle to recognize informal carpools that operate between municipalities for purposes other than just home-to-work and work-to-home trips. These carpooling amendments provide a balance between legitimate carpools and scheduled commercial bus services, for which a licence is required.

Any step we can take that encourages more people to ride in fewer cars will help reduce our carbon footprint by reducing emissions, and that, in the end, benefits everyone.

I support Bill 118, and I urge all members in the House to support the bill.

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

Mr. John O'Toole: I would hope there will be further debate on this. Briefly, I have a few things to say on it, but I think we're all in agreement that any action we can take that would improve the safety of our roads is something that, as the minister said this morning, we'd certainly be in agreement with.

I'll be making come comments in a few minutes. They won't last any longer than the government spoke, so it's kind of a fair balance.

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

Mr. Jeff Leal: I really am pleased to hear the minister's and the parliamentary assistant's comments on Bill 118, to improve highway safety in the province of Ontario. Certainly, this is a bill that had everybody's involvement. I know the member from Durham, who is here this morning, has certainly been a leading advocate on this issue for many, many years—a very consistent position from the member from Durham—and the member from Timmins—James Bay has brought forward private member's legislation in a similar vein to improve highway safety in the province of Ontario.

It's interesting: Just yesterday I was on my way here. I left Peterborough very early, and there was a very tragic accident at the intersection of 115/35 and the 401. It was closed for half a day. There's an allegation that alcohol was involved, that a driver was going the wrong way in exiting off the 115/35 and hit a van with four people in it, very early. Anything we can do to improve highway safety in a whole variety of areas is so very, very important.

In this particular accident yesterday, I was listening to it on 680News, and I think by the grace of God it's lucky there wasn't a fatality at that situation there yesterday. Again, it goes a long way to improve road safety, an issue that I think reaches to all corners of this Legislature. We all want to improve road safety.

I certainly commend the minister, the parliamentary assistant, the member from Durham and the member from Timmins—James Bay, who I think deserve equal accolades on their work in bringing this bill to the House.

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

Response? Response? The Minister of Transportation.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Thank you very much. I was in deep conversation with my good friend Ted Arnott here about matters related to this bill, or peripherally to this bill.

I want to thank all members for their contribution to this debate, not only this morning but previously in committee, on second reading and in their general discussion of it. I think the bill has been strengthened, and the understanding of the bill strengthened, because of the contribution of all members of this House. Although one can never presume what will happen in the House, I'm optimistic from what I've heard from all members on all sides of the House that this bill will be passed. We will see whether my optimism is justified when it finally comes to a vote. I look forward with anticipation as well to my friends in the opposition as they offer their comments on third reading.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate? The member for Durham.

Mr. John O'Toole: Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to respond, and also the very accommodating remarks by the minister this morning as well as his parliamentary assistant, the member from Brampton—Springdale, who has indeed worked hard on this. In fact, some would argue she could easily be the minister. But that's another story for another day.

I suspect that the other member who was mentioned who could easily be encouraged would be Kevin Flynn. Actually, he would be another person who would like to be minister, I suppose, another time and another day. They've worked hard, and as I can attest, having been parliamentary assistant several times in my 13- or 14-year career, the minister was right: It's a lot of the heavy lifting and the slugging, and none of the glory or the pay. But anyway, I digress.

I want to first of all say, on behalf of the opposition and as the critic at the moment, that it's a privilege to have this brief amount of time, about an hour.

Here's a bit of history. I think it's important to put the history in context. I'm flattered by the minister's remarks this morning, and I'll tell you why. I printed off of the Legislative website here—this particular policy was first introduced by myself at the suggestion of a constituent, who shall remain nameless, who brought it to my attention.

They came into my office in Bowmanville and said to me, "John, I just witnessed somebody going through a red light." I said, "Well, there are provisions under the Highway Traffic Act where they could be given a ticket, or even under Road Watch they could be cautioned by the police. If witnessed by the police, they probably would have got a ticket. It would have been failing to yield and it's probably about four points or two points and a substantial ticket." But she said, "Oh no, no, John. You miss it completely. They were on the cellphone and they didn't even see the light."

That's the first time I actually saw the light. Thanks to my constituent, who didn't want her name mentioned, I looked into other jurisdictions about technology, and in fact it was in place in some jurisdictions. So even to the credit of myself and my constituent, other jurisdictions had actually leaped ahead of us. In fact, at that time I had a daughter living in Australia. She brought to my attention as well that in Australia it was already prohibited. In fact, it's pretty strictly prohibited there.

But anyway, I introduced a bill in 2000 as a result of that. That was in 1999-2000. The bill was Bill 102, and it did make it into the session. I also introduced it again because, of course, there was an election shortly after all that, and it was Bill 49. That was introduced in 2002.

By the way, we were government at the time, and even our government didn't see fit to implement the bill. I introduced it and it got debated, but it didn't get the light of day.

At that time, I'd like to think that former members of the Legislature—I believe Mr. Turnbull was the Minister of Transportation. I spoke to him directly, and I felt confident that he was going to move forward with it. For some reason, he didn't have the courage that Mr. Bradley is showing here today.

Interjection.

Mr. John O'Toole: Some of what I'm saying is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it's also important for history, for my grandchildren. They'll be able to read it—probably they won't, but they could if they wanted to, I'm sure.

The next bill was in 2003, right after the election. I was so convinced, because people kept reminding me. I met with the current chief of the Ontario Provincial Police back then, when he was chief of Toronto, and I would say I met with the head of the police association. I met with some of the enforcement people in Durham and I actually attended an inquest—it was called the Schewe inquest—which profoundly changed my intensity on the bill.

The inquest was about an accident that happened in Pickering, which is in Durham. There was an inquest held to see if they could improve the conditions which were, in some part, a cause of the accident. At this inquest, it turned out there was a father and his daughter who were both killed while crossing a railway track. It turned out the father was bringing his little daughter to, I guess, the daycare, and he was going to work. He was just passing the phone over, I believe, to say goodbye to the mother, and they went across a level crossing and both were killed. It was tragic.

So from that point on, I saw that if any of us here could do any one thing that would save even one life, then we would have done something of value.

I kept pressing with the bill again, with Bill 23, which was introduced in December. For some reason, the bill got stalled all the time. Now, I did make improvements; I didn't just reintroduce the same thing. I listened to the stakeholders—the CAA, which was one of them. The young lobbyist was a helpful person in some respects too. In fact, they wanted me to introduce a portion of the bill which my bill was able to provide. It was able to provide for G1 licences to be prohibited from it; that was in my bill. But they wanted me to separate it from the bill and introduce it.

I refused because I felt it should be looked at as a whole policy, not just penalizing young people. They gave that bill, actually, to Mr. Flynn, and Mr. Flynn introduced it. So he does have some attachment, but its genesis came from my constituents back in 1999.

I am just the courier here. The minister's the hero, basically. He's doing the right thing—which is really what we're here to do. Often, as he said in his remarks in a compliant way, that doesn't actually happen very often here.

Actually, more recently I had introduced Bill 40, which was introduced in March 2008, a little over a year ago, and now we sit with this Bill 118. That gives you the history and the genesis of this idea, which many other jurisdictions already use.

I did participate in the hearings and felt that—I have a copy of an annotated version of the bill, which means it reflects the changes, amendments and additions. I argued all through it that there's a lot of time spent here—and this is not a criticism; it's more or less to the minister's staff, not the minister. The minister didn't actually write it; he instructed these intelligent, capable people he referred to to get on with drafting the bill. Most of this stuff should have been handled in regulation. The reason I say that is because the technology we see today will be redundant in two years.

Follow me along now. I'll give you an example of what I mean by that. When I started looking at it, cellphones were like a shoe box, and now they're almost invisible. In fact, there will be no more keys on the communication devices. It will all be voice-activated. In fact, our Hansard here is now using voice-activated software to record the minutes, which is being used. When you don't need to use little keys to text-message and to e-mail and to google and all that stuff—that's coming.

But the providers of these devices like to implement them slowly so you can buy one, it becomes redundant, you throw it out and buy the next version. It becomes redundant, you throw it out and you buy the next one. RIM gets richer, the shareholders are all happy and the dumps are all full of technology, basically. It's tragic, really. But that is what will happen, and some of it is through pure innovation that hasn't caught up with the devices yet.

I can tell you, in my riding—as many of the other members will attest—I was just recently on a farm, one of the leading farms in Durham, where they have tractors that are auto-steer; they don't even drive them. You know what I mean? It's almost unimaginable. They have a transmission and receiver station in the centre of the farm—they farm about 5,000 acres—and the tractor is steered by GPS. It's incredible. They currently have to have somebody in the vehicle actually looking at the stock market or reading the paper or whatever they do. But it's called auto-steer; it's incredible. I'm sure the member from Bruce would have those kinds of operations.

