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

December 10, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-Dec-10 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 10 December 2008 Mercredi 10 décembre 2008

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ROAD SAFETY ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ ROUTIÈRE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

SKILLED TRADES DEVELOPMENT

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS

CHILD CARE

HEALTH CARE

PENSION PLANS

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT

RURAL ONTARIO

UNIVERSITY LABOUR DISPUTE

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

ROAD SAFETY

HOSPITAL SERVICES

ROAD SAFETY

DEFERRED VOTES

ROAD SAFETY ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ ROUTIÈRE

ORDER OF BUSINESS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ABLE INSURANCE BROKERS LTD. ACT, 2008

ABLE INSURANCE BROKERS LTD. ACT, 2008

JOSEPH AND WOLF LEBOVIC

JEWISH COMMUNITY

CAMPUS ACT, 2008

JOSEPH AND WOLF LEBOVIC

JEWISH COMMUNITY

CAMPUS ACT, 2008

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SKILLS TRAINING

RHENISH CHURCH OF CANADA

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

AMBULANCE SERVICES

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

REDEEMER UNIVERSITY COLLEGE

GROVES MEMORIAL

COMMUNITY HOSPITAL

CARBON MONOXIDE POISONING

SPECIAL REPORT, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REGULATED HEALTH PROFESSIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES PROFESSIONS DE LA SANTÉ RÉGLEMENTÉES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

PATIENT SAFETY

CLIMATE CHANGE

CLIMATE CHANGE

PATIENT SAFETY

PATIENT SAFETY

CLIMATE CHANGE

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY /

JOURNÉE INTERNATIONALE

DES DROITS DE L'HOMME

PETITIONS

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

HOSPITAL FUNDING

DIABETES TREATMENT

INTERPROVINCIAL BRIDGE

DIABETES TREATMENT

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

DIABETES TREATMENT

CHILD CUSTODY

DIABETES TREATMENT

BATHURST HEIGHTS

ADULT LEARNING CENTRE

OSTOMY SUPPLIES

LUPUS

GYPSY MOTHS

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

STATUS OF BUSINESS

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ROAD SAFETY ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ ROUTIÈRE

Resuming the debate adjourned on December 8, 2008, on the motion for second reading of Bill 126,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act and to make consequential amendments to two amending acts / Projet de loi 126, Loi modifiant le Code de la route et apportant des modifications corrélatives à deux lois modificatives.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I am pleased to rise in debate on Bill 126 at second reading. I need to say from the outset that I will be voting against Bill 126; I'll explain why momentarily. I would also like to take this opportunity to read into the record some of the very many e-mails and Facebook postings that I have received against this bill. In fact, I don't think we received a single e-mail or Facebook posting that was in favour of Bill 126.

Certainly, all of us have experienced tragic events where a young person at the wheel may have inadvertently gone off the road–a winter accident, matters related to alcohol. Probably all of us have grown up and lost a friend, sadly perhaps a family member, to such a tragedy. What happens is that the heart compels you to action. We have an opportunity as legislators to try to make a difference, to find ways to ensure that this sort of thing would never happen again.

We also have an important role, though, as a chamber of sober second thought to ensure that any changes that are brought forward through legislation would make a difference and would achieve the proper balance between controlling activities and allowing folks to function in modern society. That's why so much of an outcry was raised over the passengers rule and the harsh penalties assigned to minor offences like rolling through a stop sign. We have also received concerns about the zero blood-alcohol limit in the e-mails and postings to our office and the length of time that would be extended to.

When I first heard about this legislation when it was rolled out, it occurred to me, "Hold on a second, a 19-year-old could qualify for a commercial pilot's licence and fly a plane full of teenaged passengers, but under Bill 126 she is forbidden from driving more than one of them to the airport." Certainly in our area, with students going to Brock and Niagara College and Mohawk and McMaster, among others, the bill in its introductory form and in the proclamations of the minister and the Premier would mean that a 19-year-old Brock or Mohawk student, for example, with a full-time job, couldn't carpool to school or to work with others his own age without breaking the law.

That was the major theme that was brought forward in the Facebook postings that I'll read, as well as a reaction to very steep, harsh penalties related to, in the grand scheme of things, relatively minor offences.

Christopher Van Lane posted on 20 November about the speeding: "Since when has any driver lost his licence on the spot for driving one kilometre over the speed limit? This sets a very dangerous precedent. I realize this is conceived in response to a genuine tragedy and my sympathies are with the bereaved father involved. Unfortunately, it perpetuates what has become a pattern with this government. Lacking either the will or the competence to enforce existing laws, the McGuinty Liberals respond by enacting draconian new laws, each more heavy-handed than the last."

Julius Parent from McMaster wrote: "Of all the traffic and driving-related changes that could be made, this is probably the least effective and the least necessary. How about better regulation of trucks on our highways? How about clamping down on erratic highway driving on drivers not signalling etc. Also, from what I've seen, the majority of speeders seem to be middle-aged men and women, not teens. Again, this just shows how out of touch Dalton is on the issues."

Colin Devries posted on Facebook: "This is ridiculous, draconian, even. The ethical problems with this legislation are severe and set a dangerous precedent." Mr. Devries's e-mail was long, but in the interest of time I'll go through a few more.

Ashley Struger wrote: "This does not sound very practical, especially for families who purchase third cars for their children to go back and forth to school. If there are more than two children, then does one have to walk?"

William Altie wrote in: "Style over substance, Tim. Major economic crises currently happening and he"—meaning Dalton McGuinty—"is dithering with this junk. Tell him to get on with what's important. We are now a have-not province. Come on."

That's certainly a theme that we have received as well. There was dramatic news just over a month ago that for the first time in the history of Confederation, Ontario would be receiving equalization payments as a have-not province. The Premier and his economic ministers have yet to produce any kind of plan to grow us out of have-not status and, even more shockingly, seem to just take it as a natural course of business, a fait accompli, something that they can do nothing about. Their only strategy seems to be to put out their hand to Ottawa and saying, "Please, sir, may I have another?" in terms of equalization grants.

Dave Panko wrote the following: "I assume the premise of this proposal is so teens aren't driving around distracted and ending up in an accident where there could be multiple fatalities or serious injuries. That's all well and good, but instead of having five or six kids in the vehicle, you will now have three separate drivers on their way to the same party. Odds are pretty good they're going to have three DDs, right? And there will be no temptation to race, either."

Obviously a bit of facetiousness in the comments from Mr. Panko indicating, I think, in his suggestions that putting even more cars on the road would probably increase not only the impact on the environment but, importantly, the chances of an automobile accident if you have a series of folks coming back from a party in a series of cars.

While I do appreciate the fact that the Minister of Transportation is here listening to the debate—that is a longstanding tradition in the Legislature; not all ministers, however, follow that. I know that the Minister of Transportation is one who is always very respectful of what the opposition comments are on legislation that he brings to the Legislature.

I do want to commend to the minister, on a related topic, a very interesting column by Lawrence Solomon in the Financial Post entitled, "Ontario's Carpool Embargo." I don't know if it's this piece of legislation or others that he's been working with, but this is about—the subtitle: "With governmental blessings, you can carpool from home to work, but only under certain conditions." Mr. Solomon begins his op-ed by saying:

"Governments want us to maximize carpooling to take excess cars off the road, to save energy, and to clean up the environment, right?

"Wrong, if the government is Ontario and provincial. In Ontario, carpooling is a prohibited activity that can only be allowed under strict government control, as determined by a government regulatory agency set up to oversee such conduct. Those who violate the law—as did a nonplussed outfit called PickupPal—can and will be punished with the full force of the law. With the government's blessings, you can share expenses by carpooling from home to work and back again, but only under certain conditions.

You have crossed the line if you try to carpool to work across a municipal boundary—the government frowns upon suburbanites who commute this way. As for carpooling for a frivolous, non-work purpose—to school, to the hockey arena, to the doctor's office—this is outlawed outright, regardless of whether you cross a municipal boundary.

"Ontario places other restrictions, too, on carpooling. First, you must demonstrate dedication by sticking to the same driver, day in day out. You can't catch a ride with Peter on Mondays if Paul picks you up Tuesdays. And you must never, ever be prompt in reimbursing your driver for your share of the ride. Once a week or once a month is fine. Try to pay more frequently and you'll get pulled off to the side of the road if you get caught."

This is in reference to concerns that PickupPal had, which is "an Internet start-up not yet one year old ... a phenom that already operates in over 100 countries, over 1,000 lower-level jurisdictions such as states and provinces, and tens of thousands of municipalities." Ontario is throwing up roadblocks.

I know we have a very sensible, thoughtful Minister of Transportation who reads the Financial Post, probably first thing when he wakes up in the morning, and I understand the minister has looked into this issue and is acting upon it. I wanted to commend that and call it to his attention, because maybe we have to realize that we're in a more modern world when it comes to people making arrangements through sites like PickupPal, and we want to ensure that carpooling is encouraged in Ontario.

In conclusion, I will be casting my vote against Bill 126. I appreciate the significant number—in fact, I think, of all the pieces of legislation, right up there with the WSIB bill, I had the most e-mails and Facebook postings on this bill. So I thank all the constituents and others who sent in their comments, and I'm pleased to read in the sample at the Ontario Legislature.

I wanted to commend my colleagues who have as well raised this issue in the Legislature. It seems like we're making some progress, but there is a ways to go, and I will be opposing Bill 126 at second reading.

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

Mr. John O'Toole: It's a pleasure to listen to the member from Niagara West—Glanbrook. He raised a number of very good points, especially his example about the young person, aged 19, who is able to fly an airplane with a number of passengers.

I should admit, clearly, the arguments made on this side of the House. The Minister of Transportation, Mr. Bradley, has listened and responded. But there are a couple of small things that our critic, Frank Klees, is still unhappy about. We understand that this is going to committee along with, I think, Bill 118, which is another Highway Traffic Act bill that I'm kind of interested in because it deals with the technology piece—hand-held cellphones.

It's demonstrated here in this bill—these two bills, actually, 118 and 126—that we can improve the legislation by working co-operatively. I think the big thing that rings clear here is the Premier's admission—he probably forced the Minister of Transportation to push this

section in. I don't think it was the will of Mr. Bradley ever to be mean-spirited with young people. He has always been well known and well respected for his regard for others. I would say that he has probably gotten secretly to the Premier to get him to change his mind.

