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

April 8, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Apr-08 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 8 April 2009 Mercredi 8 avril 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ROAD SAFETY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ ROUTIÈRE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

SENIOR CITIZENS

TAXATION

PROVINCIAL PURCHASING POLICY

TAXATION

TAXATION

EDUCATION

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

HOME CARE

DIAMOND INDUSTRY

PROVINCIAL PURCHASING POLICY

ATTAWAPISKAT FIRST NATION

GO TRANSIT

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

ASSISTANCE TO THE DISABLED

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TAXATION

EARTHQUAKE IN ITALY

HERB GRAY

GREEN ENERGY LEGISLATION

MARKHAM DISTRICT

VETERANS ASSOCIATION

AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS

TIBETAN CANADIANS

ASSISTANCE TO THE DISABLED

RURAL SUMMER JOBS PROGRAM

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT /

RENDEMENT SCOLAIRE

PETITIONS

TAXATION

ONTARIO BUDGET

HOSPITAL FUNDING

AIR QUALITY

ROAD SAFETY

CHILD CUSTODY

PROTECTION OF MINORS

ONTARIO BUDGET

ROAD SAFETY

CEMETERIES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

LUPUS

OPPOSITION DAY

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

ORDER OF BUSINESS

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

(CONTINUED)

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ROAD SAFETY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ ROUTIÈRE

Mr. Bradley moved third reading of the following bill:

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): Debate?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I rise in the House today to continue debate on important legislation that, if passed by this assembly, would make Ontario safer for drivers and everyone who shares our province's roads.

I will be sharing this time with my parliamentary assistant for transportation, Linda Jeffrey, who will resume debate on this legislation. May I at this point in time pay tribute to Ms. Jeffrey for an outstanding job. Some of us get the title of minister, and what you find out if you're a member of this House, particularly if you've been a parliamentary assistant, is that parliamentary assistants provide the kind of support and hard work necessary to ensure that bills are passed. So never be fooled by titles as being of significance; rather, it's the people who are doing the tough slogging.

Both in the House and in committee, Ms. Jeffrey has provided the kind of assistance that has been required. I am delighted that as a result of that, she has shown a great knowledge of the legislation, of the appropriate procedures in committee and the House, and I pay tribute to her for that.

In addition that, Michelle Baker, who is my legislative assistant, has been working extremely hard, both with the parliamentary assistant and with me, in providing the necessary information. So sometimes if we happen to occasionally look good, either in committee or House, or out in the scrums, it's because of the staff that we have in some cases, and in other cases it's the parliamentary assistant who is providing that.

I want to say first of all that I have appreciated the kind of interest that has been shown in this bill by all members of the House from the discussion of it coming forward to its introduction to its second reading and then going through a committee of the Legislature. I've been impressed with the degree of interest. I think that's because matters of driving and safety on our roads happen to be of great interest to all people and all of our constituents.

I know that some of the government members and opposition members have worked hard again to try to ensure that the appropriate debate has taken place on this legislation and that suggestions have been offered. In some cases, those suggestions and recommendations will manifest themselves not within the legislation itself, but within the regulations that flow from the bill.

For those who may be watching at home at this time of day or on the replay of the Legislature, what does happen is a bill is first of all introduced. Normally, they receive unanimous consent to introduce them on first reading. On second reading there is an extensive debate on principle, looking at all aspects of the bill, and then we go to committee if the government and opposition agree it should go to committee.

Our government has, I think, made it a point always–I could be corrected—to go to committee, for two purposes: One is so that the public can have input, and second, so members in committee can discuss the bill in detail and offer suggestions as to what amendments might take place in the committee or later in the regulatory framework. When the committee has completed its work, it reports to the House and then third reading debate takes place.

A number of years ago, third reading didn't take place in this Legislature; it was passed on a nod. We have established a practice in recent years where, from time to time, there is third reading of a bill, and that is kind of the wrap-up of it. But I do want to point out that what happens after that is that the government develops regulations to go with the bill, and we have given an indication to all members of the committee and the House of the direction we're moving in for certain regulations.

Subsequent to the passage of any bill, we still have an opportunity to consult on the regulatory framework, which are the details of the bill, if the House deems it appropriate to pass it. Then, of course, if the Lieutenant Governor deems appropriate, it is signed and proclaimed into law. With bills of this kind in particular, safety bills, what tends to happen is, initially there is an educational period for people—because this is new to some people; the changes will be new. We have to ensure that people know what those changes are, and there is an educational period of time. We do that with a number of bills.

Motor vehicle collisions, I think all of us realize, cost our province dearly. Almost every day in Ontario someone loses a loved one as a result of a collision on our roads: a friend or a parent, a son or a daughter. Many people have gone through this tragedy in their own personal lives. It is extremely sad because it's not something that's anticipated; it is often a shock, and of course the sadness lingers for some period of time.

Approximately two people are killed and 10 people are injured each and every day on our roads. I recognize that we're a large province. I think our population is around 13 million in the province of Ontario now. Geographically, you could put three, four or five countries in Europe into the province of Ontario. We have a lot of vehicles on our roads, we have pedestrians who from time to time are on our roads and we have bicycles that are on our various roads. Still, approximately two people being killed per day and 10 injured is, while if we compare to others a very good record, one that we wish would have zero people killed and zero people injured.

To make this situation even more unbearable, the majority of these tragedies—and I think all of us realize this—are actually preventable. In Ontario, about a quarter of all fatal collisions are unfortunately alcohol-related. Excessive speed and loss of control were key factors in almost half of all fatal collisions. In spite of extensive educational campaigns in the province, one third of drivers and passengers killed on our roads were not wearing their seat belts.

To those of us in this House that may be a surprise, particularly those who have had road safety as one of their interests. My friend from Durham, who has been the critic and writes me lots of letters about matters related to transportation, is one, along with Mr. Klees, who was the transportation critic previously for the Conservatives and the minister, and Mr. Bisson, the member for Timmins—James Bay, who has a special interest in transportation—all of us recognize that in spite of these extensive education campaigns one third of these people were not wearing seat belts. It's hard to believe, but it is true.

It's something we all have to remind ourselves of. The number of injuries and fatalities on our roads must not be overlooked.

I should share with you a little story at the present time that I thought was instructive of how this is a bit generational. The younger generation tends to be more inclined to put seat belts on. If you watch a young driver, a young driver automatically gets in and puts the seat belt on. Older drivers sometimes do not, and probably all of us have been guilty at one time or another; we're going down to the corner store or something of that nature and think, "Well, nothing can happen from here to the corner store."

I recall, and this was really nice to see, getting into a vehicle when I was almost late for a meeting and I had to park far away. I knew the people who lived in the house near the—it was a CAW hall in this case. So the woman of the house, the mother, said to me, "Why don't you hop in the van and I'll take you over to the door of the building, because you're going to be late otherwise." So I got in the van thinking, "Well, I'm going a couple of blocks," so I did not put my seat belt on right away. The two children in the car immediately said to their mother, "Mommy, we can't go yet.

The man doesn't have his seat belt on," and I thought, "Wow. This is really impactful." These young kids knew that you don't get in the car without putting a seat belt on. So there I was, getting a lesson from these two kids. Now, this is a few years back, before I was Minister of Transportation; it doesn't matter. I think what happens is that is more of an inclination of people who are older than people who are younger—and particularly young children.

It really gets to the heart of this act that is aimed largely at trying to make even better drivers of our young people who are drivers today. I complimented a previous government in the 1990s for introducing graduated licensing. That was the government where Premier Rae was the Premier and I'm trying to remember which of the ministers—I think Gilles Pouliot may have been the Minister of Transportation at that time when it was introduced.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: What was introduced?

Hon. James J. Bradley: This was the graduated licensing. I think there were people apprehensive about it at that time; the usual arguments came up. It was a departure; remember? It was a departure.

I think that's one of the best steps that was taken in road safety in the province of Ontario, because what it aimed at was making better drivers of younger drivers, and almost to a person, despite significant exceptions, younger people at least have a better technical knowledge of driving and probably better attitudes in many ways than their predecessors who got behind the wheels of cars, because people of my vintage did not have to take much of a driving test. It was about a 15-minute driving test and the toughest thing was parallel parking. These kids go through a lot of steps now—

Interjection: Thanks for coming out with all these new tests.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I can say to members of the House that I know the young people of the day felt that the government of the day, of Mr. Rae, was imposing upon their rights and freedoms and so on, perhaps being mean to them, when indeed they were bringing about legislation that would help. So in the longer run, these people have often maintained those good habits.

I see my good friend Bill Murdoch coming into the House at the present time and want to note his presence and express concern that his Montreal Canadiens lost their last game and are just holding on to a playoff spot at this time. I did want to acknowledge Bill. I know that has nothing to do with this bill but it does with that Bill.