I'm saying that if you look at the vehicles and the technology on our roads today, I forecast that in five years there will be some of this intelligent transportation; ITS stuff will be around. I worked in computers for a good part of my life, and I can see that this is just the beginning of technology. I see it in my real life each day. I get excited about innovation because young people, like the pages here, will see this in their lifetime.

My son-in-law is a very talented aeronautical engineer, with a Master's from UCLA, all that stuff, a test pilot. He told me that basically he flies F-18s—and now he flies 747s for Cathay Pacific. I'm very proud of him, but also, they really don't fly them. They land them. It's completely automated. They flip it on autopilot when they're in the air and they do preparation things—flipping switches and tuning in certain things about descent and directions that are given by the tower, and these can be voice-activated as well.

They're really there to make sure that the system and their interaction—imagine how that could improve safety on our roadways, with intelligent transportation. You'd have a transponder and a receiver. The receiver would disable the driver, and the driver would only be there to make sure that they get to where they're going. That's the future. That will happen in your lifetime, guaranteed. We're designing stuff today that will be obsolete in five years, guaranteed.

I'm not going to use the whole hour, that's for sure, to give some people some rest here. There's a whole

section in the bill that talks about how

part VI of the act is amended to add the following, and it says hand-held devices are prohibited.

Section 78 talks about how no person shall drive a vehicle while holding a device. Under "Entertainment devices" it describes all of that.

Then it goes into a whole subsection here, subsection (4), on exemptions, which the minister has talked about.

Then it has a whole

section on regulations:

"

(7) The Minister may make regulations,

"(

a) prescribing devices for the purpose of subsections (1) and (2);

"(

b) prescribing persons...."

Ambulance operators, fire, police and other emergency vehicles are excluded from this.

I think the whole thing could have been handled in exemptions. He has gone on to include entertainment devices. Right now, even with BlackBerries, you can actually surf the Internet, download files, watch a movie and look at pictures. They're a computer. They are larger—I used to program 1401 computers in COBOL, many, many years ago. These are bigger and better devices—and I hate to use "devices" there. That's my only comment.

One little question I had here is—under this exemption section, which says,

"Same

"(6) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if all of the following conditions are met:

"

(1) The motor vehicle is off the roadway or is lawfully parked on the roadway"—that they aren't subject to the violation.

"

(2) The motor vehicle is not in motion." In other words, you're stopped. That's good.

"

(3) The motor vehicle is not impeding traffic." That could be challenged in court. If I'm on the road and I'm doing this and I'm not impeding traffic, that could be a subjective kind of

interpretation.

I'll just leave it at that. The regulations section, as I said, could handle it all.

The other part—and this is going to conclude, I think—on the Public Vehicles Act, this one here, I'm happy with. As the minister said, Mr. Bisson, the member from Timmins—James Bay, actually did work on this—and he brings up the very good idea of carpooling. What this is specific about is that "carpooling" is a bit restrictive. I'd encourage it more. I think the minister may be revisiting this in a future bill—or we will, when we're government next time. Here's what it says. It describes carpooling—more or less, to prohibit certain classes of vehicles.

I think it's to protect the TTC and Coach Canada and all those other commercial operators. I guess their ministry's advice is to try to get along with people. They don't want to have any competition out there. That would be bad.

"Carpool vehicles

"

(2) Subject to subsection (4), a public vehicle and a taxicab do not include a motor vehicle, as defined in the Highway Traffic Act, with a seating capacity of not more than 10 persons"—it could be a small coach, I guess; it could be a limousine, too—"while it is transporting not more than 10 persons"—so it's a small number—"including the driver on a one-way or round trip where the taking of passengers is incidental to the driver's purpose for the trip."

That's very good. How does this apply? It could apply, in many cases, to people carpooling to go to work, and I think that's what it's intended to do. Carpooling to work, carpooling to shop—you could get away with that, but it could probably be challenged—if you were going to Buffalo for a shopping weekend and there are 10 or 20 persons from a women's group or a men's group or church or whatever type of group.

This one here gets a bit nitpicky, a bit red tape-ish. It says:

"

(4) In order to be excluded from the

definitions of public vehicle and taxicab, the use of a motor vehicle as described in subsection (2) must also meet the following conditions:"

This is interesting too:

"

(1) No fee is charged or paid to the driver, owner or lessee of the motor vehicle for the passengers' transportation, except an amount to reimburse the expenses of operating the motor vehicle as described in subsection (2)...."

There's a lot of red tape there. In other words, you can't get paid any more than your gas money. I guess we'll have to have that defined once you get into the minutia part of it. I think it's unnecessary intrusion, red tape. Somebody's going to take it to court: "I didn't pay more than that." How about the oil? How about the tires? How about the cost of running the vehicle—whatever. You know what I mean.

Right now, it probably costs about 75 cents a kilometre to operate a vehicle, including depreciation—maybe a dollar, really—gas, oil, insurance, depreciation, regular maintenance, the time of my life that I've sold for the hour. So, that, to me, is poorly drafted. I'm not the lawyer—but whoever drafted this probably only makes $150,000 or $160,000 a year. Some of it is unnecessary, really. It goes on to great extent in here.

I think the intent is very laudable and very commendable, and I would support it, while at the same time cautioning—how about church groups? Some churches in my riding are encouraging young families to attend service—of whatever religion, Christian or otherwise—and they pick them up and drop them off, or they pick them up and maybe they spend the whole day there celebrating different things. Maybe somebody else takes them home. You could argue that this thing legitimizes carpooling maybe to work, but I think carpooling is good for a lot of things, even taking a group of friends to theatre in Toronto or to a ball game—a lot of minutia.

This bill is well intended—both sections of it. We would be supporting it. We add our value to it that it would be much more efficient to have handled this in regulation on the first part—that is, the technology piece, because the technology will change and somebody will say, "That's not as it's described in the bill. This is now 2013, and my device is a GPS, a phone, a video camera, a tape recorder, a computer and a communications device, and it's also racking up my expense report as I travel," and it doesn't qualify, and it will have to be changed. They will have to redraft the bill and spend a lot of time unnecessarily here, as I am this morning.

I do want to thank all the people who participated in trying to make our roads safer while at the same time not being an in-your-face nanny state running everything. What it does involve is, as I said, the reference to the young family whose lives were tragically changed . Also, the enforcement provisions in the bill—I think this will be the challenge. Newfoundland and Labrador was the first jurisdiction in Canada to implement the bill, and the enforceability had been challenged in court.

I found it rather odd because some members here, I'm sure, have been to Newfoundland and Labrador, and there's probably nobody on most of their roads. When you are coming across Newfoundland over to St. John's, you will see that there is no cell service in most of Newfoundland and Labrador. They have the cellphones basically for St. John's. It was challenged in court, and it did withstand a court challenge on enforceability. I think this will be the big challenge.

If there are two or more people in the car, how do you determine who is on the phone? Do you understand? You could have a device, quite honestly, today—the police have told me this—that you could use to track a vehicle and know they're on the phone. There is a signal going on.

My sense was this: I like this area of technology. That's why I'm spending some time, because there may even be ministry people listening. There are devices today—I worked for General Motors. I worked in the industry for quite a few years and I know that they have a program now called OnStar. Ford and Chrysler all have different programs, which is Bluetooth technology and does a lot of things for you. It can book ball and NHL tickets for you; it can do everything. You just say, "Hello, I want to do this, that"—it will book you a hotel room. It's just incredible what it will do.

My point, though, is that they also know that they could have a technical device in the car that would shut down the communications after a length of time.

The scientific evidence by Dr. Redelmeier and others proves that the longer you are on the phone and the more convoluted the argument, the higher the risk probability goes up of the four-to-one that Minister Bradley mentioned. I would expect that the industry, like they did with airbags and seat belts, will innovate devices that will cut conversations off. If you're talking to your stockbroker or your divorce lawyer, that's the wrong time and the wrong place to be using a cellphone while driving. It should be banned. But how do you tell people how to behave? Educate them first, and that's what this debate is theoretically about: to educate. To the minister: That's how I would implement it.

What you're doing with the speed limiters is a good idea. You actually soft-enforce for the first six months. That's a good idea. With this bill here, I'd do it the same as they did with seat belts. I'd implement the bill and proclaim it, and you can do a bit of public relations stuff on it. Then what you do is you give the police intervention tools like they have with seat belts; they do blitzes. It's mostly to educate drivers to conform with the rules, but also to educate them about the risks to themselves and others.