I would only hope, when it does go to hearings, that we look at a couple of the other parts. As I said, the incident management part, I think, is something that's important for congestion as well as road rage and a whole bunch of other things. But it's dealing with the liability of who is going to be responsible for those cleanups, and the insurance companies, and the tow truck operators. It's unnecessarily holding up, you could say, the economy of Ontario during a rough time. So that's a good

section of the bill.

I think there's another provision that I'd encourage the minister to look at. When one of my daughters moved back from Australia, she had to reapply to get a G1 licence, even though she had been licensed here and in Australia for 10 years. When she came back, she had to start all over again. She had two little children and she couldn't even bring them to day care or anything without a passenger in the car who had a full G licence.

I think there are reciprocal agreements, provisions in the bill, that I would like to see amendments on.

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

There being no further questions and comments, the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook has two minutes to respond.

Mr. Tim Hudak: I appreciate the comments from my colleague for Durham. He certainly is someone who very keenly follows transportation issues. I commend him for the initiative he brought forward for a tax deduction for those who use transit passes, which in fact became law in Canada, as a whole, with the recent Conservative budget. I congratulate Mr. O'Toole on that initiative.

He and I have had some fun debates about cellphones in cars and appropriate controls. He's also made some progress on safe driving when it comes to cellphones in the vehicle. I thank my colleague for his comments.

I look forward to the debate, particularly from my friend from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, who has had some astute observations and gut reactions to this legislation from the day it was introduced. And I look vote forward to the vote.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on Bill 126, and I too will be voting against this piece of legislation.

This legislation was ill-conceived from the start. I want to begin by expressing my deepest sympathy to the families of the three people killed in the car accident that precipitated this bill. I can understand the reaction of Tim Mulcahy to the loss of his son. It's understandable: When someone is grieving, they do things based on emotion. But I don't understand the reaction of our Premier, because legislation should be based on logic and science, and this piece of legislation never was. You should be ruling and passing laws because they will improve or change things in this province for the better, not because you're playing politics and paying a debt.

What happened to Tyler Mulcahy was a tragedy, but it was not a result of poor law. It was a result of poor judgment and bad decisions. Neither this Legislature nor any other earthly body is going to bring those young men back, but we do have a responsibility to maintain and keep and improve the safety on our highways. This was not going to do that because every existing law was broken that night. New laws were not going to change anything. Those laws were broken that night.

I have some real concerns when a Legislature decides to act like this, and I have even more concerns about how the Premier has conducted himself. You see, this legislation was introduced on November 18, and weeks before that, ads were taken out in newspapers by the family thanking the Premier for his promise to bring in this law.

The Premier announced yesterday that he's decided to withdraw provisions of this law based on discussions with his children. Did he not have any discussions with his children in August and September and October about this law? Why does he dismiss the views and the opinions of the opposition in this Legislature who told him exactly that, that this provision of the law that limited the number of drivers a teen or a novice driver could have with them was absolutely wrong?

He had no interest in that argument at all. As a matter of fact, he told the Minister of Transportation to trot out there and talk about how logical this was. If it is indeed logical, then why is he now promising to withdraw it? Because he never believed it in the first place. He played politics with this Legislature.

This provision would have inflicted terrible consequences on rural Ontario. Carpooling would be a thing of the past. Whether you're a teenager who participates in hockey or wants to simply join with a couple of friends in a responsible way to go to a movie, which in my town is 50 miles away—the nearest movie theatre is 80 kilometres away.

Where was the consultation before this was brought in? I might add that each of the Premier's children would not be affected by this law; they're all over the age of 22. Other people's children would be affected by this law, but there was no consultation with those people on the part of this government.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: So you're objecting to the blood alcohol. Is that it?

Mr. John Yakabuski: There is no part of this bill—the three main provisions—that I support. None. The only part of this bill I will support, with amendments, is the blood-alcohol provision, provided it is based on the lack of experience of a driver, not the age. Under this provision, a person can be of legal age to consume alcohol but cannot have even a single drop of it in their blood.

Hon. James J. Bradley: It's already in it.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Not at 20 years old, I'm sorry, not at 20 years old. Sorry, you're wrong. So don't say that.

Now we want to base this, not on the experience or lack of experience of a driver; we want to base things on the age of a driver. That is categorically wrong. Those provisions are wrong. We need to base things on the experience, or lack thereof, of a driver. I would certainly support the zero alcohol provision provided it is based on the experience level of the driver.

When the minister was trying to sell this law, he talked about how everybody was supporting it, including the police. Well, we all know that the police are not going to criticize a piece of legislation brought forth by the government that purports to improve road safety. Now that they're withdrawing what was one of the main provisions in this bill, don't expect that the police are going to be out criticizing the minister for withdrawing that provision; it doesn't work that way. But they shouldn't use the police to try to sell their legislation.

The police are not going to stand against that bill, even the way it was written. That's not the way they operate, and we all know that. They have a difficult enough job, and they do a very good job of it, but they are not going to stand against a piece of legislation, whether they agree with it or not, that purports to improve road safety.

The carpooling aspect of this bill, which got the most opposition, not only from people on this side of the House but from the general public, just made no sense. It never made any sense from the start, not only from a convenience point of view for many people who live in rural areas and others, but from an environmental point of view and also from the point of view of trying to limit drinking and driving.

Today, you could have several people who are legally of age to drink going to a function with a designated driver. Under the original provision, you might have some of those people getting into a car themselves and driving because they wouldn't be allowed to carpool. Either way, they're breaking the law, but the question is, which one are they going to take the chance on? They can physically be seen to have a group of people in the car. You can't determine just by looking at someone in a car whether or not they're drinking, but you certainly can determine if there are more than two passengers in the car.

There might be fear that they are going to get stopped to see if they are of age to be carrying passengers.

So they did withdraw the provision. There's much work to be done on this bill at the committee level. I don't believe we should be bringing emotions into this House to try to improve road safety. It should be based on logic; it should be based on real facts. It is not the design of this Legislature. As I say, there's not a person in this House or anywhere else who doesn't thank the good Lord every day—I do—that they're not in the position of any of the parents of these young men who were killed in that car accident, or any other.

I'm thankful when I get up in the morning and I have not had a visit at the door by the police to tell us something that we don't want to hear. But, unfortunately, those things are still going to continue to happen in this world. We do not live in a perfect world.

We need to make sure that our roads are safe. This party supports any provisions that will make them safer, but we want those laws to be based on good logic, not the emotions of the Premier of the day.

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

Mr. John O'Toole: The member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke was very outspoken and quite direct in his assessment of how this bill got here and what the bill intends to do. So I commend him for his directness and, on this side of the House, generally our critic, Mr. Klees, has made it very clear that there are a couple of things—bumping up the age on the blood-alcohol thing is something I would personally support. I think that the better description of age would have been that all novice drivers, regardless of age, should be prohibited from having any substance that could jeopardize their safe driving.

So that would be an amendment that I think could easily go through and improve the bill. The intent of the bill, whether it's to address the Mulcahy family or whoever, is to make the roads safer and try to do that in a way that is not impinging totally on people's freedoms.

The member made some very strong arguments, especially speaking on behalf of his constituents who might have to drive 80 kilometres one way to a movie theatre, and how ridiculous the original inclusion in the bill, which has since been withdrawn, on the number of passengers.

Approaching this by improving driver education—it was mentioned in the auditor's comments about strengthening driver training—would be an important way. I would say, have a little module that shows some of the statistics of risk for young or inexperienced drivers, shall we say, not just young drivers, whatever their age, that their probability of being involved in a road incident is very much increased with the lack of experience. So show them the statistics of the number of young people or inexperienced people who are involved in accidents or, indeed, even death on our roads.

These are the things that these debates are about and the public hearings are about, and I look forward to the hearings on this bill so there will be amendments that can help us to support the bill.

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: I have the member from Pembroke beside me here, and I'm going to respond to some of his comments. I really appreciate the debate that has taken place, and I always respect the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke and the view that he takes of issues. He's a person who travels his constituency often. He knows the people in the constituency, and therefore knows some of the challenges that they face.

One of the things that I think a lot of people don't realize—I know the member didn't say this—is that there is a prohibition, a zero alcohol content, at the present time up to the age of 19 in graduated licensing. So that is simply being extended to 21, as it is I think in every state of the United States, including those which are predominantly rural. So I have heard that message being put out there.

A lot of these things, as well, are by regulation. The stipulation about the number of passengers in the car was never in the legislation; it was proposed regulatory framework. So that won't even require an amendment.

However, I have appreciated the debate that has taken place. It has been, I think, very constructive. Many times in the Legislature what will happen—and I've been in opposition as well—is that you'll find the debate is simply a partisan rant back and forth. In this particular case, I think there have been some good points put forward. I don't agree with some of them, but there are some good points being put forward.

My friend the member for Durham is usually very moderate in these things. I heard he actually asked the other day for my resignation. I know it was just an emotional outburst at the time, and he doesn't really believe that; I know he doesn't believe that.

I want to thank all the members for their contributions, including the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, who just gave a good speech on the bill.

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

There being none, the member from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke will have two minutes to respond when he returns to his seat.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I have returned. I do appreciate the comments from my colleagues. I'm not going to respond directly to them other than to say I am aware of the zero alcohol provision today, but it is just until you have a G licence. You can have a G licence before the age of 18. So for him to say there is a zero tolerance provision to age 19 is not exactly correct; it's until you have a G licence. I think that's an important distinction.

My concern is about novice drivers. The problem I have is that if you are 22 years old today and go to get your licence, you're not affected by any of these provisions. You're still a novice driver. Let's say you have never driven before and you're 45, or my age, 51—

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: —I know you don't believe that; I am, honest—you should be under some further restrictions as well, because if you are 51 years old and have never driven, one of the reasons may be that you don't feel comfortable driving. Well, driving safely is a product of being comfortable on the road too, and all experts would agree with that. If you're more nervous on the road, you're more likely to be a poor driver on the road. Experience, education—all those kinds of things that can make our young people or anybody else a better driver—are what we need to be looking for to improve road safety in this province.

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

There being none, pursuant to the order of the House yesterday, I'm now required to put the question.

On December 3, Mr. Bradley moved second reading of Bill 126. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Pursuant to the order of the House yesterday, the vote is deferred until following question period this morning.

Second reading vote deferred.

Pursuant to the order of the House yesterday, the business of this morning being completed, the House is recessed until 10:30 a.m.

The House recessed from 0933 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms. Helena Jaczek: It's my pleasure to introduce, in the east members' gallery, Dr. Barbara Alexander and Tony Alexander.

Hon. Jim Watson: I'm delighted to welcome two guests from the great city of Ottawa, Danielle McGee and Adam Decaire. Welcome.