We introduced, then, the Road Safety Act. It's a comprehensive piece of proposed legislation that targets some of the most persistent and dangerous behaviours on our roads today. Changing driver behaviour is, as we all know, a tremendous challenge. Over the past five years, this government has demonstrated its ability to rise to the challenge of making our roads safer again and again. We have taken steps that not only save lives and prevent injuries, but give our police services the tools they need to keep Ontarians safe: safe while they're behind the wheel of a car; safe while they are heading off to work, returning home or picking up a loved one.

Our government has a legacy of taking action to keep our roads safe. Four years ago, our government made the use of booster seats and child car seats mandatory to protect our very youngest and most vulnerable passengers. We made improvements to Ontario's graduated licensing system to better protect teens while driving at night. And our one person, one seat belt, requires every person in the vehicle to buckle up.

More recently, we significantly increased the penalties for drivers caught street racing, stunt driving or exceeding the speed limit by more than 50 kilometres per hour. These drivers clearly have no place on our roads. To date, police have taken more than 11,500 dangerous drivers off our roads under this law.

We've also changed Ontario's impaired driving laws, with tougher sanctions for drivers who repeatedly drink and drive in what we call the warn range, which is between .05 and .08 alcohol content in the blood. These latest measures come into effect on May 1 this year.

We've also proposed legislation that would make it illegal to use hand-held communications and entertainment devices while driving. With this action, we are tackling the increasing problem of driver distraction—drivers who talk, text message or dial when they should be focused on the task at hand, the task of driving. Our message to drivers is a simple but important one: eyes on the road, hands on the wheel.

My friend from Durham would agree with that and brought forward of his own volition legislation forward in this regard, along with some other members—I know my colleague from Oakville brought forward legislation in this regard—and was persistent. He will know that when he started out there were a lot of people who mocked it or said he was imposing on their rights. I give him full credit for being persistent in this regard. I think that many thought this would be an imposition a few years back; today it's fairly common to see jurisdictions doing it.

He had done his research on other areas that had implemented such legislation, and I know he is supportive of it and I appreciate what he has done, along with my friend Mr. Flynn, from Oakville.

I look forward to continuing the discussion on this important piece of legislation. Our tough action has raised awareness of the consequences of dangerous and aggressive driving behaviour, especially among young people.

Today we are proposing to build on these successes with improvements to Ontario's graduated licensing system—changes that will better prepare young drivers for the reality of today's driving environment. First, we plan to give young and novice drivers more time to get the experience and skills they need for a lifetime of driving. This means extending the time it takes to get a full licence from 24 months to 36 months. For those novice drivers who pass a ministry-approved beginner driver education course, we will provide a possible time discount of six months. Escalating sanctions mean a driver would face penalties that get tougher with each serious violation of our province's traffic laws.

As all members are aware, drinking and driving continues to be a major problem on our roads. Research shows that the peak ages for drinking and driving collisions are the ages of 19 to 21. This is why we are proposing that all drivers age 21 and under have a zero blood-alcohol concentration when they are behind the wheel of a car. Of course, with more than a quarter of all collisions involving alcohol, we know that drinking and driving is a much larger challenge. I might note at this point that I think I'm correct in saying that all states in the United States now have that rule: no drinking and driving; up to 21, no alcohol in the system.

Police are asking for more effective tools to deal with drunk drivers and get them off our roads once and for all. Anyone caught driving drunk or driving without an ignition interlock when one is required could face the immediate roadside impoundment of their vehicle for seven days. The same would go for anyone who continues to drive while their licence is suspended. The ignition interlock is something where someone must breathe into the apparatus, the ignition interlock, before they can get behind the wheel of a car. If they have a certain alcohol content, they are not going to be able to drive that vehicle; the vehicle cannot be started.

Our government has taken the issue of road safety very seriously. We have acted decisively to keep drivers and passengers safe. We are giving our police services better tools to help keep us safe. We are providing new drivers with time to develop better skills that will give them the confidence they need to stay safe for many years to come. We're getting tougher with drivers who continue to drink and drive. We're taking the right steps to keep our young passengers safe. We have taken new approaches to overcome many of our road safety challenges. Our actions over the years demonstrate our purpose.

Ontario's roads are among the safest in North America, and are getting even safer. We invite you to join us in our quest to save even more lives. To do this, we must change our laws and educate drivers and passengers on the consequences of disobeying the rules of the road and the laws that keep all road users safe. Regardless of years of experience, all drivers in Ontario need to get the message: Safer roads are a shared responsibility. We cannot do it alone. By working together, we can prevent injuries and deaths, and reduce the number of collisions on our roads. Together, we can reach our goal of having the safest roads in the world.

I know that all members of this House, regardless of their political affiliation, regardless of how long they've been in the House, share that particular goal. I've had the opportunity to observe and be part of a number of governments over the years. One of the things that has been consistent in each of those governments is a desire to improve safety on our roads. Sometimes the legislation and regulations brought forward have been controversial, sometimes they have not, but the goal has always been for each of the governments to improve safety on our highways and on our individual roads.

Again, I would like to thank all of those who made representations to the committee. But previous to that, we had a consultation with a number of groups particularly concerned with road safety. If I had the list, I would read them off to you. I don't have that list at the present time. Needless to say, they included enforcement people in the province—that is, Ontario Provincial Police and individual police services across the province of Ontario—and our various safety partners, as we call them—organizations dedicated and devoted to safety—and also some individuals.

Not all of the proposals that came forward as part of this legislation and regulatory framework will be found in the final legislation. That is, the legislation has been changed through amendments made both by the government and opposition in committee and commitments made as to the regulatory framework.

We had one portion of the regulatory framework which, I think, gathered a good deal of comment, particularly from those who represent rural areas and the northern part of the province of Ontario, much of which is rural, who indicated that—and this involved the number of passengers in a vehicle. At the present time, between 12 midnight and 5 a.m., there is a restriction on the number of young people who can be in the vehicle at that time.

There was a proposal that came forward from Rob and Jan Perry, parents who lost a son among five young people who were killed in a vehicle accident. There was no alcohol involved, but there were five young people in a vehicle. As a result, people in their part of the province—we talk about Meaford and Thornbury and places like that—were quite concerned. There were some resolutions that came in from local councils asking the province to take this action. The reaction in the Legislature to that part of the regulatory framework was largely negative.

As a result, the government said that it would postpone looking at that aspect of it at this point in time, and I think the legislation began to move much more quickly. Certainly, the critics from the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party, to a person, were critical of that aspect of the bill.

I felt bad when Jan Perry appeared before the committee again. From her point of view, she was justifiably very disappointed that that aspect of the legislation was not found there. But I think what members of the committee understood, and the government as well, is that there are many aspects of this legislation which militate in favour of much more responsible driving by people of all ages, but in particular new and young drivers, and that that would go in the direction of trying to avoid those tragic accidents which have happened with a number of young people in the vehicle.

I listened. There were pretty strong attacks on that portion of the legislation, and I noted they came from all sides of the House. For those of us who represent largely urban areas, the driving experience is different from your area, for instance, Mr. Speaker. Much of Essex county is rural, and the imposition on young drivers in your part of the province may be different from that in downtown Toronto, as an example. Nevertheless, we must know that these accidents happen all over the province, and many of them happen in rural areas.

The bill that has emerged, while I can't call it a consensus of the House, does represent and include the views of all members of the House in one way or another. That's the best way to deal with legislation, in my view. Not all of the wisdom resides on the government side, and not all of the wisdom resides in the four walls of this Legislature, which is why we invite public input by people.

There are other aspects of the legislation as well. I'm not going to necessarily get into the details of those, because the parliamentary assistant, as we call them in this House, Linda Jeffrey, I'm sure has a very compelling speech to make to the Legislature at this time. So I will turn the floor over to her.

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey: It's a hard act to follow when you're following the Minister of Transportation, but I'll do my best.

I rise in the House today to conclude the discussion on legislation that, if passed, would make Ontario safer for drivers and everyone who shares our province's roads.

As Mr. Bradley has pointed out, our past legislation has been effective. Because of our government's actions, our province has earned a reputation for having some of the safest roads in North America. With even more people and vehicles on our roads than ever before, Ontario has held on to this impressive road safety record for over a decade. This is a record that we will fight to maintain, and we will fight to improve upon this record.

Every day in this province, two people are killed and 10 more are injured in collisions on our roads. The majority of these deaths and injuries are preventable, and that's why we, as a government, must do more to protect the people of Ontario. That is exactly what this government intends to do.