That's where the duty of public service really begins: implementation not with a hammer but with a pen. Even for the first offence, I would mandate that they take a driver distraction course. There are courses put on by the CAA and others that say, "See the risk you are presenting to yourself?" Everybody thinks that they're immune to accidents, until it happens to them. Well, there's a very good example of how the CAA and other stakeholders, like the Insurance Bureau of Canada and the rest, could come forward and help to implement the bill as partners in this with the minister.

I hope they do, because I really think the success is that it actually, as we said at the beginning, saves lives.

I just know that there's more here than we really realize today, because with more people and more cars on more roads and more trucks and all the rest of it, and in bad weather etc., these are challenging times.

I'm going to digress for a minute and just talk about a couple of little things. There's a couple of things that are changing in regulation. The minister has been very busy these days, not just on Bill 126, which was the graduated driver's licence changes—I think that's already passed—but on Bill 118 as well. Also, the speed limiter law that's been introduced is getting some discussion, and I would say, we would always want to do whatever makes our roads safe and get that right. The minister is working in co-operation with Quebec. I'm following it. It's quite good.

The other part that came down was the long continuous vehicle, the LCV, or truck trains. There's a lot of stuff on the roads and now we've got a confusing signal. This is not a complaint, this is an observation. It's also part of communication. We've really got four speeds on our 400-series highways. One of them is legal: the posted speed, which is 100 kilometres an hour. Now, it's not very popular when governments say, "Well, we're going to make the speed 120." Then there's other people who say that we should have photo radar. There's a whole bunch of issues around this.

I'm saying that now we've got four speeds. We've got 100, which is the posted one. We've got the soft enforce on 100, though; it's really enforced at about 115 to 120, where they actually give you the ticket. We've got 90 for the long continuous vehicles, and now we've got 105, which is for the trucks with the speed limiters on them. I think there's a need to spend some time educating the public, but the ideal state would be to have clarity and simplicity, and that, to me, would be to change the speed to 115 or 120, which I understand the 400s are designed to, and at the end of the day, enforce it.

Use whatever tools you need—I don't need to tell you what they are; you know them—and enforce it. That's the key. Send the right signal that these are the rules of the road.

I think that the wise thing, again, in compliment to the minister, is the implementation plan, which is most important to watch. He is going to have a pilot on this long continuous vehicle thing, which is good and that's something that needs to happen. But when we make changes, a big part of it is education. When I see inordinately large fines—and in Bill 126, some of the fines were almost scary. I mean, I am certainly going to behave myself, more than I ever did, on the roads because some of the fines are prohibitive—very, very expensive fines. Some of them are $2,000 and $3,000 if you make a violation.

With the limited time left, having used precisely the same amount of time as the parliamentary assistant from Brampton—Springdale and the minister, I will also yield the floor.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Mr. O'Toole has ably spoken to this bill, enlarged on it, embellished and given us a lot of detail and anecdote. I want to say that I think it does make sense to have legislation in place to protect the driving public from drivers who are distracted. And so to the Minister of Transportation, I hope that this bill goes forward well. The question I have is, given the realities, given the evidence, why wasn't this bill brought forward earlier?

One of the things that the minister has talked about is allowing carpooling to go ahead. There is an organization called PickupPal that arranges ride-sharing over the Internet. They would not be prosecuted under this legislation, but they're currently ceasing their operations. I'd ask the minister to look at how things could be arranged so that PickupPal could be allowed to continue operating and we don't lose the opportunity to have a viable Internet-based ride-sharing operation continue on. The problem always is, if something ceases operations, it's very difficult to bring it back into existence.

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

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey: I wanted to make some comments on what the member from Durham said. I just want to congratulate him on the hard work that he did to bring this issue forward. I know that he was part of the seed as to why the government brought forward this legislation, and I know firsthand that private members' legislation is a challenging prospect, having tried to bring forward sprinkler legislation. So I congratulate him; it's good to stay on top of an issue, and certainly he has done that. In hearings, we heard some very thoughtful debate and discussion, and we heard some of that this morning from him.

I would agree with him that now is the time to act, and I had firsthand knowledge of this over the weekend. I was picking up my son from residence in late afternoon, and as I turned the corner in a parking lot, someone was pulling out in the darkness, blindsided, holding a cellphone to their ear. This is a constant. I think everyone in this Legislature and across Ontario has experienced a near miss with somebody holding a cellphone to their ear, distracted, trying to do too many tasks at the same time.

There isn't anything that is more important than keeping both your eyes and your hands on the wheel, and certainly this government understands that. We're taking action, and I feel, having heard the comments from all sides this morning, that we're going to get support for that. There's a knowledge and an acknowledgment within Ontario that there's too much technology in the cars. We need to pay attention. There's nothing more important than our families and our loved ones in behind us while we're driving.

We need to make sure that distractions are at a minimum, and certainly other jurisdictions have demonstrated this works. These new laws will protect all users in Ontario and keep us at the forefront as leaders on road safety, so I'm happy to support it.

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

Mr. Ted Arnott: I want to say that the member for Durham deserves credit for the extraordinary work that he's done on this legislation. I want to thank the Minister of Transportation for his work as well, but the member for Durham has been working on this issue for, what, six years, John? Seven?

Mr. John O'Toole: Forever.

Mr. Ted Arnott: Forever. And it's been a source of interest to all of us in this House, the way this member has brought forward an issue, shown persistence, had a good idea and continued to advocate for it in spite of a lot of questions, and initially some opposition, I would say. The member for Durham does an extraordinary job on behalf of his constituents on so many issues. He's actively engaged in all the issues that come within the responsibility of the provincial government, and he also looks after his constituents in a way that I think is second to none.

That is largely why he has been rewarded with the support that he has received through the years, having served here now since 1995, and hopefully for many, many years to come.

But this is an issue that I certainly have studied with some interest too. I have to admit that from time to time, while I'm driving to and from Toronto and when I'm going to constituency events in my riding, my cellphone has gone off and I've answered it and chatted to my staff or to constituents who have been able to get my cellphone number, and also my BlackBerry. When this law comes into force, I'm going to have to change my ways. I'm going to have to put my BlackBerry, I think, in the glove box for the first few weeks so I can get out of the habit of using it while I'm driving, and pull over on the side of the road, perhaps.

But the fact is, I believe that the government is correct to be taking action in this regard in response to the concerns that have been presented by the member for Durham. I think it is appropriate that we continue to find ways to improve the safety on our roads, something that all of us believe in and share as a view and a belief.

I know the minister is aware of some of the roadwork that needs to be done in Wellington—Halton Hills. In fact, I had a chance to talk to him about one of the road issues, and I was sorry to distract him when he was getting ready to respond to members after he gave his initial speech. But I want to thank the minister for the work that he has done on this issue as well, and again commend the member from Durham.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments? Response, the member from Durham.

Mr. John O'Toole: I want to acknowledge the remarks by the member from Toronto—Danforth, and I agree with what he said, that we agree with this. But he brings up a point on the carpooling issue, and I think it's one that needs a bit more time on task. That is, when you think of students commuting—the beginning of the school year, pooling—a parent takes three or four of them, and then they aren't completing the trip, so they would potentially be in problems. So I think there's something to be said there, and the member makes a good point.

I think the parliamentary assistant from Brampton—Springdale talked about her experiences, as all of us have had, and the idea of multi-tasking today.

I thank all the people for their complimentary remarks. We all come here with the purpose to try and do something. This, in the overall scheme of things, is just one small thing to have had a hand in, but we all do work hard.

The member from Wellington—Halton Hills said of his own experience that all of us need to be educated. The final words that I would say, for me, when I used to be talking about this, and it seems like for eternity I was talking about it—now what will I actually talk about? Maybe it would be pensions. I'm very passionate about pensions as well.

But here's the key: How to summarize this is to keep your eyes on the road, your hands on the wheel and your mind on the job. That's what driver distraction is: multi-tasking, whether it's technology, an intense conversation or a distraction which is coming—electronic billboards are distracters. It really is a task, in today's world of gridlock, with electronic billboards and all the distracters, to keep your mind on the job. Driving is a privilege, not a right. So I commend the minister for doing the right thing, and I would be supporting it.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: This legislation makes sense. We all know drivers, pedestrians and cyclists who've had at least one bad experience with a distracted driver talking on their cellphone. I've been in a car when someone has taken out their BlackBerry and positioned it on the top of the wheel so they could read the BlackBerry as they were driving. I have to say: It was not a comforting experience. We had an interesting discussion. I try not to drive with that person. I tried to move their attention beyond the BlackBerry and beyond the hood. Having legislation in place may make it much easier for others who point out that it's a problem to read your BlackBerry while you're driving.