Mr. Joe Dickson: I have a couple of introductions this morning. One is that we have an active member of our Ajax—Pickering youth council in the west members' gallery, but we also welcome the wonderful parents of page Courtney Dodds, from Ajax—Pickering. Her parents, Kim and Karen Dodds, are here. Karen is on her way up the stairs as we speak. Also, very significantly, Courtney's grandparents, Donald and Patricia Dodds, are joining us in the Legislature today in the west members' gallery.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd like to take this opportunity on behalf of the page Rohan Pavone to welcome his mother, Dr. Rosemarie Lall, sitting in the public gallery this morning. Welcome.

On behalf of page Kush Thaker, his mother Varsha Thaker, is also joining us in the public galleries this morning.

I'd like to welcome a long-time friend of mine in the Speaker's gallery, Mark Cosens. Welcome to Queen's Park, Mark.

ORAL QUESTIONS

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Premier. Monday's Auditor General's report shows yet again how your government is so quick to rush taxpayers' money out the door, never even bothering to see what they're getting for it. The auditor called this government for what it is on its training programs, a broken skills training program, noting that less than half of Ontario apprentices actually complete their training and get certified—48%, Premier, the lowest in Canada, a fact that your government apparently never even bothered to keep track of, so the auditor had to do it himself.

Premier, with over 200,000 unemployed manufacturing workers now being forced to consider new careers, will you address the weaknesses identified in the auditor's report and provide an apprenticeship program that actually works?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. John Milloy: I'm very proud of our government's efforts in terms of apprenticeships. At present, we have 50,000 more apprentices learning a trade today than in 2003, and in the skills-to-jobs action centre in the spring we brought forward additional measures in the budget. I was pleased to see that in the Auditor General's report, he recognized that "the ministry has made improvements and been successful in increasing apprenticeship opportunities and registrations over the last several years."

I agree with the Auditor General that we need to put more of an effort into completion rates amongst apprentices. That's something we've been engaged with even before his report came out. In the March budget—and I'll be happy to outline in the supplementary—we outlined a series of measures aimed at completion rates for apprentices, and we have a series of undertakings—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Premier and Minister, your completion rates for apprentices are among the lowest, if not the lowest, in Canada now and your answer is cold comfort to the thousands of Ontarians who are getting pink slips in their Christmas stockings this year. Is it any wonder that completion rates are so low when your government's artificially high apprenticeship ratios mean that apprentices can't get jobs once they've gone through your curriculum? They cannot get jobs with employers in order to get their apprenticeship papers. Your ratios are artificially high.

You'll know, or I hope you know, that Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, as we speak, are lowering their ratios to what we've asked for. You are now going to be alone in Canada with a 3-to-1 ratio, for example, with electricians—three journeymen just to train one apprentice.

So I say to the Premier and the minister: Why at this critical time, when thousands of Ontarians need your help to get a skilled trade, to get into the workforce, are you continuing to put up barriers to their being able to do so?

Hon. John Milloy: Again, I find it passing strange that a member who came from a government that cared very little about apprentices would stand in the House—perhaps he should take a long look in the mirror at his record. The fact of the matter is, we have made apprenticeships a priority. We have 50,000 more apprentices. The March budget contained measures to increase and enhance the apprenticeship system.

Just several months ago, we took the extraordinary step—the first jurisdiction in Canada—to announce a college of trades which is going to go forward and enhance and further improve the apprenticeship system and look at a variety of issues, including completion rates, ratios and the collection of data, to try to get a better understanding of what's going on in the apprenticeship system, to make sure more people enter the system, to make sure they're properly trained and that they complete their training.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: I'd just like to remind the honourable member of our record: 1.1 million net new jobs created in this province under Mike Harris and Ernie Eves. You say what you want about those governments, but we knew how to create the economic climate so that entrepreneurs and businesspeople could create jobs. You're only able to create public sector jobs. Anybody can do that with a stroke of the pen. You have no strategy. The auditor actually says what we've been saying and my colleagues have been saying on this side of the House for the last two years: You have no strategy. He actually says you have no strategy to properly train people in this—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I realize that the members are very much looking forward to going home for the Christmas holidays. But I remind the members to look to the galleries. We have students here again. We instill in students how to act properly in a classroom. I would urge and remind each member of this Legislature—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): In a classroom, there's respect when the teacher stands up. I would just ask all members—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Welland isn't helping, either.

I would just remind all members to have respect and maintain decorum in this place and then you can have a month and a half to think about all the wonderful things and how well you're going to behave when we return in February. Minister?

Hon. John Milloy: In a spirit of decorum and calmness, I'll let the facts speak for themselves. When the Progressive Conservative government was in power in their first three years in office, there were 37,000 new apprentices registered. When the McGuinty government was in power during our first three years in office we had 60,000 new apprentices come forward. We have made apprenticeship a priority and the announcement of the college of trades is our commitment to further enhance and expand apprenticeships. It's a recognition that we need to look at all aspects of the system, including completions.

As I said, the March budget that was brought down contained $75 million for apprenticeships and designated the issue of completions and the development of programs and targets as one of the priorities of the use of that money. We will continue to make apprenticeships a cornerstone of this government's knowledge and skills strategy.

SKILLED TRADES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Jim Wilson: Clearly, the programs aren't working when less than half are actually finishing—

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: Oh, I'm sorry. My question is to the Premier. Premier, clearly your programs aren't working. The Auditor General says the ministry has no strategy to increase registration in high-demand skilled trades, and those are plumbers, electricians and sheet metal workers, to name a few. Yes, you've had registrations. Most registrations have been in the service sector. In addition to that, 8,300 registrations have been in the call centre trades, which are not exactly the highest-paying skilled trades in the province.

So I ask you again: What are you going to do to address the auditor's recommendations that you bring forward a proper strategy and that you actually put to good use the taxpayers' money that you've been spending? Yes, you've been spending a lot of money. You gave $25 million to the unions that belong to the Working Families Coalition to build training centres, but clearly you're not getting $25 million worth of training out of those centres; are you?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister.

Hon. John Milloy: As I said, our government has made apprenticeships a priority and the college of trades is an important step forward. But the member stands and doesn't seem to acknowledge the fact that we live in a changing economy. The fact of the matter is, we need different skill sets; that's why we've expanded the number of apprenticeships that exist out there.

I don't join the honourable member in mocking call centre jobs. The fact of the matter is that the guidelines for apprenticeships in the call centre trades require approximately 4,000 hours of both in-school and on-the-job training, which is similar in guidelines to other trades, such as automotive glass technician, hoisting engineer, roofer and heavy equipment operator.

I think what the Auditor General gives us is good advice on how to move forward, but I'm proud of the fact that we've expanded the number of trades, that we are working with employers to find out where there are gaps—

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: You gave $25 million to the unions that belong to the Working Families Coalition, and we all know about the Working Families Coalition. My question will continue with the minister. They were a group set up basically to defeat Conservative governments and Conservative parties in Ontario elections.

So I ask you, what are taxpayers getting for the $25 million? Clearly the auditor, in his own words, says that you have a broken skills training program and that taxpayers aren't getting value for their money. In fact, he had to track how many people were actually finishing the program because your ministry started a project to do that, but, I guess for political reasons, you cancelled it because it was so embarrassing.

Anyway, what are the taxpayers getting for the $25 million that you've given to your buddies?

Hon. John Milloy: The taxpayers are getting 50,000 more apprentices in the province of Ontario than when we took office. Yes, we have made investments in terms of supporting apprenticeship trade, and I guess the honourable member is opposed to that. He's opposed to the fact that over the summer we invested hundreds of millions of dollars in our community college system so that they could have the types of equipment and facilities needed to put forward training for new apprentices.

Yes, we've worked with other partners involved in training—unions, yes; employers, yes; employer-union training centres—to make sure that our apprentices are being trained in the most up-to-date equipment in modern, state-of-the-art facilities. What we got from that is an apprenticeship system that is growing and is continuing to be enhanced. I'll put our record up against their record any day of the week.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: We know your record. The Auditor General has called it an abysmal failure.

So let's recap: You've given $25 million to the unions that are members of the Working Families Coalition. That money went for union-operated training centres. We've been telling you since last year that your skills training programs are not working and this week the Auditor General said the same thing. Less than half the people in the programs don't complete them. We've also pointed out that your excessively high apprenticeship ratios are a barrier to job creation, yet you keep giving away millions of dollars to the same unions that are running these failed training programs.

So I ask you again, what did the taxpayers get for their $25 million to these unions, other than a bunch of Liberal fundraising balls?

Hon. John Milloy: I'm happy to give some examples. Perhaps the member wants to ask his colleague from Burlington about the $627,000 that went to a Burlington training centre to expand their ability to train construction boilermakers and millwrights on updated equipment meeting industry standards. Perhaps he would like to ask his friend from Sarnia about the $100,000 that went to a Sarnia training centre to expand their ability to train carpenters.

Perhaps he'd like to ask colleagues from Hamilton about $645,000 to a Hamilton training centre to expand their ability to train welders on updated equipment meeting industry standards. Perhaps he'd like to ask his friend Mr. Runciman who, when he was minister, said in a press release, "Developing a skilled workforce is key to a strong economic future. Upgrading skills of employees in the heavy equipment industry is vital for the sector." He said it as he gave $2.3 million to a union training centre. `

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is for the Premier. Ontario lost 66,000 jobs in November, 42,000 of those in the manufacturing sector. To avoid even more devastating job losses in December and in January of this next year, the McGuinty government needs to take some action now. There is no time to waste.

My question is this: Will the McGuinty government table a jobs stimulus plan in this Legislature before the Christmas break, or does the McGuinty government intend to go on holidays and leave tens of thousands of workers in limbo?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm pleased to receive the question, and I will remind my honourable colleague once again of the stimulus efforts that we have in place and that are operating right now, including the $9.9 billion that we've invested in infrastructure this very year. That is reaching into virtually every Ontario community. It's going into construction projects as we speak, and it's creating up to 100,000 jobs today, when we need them.

I know my honourable colleague well understands that to get a new infrastructure project going often requires extensive planning, followed by an environmental assessment, followed by other processes along the way, and that can mean it takes a long time. But fortunately, years ago, we put in place these kinds of projects. They're taking effect right now; people are working right now.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: The Premier talks about infrastructure as if this government is doing something special. I want to send across to the Premier a page out of his own recent fall economic statement, because what it shows is that in this next year the McGuinty government is actually cutting infrastructure spending down to $7.5 billion. You are cutting it by 23%. This sounds like Jim Flaherty and Stephen Harper: cutting infrastructure spending. That's the real story, and we know what that means. It means fewer jobs. The McGuinty government won't be helping things. The McGuinty government will actually be contributing to a loss of jobs.