The Road Safety Act is a comprehensive piece of proposed legislation. It's a piece of legislation that would prevent injuries and deaths by combatting some of the most dangerous and persistent driver behaviours on our roads today. Our proposed measures would better protect our young and novice drivers by better preparing them for dealing with the realities of today's driving environment.

First, we plan to give young and novice drivers more time to get the experience and the skills they need for a lifetime of safe driving. How are we going to do that? We believe we're going to do that by extending the time it takes to get a full licence from 24 months to 36 months. For those novice drivers who pass a ministry-approved beginner driver education course, we will provide them with a possible time discount of six months. Once in place, these changes will complement recent improvements to our beginner driver education program, changes that have raised educational standards for novice drivers enrolled in ministry-approved courses.

Next, novice drivers who choose to ignore the rules of the road would face escalating sanctions for repeat violations of any of the conditions of the graduated licensing system. These escalating sanctions would also apply to any novice driver convicted of other offences under the Highway Traffic Act, where the driver receives four demerit points or court-ordered suspensions.

Escalating sanctions mean a driver would face penalties that get tougher with each serious violation of our province's traffic laws. For example, for a first violation, a young driver would face a 30-day driver's licence suspension. A second violation would result in a 90-day suspension. Upon their third conviction, the driver would return to the start of the graduated licensing program.

As all members in this House are aware, drinking and driving continues to be a major problem on our roads. Youth are particularly at risk. Research shows that the peak ages for drinking and driving collisions are 19, 20 and 21 years of age. That's why we are proposing that all drivers aged 21 years and under have a zero blood-alcohol concentration when they are behind the wheel.

If passed, Ontario would join several countries with similar restrictions in place, such as Australia and the United States. In fact, as the minister spoke about earlier, in the US this law has been cited as one of the single most important reasons for a drop in young driver collisions. But with more than a quarter of all collisions involving alcohol, we know that drinking and driving is a much larger challenge.

Police are asking for more effective tools to deal with drunk drivers and to get them off our roads. That's why we're proposing tough new measures that would mean anyone caught drinking and driving or driving without an ignition interlock device when one is required would face an immediate impoundment of their vehicle for seven days. The same would go for those who continue to drive while their licence is suspended.

To combat other dangerous driving behaviours, we have proposed provisions that would mean tougher, more appropriate fines and penalties for some of the most serious Highway Traffic Act offences. For example, the maximum fines for careless driving, not wearing a seat belt, failing to stop at a red light and failing to remain at the scene of a collision would double. Drivers who fail to stop for an emergency vehicle or follow too closely would also face stiffer fines and tougher sanctions. We believe that higher fines are more appropriate, given the risk to those who engage in those dangerous behaviours and the danger that they pose to other drivers.

We're doing more to protect our youngest and our most vulnerable passengers—our children. Under the Road Safety Act, the proposed measures would strengthen our requirements for the use of child safety seats in motor vehicles. This also includes increased fines for caregivers who fail to ensure that their young passengers are safely secured in a seat belt or a child safety seat. Ontario students will also be better protected with updated safety standards for our school buses.

Our government has taken the issue of road safety very seriously. We're giving our police services better tools to help keep us safe. We're providing new drivers with the time they need to develop better skills that will give them the confidence and the abilities they need to stay safe for the many years to come. We're also getting tougher with drivers who continue to drink and drive. We're taking the right steps to keep our young passengers safe. We've taken new approaches to overcome many of our road safety challenges. Our actions over the years demonstrate our purpose.

To save more lives on the road, we must change our laws and we must educate drivers and passengers on the consequences of disobeying the rules of the road and the laws that keep all road users safe.

This is something we can't do alone. In fact, we've received some very thoughtful comments and advice over the past months from those who attended the standing committee. I'd like to thank the many organizations and individuals who stepped forward to provide their suggestions, their comments and support on our proposed legislation and the many changes we are proposing to improve the safety of our roads.

Some of those individuals I'd like to thank this morning are Eleanor McMahon, Jan Perry and Tim Mulcahy, who overcame personal tragedy and unimaginable grief to stand up and fight for the changes they believe will make our roads safer for young drivers and others;

As well, I would d like to thank:

—Anne Leonard and the members of the Ontario Community Council on Impaired Driving, a critical partner in educating drivers and promoting road safety across the province;

—Andy Murie and the volunteers at MADD Canada, who seek out new and innovative ways to counter impaired driving on a daily basis;

—Ontario Students Against Impaired Driving, for providing us with an invaluable youth perspective on both the graduated licensing system and the zero-blood-alcohol-concentration initiatives;

—the Traffic Injury Research Foundation, whose research on young drivers was instrumental in the development of the graduated licensing system proposals;

—the Driving School Association of Ontario, whose members include many of the province's most knowledgeable driver education experts;

—the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police and the OPP, as well as municipal police officers that serve on the front lines and perform the vital task of enforcing our road safety laws each and every day.

I would like to thank Brian Patterson from the Ontario Safety League, the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the Ontario Traffic Conference, the Student Life Education Company and the students from the Robert Bateman High School. The individuals that came from the Robert Bateman High School, a group of three young students, were eloquent and thoughtful in their presentation. I and the minister were very impressed with the content and the depth of the work and research that they provided to the committee. They were very helpful.

I would like to thank:

—the Motor Vehicle Crash Prevention Committee of Grey-Bruce, which provided a rural perspective on the need for improvements to the graduated licensing system;

—Doug Switzer from the Ontario Trucking Association and Karen Renkema from the Ontario Road Builders' Association, who were both very helpful in explaining the challenges that impoundment of a commercial vehicle has on industry and its clients;

—the Toronto Cyclists Union and all the individuals who spoke passionately about electric bicycles;

—the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, for their comments regarding the amendments to the graduated licensing regulation; and

—all the stakeholders and people across Ontario who took the time, before our committee or in written form, to give their ideas and their consideration on this bill.

It's vital that we communicate with our stakeholders. We did; we consulted with them. So my sincere thanks to all the groups and to the members of all three parties for their hard work, enthusiasm and commitment to road safety. Every contribution was greatly appreciated and each one received careful consideration. Our proposed Road Safety Act is a name befitting its goal. By working together we can prevent injuries and death, and reduce number of collisions on our roads.

Together, we hope to reach our goal of having the safest roads in the world, and we can keep Ontario's roads safe and protect the lives of our loved ones. I would encourage all members of this House to support this legislation and I thank them for their time.

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

Mr. John O'Toole: A pleasure to listen to the minister and parliamentary assistant this morning on—basically I think we're only dealing with Bill 126, the Road Safety Act. But he did make some brief mention of Bill 118, which is the technology part of the—I'm not sure if that bill is on the table here; they were both discussed in the same committee, which was kind of unusual. They're both ministry bills, but one is dealing with the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit use of devices and display screens and hand-held communication.

I certainly agree with most of the comments the minister and the parliamentary assistant said. First, the parliamentary assistant did work hard. She sort of did the minister's bidding, the hard work, if you will, the confrontation that's there in not voting for our amendments and things like that, leading the pack against reasonable requests on the part of the opposition. At the end of the day, we do agree with the goal. The ultimate goal is to have the safest roads in Ontario.

In fact, Ontario is known to be a leader. If you look to the history, you know that Ontario was the first jurisdiction to bring in the graduated licence in April 1994, and other provinces followed the lead. So whenever you're ahead of the curve, like Ontario often is, you've got to look to the wise advice of the stakeholders and the ministry staff, who are the guardians of the policy, if you will, and you'd better have good reason to change the policies or play around with them.

In the case of the technology piece, Bill 118, I think we're also learning from other jurisdictions that have moved forward with some of the legislation on that. I think there were some additional improvements to the current state of all these gadgets in front of the driver. So it's important to stay ahead of that as well, as we start to have more and more distractions both in the car and on the road.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Parkdale—High Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It's always a privilege to stand in this place and speak on behalf of constituents. In this case, I just want to pay homage to the 100,000 young people who started a Facebook group and really showed this province and the Minister of Transportation what grassroots organizing, real democracy and a real democratic voice look like. These are students. We often, in this place, decry the fact that our young people are not more involved in the political process. Here was one of those glaring examples of how untrue that is.

Here was a group, using the technology at their disposal, who organized, who spoke loudly with one voice and who actually changed the mind of a cabinet minister on the fly. This is amazing. It's happened very few times since I've been in this House that this has come to pass, and this is one of those times. I just want to say to all those Facebook users, all those young people, that you should be extremely proud of what you accomplished. Please don't stop there.

In an era where this place is becoming, it seems, increasingly irrelevant to the lives of Ontarians, here is a case where you made a difference. So make more of a difference. Keep your voice coming. Keep organizing. Don't stop where perhaps your own self-interest stops, but keep going and keep pushing for all of those things that make for a better Ontario. Use the technology at your disposal. Talking about technology—the member for Durham mentioned it—Facebook, this incredible technology that's now available to everyone, is virtually free and young people use it. So it's a great organizing tool.