The question that I raised in my earlier comments is why Ontario is taking this long to move forward with this legislation. Quebec, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, many US states and 30 countries have restricted the use of cellphones while driving. There's a significant amount of evidence that has been cited by other speakers to support tighter restrictions on cellphone use while driving. An Australian study in 2005, and you may well have referenced this on the government benches, showed that motorists who use cellphones while driving are four times as likely to get into crashes serious enough to injure themselves.

This finding was supported by a University of Toronto analysis of accidents in Toronto itself. Another study out of the University of Utah concluded that talking on a cellphone while driving is as dangerous as driving drunk—including reading your BlackBerry. Canadian studies show that 20% of all collisions in Canada have distracted driving as a contributing factor.

The Ministry of Transportation has indicated that fines will be set at between $50 and $500, and no demerit points will be taken for violations. In the end, the fine structure will determine whether this legislation works. We should look at other provinces when we're determining what fines are necessary in preventing the use of cellphones while driving. There's enough evidence in Canada to undertake that analysis. This law is already in place in other jurisdictions. In Quebec, there is a three-month grace period followed by a $100 fine. Nova Scotia has $165 as a first-time-offender fine and $335 for third-time offences.

Along those lines, enforcement is going to be crucial as to whether this act is of consequence or simply something that occasionally gets cited when people are upset by an accident. Police resources, as we know, are strained, and enforcing this law can be resource-intensive. The government, to our knowledge, has not addressed how this additional responsibility will be resourced. I look forward to the Minister of Transportation addressing that, if not this morning, then on another occasion.

We're pleased that this bill was amended during the committee stage. For example, before being amended, this bill did not draw a clear line between the display screen of a device that could receive information and that of an entertainment device. What it meant was this: If you had an iPod plugged into your car stereo, simply because it was hand-held and had a display screen, you could be fined. The bill would have banned an iPod from being used in this way, although that's actually not different from simply using a car stereo. So we're happy that this minor but useful point was amended in the process of going through the bill.

We're pleased that the government took this opportunity to amend the Public Vehicles Act to end the antiquated restrictions on ride-sharing and allow green companies like PickupPal to operate. For those of you who are watching and aren't familiar with it, PickupPal is a company that arranges ride-sharing over the Internet. They don't take a fee for arranging rides; they make money through Internet advertising. This helps people carpool to get to work and to go longer distances. These are good services. They contribute to lowering carbon emissions.

They are the direction we should be moving in to ensure that there are fewer cars on the road. But because the bill hasn't passed yet, the Ontario Highway Transport Board went through with issuing a decision against PickupPal, as I assume they're required to do, ordering the company to cease most of its operations. We urge the minister to find a way to allow PickupPal to continue operating, even though an order has been issued against it, because as I said in my earlier remarks, once something is shut down, it can be extraordinarily difficult to get it up and running again.

I know I will surprise you in saying that my remarks have almost come to their end, to the great pleasure of the Minister of Transportation and the despair of other ministers on government benches who wanted more guidance in their future endeavours.

We are happy to support this bill. I think we can all agree that when it comes to distractions when you're driving your car or truck, it's certainly an issue that needs to be taken seriously.

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

There being none and the clock moving on, this House will recess—

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I'm sorry. I should have asked for further debate.

Further debate?

Mr. Bradley has moved third reading of Bill 118.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved the bill do now pass and be named as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Orders of the day.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I have the orders of the day, and it says, "No further business this morning."

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you. Now we've arrived at the point I was trying to get at anyway. This House is in recess until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Good morning. This morning, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome a number of coaches to the Legislature as part of Ontario Coaches Week; they are over there. First of all, I would like to welcome Ms. Susan Kitchen, who is the executive director of the Coaches Association of Ontario. I would also like to welcome Jeremy Cross, Jenna Falls, Ann Doggett, Jaime Sparkes and Jessica Taggio—all of them are coaches—and all the other coaches who are here today. Thank you very much for being here.

Mr. John O'Toole: I'd like to introduce a student who's here from the University of Akron, in Ohio, from the Bliss Institute. He's working with me as an intern student. His name is Richard Wall, and he's done some extremely good work on the Substitute Decisions Act. I'd like to congratulate him on the great work he's doing and thank him, and I'd like members to recognize Richard Wall.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Premier. Ontario used to be the economic engine of Confederation, but under your watch, Premier, we've become its caboose. Last week we received our first equalization payment from the federal government. Other provinces are now supporting us.

Premier, what is your government's plan to return Ontario from have-not to have status?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Answer the question.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I will, I will; give me a chance. There's no winning here; there's none whatsoever.

I thank the honourable member for her question. I think she recognizes as well, though, that Ontario remains one of only three provinces that are net contributors to the federation. We're proud to be in that position. The fact that we are receiving equalization is undeniable, but what Ontarians need to understand is that we're paying ourselves with our own money; I think it's important to understand that.

Our recent budget speaks to the challenges of the day. It is designed specifically to build both a more caring and a more competitive Ontario. So at the same time that, for example, we're increasing the Ontario child benefit and building affordable housing, we are also reducing business taxes and personal taxes, and putting our economy on a stronger footing so that we can regain the strength that we need to support our schools and our health care and supports for our vulnerable.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Well, that simply isn't good enough. Since January alone, we've lost 117,000 jobs in the province of Ontario. That's 117,000 breadwinners, 117,000 providers and 117,000 moms and dads with families that depend on them.

We can't lead the nation when Ontarians can't find meaningful work. Other provinces are dealing with this and have moved in front of us. Premier, when will you commit to returning Ontario to "have" status?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, my honourable colleague is absolutely right: There have been significant job losses. This does cause devastation to Ontario communities, but, more importantly, to individual families.

I know that my colleague will recognize that this is not something that is solely being experienced here in Ontario; it's being experienced right across the country and, indeed, throughout most of the world. But I am proud of the budget that we have put forward and I would ask my honourable colleague for her support in moving ahead with this budget as quickly as we can. We know that the single most important thing we can do to strengthen this economy is to move forward with our package of comprehensive tax reforms that, among other things, moves us towards a single sales tax, lower taxes for our businesses and lower taxes for Ontarians themselves.

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: The Premier is quickly becoming the next Bob Rae. Faced with tough economic times, he has become an ideologue with old, tired answers to new, complex problems.

Premier, won't you admit that your exhausted government has run out of ideas, and we're now left at the mercy of other provinces for Ontarians' well-being?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: One of the things that we did before we moved ahead with this budget is solicited, in a very meaningful way, the advice of the members of the opposition. It was modest at best. I would argue that the advice that we received from some was to make cuts; advice that we are building too many hospitals, too many roads, too many bridges and the kind of absolutely essential infrastructure that creates jobs in the short term and enhances our productivity in the long term.

We will be moving ahead. We will continue to find ways to strengthen this economy, to build both a more competitive and a more caring Ontario.

TAXATION

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is again to the Premier. Today is Earth Day. All across Ontario people are looking for ways to improve and protect our environment. We all know that individual actions multiplied by thousands of people can have great economic benefits to our environment. Premier, why are you stifling those actions with massive tax increases?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I just want to draw my colleague's attention to an announcement we made just yesterday. I had the opportunity to visit St. Paul, I think it was, yesterday here in Toronto, an elementary school. While there, we announced that we're investing $550 million into retrofitting at least 1,000 Ontario schools. I'll tell you why I think that's such a great idea.

Not only will it create 5,500 jobs, not only will it reduce energy bills for our school boards when it comes to heating and cooling their schools, but at the same time I'm not sure there's a better place for us to practise energy conservation than in our schools, where our kids can see first-hand the positive effects of that kind of a collective action.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: We're hearing a lot of talk over here, but let's take a look at an example. The Green Energy Act is a good example of where your actions contradict your rhetoric. On the one hand, you're encouraging people to do home energy audits and retrofits. On the other hand, you're taxing the cost of all these green renovations. At a time when Ontarians are stretched thin, how can you possibly think that they can afford these retrofits that you're talking so much about?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: One of the things that, at its core—and our families have many hopes and many higher aspirations, and they have some fears too. They have some real concerns. But I think the single most important issue they want us to address right now is, "Are there going to be jobs there for me and are there going to be jobs there for my kids?" We are absolutely committed to ensuring that we inspire confidence in the people of Ontario. We are prepared to take whatever actions are necessary to strengthen this economy. That means reducing business taxes. It means reducing personal taxes.

It means moving ahead with a single sales tax. And by the way, it means moving ahead with a higher Ontario child benefit. It means investing in affordable housing. Those are the kinds of things that we're doing, because they speak to the needs, the hopes, and they address the concerns of Ontario families.