My question again is this: Instead of cutting infrastructure spending, is the McGuinty government going to come forward with a jobs stimulus plan, or is the McGuinty government going to continue to see more Ontario workers confined to unemployment?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'll let the Minister of Finance, momentarily, speak to the fun with numbers that my colleague is enjoying. But let me speak about some of the infrastructure projects that we have in the riding of Kenora—Rainy River. We have projects, in that riding alone, in Alberton, Chapple, Dawson, Dryden, Ear Falls, Emo, Fort Frances, Ignace, Kenora, LaVallee, Lake of the Woods, Machin, Morley, Pickle Lake, Rainy River, Red Lake, Sioux Lookout, Sioux Narrows and Nestor Falls, totalling $4,988,339 this year—money that is at work right now, creating jobs right now.

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: The fact of the matter is that, when you look at the McGuinty government's own recent fall economic statement, the McGuinty government is not engaging in added capital spending, in added infrastructure spending. The McGuinty government is cutting it by 23%. This sounds like a page borrowed from Jim Flaherty and Stephen Harper, that the McGuinty government is more concerned with looking after itself than it is concerned with looking after workers who are in danger of losing their jobs.

We have given the McGuinty government several ideas: (1) a real Buy Ontario strategy—not 25%, but 50%; (2) raise the minimum wage; and (3) add to infrastructure spending, don't cut infrastructure spending.

Is the Premier going to do something or are we going to see more Ontario workers—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The member opposite is not engaging in an accurate read of the financial statements. What he fails to understand is that we booked these expenses a year ago; they're reflected there. And you know what? The construction is going to happen in the coming year, when we expect the economy to be at its worst point.

Since 2003, infrastructure spending has tripled under this government. We have had the ReNew Ontario program—$5 billion. And the next instalment—10 years, $60 billion. That, sir, will be the next range of the stimulus that we're going to do.

Finally, I would remind the member opposite that the federal government's Building Canada funds still have not flowed. When they do, these numbers will come up.

What we need is for them to start voting in favour of these programs—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question. The leader of the third party.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Howard Hampton: I think the McGuinty government's chart speaks for itself: a 23% cut in infrastructure spending at a time when we need to be adding more jobs, not cutting them.

To the Premier: Today marks the 60th anniversary of the signing of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Sadly, the McGuinty government continues to violate this declaration. The UN is clear: Inadequate social assistance rates in Canada constitute a violation of the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Social assistance incomes in Ontario have fallen by 30% since 1992—more than in any other province—and 675,000 Ontarians on welfare and disability support are forced to live in poverty.

My question: When is the McGuinty government going to stop violating the human rights of these Ontario citizens?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Well, there's always a real issue when it comes to poverty in Ontario.

The first thing that we did was we abandoned the NDP government's policy of freezing those rates. We've raised social assistance rates four times so far.

I think it's important to understand that there are also new sources of income that go into our low-income households now. A single mom with two kids on social assistance is now earning $3,700 more as a result of new benefits, most of those beyond social assistance. A single mom with two children earning minimum wage will now take home 54% more than in 2003. So there have been some real improvements, whether you're on social assistance or find yourself in a low-income household, and those supports go beyond simply social assistance itself.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: Those who study the situation have far different figures than the Premier. In 2007 dollars, in Ontario, between 1992 and 2007, a lone parent's social assistance benefit declined by $5,500, or 25%; and a couple with two children saw a loss of benefit of almost $8,150, or 28%.

The Premier says that his government has increased benefits. Yes, the Premier has increased his own pay by about 40%. After you factor in inflation and after you factor in the federal child benefit, the increase under the McGuinty government for somebody on social assistance has been about 4% over five years.

I ask again, when is the McGuinty government going to stop abusing—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, they froze social assistance; we have increased it four times. Beyond that, we've introduced something new. It's called the Ontario child benefit. That's what's very important: new supports for our families. Beyond that as well, we've just put in place, for the first time ever in Ontario, a poverty reduction strategy with a specific target to reduce child poverty by 25% over five years. That will lift 90,000 children out of poverty.

It's one thing to come up with $300 million in a growing economy; it's another thing to come up with $300 million in the middle of a global economic crisis. We've done that for all the right reasons, but perhaps most importantly because we believe we have a shared responsibility to help out families where kids are growing up in poverty.

All those are new measures, and we believe they will be effective.

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: The McGuinty government had five years of good economic growth, and what happened? What happened is this: A person trying to live on social assistance is actually $5,500 behind where they were in 1992. What happened to a husband and wife and two kids? They're $8,150 behind where they were in 1992, and the Premier says this is progress.

Premier, the other factor is this: You keep talking about your child benefit. The child benefit isn't going to do anything until 2011. If you factor in increases in the cost of electricity, increases in the cost of heating fuel, the fact of the matter is, it's not going to make a huge difference then. My question remains: When is the McGuinty government going to stop—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I don't want to underestimate the size of the challenge before us, and I don't want to underestimate the goodwill on the part of Ontarians of all political stripes to apply themselves and to find a way to move forward, but I think it's important to recognize, in honest fashion, our achievements. There is a new Ontario child benefit in place. It is providing, for the first time ever, $600 per child. That benefit will continue to grow till 2011, when it reaches $1,100, on an annual basis, per child.

Interjections.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My friends ridicule that. They won't even support that, but we think it's an important step forward in combination with our poverty strategy—

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

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Premier. On a number of occasions, I've raised the issue of the importance of government coming to the support of businesses, particularly the manufacturing sector in this province. The minister and the Premier have referred, for example, to the Next Generation of Jobs Fund, which I have attempted to help some of my constituents make application to.

I'd like the Premier to share with us what the possible reason would be why the details regarding the number of applicants to that program, the number of applications that have been approved and the amount of money that has been paid out under that program are so secretive and why members of this Legislature are not allowed to have that information. Could the Premier please tell us?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: The Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Michael Bryant: That's just complete nonsense. The member knows very well, because he asked the Minister of Economic Development during committee hearings, during estimates, which is the time to ask those questions and get those answers, a whole host of questions for hours and hours, I do believe. In fact, it was something like eight or nine hours, and the minister answered all the questions and provided all the information about that very program.

The member is right. It is a very important program that requires accountability, that involves a lot of dollars. The government has to be careful in the way in which it spends dollars. But let's be clear: Those dollars that the member is opposed to—this is a program that the member is opposed to—leverage, in fact, millions and millions of dollars of investment from other companies and literally thousands of jobs, and that's why this government is doing it.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: First of all, I'm not opposed to the program at all. Premier, here's what I did. I put on the table a specific question on the order paper. I asked the following questions:

"—a detailed list of the applications that have been made by Ontario business to access the Next Generation of Jobs Fund;

"—a detailed list of the approved applications; and

"—a detailed list of the government funding that has actually been disbursed to each approved applicant."

In response to that order paper question, this minister provided me with the following answer: "I would refer you to the Ministry of Economic Development's website." There is nothing on that website that comes even close to the questions I have asked. What is the minister hiding? Why can't members of this Legislature have that kind of very specific question answered—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Michael Bryant: Firstly, the member says that he supports the program. Then I ask the member, why did you vote against it? When you had an opportunity to vote for it, you voted against it.

Secondly, as the member knows very well, for the government of Ontario to release information that involves commercially sensitive information about companies—companies that are in competition with other companies; companies that may not want to release the information that they in fact are applying for the Next Generation of Jobs Fund, information about the companies themselves and the dollar figures being sought.

There's no question that this government is using the Next Generation of Jobs Fund to create greater investments and to create greater jobs. I know that the member is against that, but this government is for it and we will continue to do it.

CHILD CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Why is this minister repeatedly forcing municipalities to the financial wall in order to compensate for her total lack of child care funding in this province—not even to expand child care, but simply to maintain affordable spaces in Ontario?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me start by just rejecting the premise of the question altogether. In fact, we are making some very good progress on improving child care for families in this province.

Our next big step, as the member opposite knows, is to bring full-day learning to four- and five-year-olds. This is a very, very progressive initiative. Dr. Charles Pascal is out consulting widely on the best way to implement full-day learning for four- and five-year-olds. It will make a very big difference—not just for the kids, but also for their families. It will also increase the number of child care spaces available to those younger children.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This minister has shown an appalling lack of commitment to child care in this province. Families in Ottawa were on the brink of seeing 700 subsidized child care spaces disappear just last week, but for the help of the municipality, councillors and citizens who fought against that cut.

She talks about a plan for full-day learning. When is that plan coming? Sometime on the horizon. It's not coming soon enough, and everybody knows it—every child and every parent knows it.

Passing the buck, whether it's the buck being passed to Ottawa or the buck being passed to some full-day learning program that's not even on the horizon, is inappropriate and inadequate.

Why won't this minister commit right now to adequate, stable core funding required to meet the needs of Ontario's children and families?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me take this opportunity to educate not just the member opposite, but all Ontarians, on some of the initiatives that we have made.

We have created 22,000 more child care spaces since we were elected. This year alone, we have expanded the number of people who are able to get subsidies for their child care: We invested $23 million this year so that 3,000 more families could get subsidies.

We know that parents need their kids to be in good, high-quality child care so that their kids can thrive and so that the parents can work. We are committed to continually improving child care.

The work of Charles Pascal is well underway. The member opposite knows that he will be reporting in the spring. The early learning adviser is doing a tremendous job—

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

HEALTH CARE

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey: My question is for the Minister of Health.

I know that our government is committed to giving Ontarians access to quality health care and that modernizing our health care system depends on modernizing our hospitals.

On October 28, 2008, Brampton saw the decommissioning of Peel Memorial Hospital. The 83-year-old hospital was out of date; it no longer met current building, environmental and safety codes.

My community is eagerly anticipating the site's redevelopment in downtown Brampton. I understand that the Central West Local Health Integration Network and the William Osler hospital are working on a proposal to redevelop the Peel site. Can the Minister of Health tell the House about the current status of the Peel Memorial Hospital project?

Hon. David Caplan: I want to thank the member from Brampton—Springdale. She is quite correct, the Central West Local Health Integration Network and William Osler Health Centre are working to further develop the proposal for this project.