They've proven it with the results of the changes to this bill, and they've proved their own efficacy in terms of the democratic process in terms of changing a cabinet minister's mind. So kudos to the 100,000.

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

Mr. Jeff Leal: I certainly enjoyed the remarks this morning by the Minister of Transportation and the parliamentary assistant, the member for Brampton—Springdale.

I'll just get a quick plug in for the Montreal Canadiens. The coach and general manager is Bob Gainey from Peterborough—his mother still lives on Mark Street—so we know that they're going to make the playoffs.

But getting back to Bill 126, last Friday, I had the opportunity to be at the grade 10 class at St. Peter's high school in Peterborough. Linda Gendron is a teacher and Kathy Ross is the principal. One of the issues they raised on that particular day was the whole aspect relating to Bill 126 and the changes that were brought in. It's interesting to note that about half the students at St. Peter's high school would be from the rural part of Peterborough riding.

They came together in common cause to make what I consider very reasonable arguments to the Minister of Transportation of the province of Ontario, to the parliamentary assistant and, indeed, to all members of this House. So you can always tell when a piece of government legislation has hit the right spot: when all parties, including our friend the independent member, come together in unison to improve a piece of legislation.

To really highlight that point, usually when a bill is particularly contentious, hearings are staged across the province of Ontario to make sure that we get input from a whole variety of sources. It's interesting that public hearings were originally scheduled in Niagara Falls, Goderich, Sudbury and Kingston, and they were all cancelled due to lack of presenters. What that means to me is that this House got it right, the Minister of Transportation got it right and the parliamentary assistant got it right. Indeed, all members in this House had an opportunity to provide input to this bill and get it exactly where we want to improve road safety for all of us in the province of Ontario.

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

Mrs. Julia Munro: I just want to use the time available to make a couple of comments with regard to Bill 126. I think that when you look at something like this, you should always be looking at lessons learned. While the minister rightly talked about the record of Ontario in terms of road safety, this bill builds on the initiatives that people have taken over the last 10 years in making the roads safer.

I look back, as a former parliamentary assistant in transportation, to the initiatives with regard to roadside suspensions, the 90-day impoundment of a vehicle and the ignition interlock: all things designed to make the roads safer, particularly in the constant battle we have with impaired drivers.

I think this bill sort of stands in that tradition, but it also demonstrates the lack of understanding on the part of the government in hasty decisions on things such as the number of young people in a car. I think that one of the other speakers referred to the fact that young people were able to find a voice, come together and recognize how important it is. I thought back, as the parent of a young person at the time, when our daughter was in university. She practically had a route to pick up all the people who would be going back to Kingston with her. It's important to look carefully before you make those legislative changes.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Response?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I appreciate all the members who have offered their comments.

In regard to the input on it, the parliamentary assistant mentioned a number of organizations, groups and individuals who had input. I think that's exceedingly important, because it improves the bill.

I say to the member for York Simcoe that I guess my take on it is that until the legislation is completely passed in the Legislature, it is not law, and therefore governments can propose legislation that may be changed as a result of debate and input. I think we've seen some of that in this case, and I think it's positive about the parliamentary system in which we live at the present time that members of all parties in the House have that influence.

I encourage young people as well to become involved in a number of issues, as the member for Parkdale—High Park said, not only those that directly impact the privileges of young people but a number of different issues. I think that can be helpful, and we are delighted to see that kind of input. I note that with one provision removed, which would have been regulatory and not in the bill itself, there was general support for the legislation after that.

I know that the member for Peterborough understands the importance of education, of young people being educated in these matters and knowing what the laws are and what the consequences are. Very often when you talk to young people, one of the things they complain about is what they consider to be discrimination by insurance companies against them. Insurance companies, and I think others, will tell them that the reason is that the record among people of a certain age is not as good as it is when they get older. Nevertheless, throughout our lifetime we can all improve our driving habits.

This provides a basis for doing so, and I look forward to further input from members of the Legislature in this debate and beyond.

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

Mr. John O'Toole: I guess I'm going to sort of stick very close to the script. I first want to respect the work that our critic, Frank Klees, had done on this bill, along with the minister. Frank Klees, as you know, is running for the leadership of the party at the moment and, as such, had to relinquish his privilege or duty to be the critic for transportation. He had full carriage of this and most of the amendments.

Now, I'm not unfamiliar with it; anyone in the Legislature would have a certain amount of comfort with the discussion that was held during the debate and would know full well that there were controversial sections, especially under the graduated licence portion. That was probably where most of the controversy arose.

I'm going to give a bit of context, only because I'm new to it—I have done a bit of looking into it. I'm just going to read here the notes that were provided to me. This is the background of the genesis of this bill. It's important to recognize—often you try to find something positive from tragedies, and that's what I think this bill is about.

In July of I believe 2008, but it could have been 2007, "three young Toronto men were killed when, after an afternoon of drinking at a lakeside club, their speeding sports car crashed through a guardrail into a river in Muskoka. A female friend, who kicked free of the submerged car, was the only survivor.

"Soon afterward, the father of the 20-year-old driver began a campaign—full-page newspaper ads ... in large type to the Premier entitled, 'Dear Mr. McGuinty, My Son is Dead'—for tougher restrictions on young drivers.

"There was a meeting between the two men"—I gather that's the Premier and Mr. Mulcahy—"in September. There was a personal phone call from the Premier last week to inform the father the legislation introduced yesterday" by Minister Bradley "was coming." This was published in the Toronto Star on November 19, 2008.

"At least 115,000 people have joined a Facebook group lobbying against the proposed new driving laws in Ontario that target teens and inexperienced drivers.

"Tim Mulcahy's personal website, www.timmulcahy.net/, boasts in a November 13, 2008, posting that the 'law change' lobby group he organized after his son's death had collected 6,400 names on their law change petition.

"Legions of upset young drivers took to the web to voice their displeasure as Facebook groups popped up after first reading. The largest group, created by Hamilton resident Jordan Sterling on November 18, has more than 115,000 names and is spreading across the social networking site like wildfire," reported the Niagara Falls Review on November 22, 2008.

"At the November 17 announcement the CEO of MADD Canada remarked that Ontario Ministry of Transportation officials had been in discussions with the organization for months about changes to graduated licences." In fact, as I said earlier, graduated licences started in 1994, and I guess there's always a review of the licensing, driver's ed—all these things. Even the auditor has commented on these things—but I continue from this article.

"Young Drivers of Canada president Peter Christianson was called upon by the Ministry of Transportation in 2008 as part of a stakeholder group asked to lend their industry experience and comment on the parameters of graduated licensing. With over 40 years in the driver training industry, Peter Christianson was present at a number of these meetings set to evaluate where changes could be made to make Ontario a safer place to drive."

Basically, that's a bit of the background. Our initial response to this was that really, we were unable to support the bill as it was initially drafted unless appropriate amendments could be made with regard to the number of passengers allowed in the vehicle—I think that's been marginally addressed here, but it has not been changed—the speeding provisions and replacing the reference to age with reference to the experience level of drivers.

I think that's important too, because new drivers, whether they're new Canadians who are just getting a licence—it's always wrong to suppose that all new drivers are young people. Many new drivers are people who just haven't had a licence, so it would be wrong to characterize. All young drivers are not bad drivers. That's important to clarify.

I'd like to put on a message here that I live in a riding, Durham, where about 70% of the area is rural. It has no transit, yet there are many diverse communities, farms, small villages and hamlets, and many of the young people go to high school or participate in 4-H and other organizations for entertainment, as well as positive youth engagement groups, whether it's Cubs, Scouts, Guides, Pathfinders or whatever. All these young people are very concerned about how they will get around with the restriction on the number of persons.

I can see the restrictions on drivers on the 400 series highways, and I also agree full-heartedly with zero blood alcohol for young drivers—and I mean new drivers. I think that's very important, because as we operate things in a lot faster mode these days, all of your attention and faculties should be at your disposal to deal with the conditions on the roads, as well as the other drivers on the roads.

I think the bill and the whole genesis of it is—nothing is perfect, as the minister said in his remarks. This bill goes a long way to at least recognizing that we need to work together to make the roads safer and have appropriate laws.

In the interest of using as much time as possible, I will go into—I had to laugh yesterday. I stood to speak on a bill and it turned out I had already spoken on the bill, so I couldn't stand again. They ordered me that I couldn't speak.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Haven't you spoken on this before?

Mr. John O'Toole: This is the third reading on the bill, so it is a different time. The minister is in good spirits today, which is good, too.