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: These answers are why this government cannot be taken seriously. Raising taxes in the middle of a recession is exactly the last thing you should be doing. Every time it's been tried, it has failed. Why do you expect us to believe it could possibly be different this time?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I understand where my colleague is coming from on this score. She's in keeping with the philosophy embraced by this Conservative Party. They believe that in the face of the greatest economic challenge that we have stared into in the last 80 years, we should do nothing, and certainly we should make no difficult decisions. They think that if we hide under these desks for the next two years, somehow the economy is going to restore itself on its own, and we need do nothing. We disagree with that. We think we have to take some responsibility. We think we have to show leadership.

That's why we're making important decisions on behalf of Ontario families, who want to strengthen their economy so that we're in a position, in a sustainable way, to support their health care, their schools, their support for their most vulnerable and to ensure we have at all times the capacity to create good jobs for themselves and their kids.

PROVINCIAL PURCHASING POLICY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Ontario needs a long-term industrial strategy rooted in green energy projects. But to ensure that green energy jobs are created here, we need a strong buy-Ontario program. New Democrats support a 60% Ontario content requirement for all green energy projects in this province, just as they do in Quebec. When is this government going to finally specify an Ontario content target for all new green energy projects?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We've had this important conversation many times in this House and I assume we'll have it on an ongoing basis and I'm fine with that. I would ask my colleague, as she pushes hard for us to adopt ever more protectionist policies, to keep in mind that we do a lot of trading with the outside world. Eighty-five per cent of the cars that we make here in Ontario we sell to the Americans. If they decide that they're not going to buy our cars because we make them here, we are in serious trouble.

So we want to do as much as we possibly can to encourage Ontarians to take advantage of products and services developed here, produced here, sold here in the province of Ontario. At the same time we want to be mindful of the fact that we rely on trade with the outside world to generate the wealth we need that supports our schools and our health care and our jobs.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: We're looking for green jobs in this province. That's what we're looking for. A 60% local content requirement has already worked in Quebec. There are thousands and thousands of new, good-paying jobs there, including at the only mass-production wind turbine manufacturer in all of Canada. With 300,000 manufacturing jobs being lost in this province, why is this government still stubbornly refusing to implement a real buy-Ontario program for our green energy products?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My colleague knows that Minister Smitherman is consulting on what might be the right number for this particular matter. But I would hope that we'd get her support when it comes to our new Green Energy Act. It has been received internationally as being very bold, very progressive and puts us at the front of the line in North America. Our intention is to create 50,000 new jobs. It's to unleash an explosion of economic activity and new investment in energy from renewables.

Interjections.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My colleagues opposite may not be particularly enamoured with this notion of energy from renewable sources, but we think it's a smart way to go and we think that Ontarians want us to do this.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier talks a good game when it comes to green jobs and green energy but the government's talk is cheap. Its watered-down approach only requires 25% domestic content for public transit vehicles. New Democrats think that should be 50%. This government has no domestic content policy requirements for green energy projects at all. We say it should be 60%. With so many Ontarians in need of good-paying manufacturing jobs, why won't you commit to a 60% requirement for new energy projects?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I want to assure my honourable colleague that Minister Smitherman is consulting on the appropriate number. But I do want to bring home to her and members of the House just how important a signal we send to the international investment community when it comes to our new Green Energy Act.

I want to quote briefly a story that appeared in the Toronto Star just last week. It says:

"Asia's largest maker of wind turbines is seriously sizing up the Ontario market as a potential home for new manufacturing, citing what it considers the right combination of policies, infrastructure and local activity.

"Tulsi Tanti, founder and chair of Suzlon Energy Ltd., told the Star ... that the Ontario government's proposed Green Energy Act is a 'very strong' initiative that helps set the province apart from other jurisdictions in North America."

Sometimes we never really know how progressive we've become until it's recognized internationally. I'd like my colleague to look at the international response to this Green Energy Act.

ENERGY RATES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Back to the Premier: Ontarians want to do the right thing by the environment, but times are very tough in this province and that's why we need environmental choices that are affordable. The McGuinty government's approach assumes that Ontarians have the spare cash to fund an energy audit and it assumes that people have thousands upon thousands of dollars to pay for retrofits with money that they simply don't have. Your reimbursement process is complicated and inaccessible to most Ontarians. Why, I want to ask the Premier, does this government make it so difficult for Ontarians to do the right thing by the environment?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My colleague may have a point. There are so many programs out there right now in combination with the federal government that I think we need to find a way to make it easier for homeowners in particular to find their way through these and come up with a simpler approach to helping them.

But here's the good news. You can earn up to $10,000 in savings and in refunds, both from the province of Ontario and the federal government, if you choose to pursue an energy audit and renovate your home. I think that's an important financial contribution being made by Canadian taxpayers and Ontario taxpayers to incent Ontario families into pursuing energy conservation policies.

I will agree that we can and should do something to make the process simpler, but I disagree that we're not doing a lot when it comes to helping Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Most low-income people actually live in apartments. Forty per cent of tenants face unaffordable rents in the province, yet this government's deluded approach to environmental issues is penalizing these cash-strapped tenants. Smart metering is going to cost tenants a lot more, and you know that landlords in fact are going to pass on any increased electricity costs associated with the Green Energy Act.

Before tenants get unfairly whacked or forced out of their houses altogether, why won't the McGuinty government implement a permanent rate assistance program for vulnerable tenants?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think we were talking originally about some environmental initiatives and costs which might be borne by tenants. One of the things that we're proud to participate in, together with the federal government, is a program valued at over $700 million, if my memory serves me correctly, to retrofit existing social housing to help get those costs down. I think that's an important step. There's always more to be done.

We're proud of the record that we also have when it comes to dealing with rents and, in fact, how little they've gone up relative to cost of living in so many other different areas.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I was hoping the Premier would commit to helping those vulnerable tenants who are going to be hit hard and can't afford the cost increases.

There's no doubt that we do need to green Ontario's energy supply—I think all of us would agree to that—and we need to promote conservation in this province absolutely. But we need to make sure that everyone, from individuals to businesses, can afford to participate in a greener society.

Struggling resource industries cannot afford to shoulder an unfair burden. That's why we need an industrial hydro rate in this province. Yet the government's Green Energy Act doesn't even mention that kind of a policy. What will you do to ensure that the Green Energy Act doesn't put Ontario companies further at risk?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: A couple of things on that score: First of all, in our recent budget, we once again extended the electricity rate support for business in the province of Ontario, particularly assistance for those in the forestry sector, for example. As well, the purpose of the Green Energy Act is to help us not only generate new electricity from renewable sources but, at the same time, to aggressively pursue energy conservation opportunities.

We want to work well and hard with Ontario businesses to help them find savings. That's what conservation is all about. We have a number of programs in place to help incent the kinds of investments that will produce those savings which help make those businesses more competitive, so that they have more profit, so that they can hire more Ontarians.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr. Mike Colle: I've got a question to the Minister of the Environment. Minister, as you know, the Green Energy Act is before committee right now. Can you tell us how the Green Energy Act, with all its proposals to have a smaller carbon footprint, is so important given that today is Earth Day, and how this Green Energy Act will promote the important initiatives you have in your own ministry combined with the initiatives of the Green Energy Act?

Hon. John Gerretsen: First of all, to everyone in this Legislature, happy Earth Day. Today is Earth Day.

I can tell you that one of the main advantages of the Green Energy Act is to make sure that we have renewable energy in the province of Ontario rather than the fossil-fuel-driven energy that we have right now. As you know, we have a commitment. We have legislated that we will be getting out of the coal-fired-energy plants by 2014. In order to do that, we simply have to create more renewable energy, whether we're talking about wind power or solar power, biogas and biomass.

I can tell you that we, within the Ministry of the Environment, are working very closely with the Minister of Energy to make sure that we have the safeguards in place, that when these energy projects get approved, the health standards that we're accustomed to and the environmental standards that are so important to the people—

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

Mr. Mike Colle: Today also, on Earth Day, we have the beginning of the pesticide ban in Ontario. For the first time in this province the sale of these harmful chemicals will be banned and they won't be able to sell all these chemicals that stay in our groundwater, stay in our front yards and our backyards for generations. Can you tell us how this pesticide ban is going to complement the good things that you're doing in your ministry to make sure we have clean water and clean air?

Hon. John Gerretsen: I had the opportunity within the last hour to announce at Allan Gardens right here in the city of Toronto that the cosmetic use of pesticides in the province of Ontario is going to be banned on our lawns, gardens, backyards and front yards as of today. The list of banned substances includes about 250 substances and 80 different ingredients. The main ingredient for doing all of this is to make sure that we take unnecessary risks away from our children. Our children are unnecessarily exposed right now by the pesticide materials that are used in their lawns and gardens.