Our government recognizes that there's a need for the redevelopment at the Peel Memorial site. That's why we have included this particular project as part of our ReNew Ontario five-year infrastructure investment plan. We want to ensure that the new Peel Memorial will serve the community's needs. That's why the local health integration network, the hospital and a task force have been partnered to develop the first stage of the capital planning process: a business case, including a master program and a master plan. I anticipate receiving and reviewing the business case proposal from the LHIN and from the hospital and then taking the next steps.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey: I'm really glad to hear this project is moving forward. It's very important to my constituents. Like most Ontarians, Bramptonians want to receive quality care close to home. Hospitals play a key role in maintaining the economic vitality and quality of life in our communities. Brampton is still growing quickly, and I know that many of my residents are concerned about access to health care. I want to ensure that my constituents get the care they need. Can the Minister of Health tell this House about the health care supports that are currently available in Brampton?

Hon. David Caplan: I want to thank the member. I certainly want to recognize the advocacy of this member and all the members from Brampton and Peel. I want to assure the House and members of the community that we are maintaining access to high-quality care in the Brampton community. Since the Brampton Civic Hospital opened last year, we've added more than 110 beds and three new operating rooms; in addition, we introduced new services for children and adolescent mental health. We are also increasing access to care in the Brampton community.

Our province-wide, $1.1-billion aging-at-home strategy is helping to ensure that seniors in Brampton and, indeed, around the province can get the care they need closer to home.

Since 2003, we've opened more than 460 long-term-care beds in Brampton alone. This year we've increased funding for long-term care by over $300 million. I'm proud of the investments and confident that the residents of Brampton will continue to have access—

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

PENSION PLANS

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question to the Minister of Finance: As you know, Mercer, a respecting consulting firm, has said that the typical pension plan is experiencing at least a 30% shortfall, and that was as of September. They anticipate it has become much worse.

In estimates committee on October 29 and again on November 4, I asked you directly, as well as Bob Christie, the superintendent of financial services, to update the committee on the status of the public pensions in the province of Ontario. Minister, we have not heard back from you yet. You know this is a very serious issue. Could you tell the assembly what the shortfall is for the public funds like teachers, OMERS, HOOPP, and what kind of liability taxpayers are on the hook for?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I remind the member he will be getting responses to his questions according to the rules established by the Legislature. We will have some things to say about pension solvency rules, probably very shortly. There is no doubt markets are down about 40%. As you know, pension funds are invested in a diversity of assets, so that doesn't necessarily reflect what has happened in the individual pension accounts. But the issue for government now—and we'll look forward to the opposition's response—is how we respond in terms of things like solvency rules, how our response will compare to what Mr.

Flaherty said in his fall statement and how that will reflect the attitudes and values that this government has versus others, and it will reflect advice we've had from Mr. Arthurs.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: The minister gave me a technical answer in response. The minister knows that retired civil servants and taxpayers are very concerned about the shortfall in the public pension funds, and I would expect an answer from the minister under these circumstances a lot faster than two months later.

The minister also knows that during this tough economic time many companies, facing steep payments to pension top-ups to meet solvency requirements, would perhaps take funds out of cash flow or investments, already exacerbating a dire jobs picture in the province of Ontario. Over 200,000 well-paying manufacturing jobs have fled Ontario under Dalton McGuinty. The federal government has moved the time frame from five years to 10 years, subject to the agreement of the retirees, of the pension members, and with a line of credit from a financial institution. What is Ontario's plan, because most of the pensions fall under your jurisdiction, sir?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The member is accurate about what the federal government has announced. There are a number of other measures that we believe should be undertaken that have not been undertaken by the federal government. Premier McGuinty will have more to say about this early next week, I suspect, in terms of our government's full response.

I appreciate the tenor of the member's question; it's a legitimate question; it's a valuable question. It wasn't designed, obviously, to create any kind of fear among pensioners and others. I'll look forward to his response and the response of both opposition parties when the Premier makes that announcement, likely next week.

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My question is to the Minister of Education. Was the final offer presented by the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario on Friday, December 5, within the government's financial parameters for four-year collective agreements, as the teachers claim?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As the member opposite knows, there were a number of offers and discussions that went back and forth between ETFO, the Elementary Teachers' Federation, and OPSBA, which is the public school boards' association. There was no agreement that the two parties could come to. There was no offer that had the stamp of approval of the government, because the only offer that would have been acceptable to the government was one that, yes, was within the fiscal requirements but also was agreed to by both the boards and the teachers. Unfortunately, both parties left $800 million on the table. They could not come to an agreement, and it's most unfortunate.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Minister, you were there when the negotiations collapsed. This is your framework. With so much at stake, not to mention peace and stability, why did you not intervene and get a deal?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Of 23 potential agreements across the province with different groups—22 have reached agreements. So I actually believe that this government has been extremely successful in building strong working relationships with everyone in the education sector.

It takes two parties to come to an agreement; it takes two parties to come to an impasse. Unfortunately, there was nothing that could be done in that moment to bring the two parties together. The deadline passed, and unfortunately, the $800 million was not enough and there was not enough agreement to come to a resolution on Friday night.

RURAL ONTARIO

Mr. Jim Brownell: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Rural communities have made important contributions to the tapestry of this province, and all signs point toward rural Ontario playing a valued role in its future development. In this electronic age, rural Ontario has a voice like never before, and those in our urban centres are becoming more informed about the benefits of our rural communities. E-mail, Internet, video conferencing, BlackBerrys: These tools have provided the residents of our rural communities with unprecedented connection to the rest of the province and the rest of the world.

Minister, I know that you have worked tirelessly to ensure that rural Ontario has remained connected in this province and also to raise awareness of the issues that face our rural communities.

What has the government of Ontario done to ensure that rural Ontario has the access to technologies and resources that will help them to be a strong voice in today's global society?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I want to thank the honourable member. Our government has certainly been working very hard with our rural communities to understand how we can enable them to develop rural economies. That is why, in last year's budget, we committed $30 million over the next four years to further expand and enhance broadband access within our rural areas. I'm very happy to say that on November 28 of this year, 15 successful projects were announced, and that represents an investment of $8.8 million.

The good news is that we continue to offer for applications. Intake, too, for accessing these resources will close on February 12, 2009.

Rural Connections builds on the $10-million investment that we made in 2007. We very much look forward to hearing from more rural municipalities that are—

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

Mr. Jim Brownell: Again to the minister: Recently, I was very pleased to announce that in collaboration with OMAFRA and their Rural Connections program, three townships in my riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry will soon have increased access to broadband Internet. After this program is implemented, the broadband coverage in the township of South Glengarry will increase access to the point where 95% to 99% of residents and businesses can be served. This initiative will also provide 100% broadband coverage to Ault Island in the townships of South Stormont and South Dundas.

The Rural Connections program is just one of the initiatives that has shown the commitment of this government to ensure that rural Ontario is not only represented in the growth of this province but will play an integral role in its development.

Minister, can you please tell this House about some of the other programs available to assist rural Ontario in remaining essential in today's society?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I think it's really important that people in this Legislative Assembly understand how hard we work with our municipal partners, enabling them to have economic development occur in our rural communities. The rural broadband program requires that they build partnerships in their communities, and this has been very successful.

I would also say that we know how integral infrastructure is to attracting economic development, and to build on that, we have the rural economic development program. Since we came to government, there have been 192 projects approved with our rural economic development program. We're helping rural communities with broadband access and, when they have broadband access, they are able then to develop partnerships through our rural economic development program.

I will say that, to date, we have invested $63 million in rural communities. That has generated some $573 million in new economic activity right across rural communities in Ontario—

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

UNIVERSITY LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is for the Premier. Your Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities has stonewalled my questions on the York University strike from the moment I rose in this Legislature and asked the first one, weeks ago. He says I haven't any exclusivity on concern, but it's not about me, Premier. If the strike is not resolved within the next few days, 2008 is lost and, once the House shuts down tomorrow, there is no legislative recourse for 50,000 students. Our party is prepared to sit tomorrow morning, when nothing is scheduled for debate, to deal with back-to-work legislation.

Are you prepared to introduce it, save the year for these people and not waste millions at a time when that's just unacceptable? Will you do it, Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. John Milloy: I repeat that I think every member in the Legislature is concerned about the situation at York University. We continue to ask and encourage both sides to come to the table for an agreement that's in the best interests of the students, and to come to that agreement quickly. But at the same time, I think the honourable member has to recognize that, despite his questions that he raises in the House, ultimately universities are autonomous. This government believes in the collective bargaining process, and we continue to encourage both sides to follow that process and reach an agreement as quickly as possible.

Mr. Peter Shurman: The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities sounds self-righteous to me. He has no concern—no concern for the student body of York University, for the striking workers either, and his worker retraining programs are a farce too. He has no business in this portfolio; he has no business in this House. If something as rudimentary as resolving a highly punitive strike at a mainstream university is, in his opinion, in the autonomous hands of the university and the administration and not his problem, then he should resign. Fifty thousand students need help, and that's what this minister should be offering.

I ask again: Will this minister and this government end the nonsense, or will the minister get out of the way and allow someone to take the job seriously?

Hon. John Milloy: I've been very proud to be part of a government that has made post-secondary education one of its hallmarks. I've been very proud to serve with a Premier who made one of the largest investments in post-secondary education in our history. I am concerned about the situation at York University, as is every member of this Legislature, and despite the member's theatrics, I think he recognizes that universities are autonomous institutions, and we have a collective bargaining system in this province. That means sometimes there are strikes.

That is unfortunate, and we call on both sides to get back to the table and to resolve this dispute as quickly as possible, in the best interests of those students at York University.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. The member from Dufferin—Caledon.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The clock is stopped.

The member for Welland.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Peter Kormos: I have a question to the Minister of Health. Down in Niagara, there's a crisis in mental health care. There are no beds for children and youth with urgent mental health needs and the emergency adult facilities for mental health treatment have been recently cut in half. Why does the McGuinty government find this acceptable?

Hon. David Caplan: In fact, I disagree with the premise of the question. There is nothing acceptable about a mental health system—in fact, we seek to improve on the foundation which we found when we assumed office in 2003.

To review a little bit of context: Back when my friend was a minister of a previous government, funding for mental health was cut not simply in Niagara region but around the province some $23 million, in 1992; again, in 1994 and 1995, a further $42-million cut by the member opposite and by his colleagues. There was no base increased funding under the previous government for eight years.

Upon assuming office, we have since invested an additional $200 million into mental health and to expand services. I acknowledge there is much more to do. One of the reasons why I've supported the call from my colleague opposite from Whitby—Oshawa for a select committee—

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

Mr. Peter Kormos: The cuts I refer to have been made since this government was elected. Just recently, a 14-year-old child had to be admitted into an adult psychiatric facility because there are no beds for emergency treatment of youth and children.