I'll go to the part that's a little bit cynical, but it must be said. If I look at the bill, there's a whole

section here on increased fines. I think it is part of the duty of the opposition to point out that these are challenging economic times. We have great consternation about the job losses in the province, the imposition of the new HST, and the health tax. I see in here there's another

section on increased fines. The fines in this

section that I'm referring to are for not complying with the act or regulations respecting seat belts under

section 106; they have increased from $60 to $500. My advice to avoid this $500 fine is to buckle up. The evidence is there, and this is another way of getting the hammer out to get you to pay attention, to get you to wear the seat belt. Under

section 214, the fine has increased from $200 to $1,000. My advice to avoid the problem is to buckle up.

The fine for careless driving, in

section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act, has increased from $200 to $1,000 to $400 to $2,000. We're starting to get into serious change here. Careless driving can be very prohibitive. Young people should be aware. It's not just the sort of humorous comments I'm making, but young people and careless driving—you are going to end up affecting the rest of your life, because your insurance will go up. Not only do you lose demerit points, your insurance goes up, and I suspect the ability to drive and get around to work and from work might be very much seriously impacted.

Your insurance could be almost unaffordable; it could be as much as $500 a month or something. It could be a lot. I would say that this fine here is one more thing.

The fine for not stopping at a red light is kind of interesting. Under sections 144 and 146 it has increased—currently it's $150 to $500—to up to $1,000. We're talking serious change here. My advice to you to avoid these is to stop at all the red lights or stop signs; that's what they're there for. The fine for not complying with

section 200, remaining or returning to the scene of an accident, has increased from $200 to $1,000 to $400 to $2,000. So those are some other measures here to make people compliant with the Highway Traffic Act.

The speed racing in many of the portions of the bill, I have to say—it's good to be listening here, because Mr. Klees, when he was the Minister of Transportation, had some pretty good ideas, and probably a lot of them came from the stakeholder groups and probably a lot of them came from the ministry people. It's also good to see that the current minister does give credit, whether it's on the street racing issue or other issues, to moving forward. Doing the right thing is good policy. It's good politics, it's good policy, and they aren't unique to any one party.

But when someone takes the time to listen to someone else, which I could improve on a bit myself, it would probably improve your overall performance in serving the people of Ontario.

So at the end of the day, this bill here is an important step forward, I guess. Nothing's perfect, and I would recommend that our caucus would probably be in support of it. That being said, I guess there are a couple of things that I wanted to put on the record that were brought to my attention in the past weekend.

I was at an event where the Lieutenant Governor was there and a lot of the local councillors were there. One of the younger councillors and his wife came up to me. They had written to me on this issue because they have young children and they live in Leaskdale, which is north of Uxbridge. They were concerned that their young son would be going to college and not be able to drive the car. I said, "Well, there are restrictions, but I think almost everyone else is putting up with it too. Is there someone else there going to school with"—can we accommodate the young people? That's the important point that I'm trying to make here. I think reasonableness is an important factor.

Young drivers after midnight is another point. It's likely that they are out for social reasons, but if it's work, there's another issue there that I think is important. I don't want, as a parent—we had five children. We used to live in the country. When they were out working in their various jobs to pay for their university or whatever, and before in high school, we would often have to go and pick them up until they were driving. Then it was even more—we were up waiting to see that they got home safely. So there's always a concern by parents, as there should be.

The other part, this whole idea of drinking and driving: There's great pressure—we've dealt with smoking in cars. We've dealt with the government's role there. But drinking is something where we should resign ourselves to saying that we shouldn't drink and drive, period. That's the best measure there. When the minister said in his remarks that 25% of all accidents are alcohol-related, that's a wake-up call to say we shouldn't depend on the measurement of alcohol. It just affects some people worse than others, and some people think they can get away with it. How about zero? Zero's a good place. You won't get in any trouble there.

I think—the other part—it's important to address the fact that we would not want to characterize all young people as irresponsible. That's important, to get that message out there. We've got to treat them fairly and treat them positively and then also have consequences for those who break the rules. I think the bill goes a long way to achieving a reasonable balance.

With that, I'll probably relinquish my time in case anyone else wants to say anything. I see Mr. Yakabuski's here, and if anybody—on Bill 126, a lot has been said. It's time to move forward.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I was a bit surprised. I was expecting the member to go on, because I know that he has a lot to say on this legislation. But I want to say up front that the member has shown a great interest in this particular legislation. As we know, transportation has always been one of the passions that he brings to this Legislature. So like my good friend Mr.

Bradley, I want to congratulate him for the work that he's done and also to say that, yes, the legislation is an improvement on what was already put in place back, I guess, in 1993, when the first graduated driver's licence system was brought to Ontario. The minister was right when he made the comment that it was Gilles Pouliot who was the minister at the time.

I know there is some concern out there on the part of younger people, who in 1993, like now, didn't particularly like the idea of having to go through added steps in order to get a driver's licence because, fortunately or unfortunately, most people see a driver's licence as a right and not necessarily a responsibility. It's almost a rite of passage at the age of 16. Mr. Bradley was right: When we went through the process, it wasn't as rigid as it is now. He was making the comments that what was the toughest thing at the time was the 15-minute test.

I thought what was tougher was coming up with the 25 bucks to do the actual test itself. But that was back in, I guess, the very early 1970s when I went through that the first time—or the only time, I guess.

So, yes, this is an improvement, and it brings us in the right direction. I think it deals with some of the concerns that are out there in regard to making sure we do everything humanly possible to prepare young people for safer driving. I know that the parents who did come before our committee, when the requirement was taken away in regard to what they had been advocating for, are still upset with the government over that. I hear their concerns.

As a parent, I can't even pretend to understand what these parents are going through. Losing a child has to be something that, God forbid, any of us ever have to go through. If somebody has, I don't know how you deal with that, and I'd probably be doing what they're doing.

Clearly, there was the fairly large evidence of people who came before us who wanted those amendments to the legislation. That's why the government moved that, and that's why we supported those amendments.

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

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you for giving me an opportunity to respond to the member from Durham.

A lot has been debated in this chamber as to the impact of this legislation on young drivers. There is one aspect I wanted to highlight which is extremely positive, which I don't think has been spoken about at all, which is the regulation of power-assisted bicycles or e-bikes, which is also part and parcel of this legislation, by amending the Highway Traffic Act.

As we know, there is a pilot project going on in Ontario that ends in October which allows for e-bikes on regular streets with a bicycle helmet, proper reflectors etc., to encourage, of course, more energy-efficient ways of transportation.

I know that this particular pilot project has been very successful in Ottawa. A constituent of mine, Charles Jonas, has been very active in marketing these e-bikes in the community. Actually, his office is located in the building where my community office is located.

I'm happy to see that e-bikes or power-assisted bicycles are now defined under the definition "bicycle" through Bill 126, and that regulations will be made to make the pilot permanent in defining the parameters around the use of e-bicycles.

This goes hand in hand with the government's approach on electric motor vehicles as well, to encourage people to get away from cars which use gas and to use more energy-efficient or more environmentally friendly modes of transportation.

I'm very excited to see this aspect relating to e-bikes in this legislation, and I wholeheartedly support the approach of the government.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: I'm not sure where everybody stands on this piece of legislation in this place today, but I'm against it. I think it was an overreaction on the part of a government to a terrible tragedy. Nothing we can do in this Legislature or anywhere else is going to turn back that clock.

I think some of the things that they have done have unfairly targeted young, responsible drivers. I know that most young people don't go out and vote, so the government feels they're probably okay in taking those measures. But this was the wrong approach, by making it harder and more difficult for our responsible young people to enjoy the same benefits as adults when it comes to driving privileges.

The graduated licence system has worked very, very well over the last number of years that it's been in place. But putting in additional restrictions simply on the basis of age—what about the qualifications of a driver?

When we talk about impaired driving—something that every person in this Legislature would like to see eliminated—the reality is that the people most likely to be driving impaired are people more like me, more my age, who grew up in a time when impaired driving was not quite so frowned upon. The young people today are so inundated with good information and good learning about the evils and the wrongness of impaired driving and dangerous driving, yet we, in this legislation, are targeting them because the government decided they were going to overreact to a terrible tragedy. That's not the way good laws are made, and I will vote against this one.

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: Thank you very much for the comments. My comment on the member for Durham and his astute observations today, and his inclination to support the legislation: I'm delighted to hear that.

He mentioned something that I think is important for all of us to know, and that is that when you talk about input from various people in the province, the staff at the Ministry of Transportation does so much hard work in terms of helping to develop legislation, doing the consultation and so on. I join with him and all members of the Legislature in thanking them for the work that they do on legislation of this kind. I know from his comments that he may not have exactly the same viewpoint—that's what the Legislature is all about—of my friend from Barry's Bay.