I'm very pleased that this is the strongest law that we have in all of North America. It supersedes any municipal bylaw because it not only deals with the use of cosmetic pesticides, but also it bans the sale of cosmetic pesticides. This is a day that Ontarians can be extremely—

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

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: To the Premier: We hear this morning of more problems at the Ontario Lottery and Gaming office. This time it's botched tickets. It seems there's scarcely a week that goes by without another embarrassing botch-up at that office. You've clearly put high-priced people in charge who can only shoot craps. When will you take charge and clean up this operation so Ontarians can have confidence in it?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: First of all, I want to acknowledge that there was an error. My understanding is that there was a computer error. The good news is that it was acknowledged immediately, it was made public and it was addressed. I'm not sure what more we might ask of OLG in these circumstances. I'm not sure how many tickets they sell on a daily basis. I believe it's in the tens of thousands. I think there were some 80 or 90 tickets that did not have the appropriate date on them. That was noticed, as I said. It was dealt with. I think they dealt with it in an honest and forthright and efficient manner. I think that's all we can ask of the OLG in the circumstances.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Why doesn't the Premier just wave a white flag?

Three weeks ago, I called the Premier's attention to the dismaying irony of staff at OLG receiving significant salary increases and bonuses in the wake of misstep after misstep and embarrassment after embarrassment, and in the midst of a recession. Now, with yet another of these never-ending goofs, I ask you again, why are you sitting idly by letting this error-prone, mismanaged agency hand out bonuses to officials? When will you show us you understand and take action?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, just so we can deal with the facts, because I think they're pretty important, on Monday, between 2 o'clock and 5 o'clock, a computer mistake caused the wrong date to be printed on 92 of the tickets sold on Monday. By the way, on that day, 563,639 tickets were sold, and there was a mistake on 92 of them. That was acknowledged. They have been made null and void. They will be replaced or refunded. Again, I think that's the appropriate thing to do under the circumstances.

There have been significant changes made with respect to the executive at the OLG. I think they're moving in the right direction, and I think it's symbolic of that when they acknowledge this publicly and move efficiently to rectify the situation.

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Mr. Peter Tabuns: To the Premier: Premier, you say you're committed to the environment, to green energy, but you systematically give preference to nuclear energy over green energy.

Look at the Green Energy Act. Under that bill, government won't cover cost overruns for renewable energy, but you remain willing to cover cost overruns for dirty nuclear energy. Under the Green Energy Act, the government won't commit to purchasing set amounts of energy from renewable energy suppliers, but you're willing to buy nuclear power even at times when we don't need the energy and we have to pay consumers to take it.

Why do you give nuclear energy suppliers a sweetheart deal? Why are you willing to give them a sweetheart deal that you refuse to offer to cleaner and safer sources of power?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know that my colleague is going to want to acknowledge that Ontario's Green Energy Act is the most progressive and aggressive of its kind in North America. The only other jurisdiction that is in the same league, I would argue, would be Germany.

I think my friend also needs to be honest about his perspective on these matters. He believes that we should get rid of nuclear generation in the province of Ontario. Fifty per cent of our electricity comes from nuclear generation. It's not generating carbon emissions for us, and it has that going for it. There have been some cost issues in the past; there are some downsides associated with nuclear waste. But we have to make some difficult choices. We have chosen to move away from coal-fired generation. We intend to maintain the base that we have of nuclear generation in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I don't generally get to say I appreciate an answer, but I now understand the full depth of this commitment to nuclear and want to make sure that anyone who is interested in green power in this province knows where the money and the commitment are.

Premier, going back, in May 2006 you made it very clear that you wouldn't accept a system in which the people of Ontario, the ratepayers and the taxpayers, got stuck with cost overruns for nuclear power. You made that very clear. Nuclear is not affordable. You know that cost estimates are increasing. In the United States, companies that have been building nuclear power plants have run into big cost overruns; the same in Finland. Will you repeat the commitment you made in May 2006 to not accept cost overruns on new nuclear power plants?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We're going to do everything that we possibly can to manage the costs on behalf of Ontario ratepayers when it comes to nuclear generation. That's one side of it, and we're doing much there, but there are other sides as well. It's a multifaceted and, I would argue, responsible approach for dealing with electricity needs in the province of Ontario.

We've got a very aggressive plan when it comes to promoting energy conservation. We've got the most aggressive act of its kind in North America when it comes to harnessing energy from renewables. We're the first government to have in place a 20-year plan to meet our electricity needs.

At this point in time, it is very obvious to us that nuclear remains an important part of our base load capacity. We intend to do nothing more than maintain that base load so that we can continue to power our hospitals, our schools and our economy.

SPORTS FUNDING

Mr. Charles Sousa: My question is to the Minister of Health Promotion as we celebrate Ontario Coaches Week. Whether it's Little League soccer or training for the Olympics, coaches do more than teach sport. They harness an individual's raw talent and determination and they develop them into athletes. Coaches also help to develop self-esteem and confidence that our children will use throughout their lives. Any successful athlete will tell you that their coaches have played an important role in their career.

The executive director of the Coaches Association of Ontario put it best when she said, "Great coaches are individuals who are passionate about their athletes' development on and off the field."

What is the government doing to help organizations like the Coaches Association of Ontario so that they can continue to support the athletes in our communities?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I want to thank the member from Mississauga South for that question. I also want to take this opportunity, again, to welcome all the coaches who are here today.

It is my privilege, on behalf of everyone at the Ministry of Health Promotion, to recognize and commend our coaches for their hard work, dedication and their constant inspiration. Their commitment inspires us continuously throughout the year. From Little League to the Olympics, coaches give of themselves to our athletes, our children, our communities and our future.

Our government continues to support our coaches and athletes through programs such as Sport for More, Own the Podium, Quest for Gold and the national coaching certification program. Since 2003, the McGuinty government has invested over—

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

Mr. Charles Sousa: Staying active is important to our health. In my riding of Mississauga South, we are fortunate to have organizations like Walk and Bike for Life who work to promote healthy living. Tonight, in recognition of Earth Day, I thank the minister for coming to join our community in support of this initiative.

Coaches also play a very important role in increasing sport participation and physical activity across Ontario. Coaches are at the heart of every sport and are bound by one common thread: the desire to help individuals be the best they can be. The programs mentioned by the Minister of Health Promotion will benefit coaches, athletes and our communities. However, we must also recognize the importance of providing community sports and recreation infrastructure.

Minister, what is the government doing to ensure that the sport community is receiving appropriate support and what is the government doing to ensure that our coaches and athletes are competitive outside of Ontario?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I look forward to joining the member from Mississauga South this evening as we continue our health promotion initiatives.

We certainly value our partnerships with the Coaches Association of Ontario, provincial sport organizations, sport administrators, officials and volunteers across Ontario. We have invested approximately $32 million in grants to over 1,000 community organizations to help Ontarians lead healthy, active lives.

Excellent sporting facilities are fundamental for coaches to train and develop athletes. The McGuinty government is committed to helping to keep Ontarians healthy. We have invested a total of $193 million in 99 sport and recreation infrastructure-related projects.

Bringing the Pan-American/Parapan Games to Ontario would leave a legacy of new and improved sport facilities and recreation facilities across Ontario. I again thank our coaches for all the hard work that—

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

PENSION PLANS

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: My question is to the Premier. Your budget recognizes the work done by your Expert Commission on Pensions, which produced a comprehensive report in November of last year. It recognizes the problem with the pension benefits guarantee fund and makes several recommendations. On page 124, it states that the fund "should not receive government grants or subsidies in order to meet its obligations." Why, then, are you seeking in Bill 162, the budget bill which you've moved closure on, the power to grant the fund money in direct contradiction with your commission's recommendations?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm not an expert on pension matters and I'm not sure there are that many people in Ontario who in fact understand the full picture, but I'll take a stab at this question.

My understanding is that what we're doing through the budget bill is making it clear that we have no legal obligation to make contributions to the pension benefits guarantee fund, but we reserve the right to make that kind of a contribution should we feel that's appropriate in the circumstances and serves the public interest.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: Under the present legislation, Premier, you already have the power to lend money to the fund, which would be paid back by those who benefit from the insurance of that fund.

Seventy per cent of Ontarians are not lucky enough to have a pension, yet you are asking them to give you the right to write a cheque on their behalf for 70% of that grant to help out those who already have the protection of a pension. If you are going to do that, Premier, for those who have a pension, what are you going to do for the rest of the people who have lost 30% to 50% of their RRSPs and their retirement income? What are you going to do for the people who are going to write that cheque?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague is on to a very important issue here. First of all, I want to assure him that we are preserving for ourselves and any subsequent government the right to make that investment in that pension benefit guarantee fund, should they deem it to be appropriate and, as I said, it serves the public interest. But I think it's also important to keep in mind a point that my colleague raises. I think the number is actually 65% of Ontarians who don't have a pension. They have quietly presided over the depletion to the tune of 30% to 40% of whatever savings they may have put away.