The Auditor General's report refers to the tragic and condemnable patchwork of services for children and youth with mental health issues. We don't even have a patchwork down in Niagara. Why won't this government adequately fundamental mental health services for children and youth in Niagara?

Hon. David Caplan: In fact, funding has increased some 66%, a two-thirds increase in funding, over what we've seen previously. So I think the member's characterization is quite false and unfortunate, for the member to be able to make—

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

Hon. David Caplan: I'll withdraw it.

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

Hon. David Caplan: It's certainly unfortunate that the member would characterize inaccurately the kind of investments that we have seen from this government, particularly in light of his own conduct and his support for absolute cuts to the mental health services in this province.

In fact, in this year, in 2007-08, we've invested $640 million for the provision of community mental health services in Ontario, and a year later, we're enhancing mental health service funding with a new annualized funding of an additional $40 million.

I acknowledge that there is more to do. That is why I've called together an advisory from around the province on ways to address many of the gaps.

ROAD SAFETY

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Road safety is a priority for our government. Recently, much of the discussion has been around the introduction of Bill 118, which, if passed, will prohibit the use of hand-held wireless communication devices while driving. In addition, you have introduced Bill 126, which proposes extending the graduated licensing program from two years to three, and implementing zero blood-alcohol concentration for drivers aged 21 and under. However, I know that there is more to be done.

Can the minister please share with this House what else his ministry is doing to address road safety?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I want to thank the member for a very good question. She'll know that one of the areas where we listened to the concerns of the public was on the issue of the speed of trucks. Therefore we passed in this Legislature speed limiter legislation, which would put a regulation forward to not allow trucks to go in excess of 105 kilometres per hour. That was supported, by the way, by the Ontario Trucking Association and many organizations in the United States. What we're doing there is, we're working closely with the province of Quebec to implement this on exactly the same day.

That will be January 1, 2009. There will be an educational period to allow carriers, particularly those outside of Canadian jurisdictions and the US, to bring the vehicles they operate into Ontario and Quebec into compliance with the new speed limiter rule.

As you would recognize, there are also—

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

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: Again my question is for the Minister of Transportation. I'm pleased to hear that there will be an educational period on this important change for large trucks, and I agree that this initiative will help improve the safety of our roads.

Minister, the seasons are changing. With winter here and the weather getting worse, driving conditions can change almost instantly. With this change in weather we also see an increase in accidents on our highways. Could the Minister of Transportation share with this House and my constituents of Hamilton Mountain just what his ministry is doing to keep our roads safe for winter driving?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Again, another good question. Our winter maintenance standards are among the highest in all of North America, with the current technology, the tools, the methods to keep roads safe for winter driving. They include the following: a road and weather information system to forecast and monitor conditions; changeable message signs that warn drivers of poor weather; and liquid salt solutions that are used to prevent black ice and snow from bonding with the pavement.

But as Cam Woolley used to say when he was with the OPP—and still says on television—and Commissioner Fantino has said on many occasions, it's still important for all of us, as drivers, to take into account winter conditions: not to go out on the roads when it's recommended that we don't go on the roads if we don't have to; to drive more slowly; to watch for any eventuality that may cause great problems for—

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

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: My question is to the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure. Minister, for months you have told me and the people of Halton that our hospital is delayed because of a lack of capacity. You have consistently said that there are not enough bidders to ensure a competitive procurement process. Yet it appears to me that you are simply assuming this. It appears to me that you have not even begun the request-for-qualifications process.

Minister, if you have not sought applications or even surveyed the possible bidders, how on earth can you say that there's a shortfall in capacity?

Hon. George Smitherman: The honourable member is thinking in the right direction on this point about the survey of actual bidders. Through the work of Infrastructure Ontario, which is managing the development of the large-scale projects—19 of which are currently under construction in the province of Ontario—we have been working with those large general contractors, which are relatively small in number, to coordinate bringing to life new projects in a fashion that is timely and within their capabilities.

So, indeed, the resequencing on the Oakville hospital and the hospital in Markham were related to a sophisticated conversation about general construction capability with those very same companies.

In a recent meeting with the chair of Halton region, I made that commitment, as I've made in the presence of my friend and colleague Kevin Flynn in Oakville, that it's our effort, with the Oakville community, to move forward as fast as possible the initiation of construction related to that project.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Minister, we're talking about the health of my constituents here, so the only answer I'm prepared to accept right now is that we will begin the process in Oakville immediately.

Since 2004 in Peel, to the east of Halton, there have been over $1 billion invested in health care infrastructure. The Trillium hospital and Credit Valley Hospital have both been expanded, just like the hospitals to the west of us in Hamilton, where all three Hamilton hospitals have been expanded.

Minister, in Halton there's a dearth of expansion. It's surrounded by new, expanding hospitals. But in Halton is the fastest-growing community in Canada—in the whole country—and yet your government hasn't spent one red cent in expansion in either Oakville or Milton.

What's wrong with the people of Halton? Why don't they deserve the same health care as other people in Ontario? Why don't you start the RFQ process to get the hospital started at this time?

Hon. George Smitherman: Firstly, what the honourable member is not in a good position to do on any of these fronts is talk about any investments that occurred through the eight years that he was a privileged member of a caucus.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Where is the Oakville hospital?

Hon. George Smitherman: It's very, very important that the—

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Tell us the truth.

Hon. George Smitherman: Now, Mr. Speaker—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would just ask the honourable member for Halton to withdraw the comment, please.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I can't withdraw that if he's not going to stand in front of this House—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd just ask the honourable member to withdraw the comment, please.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I will not withdraw that as long as he will not start that process. The people of Oakville deserve a new hospital—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): For the third time, I'll ask the honourable member to withdraw the comment. Will the honourable member withdraw the comment? I have no other recourse, then, but to name the member, Ted Chudleigh, from Halton.

Mr. Chudleigh was escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): New question. The member for Timmins—James Bay.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member for Eglinton—Lawrence and the member for Durham—

Mr. Jeff Leal: Throw them out.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): —and the member for Peterborough.

The member for Timmins—James Bay.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr. Gilles Bisson: As long as you're not throwing me out, Speaker, I'll be all right.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation. You'll know that the US economy is tanking; ours is following suit. There are 30,000 independent trucker owner-operators who are really feeling the pinch in this economy, but your government is moving full steam ahead with the speed limiters on trucks. They're going to have to drive 105 kilometres in jurisdictions in the United States, where their speed limiters are set way ahead of that number. At the very time that truckers need our support, why is your government forcing them to spend $4.5 million for technology that won't make our roads safer and will make it even harder for those truckers to compete against American competitors?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I'm surprised to hear the member actually ask that question—he asks so many good questions in the House—because the statistics show very clearly that speed limiter legislation and the regulations that go with it will in fact increase road safety tremendously. The Ontario Trucking Association, which represents most of the truckers in Ontario, was very enthusiastic about this being implemented. Next door, in the province of Quebec, they have already passed legislation and will, in synchronization with Ontario, be implementing this on January 1, 2009.

This will have a profound, positive effect not only on highway safety, but your fellow colleagues who are concerned about the environment will know that this is very positive for greenhouse gases and for other emissions that are forthcoming from large vehicles—

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Minister, if you're disappointed in my question, I can tell you that independent truckers are disappointed in your answer and would expect a much better answer from the Minister of Transportation.

Listen. The experts have come before committee and they've said when it comes to making our highways safer, this legislation in fact will make it more dangerous because of the requirement of speed limiters. Number two, and here is the big issue, they are going to have to compete against American truckers—also independent truckers and fleets—at a disadvantage because their speed limiters are set at higher speeds due to the speed limits in the United States.

So I ask you again, will you not support the independent truckers of this province and allow them to compete on a level playing field, or at the very least pay for the installation of the technology?

Hon. James J. Bradley: As you know, the technology is such that it can be changed according to the jurisdiction you are in. So that can happen.

But I want to share with the member—I know he is interested in facts—increased road safety: Research shows that excessive speed is a factor in 23% of crashes; 100 million fewer litres of diesel fuel will be used by the whole trucking industry; a 280,000-tonne reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is the equivalent of 2,700 tractor-trailers off the road each year.

Now, your friend who is competing with you for the leadership of the party, Mr. Tabuns, is not going to be happy with that question. I have a quote. I remember you said this. On March 19, 2008, you were very good when you said, "In principle, we don't have a problem." I agreed with you then and I still agree with that statement—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Time for question period has ended.

We have a deferred vote on Bill 126. Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1135 to 1140.

DEFERRED VOTES

ROAD SAFETY ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ ROUTIÈRE

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 126,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act and to make consequential amendments to two amending acts / Projet de loi 126, Loi modifiant le Code de la route et apportant des modifications corrélatives à deux lois modificatives.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Mr. Bradley has moved second reading of Bill 126. All those in favour will please rise one at a time and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Those opposed?

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 60; the nays are 20.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I declare the motion carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I ask that the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on General Government.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Hon. Monique M. Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I seek consent for the House to take the routine proceeding reports by committees immediately; following which the orders for second and third reading of bills Pr19 and Pr20 shall be called consecutively, the questions on the motions for second and third reading of the bills being put immediately, without debate; and that Ms. Jeffrey may move the motions for second and third readings of the bills on behalf of Mr. Dhillon and Mr. Sorbara respectively.

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

Motion agreed to.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Paul Miller: I beg leave to present a report from the Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills and move its adoption.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Tonia Grannum): Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill Pr20,

An Act respecting the Joseph and Wolf Lebovic Jewish Community Campus.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed? Agreed.

Report adopted.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ABLE INSURANCE BROKERS LTD. ACT, 2008

Mrs. Jeffrey, on behalf of Mr. Dhillon, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr19,

An Act to revive Able Insurance Brokers Ltd.

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

Second reading agreed to.

ABLE INSURANCE BROKERS LTD. ACT, 2008

Mrs. Jeffrey, on behalf of Mr. Dhillon, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr19,

An Act to revive Able Insurance Brokers Ltd.

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

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

Third reading agreed to.

JOSEPH AND WOLF LEBOVIC

JEWISH COMMUNITY

CAMPUS ACT, 2008

Mrs. Jeffrey, on behalf of Mr. Sorbara, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr20,

An Act respecting the Joseph and Wolf Lebovic Jewish Community Campus.

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

Second reading agreed to.