What you will find in this legislation, as the member who spoke knows, is that many aspects of the legislation affect people of all ages. Yes, there are some parts of the bill that bring us in compliance with the 50 states in the United States, for instance, which now have zero-blood-alcohol content to the age of 21; all 50 states in the United States and some other jurisdictions around the world. It does bring us into compliance with that, and it's trying to develop those habits at an early age.

I mentioned in my initial remarks that the statistics we have show that the worst age for drinking and driving is, in fact, 19 to 21, which is most unfortunate. The member was correct when he was commenting on the member for Durham's speech, in saying that all of us, of all ages, have to be sure that we are in compliance with the laws of the province.

But I thought the member for Durham summed up very well his observations. It really demonstrates that this is a bill of the Legislature, not simply of the government.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Response?

Mr. John O'Toole: It's a healthy discussion this morning. I want to thank the member from Timmins—James Bay in his role as the NDP critic—he does a great and thoughtful job—as well as the younger member from Ottawa Centre, and partly my colleague from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, who has expressed a concern that certainly is there; he's expressed that. And for the Minister of Transportation to so diligently attend here today, that's very good.

Again, at the end of the day this bill will pass, and at the end of the day our remarks have been made by Mr. Klees in his role as critic. Certainly, I've tried to respect his views on the bill, both during the committee hearings for the day I was there as well as the comments this morning. So with that, thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning on this bill. I look forward to moving forward.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 8, this House is in recess until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1012 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. George Smitherman: I hope that all members might join with me in welcoming a group from George Brown College, led by Jim Cooper. This group is the For You program. We welcome them to the Ontario Legislature today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the MPP from Algoma—Manitoulin and page Michael Niven, we'd like to welcome, in the east public gallery, his mother, Heather, his cousin Chris Ramsey and his cousin Richard Hyem to the Legislature today.

On behalf of the Minister of Health Promotion and page Megan Wood, in the east members' gallery, Susan Wood, her mother. Welcome today.

On behalf of the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care and page Mark Ang, his father, Winston Ang, and Jacqueline Ang, his stepmother, in the east members' gallery. Welcome today.

As well, we'd like, on behalf of the member from Welland, to welcome Julius Behul, the editor-in-chief of The Canadian Slovak newspaper, in the west gallery. Welcome today.

M me France Gélinas: I would like to introduce a big contingent from SEIU Local 1, who are in the west gallery with us today. They're easy to identify with their brand new shirts.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is to the Premier. It has to do with your budget, your seeming lack of appreciation of the struggles that many Ontarians are facing today, especially those on a fixed income. You should know that retirement investments that many seniors and others depend on to put food on their tables, to pay their bills, have lost significant value over the past 12 months. This recession is hurting many people, many families, but especially those on fixed incomes. In this province, seniors account for close to 15% of the population, a vital role in all of our communities.

Premier, given the state of the economy, the challenges families are facing, why would you bring in a budget that imposes an even heavier tax burden on seniors?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In fact, seniors this year and next year will benefit from very substantial reductions in their personal taxes and in their property taxes. I'll remind the member opposite that we've extended the property tax credit for seniors and raised it. That will come into effect this year, some $600.

It's those kinds of initiatives that we believe are the appropriate initiatives to help our seniors, as we're working to help all Ontarians through these challenging times. Like so many Ontarians, we're confident that these measures are the right measures for the times, will see Ontario through these difficult circumstances, help our seniors through these difficult circumstances, and when we get through this—and we will get through this—Ontario will be bigger, better and stronger.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: It's very telling that the Premier declined to respond to the question. I've said it before and I'll say it again: The Premier is living in a very comfortable, taxpayer-subsidized bubble and clearly doesn't appreciate the impact his tax grab is having on Ontario's families who are struggling, especially seniors.

Wernham Wealth Management, in London, Ontario, has done an analysis of the impact your budget will have on seniors across Ontario. They've concluded, "We have calculated that the impact on this Liberal budget will be more costly for Ontario seniors than anyone has reported." Minister, it's not just the opposition saying your budget is a tax grab. Now we have a respected investment counselling firm saying it.

Minister, I ask you—I asked the Premier earlier; he refused to answer—why in the midst of a recession would you impose an even heavier tax burden on Ontario's seniors?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I have to categorically disagree with the findings of that report. It's absolutely—I categorically disagree.

Let me remind the member of some other initiatives we undertook. We are creating 4,500 new affordable housing units for low-income seniors and persons with disabilities. The other thing we did is that we are increasing the unlocking permission of Ontario life income funds, LIFs, from 25% to 50%, and we are the only government, sir, that is removing the fees for that over the next two years.

There is always more to do, there are always challenges in the economy. But this government and this Premier have put the interests of all Ontarians first by bringing forward a budget that will create jobs in the short term and move us to the growth we need in the long term that will make this province a better place for all Ontarians to live.

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: We'll get a copy of the report for the minister so he can appreciate the real impact.

In the analysis, Wernham used the example of a typical retired couple receiving an after-tax income of $41,400 a year. They looked at a limited number of items they would use on a daily basis, items that with your new 8% tax will cost more without the couple getting more, and compared it to the tax relief you have continually boasted about. Their conclusion: The net increased tax hit on this couple will be at least $1,561 a year.

Again, minister, can you understand the increased hardship you're imposing on limited- or fixed-income seniors with a significant tax increase in the midst of a recession?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: First of all, the leader has not talked about the property tax credit, which he has voted against. They've not talked about the personal income taxes, which that member and his party just yesterday voted against. He has not talked about the unlocking provision, which that member and his party voted against.

He has not talked about the seniors' housing—let me tell you what Donna Rubin, the CEO of the Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors, says: "Capacity in the health, housing and community sectors is a very serious challenge and we have high praise for steps such as these to strengthen the overall system and expand the range and availability of services.

These initiatives will go a long way to ensuring that seniors receive the right support, in the right place, at the right time." That member and his party cut those services; that member and his party voted against every one of these initiatives in the budget. This Premier and his government have the interests of all Ontarians, particularly seniors, at heart, and that's why—

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

TAXATION

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: To the Premier, responding to apparently the leader of his own party, because he signs deals behind the backs of his own caucus: Premier, Ontarians have rightly continued to voice their very legitimate concerns about this Premier and his Minister of Finance, who continue to break promises and raise taxes. In the latest irony, Energy Star appliances are on the list of new items to be taxed when the Premier's new "tax on everything I can" plan takes effect. I want to illustrate the irony for the folks across the aisle.

The Liberals want people to buy products to save energy, but now the Premier says he plans to tax them. Premier, how can you not see that your new taxes on Ontarians are actually flying in the face of previous pledges?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It is true that we have to make some changes with respect to taxes. Unlike my honourable colleague, who believes that the world has not changed, who believes that we need do nothing differently—notwithstanding the fact that Ontario is being beaten up by this global economic meltdown and we're losing far too many jobs, he would have us do nothing. We believe that we have to do something.

We've talked to business in particular; they've told us the single most important thing that we can do to strengthen our business sector so that we can create more jobs and generate more wealth to support good schools and good health care, strong supports for our vulnerable and better protect our environment is to move ahead with a single sales tax. They have done it in 130 other countries; they've done it in four provinces. I'm not saying it is an easy thing to do. My friend would have us hang on to the past; we're not going back there.

We're building a better, brighter, more promising future for the people of Ontario. We're asking them to support us as we do this.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I don't know about you, Speaker, but I didn't hear an answer to my specific question. The irony of what they're doing here—it's just a lot of hot air, as usual, from this Premier.

We know the Minister of Finance was stepping out on the Premier into someone else's kitchen, cooking up the latest massive tax grab behind the backs of his own caucus. We also know this was happening at the same time the Premier was supposedly reassuring his concerned caucus members that he wouldn't be crazy enough to launch another tax grab missile on them.

Premier, you're now adding massive taxes to energy-efficient products. You're also planning to increase the cost of electricity by as much as $840 per consumer, forcing a mandatory $300 cost for a home energy audit. Obviously, you haven't consulted with your caucus, but have you even consulted with Minister Smitherman, Minister Gerretsen and Minister Duncan? Because your ministers are showing inconsistencies all over your policies. Have you even talked to them?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: This is a difficult time for the people of Ontario, but I just don't think it helps to pander in fear. I think people are looking for reasons to be hopeful; they're looking for reasons to know that we understand where a bright future is, and we're prepared to take the measures necessary today to guarantee that bright future for all of us.

You know, my honourable colleague talked a moment ago about seniors and the consequences of some of these changes on them. Of course, he ignored the tax reductions and the property tax credit and those kinds of things. But one of the things that I've heard when I've talked to grandparents, for example—they said to me, "What can we do together to ensure there are more jobs available for my grandchildren?" That's what they're talking about.