I think it speaks to a broader issue and I would encourage the Prime Minister to host a national summit. The Premiers have had the chance to talk about this in a preliminary way, but I think it's the kind of thing that affects all Canadians. The fact is, the overwhelming majority of Canadians don't have access to an adequate level of pension retirement funds.

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

Mr. Peter Kormos: My question is to the Premier. The problem is that the latest bungle at the OLG isn't an isolated incident. It's part of a pattern. A $6-billion-a-year organization and the pattern of bungling is mind boggling: bad winning scratch tickets, giveaways of European cars, faulty slot machines, expensive lawsuits against rightful winners, promotional T-shirts made in Mexico. It's not enough to say, "Oh, I think they're doing their best." The public of Ontario deserves to have confidence in the OLG. Why won't this Premier take positive steps to ensure that this happens?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think it's important not to lose track of what in fact happened here. There were, on the day in question—Monday—563,639 tickets sold. Ninety-two of those tickets had the wrong date printed on them. Those were declared to be null and void and they're going be replaced or refunded. The OLG has pinpointed the full list of tickets in cities where the affected tickets were sold. This information is available in affected at retail locations, on the website or by calling the Customer Excellence Centre.

I think they've done what is appropriate in the circumstances. I think they have done what Ontarians expect of them in these circumstances. I think they were honest, they were forthcoming, they acknowledged, they made it public and they've taken the steps to fix it. That is what they are supposed to do.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Kormos: What happened was yet another stunning screw-up in an organization with some of the highest-priced help in the province of Ontario. Good grief. People have more confidence betting with Tony Soprano and he's not even real.

Three things are certain now in this Premier's Ontario: death, tax grabs and more screw-ups at the OLG. Maybe the minister responsible has a little bit too much on his plate and it's time for a minister who can handle the OLG and its fallouts and ensure that confidence is once again restored in gaming in Ontario

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: There's no doubt about it, there's always some political fun to be had in dealing with the OLG, given their record, which is less than stellar, I would acknowledge to my colleague. But are we going to hang them for 92 misprints on a day when they sold 563,639 tickets? I think not. I mean, that's just the way I see it. They've acknowledged it, they've taken steps to remedy that, and I think they've done the appropriate thing under the circumstances.

We have made some real changes when it comes to the executive there. We have been working really hard together to help bring about the kinds of changes that demonstrate a higher level of respect for Ontario consumers. I think we're making some real progress.

ORGAN DONATION

Mr. Bruce Crozier: My question is for the Minister of Health. Earlier this week, the minister kicked off the national Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Week. Giving the gift of life is more important now than ever before. In fact, the demand for organ transplantation continues to be a major concern for Ontarians. Currently, there are about 1,700 patients waiting for an organ transplant in this province. Organ donation in Ontario and in Canada has not kept pace with the need for organs. I would ask the Minister of Health, what is he doing to improve organ donation rates in the province of Ontario?

Hon. David Caplan: I'm glad that my colleague from Essex asked this question because it gives me a chance to reaffirm our government's commitment to increasing organ donation in the province of Ontario. We're committed to working with our partners, the Trillium Gift of Life Network, to ensure that we increase life-saving transplants. We want to make sure that the patients who need a transplant can get one as soon as possible.

The other day, I was on hand to announce a program that will help youth better understand and get excited about organ donation. RecycleMe.org is an interactive, engaging, compelling campaign that will get youth talking, texting and Twittering about organ donation. This campaign is an important step toward creating greater awareness and increasing donor rates.

I know it will get youth talking about organ donation, because this program was developed by a youth panel at the Trillium Gift of Life Network. I want to acknowledge Mr. Frank Markel and Rabbi Reuven Bulka and the work that they have done—

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

Mr. Bruce Crozier: The hard reality is that every three days someone dies in Ontario waiting for an organ transplant. Organ transplantation can be challenging for both the donor and the recipient. For those on the waiting list, there may be a substantial financial burden to bear when relocating closer to a transplant hospital. The costs associated with becoming a living donor can be prohibitive. As well, there could be income loss or travel expenses.

Will the Minister of Health tell this House how this government intends to help recipients and living donors?

Hon. David Caplan: I want to tell my honourable colleague about initiatives in place to help organ recipients and donors. Often, patients who need a transplant have to relocate to near a hospital in case an organ becomes available. That's why, beginning May 1, we're launching a new program that will provide some financial help to patients waiting for heart, lung and heart-lung transplantation who must relocate to be near a hospital site. We will administer this program with our partners at Trillium Gift of Life Network.

We will also be supporting living donors by reimbursing them for expenses associated with their organ donation, such as travel, accommodation and loss of income after surgery. So far, TGLN has processed 147 applications between April and December 2008. These are important steps. They will make it easier for living donors and recipients to give—

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

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: My question is to the Minister of Education. We all know that priorities are the things you set when you want to make a cohesive plan that creates real results. I'd be happy to help create those priorities for you, because I find that, time and time again, some of those priorities are lacking, because I don't see a plan.

Let me be clear that 30% of Ontario students have IEPs, individual education plans, that clearly spell out the need for those children to receive specialized attention to succeed. The majority of these students either do not have an educational assistant or receive a fraction of the support they require just to keep up with their classmates.

Minister, can you tell these students and their parents why you've chosen to invest in light bulbs and infrastructure instead of in them?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would be happy to address this issue. The reality is that we're investing across the spectrum of needs in the publicly funded education system. I think to draw a false dichotomy between investing in special education, which we've done—special education is projected to increase by $49 million, $627 million since 2002-03. We've made massive investments in special education. Not only have we done that, we're transforming the way special education is delivered. Parents of children with autism are seeing a better continuum of service and better transitions.

But to suggest that because we're doing that, and we need to do more of that, we shouldn't be investing in sustainable buildings and retrofitting for energy savings is completely irresponsible—

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

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: I'm hearing from parents who have had to resort to tutors to help their children because they aren't getting the help in the classes.

You have made a lot of announcements and a lot of promises, but the fact is that you haven't met the mark. I find it ironic that you've promised $550 million to save and protect our rural schools, yet Beeton's Tecumseth North Elementary School in my colleague's riding of Simcoe—Grey will be shutting their doors, as will many other rural schools in Ontario. I wonder if your apathy for rural schools has caused you to divert $550 million for rural schools into this new light bulb program?

Our rural schools are the cornerstone of our rural communities, and you have abandoned them. Minister, will you reprioritize these resources and reinvest in the children of our rural communities?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think the member opposite actually knows that in this province we are investing in publicly funded education to an extent that the province hasn't seen, certainly, in a number of decades.

What we know is that there are 90,000 fewer students in our schools today than there were in 2002-03. It is absolutely imperative that school boards have the opportunity to develop capital plans and make decisions that are best for their community.

We have a school foundation grant, we have supportive schools grants—there are millions of dollars that have gone in to support those rural schools against the ravages of declining enrolment.

Having said all of that, the test for us is, are students in our schools getting the standards of education that they need? Are they getting teachers who have the professional development that they need? Are they receiving the resources that they need? That's—

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

PENSION PLANS

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Premier. Premier, New Democrats are outraged that this government is shutting down the debate on its budget by allowing only one day for public hearings on a matter of such critical importance. The Premier is ending debate on a budget bill that contains far-reaching provisions about the security of the retirement incomes of millions of Ontarians. The CAW workers I rallied with in Windsor this week are gravely concerned about their pensions.

Why is this government using the heavy hammer of time allocation to end debate on something as important as pension security?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We've been working very closely with both the CAW and the auto companies, and there's a strong consensus on this particular point: The single most important thing that we can do to guarantee the health and vitality of those pension funds is to put the auto sector itself on a strong footing. So we're going to continue to find ways. We have come to the table with significant contributions, on behalf of Ontario taxpayers. This industry is too important for us to lose. We're prepared to do all that we can to put this industry on a strong footing. There are always limits, of course.

There are competing demands. But we've been there from the outset, and we intend to continue to be there. Again, that is the single most important thing that we can do to protect those pensions.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Paul Miller: I'd be afraid if I were the government shredding the pension safety net. That's why they've made sure that there are as few people as possible allowed to speak in a public forum. We're talking about retirement monies, the deferred wages owed to loyal workers, workers who have given a lifetime to their employer.

Why is this government closing debate on this important issue? Is it afraid Ontarians will start asking questions about pension security? Is that the problem?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: There's a broader debate that we're going to have to engage in, I would argue, as a country. I think we see some of the competing views, and there's some validity to both of them. The member for the NDP says we've got to worry about people in the auto sector who have a defined benefit pension plan. A moment ago, my colleague Mr. Sterling said, "Well, what about the 65% of Ontarians who don't have access to any pensions? Are they going to be called upon to invest in those defined benefit pension plans?" That's the kind of thing that speaks to some very broad issues.