JOSEPH AND WOLF LEBOVIC

JEWISH COMMUNITY

CAMPUS ACT, 2008

Mrs. Jeffrey, on behalf of Mr. Sorbara, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr20,

An Act respecting the Joseph and Wolf Lebovic Jewish Community Campus.

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

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

Third reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): There being no further business, this House stands recessed until 3 p.m.

The House recessed from 1147 to 1500.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: It is a privilege and honour to welcome Bill Nemerson, who is 80 years young and a great community activist for the community of Etobicoke, joined, of course, by his loving family, entourage and supporters. Welcome, Mr. Nemerson.

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: It's my privilege to introduce to the House today the president of Redeemer University College, Dr. Justin Cooper, who is here with us, and Mr. Peter Curtis.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. John O'Toole: This morning, our member Jim Wilson, who is the PC critic for the training, colleges and universities ministry, asked the minister to explain why less than 50% of the apprentices actually completed their training. This, following the Ontario Auditor General's report which stated that Ontario provides "$227 million in grants to unemployed individuals to help learn new skills." It went on to say, "In essence, it's not clear what bang the government got for its buck." The minister did not have an effective strategy, he went on to say.

Also Mr. Klees, our member, asked Mr. Bryant publicly about the take-up of the Second Career funds, and the minister gave him no clear response. With the collapse in the Ontario economy, we need to be more effective in job training, as noted by the Attorney General.

In my riding of Durham, the ACE program, which is a grade 12 equivalency certification, has been widely supported. However, the ACE program has been cancelled in Bowmanville due to lack of funding. I want the McGuinty government to ensure that job training programs like ACE get the funding they need, the people they need and the support they need for jobs in the future. It's like all ridings in the province of Ontario: suffering job losses. Retraining is important, and it appears that the McGuinty government has no plan that's working and no way of measuring the outcomes of those plans.

RHENISH CHURCH OF CANADA

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I recently had the pleasure of attending the dedication service for the new Rhenish church located in my riding of Oak Ridges—Markham. Initially brought to China from Germany by missionaries, the Rhenish Church was established in Canada by immigrants from China in 1984. A member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, it has since grown exponentially in membership and has established itself in Cornell in Markham, in a very pleasant park-like setting.

The event began outdoors, where Bishop Michael Pryse of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, Eastern Synod, and Rhenish Church senior pastor the Rev. David Tin presided over the official opening of the doors and the unveiling of the church's new sign. A gathering of approximately 300 church members from across the greater Toronto area then proceeded inside to celebrate the impressive new building with its first service. A wonderful choir of young children sang hymns of joy, to the delight of all.

The event was marked by a palpable sense of pride in the new church, which had been the focus of much fundraising, planning and hard work. That pride carried over to the heritage house located on the church's land, which has been preserved by church members and is now home to a youth group and other community activities.

I would like to extend my congratulations to the Rhenish Church of Canada on their new church, which will undoubtedly be enjoyed by the community for years to come.

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

Mr. Kuldip Kular: It gives me great pleasure to rise today to discuss the McGuinty government's latest initiatives to enhance Ontario's outstanding cultural sector. This government recognizes that investing in arts and culture not only builds strong, sustainable and vibrant communities, but also greatly contributes to our economic prosperity.

Ontario's cultural sector generates almost $20 billion for the provincial economy and creates over 250,000 jobs, which the McGuinty government has taken important steps to not only sustain but to ensure that it flourishes. Some of these initiatives include increasing the Ontario Arts Council's annual funding by $20 million. This has increased the OAC's budget to $56 million this year and, when fully implemented, this will represent a 140% increase in OAC funding since 2003.

We have also increased our domestic film and television tax credits to 35%, and for foreign film productions we have increased the tax credit to 25%. We are the first government in 30 years to strengthen the Ontario Heritage Act, giving municipalities the tools needed to identify, designate and protect their historic treasures.

These investments in various arts programs display the level of the McGuinty government's belief in Ontario's cultural sector and work hard to provide it with the tools to sustain—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. The member for Toronto—Danforth.

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Today I was contacted by the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario and told that another piece of Ontario's heritage, the Erie Street United Church, dating from 1876, located in Ridgetown, Ontario, is going to be demolished. Once again, the Minister of Culture has failed in her responsibility to protect Ontario's heritage.

The Architectural Conservancy of Ontario requested that she issue a stop order to save this Henry Langley church, designated by the municipality. Ministry staff were in contact with the chief building officer and the local congregation and managed to negotiate a two-day pause but couldn't get a voluntary agreement to stop.

The congregation can't afford to maintain the building; it needs about $1 million in repairs. But as one of the engineer's reports said, the building would last another 300 years if it had been maintained. The chief building officer was persuaded to issue a demolition order. The minister had the power—and a request—to issue a stop on that. She didn't.

We lost Alma College in St. Thomas—lost to fire—after the minister refused to act. At the rate the minister is going, we'll see an awful lot more buildings lost in this province.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I am pleased to share with the members of the Legislature how the McGuinty government is continuing to build strong relationships with our municipal partners, including in my hometown of Ottawa.

I hear from my constituents in Ottawa Centre how pleased they are to see us working together with our municipal representatives to address the concerns and issues of importance to them. Through the work of community members, the positive tone and tenor of the relationship has resulted in much-needed financial investment in the city of Ottawa.

Just this past Friday, our government announced the 2009 allocation of the 50-50 municipal land ambulance funding. Due to this announcement, the city of Ottawa is receiving an additional $765,239 to maintain the 50-50 cost-sharing agreement. In total, the government will deliver more than $408 million in province-wide funding for municipal land ambulance operating costs, an increase of $20.1 million from 2008.

The investment numbers alone do not tell the real story. This investment means an additional 38 new paramedics and five additional vehicles for the ambulance service in Ottawa. Our government truly understands the importance of having land ambulance services that our residents can count on.

I am pleased that the McGuinty government continues to work diligently with our municipal partners in bettering the lives of and services for all Ontarians.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mr. Bill Mauro: Thunder Bay—Atikokan has greatly benefited from the substantial investments of our provincial government. The enhanced investments at our three main hospitals in Thunder Bay—Atikokan are a testament to our government's commitment.

Atikokan General has seen an increase in base funding from 2003-04 of 30% or $1.4 million; Thunder Bay Regional has witnessed an increase of 38% and $46.1 million; and St. Joseph's Care Group's funding has grown by $13.8 million, or 20%. That is a total increase of over $61 million, or 30%, in base funding.

Our government is making substantial investments to help expand and improve public transit services. For example, Thunder Bay has received well over $6 million in gas tax funding from the province since 2004. Thunder Bay—Atikokan has also received well over $11 million this past fall to move ahead with infrastructure priorities such as improving roads and bridges, expanding transit and upgrading social housing as a result of the Investing in Ontario Act. The new $7.4 million, state-of-the-art Thunder Bay provincial communications centre just opened this past September, and we're also investing $6 million for a new forensic ID unit for the OPP in Thunder Bay.

We can also look forward in 2009 to the provincial announcement about the construction of a new courthouse in Thunder Bay to serve our city and district, consolidating court services, something our city has been searching for for the last 10 to 20 years. These are just a few very small examples I can raise from my chair over here this afternoon for Thunder Bay—Atikokan.

REDEEMER UNIVERSITY COLLEGE

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: It is my pleasure to congratulate Redeemer University College on the excellent student ratings it achieved in a recent survey.

Redeemer is a Christian undergraduate university located in Hamilton, Ontario, which serves over 860 students, 90% of whom call Ontario home. For the second consecutive year, Redeemer has earned an A in overall student satisfaction in the Globe and Mail's University Report Card.

This survey of 43,400 university students graded 55 Canadian universities on a number of key criteria. The full survey can be accessed at globecampus.ca, and clearly shows that Redeemer's overall results are among the best in the country, which is a real credit to the faculty, students, administration and supporters of this undergraduate university.

Excellent post-secondary education is one of the key elements of Ontario's research and innovation strategy in the new knowledge economy. The results of this survey show that Hamilton and Ontario can be proud of what Redeemer is contributing to this important initiative.

Mr. John O'Toole: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I seek unanimous consent to stand down our two members' statements. The members are occupied, as their private members' legislation is receiving royal assent, courtesy of the McGuinty government, and it would be a respectful pleasure at this time of year.

We have one here right now. They'll be here.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The honourable member has arrived, so I don't think we're going to have to deal with consent.

GROVES MEMORIAL

COMMUNITY HOSPITAL

Mr. Ted Arnott: I wish to inform the House that Groves Memorial Community Hospital, in the township of Centre Wellington, is continuing to prepare to meet the health care needs of our residents in the 21st century.

At the end of this month, in partnership with the county of Wellington, Groves will purchase 34 acres of land in Aboyne, between Elora and Fergus, for its planned brand new hospital.

I want to express my thanks to the members of the board and the foundation, the volunteer association, all the hospital staff, as well as the county of Wellington and the township of Centre Wellington for their hard work and support on this important project.

We are ready to proceed with this new hospital. The community wants to see progress and wants to see this project proceed. But I ask once again, when will the Minister of Health be ready to proceed?

As members know, I have raised the need for a new hospital many times in this House. As the Minister of Health knows, I have written countless letters about this issue, most recently in the fall. I say again that we need to be on the ministry's five-year plan for new hospital construction. We urge the Minister of Health to do what needs to be done to make this happen.

I hope he will not allow the Waterloo Wellington LHIN to become a scapegoat for delays in the approval process for this much-needed hospital. The minister should not put the LHIN in that position. The minister must acknowledge the need and the hard work of our community. We are ready to go, but we need the minister to say yes.

CARBON MONOXIDE POISONING

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: It is with great sadness that I rise today to pay tribute to a family that gave so much to the people of Oxford.

Richard and Laurie Hawkins and their children, Cassandra and Jordan, were much-loved members of our community. Through her outreach work as an OPP constable, Laurie Hawkins touched the lives of people throughout Oxford. Richard was an accomplished hockey player, who shared his love of hockey with the next generation through coaching. Both Cassandra and Jordan were active in sports and in their schools.

Tragically, the family's bright future was cut short by carbon monoxide poisoning. This is a devastating loss to their family, friends and our entire community. Our thoughts and prayers are with everyone who knew them.

It is sad that it took this tragedy to remind Ontarians about the necessity of having a functioning carbon monoxide detector in every home. Carbon monoxide is colourless, odourless and impossible to detect without these alarms. The US Consumer Product Safety Commission has stated that carbon monoxide is the largest cause of accidental poisoning in American homes.