We are prepared to do what is necessary, and we will move ahead with these tax reforms in a way that provides the maximum possible protections to all our families, including our seniors.

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: He didn't talk about the debt he shouldered our grandchildren with.

I want to quote the Minister of Finance when he was in opposition: "Did your government consult any of" your "backbenchers? You should be ashamed. This document's the ruin of Ontario." He said that in 1995. Despite his dire words, this province came a long way until this Premier took the reigns of Ontario's treasury, putting Ontario into a have-not status and record deficits.

Premier, both the member from Peterborough and the member from Guelph—Wellington have been speaking from both sides of their mouths on this newest scheme for taxing Ontarians on—

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I withdraw.

They've been contradictory—hopefully that will be parliamentary—on this scheme to tax Ontarians on gasoline, haircuts and funerals. Clearly, Premier, you didn't consult with them. Were they forced by you and your finance minister to swallow their pride and approve of your massive tax grab?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It's good to know that my honourable colleague has become an ombudsman for people in my caucus. But I want to thank my caucus for the wisdom that they injected into this budget and for the decisions that we've agreed to take as a government.

I believe that Ontarians know that this is a difficult period for us. In fact, it's the most difficult economic crisis we've had to cope with in some 80 years. You know, just as the world has changed, we too have to make some changes, and we're making a change that I'm not pretending is easy to make. We're going to reform our tax system, but we're going to do it in a way that provides maximum protection for our families.

The overwhelming majority of Ontarians are going to get a tax cut. We're increasing the Ontario child benefit, we're increasing the minimum wage, we're building new affordable housing, and we're making pretty dramatic new increases in funding for health care, education and post-secondary education. We are building the future. We're going to have better jobs for more—

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

PROVINCIAL PURCHASING POLICY

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is for the Premier. The McGuinty government says that its 25% domestic content rule is good enough in purchasing transit vehicles in Ontario. Dominic has worked at the Thunder Bay Bombardier plant for 22 years, first as an assembler and now as a machinist. He knows that the 25% domestic vehicle content rule will not ensure that transit vehicles are, in fact, made in Ontario by Ontario workers. New Democrats want a 50% Ontario transit vehicle content rule. Tell me, why are the McGuinty Liberals letting down workers like Dominic and thousands of others?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Thank you very much. That the member who opposed the subway in Toronto as a public transit project that would have created a lot of jobs, not only constructionwise but otherwise, would ask this question is rather interesting in itself. I can tell him that some good fellow New Democrats who sit on Toronto city council believe that the 25% content rule is reasonable. They, as with the provincial government, have done extensive consultation with a variety of people out there to determine what policy would be best, including with those who are users and those who are making products.

You also know, of course, that 82% of the work done in the province of Ontario on our greater Toronto projects will in fact be by Ontario people.

Mr. Howard Hampton: Once again, the McGuinty Liberals try to confuse the issue. The 82% takes into account construction. We're not talking about construction here. We're talking about the manufacture of transit vehicles.

I want to remind members of the McGuinty Liberals that just a week ago, President Obama sent his Vice-President to a bus plant in St. Cloud, Minnesota. He was there to recognize all of the jobs that are created and sustained because of the Buy America policy—the Buy America policy that provides that the bus shells may be made in Winnipeg, but the finished product has to be made in the United States, which means thousands of jobs for machinists, for welders, for instrument mechanics and for air conditioning mechanics. If that is the content rule in the United States—at least 50% American content—why can't Ontario do the same thing?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Well, I can tell the member that those workers who reside and work in Thunder Bay make an excellent-quality product. I have every confidence that they will be able to compete for the contracts that are put forward.

I could say in one area—I could play a game with you. For instance, there's one particular product—I think the double-decker train cars are made in Thunder Bay. It's the only place they are made. So I could say, well, that should be 95% Canadian content in that, and it would look good. Others are not. There are no products that are made in Canada in specific areas. So overall we look at it and we say that we are in very good shape. I'm very confident that we will see the people in Thunder Bay do very well in these contracts with the 25% rule that the city of Toronto and province of Ontario have.

Mr. Howard Hampton: I don't know what products the McGuinty government is referring to. Are they saying buses aren't made in Canada? Streetcars aren't made in Canada? Subway cars aren't made in Canada? GO train cars aren't made in Canada? They're all made in Canada, and what we are asking for is a domestic content rule. That's what Dominic wants to see.

But it goes beyond transit gear. We know, for example, that Quebec has a 60% content rule on all new green energy projects, which means that wind turbines are being manufactured in Quebec and solar electricity components are being manufactured in Quebec. Why will the McGuinty government not agree to a 60% domestic content rule when it comes to green energy projects and the products that will have to be used in green energy projects?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Minister of Infrastructure.

Hon. George Smitherman: I'm very, very happy to have this question again from the honourable member and to remind him that the legislation which is presently before committee, Bill 150, actually has the capacity that allows us to establish those. We've been clear in saying that we want to do that.

I was in Hamilton yesterday. I know that's a community where there is a tremendous interest in making sure that, as we go forward and bring more renewable energy projects to life, as we have more wind turbines, they stand aloft on towers that were actually constructed from steel here in the province of Ontario. We have the same motivation. That's why, working with the sector, we'll be able to move forward and to improve the domestic content in renewable energy projects as we move forward to more installation here in the province of Ontario. That's why I encourage the support of the honourable member and his party for Bill 150.

TAXATION

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, the Premier suggested that new homes under $400,000 will receive an exemption from his government's HST. That simply is not correct and the Premier knows it. In fact, families buying new homes under $400,000 will be hit with a 2% tax. That's $7,000 more on a $350,000 new home. Why won't the Premier admit that he's slapping a 2% tax on moderately priced new homes?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: With the new homeowner credit, it will be a complete break-even for persons buying homes under $400,000.

As the Premier said in his previous answer, we have taken some steps that we realize are challenging, but they are the right steps. The reason we are cutting personal taxes is to help Ontarians move through these challenging times and have more disposable income available to them to buy homes, to buy cars, to buy the kinds of goods and services that will help get this economy moving again.

It is about creating those long-term jobs, providing more jobs for our people to ensure that this economy gets back to a level of growth that will support those vital public services—public health care and public education—and yes, have the ability to help the most vulnerable in our society. That's what this budget's about, that's what it's going to deliver and that's why we're confident that we have a bright future once we get through these very challenging times.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: Because he knows only full well that in order for those houses to cost the same amount, there has to be a price reduction by the builders themselves.

It's expensive to own a home in Ontario, especially in the GTA and Ottawa. The recession has devastated people's savings and has them worried about their own jobs. When people are already less able to afford a new home, what does this Premier do? He slaps a tax on new home purchases. Why is the Premier hiking taxes on new homes? Because you are.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The member knows full well that that 2% has always been there. He knows that full well, and he also knows that that $400,000 covers 75% of new home sales in Ontario. He also knows this does not apply to resale homes, which are the vast majority. He also knows that when you move that sliding scale up to $500,000, an even bigger proportion of new homes is covered here and across Ontario.

We are taking these challenging moves to ensure that Ontario gets back to a level of growth that will allow us to make investments in public health care and public education. Unlike his party, which has advocated and continues, apparently, to advocate an increase in the provincial sales tax, we have taken a broad approach that lowers taxes for 93% of Ontarians.

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

Mr. Michael Prue: The Minister of Finance continues to make things up. The McGuinty government's new tax on new homes is bad news for a sector that supports 360,000 direct jobs in the GTA alone. Last month, Ontario lost 28,000 construction jobs.

When families consider buying a new home, they're going to see a $7,000 tax on a $350,000 home, and a $40,000 tax on a $500,000 home. How is hiking taxes on new homes going to help Ontario families and our construction sector?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Those numbers are absolutely incorrect and don't take into account the new home sales tax credit.

You know, I don't make those things up. Here's the letter signed by Howard Hampton. He's sitting right over there.

Hon. Gerry Phillips: What does it say?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: It says—and let me read this to you: "The federal government has given the McGuinty government a revenue-neutral" approach plus "$2 billion in revenue through to Ontario.... If Mr. McGuinty takes action now and follows his own advice, the PST can fill the 1% tax room vacated by the GST."

They called very clearly, and very recently, since the last election, to raise the provincial sales tax. You were very wrong about that. I hope the member opposite won't continue to vote against the low-income tax cuts, and I hope he won't vote against the $5.2 billion in our poverty agenda to help the most vulnerable in Ontario.