Back in 2006, we commissioned a report from Harry Arthurs. It's a very lengthy report. It's out for consultations, and we look forward to finding the best views from Ontarians on that particular score. Then we look forward to working with our colleagues from across the country to see what we might do to better support pensioners and all Canadians who may not have a formal pension as well.

MUNICIPALITIES

Mrs. Liz Sandals: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Ontario's major urban centres are growing rapidly. The issues of urban affairs are generating increasing interest and bringing greater attention to how cities work or how they struggle. There's no denying we're in for difficult times. The news media are full of commentary on these challenging economic times.

We all know that the global downturn is reaching right into our communities. In my community of Guelph, residents are worried about their jobs and providing a stable life for their families. They are asking for innovative government that utilizes resources available to them as best as they can.

In the minister's speech at the OGRA/ROMA conference in February, he touched on some of the innovative approaches Ontario municipalities are taking to address the needs of their communities. For the benefit of the House—

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

Hon. Jim Watson: Some of the most innovative and creative ideas to contain costs and increase efficiency in the public sector can be found at the local level. One of the great opportunities I have travelling this wonderful province is to attend various municipal conferences and visit municipalities and see first-hand some of these great innovative cost-containment ideas.

In the member's own community of Guelph they just opened a new city hall that brought together various city departments, reducing their costs. It's a very green facility. The heating and cooling system is using 38% less energy.

In Hamilton, Mayor Eisenberger has championed the Woodward Avenue water and waste water facility. It's expected that the project will generate 16.4 kilowatt hours of renewable electricity.

So as we celebrate Earth Day today, we can look to the municipal sector for some very creative and innovative green ideas to save money.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mrs. Liz Sandals: Those are some very interesting municipal initiatives. But as you know, Ontario municipalities can't go it alone. They need our help. They're doing their best in tough times and are asking us to do what we can to ease the burden they carry.

Infrastructure investments tend to improve quality of life and economic growth across Ontario. Investing in infrastructure creates jobs and provides needed repairs to public infrastructure. There is an ever-constant need for both new affordable housing and repairs to our existing stock. I hear regularly from Guelph constituents asking about making improvements to public transit.

One of the ways we can gain greater value from municipal governments is to provide them with a greater ability to respond. How is your ministry helping communities like Guelph respond to the needs of their communities?

Hon. Jim Watson: We've taken a more co-operative and consultative approach when it comes to dealing with municipalities. That really was highlighted when AMO, the city of Toronto and the province of Ontario signed the fiscal and service delivery review, which began the process of uploading costs back to the provincial level, things like Ontario Works, court security, the Ontario disability support program and the Ontario drug plan. We've also invested a record amount of money in infrastructure. The city of Guelph the honourable member represents so well received $10.9 million in Investing in Ontario money. Guelph has also received $2.5 million in gas tax money alone this year.

We've reversed the trend of downloading and we're back on the road to uploading to give the municipalities the resources and the tools they need to ensure that their property taxpayers are well served. I look forward to working with AMO, Guelph and other municipalities to continue this trend in the future.

ABORIGINAL LAND DISPUTE

Mr. Toby Barrett: A question to the Premier: Premier, your government is transferring title for the 378 acres of Ontario Realty Corp. land at the former Burtch Correctional Centre. The title is being transferred to the Haudenosaunee Six Nations. In May 2007, your government negotiators offered up Burtch as part of a $125-million proposal to settle four outstanding Six Nations land disputes. My question: What did your government negotiate in return for handing over the 378 acres at Burtch?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I must say I'm not familiar with the details of this. I've just been handed a note; it's a rather extensive note. I could read from that, but I think as a courtesy to my colleague, what I can do is undertake to look into this appropriately and get back to him.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Toby Barrett: Further to my question, the neighbours are concerned about the precedent that the transfer of this ORC land would set. For example, there are other Ontario Realty Corp. properties adjacent to Six Nations in the area. They've been brought up in the negotiations. Some of the properties were put under a development freeze for several years. For example: Sprucedale Correctional Centre; a former OPP office; a horticultural research farm—all near Simcoe—the Jarvis and Canfield MTO yards; the Cayuga courthouse; Rock Point Provincial Park; and Selkirk Provincial Park.

There are 4,700 acres in South Cayuga and 1,400 acres in Townsend, all ORC property—not to mention Douglas Creek Estates, which you purchased, ORC land next to Caledonia that hosts a smoke shack.

The concern is, does the Burtch transfer set a precedent? Are these other Ontario Realty Corp. properties—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I say to my colleague, I thank him for the question. I think he's laid it out in a fulsome way. I undertake to get him a fulsome answer as well.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Rosario Marchese: A question to the Minister of Education: Your inadequate funding has created a funding lottery for school boards. If your school is the correct distance from a corporate donor and you're willing to paint your rooms in corporate colours, your school might win a $50,000 corporate lab from Future Shop. Minister, what are you going to do for the schools who don't get any corporate lottery money?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The principle of what we've been doing for the last six years is that we have been putting money into the publicly funded education system so that schools across the province would have equitable access to resources. I think the reference the member opposite is making is to a deal that the Toronto District School Board has put in place. They're working with a corporation. They have their own policy about how that should be done.

Obviously, I'm very concerned that there be equitable access to resources. I'm also very concerned that publicly funded education remain publicly funded, which is why we've put more than $5 billion into publicly funded education for exactly the kinds of resources that are the basics, that are needed by the kids in our schools.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: No corporation gives anything without strings attached, and that's attached to our children.

As a former school trustee and activist, do you not feel a twinge of embarrassment that your education system needs to be bailed out with corporate handouts? And since our schools are being sold to the highest bidder and can no longer count on equal resources, will the minister publish the size of the corporate bailout that each school has been able to secure on the school information-finder website so that parents will know what their school is getting and what price had to be paid by their children?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I reject the premise that our schools need to be bailed out. That's absolutely not the case. In fact, I've increased our monitoring of the fundraising. I'm very interested that we not have a two-tiered education system in this province and I'm paying very close attention to these kinds of arrangements.

Having said that, the member opposite, who is also a former trustee, knows perfectly well that there have been fundraising activities that have gone on in communities forever. That is part of what community building is. The fact is, the Toronto District School Board is making decisions about its assets, and we are monitoring that.

But I'm not going to, and I don't think it's reasonable to, expect that a government's going to intervene in every single fundraising activity that a school board does across this province. As I said, we're watching closely. We're monitoring the fundraising activities, particularly when they have to do with capital dollars. I absolutely understand—

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

UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE FUNDING

Mr. Jim Brownell: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, there is no doubt that more and more students are seeking a post-secondary education and are choosing Ontario schools to obtain it. In my community of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, enrolment at St. Lawrence College has seen the number of applicants surge over the past four years. In fact, I understand that post-secondary enrolment is up by 25% in Ontario since 2004, with 100,000 more students attending colleges and universities.

Although this is good news, there is no doubt that increased enrolment is putting additional pressures on our colleges and universities. We know that in these tough economic times, more people are returning to post-secondary education and choosing to remain in school longer. Minister, I would like to know what you are doing to ensure that colleges and universities have the means necessary to support this growth.

Hon. John Milloy: I'd like to assure the member that we're working very closely with our institutions to make sure they have both the capital and the operating support needed to welcome the new students into their midst. Through the infrastructure investments, for example, rolled out since 2007, institutions have expanded and built new buildings, classrooms and labs in order to support more students on their campuses. The honourable member mentioned St. Lawrence College, and I'm pleased to report that over the past 18 months they have received over $1.2 million to help the college expand facilities in order to accommodate more learners.

I was also pleased that our most recent budget included an additional $780 million in infrastructure for colleges and universities that will both update the institutions and create jobs in the short term.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Brownell: Minister, that's certainly good news, and it's good to know that the supports are there for the college. But with more students seeking a post-secondary education, demands on our universities and colleges are increasing. To me, it makes good sense that investments are made to the infrastructure of our schools in order to provide accessible and first-class education, but when I meet the school administrators and student groups, they tell me that more than just investments in infrastructure is needed to accommodate the growing number of students in their classrooms. They worry that operating funding will not keep pace with the increased enrolment.

Could the minister tell us what is being done to address the pressures caused by enrolment growth at St. Lawrence College and all other post-secondary institutions in the province?

Hon. John Milloy: The member is correct: This is about more than just bricks and mortar, and I'm very pleased that under the leadership of our Premier, the Ontario government has increased operating funding