We are most vulnerable during the winter, when we are heating our homes. This is the time to check and make sure that you have a carbon monoxide detector on every level of your home and that they are working. Check the batteries; make sure they're plugged in. If they're more than 10 years old, replace them. This simple device saves lives and can avoid tragedies. Please make sure that you, your family and your friends all have functioning carbon monoxide detectors in your home.

SPECIAL REPORT, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I beg to inform the House that I have laid upon the table a special report of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario entitled Progress in a Climate of Change, a review of Ontario's climate change action plan.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REGULATED HEALTH PROFESSIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES PROFESSIONS DE LA SANTÉ RÉGLEMENTÉES

Mr. Caplan moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 141,

An Act to amend the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 / Projet de loi 141, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1991 sur les professions de la santé réglementées.

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

First reading agreed to.

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

Hon. David Caplan: I will make a statement during ministerial statements.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

PATIENT SAFETY

Hon. David Caplan: I rise in the House today to speak to a piece of legislation that, if passed, would strengthen patient safety and the quality of care provided by all regulated health professions and all regulated health professionals in the province.

We're proposing to amend the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, or, as it is called, the RHPA. This amendment would provide all health regulatory colleges with the tools that they need to support their mandate—specifically, the protection of the public. It would give colleges the power to conduct comprehensive inspections where health care services are provided. This is a priority for me.

Recent incidents of substandard cosmetic surgery provided by physicians have brought to light the need for change. In November 2007, the College of Physicians and Surgeons established a multi-pronged plan for responding to these incidents. This included regulating the practice of high-risk procedures such as cosmetic surgery. I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and to thank our partner, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, for its leadership on this important matter.

Enhancing inspection powers is also becoming more important for other health professionals, especially as they expand their scopes of practice and deliver more health care services outside of regulated settings such as hospitals and independent health facilities. Regulatory colleges already have the authority to inspect premises. That includes equipment, accounts and reports. However, the current provisions of the Regulated Health Professions Act do not provide the colleges with the authority to directly observe a regulated health professional performing a procedure during an inspection.

This limits the ability of the colleges to adequately inspect places where potentially unsafe health care services could be provided.

In some cases, the safety of a facility and its equipment can only be determined by directly observing the regulated health professionals who work there or observing the equipment in the facility when it is being used by the the regulated health professional. That's why giving power to the colleges to directly observe a health care provider delivering health services is so important.

The McGuinty government is committed to enhancing patient safety and quality of care provided by health care professionals. In July 2008, an amended regulation of the Public Hospitals Act was enacted to require hospitals to disclose to patients and their families any critical event that resulted in serious injury or death. In September 2008, we began full public reporting on the first of eight patient safety indicators, beginning with Clostridium difficile, otherwise known as C. difficile, as part of a comprehensive plan to create an unprecedented level of transparency in Ontario's hospitals.

This is but the latest in a series of initiatives designed to reduce adverse events and protect Ontario patients.

Speaker, I hope all members of this House will support the legislation that has been introduced, and I thank you very much for affording me this opportunity today.

CLIMATE CHANGE

Hon. John Gerretsen: I'm pleased to rise today to present our government's first annual report on Ontario's climate change action plan. Faced with the reality of worldwide climate change, governments today have a clear choice: They can do nothing or embrace the transition to a low-carbon, green future. Ontario has chosen to be a leader.

Our climate change action plan, which we introduced last year, is wide-ranging and includes ambitious reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions 6% below 1990 levels by 2014 and 15% below 1990 levels by 2020. It includes programs designed to promote alternative energy and energy conservation, create more sustainable communities, increase Ontario's commitment to environmental research and development, and provide the foundation for a greener economy.

Achieving our greenhouse gas reduction targets is a priority. The annual report shows how we are delivering on our objectives in the transportation sector, in innovation and job creation, in creating green energy options, in building greener communities and in reducing the government's own carbon footprint.

As the first-ever annual report on our climate change action plan, the report focuses on the starting points and documents our actions over the last year. It shows Ontario is on track to meet its aggressive greenhouse gas reduction targets and adapt to climate change impacts. The report shows that Ontario has reduced its CO 2 emissions from carbon-fired electricity by 20%, and more than 2,600 megawatts of new renewable power supply has been contracted. We are protecting more than 225,000 square kilometres of the far north boreal forest region, a globally significant carbon sink.

In this report, Ontarians can learn about our efforts in implementing Move Ontario 2020, the largest commitment to public transportation in Ontario's history, and how we have streamlined the environmental approval process for public transit projects to get them up and running sooner. The annual report also shows our actions in developing programs and partnerships with other provinces, the federal government and jurisdictions in the United States.

A low-carbon economy and a culture of conservation are essential to creating sustainable future growth and prosperity for our province and for our children. In light of the difficult economic times we face in Ontario today, it is only right to remind ourselves that creating a low-carbon economy is a tremendous environmental opportunity as well as an economic advantage.

Our plan is an economy-wide plan. It is also a government-wide plan, with every ministry making a contribution. In February of this year, we set up the climate change secretariat to help coordinate our efforts across government and ensure policies and programs that will produce real results. My ministry, the Ministry of the Environment, along with other government ministries, is working closely with the secretariat, and that is reflected within the pages of this annual report.

When Premier McGuinty introduced Ontario's climate change action plan last year, he made it clear that our activities and our progress would be transparent and accountable. The progress cited in this annual report has been verified by Deloitte and Touche, and will be reviewed by the Environmental Commissioner. As a matter of fact, the Environmental Commissioner filed a report today as well, and amongst other things he states, "I am pleased with the efforts the government is making in charting a transparent course to ensure Ontario will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions." That is as stated by Gord Miller, the Environmental Commissioner.

The progress cited in this report has been verified, as I mentioned before. We are proud of our progress, but we still have a long way to go. All of us have a role to play to meet our 2014 emission reduction targets. Ontario residents have a right to know how our plan is working. They also want to know how they can help and what is being asked of them as citizens and as business owners. We face this challenge together as Ontarians. Only by working together will we achieve our shared goal, that of a more prosperous and brighter future for generations to come.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Responses?

CLIMATE CHANGE

Mr. John O'Toole: I'm responding on behalf of the member from Haldimand—Norfolk, who has given me the liberty of reading Gord Miller's report here. I had a look at it, and in responding to the minister, it's a matter of perceived progress; that is really my

interpretation. Or is this just another Liberal patting themselves on the back?

I would like to take a few minutes and touch on some of the salient points that the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, Gord Miller, has brought forward in his independent review released today.

It is interesting to note that while the ministry's climate change action plan has been billed as a "progress report" on government emission reductions initiatives, there's very little in the way of actual numbers with which to track the claimed progress or lack thereof. I would think if the government really wanted to highlight the results of an action plan, they would provide actual numbers to back them up. Or is this just part and parcel of the usual McGuinty "show and sham" politics that we've become so accustomed to in the last four or five years?

More to that point, the Environmental Commissioner mentions in his review that there is a very real concern that while emissions may go down in the province, these reductions have no connection to any government initiative whatsoever. I'm adding my own impression, which is that it's more a result of the collapse of the Ontario economy and some 250,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector that may be an explanation. In fact, any credit for emission reductions today may be better attributed to the government's inaction, which has resulted in the economic tailspin that we now find ourselves reeling in.

In fact, if I go on here, the commissioner points to a very real concern that this government may simply take credit for carbon reduction resulting from a shrinking economy and the shutting down of industries, rather than taking the steps called for to meet the plan's real goals. Mr. Miller points out, "It will be important for the government to clarify the extent to which these reductions are permanent or only transitory."

There's more to say on this topic on this side of the House. We support any plan or any action that will result in a better quality of life, not just in emissions but in our economy generally.

PATIENT SAFETY

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I'm very pleased to rise on behalf of the PC Party to respond to this new regulation entitled the Regulated Health Professions Amendment Act, 2008.

We all remember that about a year ago, in September 2007, Krista Stryland, a Toronto real estate agent and 32-year-old mother, walked into her doctor's office to undergo a routine liposuction treatment. Tragically, she never came out. She died of cardiac arrest. Of course, this case was one of several high-profile deaths which have put the spotlight on cosmetic surgery and the need for action. We've certainly had other examples as well.

While some Canadian provinces, such as Alberta and British Columbia, strictly regulate those who perform cosmetic surgery, Ontario has been slower to do so. In both of the western provinces, all surgeons and surgical facilities must be licensed for each procedure they perform; as well, doctors cannot advertise themselves as cosmetic surgeons without holding a surgical specialty.

Our own College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario proposed regulatory changes in 2008 that would prevent doctors from calling themselves "cosmetic surgeons," a term applied to doctors who are not plastic surgeons and who perform procedures including facelifts, tummy tucks and liposuction. I would like to point out that this term is not formally recognized by licensing bodies. So, the CPSO has been trying to do what they can. They have taken some initiatives and they've attempted to pass a policy, obviously, which requires doctors to report changes in their scope of practice etc.

Today, in an attempt to protect patient safety, which obviously must be of paramount importance, we have the ministry stepping up to the forefront and proposing that we would allow for inspections of facilities. Not only would the CPSO have this power, but all regulatory bodies would. This is important.

I look forward to hearing the colleges' response. I don't know how much consultation there has been with the colleges regarding this legislation, but obviously the government needs to listen to the colleges.

Certainly, this is a step in the right direction—

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

PATIENT SAFETY

M me France Gélinas: I'm happy to rise today to speak on the amendment to the Regulated Health Professions Act.

It is imperative that Ontarians have confidence in our health care system, and patient safety must always be a key concern among all health professionals. But in 2007, this confidence was shaken, most notably after the death of a young woman as a result of a physician providing substandard cosmetic surgery in an out-of-hospital facility. That's why the government is introducing this legislation today.

Following this tragic accident, the College of Physicians and Surgeons recognized the need to better monitor cosmetic surgery in Ontario. In particular, the college discovered gaps in the Regulated Health Professions Act that limit the college's ability to directly observe their members in practise.

The college has also submitted to the ministry other changes to better protect Ontarians that will come forward as regulatory, not legislative, changes. For example, the college has now changed its policy of voluntary self-reporting, which resulted in some physicians, but not all, reporting and undergoing the training, supervision and assessment required by the policies. In October 2007, the college made it mandatory for all of its members to submit a detailed account about the cosmetic procedures they are providing to their patients.

As well, a regulation will soon be forthcoming to limit the use of specialist titles such as "cosmetic surgeon." The college recognizes that the medical community had not kept pace with the expanding field of cosm