TAXATION

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: My question is to the Premier. In addition to seniors, your tax grab is going to hit another group of Ontarians who can't afford it—some of the over 300,000 people who have lost their jobs in the McGuinty Ontario. The newspapers they need for want ads will be up 8%. The Internet service they need to look for a job online will increase 8%. Seminars and conferences on new careers—same thing. Even the stamps to mail their applications will be going up 8%. Premier, do you think it's fair to hit these people who are already struggling with these increased taxes?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Again, the member opposite wants to ignore a number of facts. He wants to ignore the fact that we have an 18% cut in small business taxes, which is designed specifically to hire more people. He wants to avoid talking about the corporate tax cut which, the day before the budget, he supported and now, the day after, he's voting against. We're taking the general commercial rate from 14% to 10% and the manufacturing and processing rate from 12% to 10%. By the way, that's manufacturers, farmers and processors. And he's ignoring the $10.6-billion personal tax cut.

This budget package, as has been indicated by a range of organizations and newspapers—the Toronto Star, the National Post and the Globe and Mail have all talked about the benefit of this budget in creating jobs today, more than 300,000 in infrastructure jobs—

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

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I would point out that the 300,000 the Minister of Finance wants to talk about, in fact, are 300,000 people who have lost their jobs who will not benefit from one of those items that the minister across the aisle would talk about.

The people of Ontario are struggling to find jobs so they can make their mortgage payments and put food on their table. Under Premier McGuinty's tax grab, if they are lucky enough to actually get a job interview, they're going to be hit with even more taxes: 8% more for a haircut and dry cleaning and—get ready—8% more for gas to get there, 8% more for a taxi or a train if they need to go there.

Premier, will you admit that this is the wrong time and that your tax grab is penalizing the very people who need your help the most in this recession?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Our package is a tax cut; 93% of Ontarians will pay lower taxes. In the first four years, the government of Ontario will seek 2.6 billion fewer dollars. The $4.3 billion from the federal government has enabled us to move on these broad tax measures.

I would remind the member opposite that, as you stand up today and criticize us, there's a new hospital being built in your riding. Mr. Hudak, the fellow who sits right in front of you, said we shouldn't be spending that kind of money on infrastructure. We disagree with that. We've put together a tax package that will create jobs, assist this economy through the challenging times and, unlike the member and his party, we want to build new hospitals, we want to build new schools and make those investments in infrastructure and jobs that are essential to get this province through difficult times.

EDUCATION

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My question is to the Premier. Parents are concerned about the Ministry of Education school finder website. The website institutionalizes school shopping in Ontario, a practice that is very prevalent in the United States. It encourages school discrimination based on ethnicity and income, and it's absolutely appalling.

Minister Wynne said she wants to adjust the website based on parental concerns, but the Premier says there is nothing wrong with posting information on family income and immigration. Who, exactly, is in charge of the education file for this government?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Education.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The answer is that the Premier and I agree completely that the information that's on the website is important. We have had very positive feedback from parents who want this information, particularly from newcomer parents who are looking for information about local schools.

The reality is the website is staying up. The information is staying on the website. We have removed the comparison engine to have a broader conversation with stakeholders, parents, members of the community. We will have that conversation, and we will continue to provide the information that community members and parents are looking for.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: The government should not be in the business of promoting school-shopping, and that's what this website does. New Democrats find the collection and distribution of data related to income, immigration levels and special education students at schools reprehensible. Yesterday, Minister Wynne seemed to be listening and seemed prepared to make changes, but the Premier doesn't agree with the minister and he sees nothing wrong with leaving the website as is. We get no positive feedback from this; I don't know where you are getting your information, Minister.

Will you change the online information or will you maintain this detestable website as it is?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member opposite obviously doesn't trust parents with information. We do trust parents with information. The fact is that there is information available on the C.D. Howe Institute website and on the Fraser Institute website. Those are organizations that rank schools. They rank schools; that's not what we're doing.

The member opposite has been a school trustee. He knows full well that people make decisions based on rumour, based on innuendo. What we're trying to do is provide accurate, reliable information for people who are looking for it. That's what we will continue to do because we actually trust the ability of people in the public, of parents, to make decisions and to use the information in a responsible way.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr. David Orazietti: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Minister, yesterday you introduced Bill 167, the proposed Toxics Reduction Act.

The environmental benefits of this initiative are clear. Toxic substances are used in nearly all industrial and production activities and are found in the products that we use. I know that residents in my community have strong concerns about the presence of toxins in their everyday lives. They worry about toxins and carcinogens present in our environment and the impacts that they may have on our health, the health of our families and our environment. Ontarians have indicated that reducing toxins should be a government priority, and in fact over 90% of Ontarians put toxic substances on par with climate change as a key environmental issue.

Beyond the clear environmental and health benefits, we all know that the way ahead for our province lies in the development of the green economy. In Ontario, this requires business and industry to develop new practices in the context of environmental priorities. How does toxin reduction planning support our transformation to the green economy? How would our government support business and industry in making this—

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

Hon. John Gerretsen: Let me first of all compliment and congratulate this member for taking a leadership role on this issue. He's been very concerned about this ever since he's gotten here.

Our toxics reduction strategy will position our industries to compete and succeed in the emerging green economy. Through the proper planning, industries will find solutions to reduce toxics, the green chemistry solutions that we're all looking for.

From the experience of other jurisdictions, they have found that it increases their competitive advantage, and they will find new business opportunities through the commercialization of research, promoting new technologies and exploring safer alternatives. In addition to that, we will invest $24 million to help Ontario industries comply with the new rules and regulations, transform their processes, find green chemistry alternatives and reduce the use of toxics in their operations. That's to the benefit not only of business but of all of us.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. David Orazietti: Thank you, Minister. Yesterday in this House, you spoke of this strategy resulting in real reductions in toxics use.

However, I understand that implementing these plans is a voluntary process. I heard concerns that making implementation voluntary would mean that businesses wouldn't actually reduce their toxics use. Our goal should be to ensure that there is a reduction in the use of toxins to protect the health of our communities and the environment and that our businesses are leading the way with green chemistry solutions that will be the future of the new green economy.

How can we be assured that these plans will be substantive? What evidence do you have to show that toxics reduction planning will lead to implementation and real reduction in toxics use?

Hon. John Gerretsen: This is a major issue. The experience in other jurisdictions such as Massachusetts and New Jersey has clearly shown that mandatory planning and voluntary implementation result in real reductions in toxics use. As businesses develop plans, they will identify cost savings and see opportunities to implement the new technologies. It is also consistent with the advice that we received from our own expert panel as well as the position taken by Canadian Environmental Law Association and Environmental Defence Canada.

Mandatory reporting and planning requirements, combined with the voluntary implementation of toxics reduction plans, is a proven approach in other jurisdictions. We feel that it is the right way to go in Ontario as well, to make sure that less toxics are used in manufacturing processes, which is better for all of us.

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is for the Minister of Health. Why is the Minister of Health forcing the local health integration networks to integrate with the Ontario Liberal Party?

Hon. David Caplan: That's a nonsense question. In fact, on our local health integration networks, we have individuals who have agreed to serve—members of local communities—to make important health care decisions affecting local communities.

I can assure you that members of the legislative Standing Committee on Government Agencies have the opportunity to call members forward who are seeking appointment to these boards, to question their qualifications. In fact, we have developed a skills-based matrix to outline the various skills of a well-rounded board.

The member's assertion and the premise of his question are simply nonsense.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Arnott: Last Friday, the Waterloo Wellington LHIN announced hospital funding on letterhead also featuring the four liberal MPPs of our area, yet the opposition MPPs were deliberately excluded, even though some of the hospitals to receive the funding are in our ridings. For example, the Groves Memorial Community Hospital is located in my riding, yet the member for Perth—Wellington announced the funding on a joint press release with the LHIN.

This means the government is politicizing our LHIN, making it a partisan arm of the Ontario Liberal Party to try to give the local Liberal MPPs a boost. It shows profound disrespect to the voters of Kitchener—Waterloo, Cambridge and Wellington—Halton Hills, who elected Conservative MPPs.

I'm concerned that people are going to start thinking that the LHIN acronym actually stands for Liberal Hacks In the News. Why is the minister—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just ask that you withdraw that comment, please.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I withdraw. Why is the minister forcing our LHIN to become partisan and prop up the local Liberal MPPs?

Hon. David Caplan: I did tell you that nothing could be further from the truth. If something was done inadvertently, I'm sure that the member—we will raise these issues with the leadership, with the chair and the CEO at the local health integration network in Waterloo Wellington.

I can tell you that I know from personal experience that the chair and CEO have brought the member and other members of all political parties into their confidence as they move forward on issues related to investment and issues related to work that is going on in the LHIN. I know this for a fact. I know the member has participated in these briefings and in these meetings. I know that the chair has shared much of this information related to the operation of the LHIN with all members of the Legislature, per the instructions that this government has set out.

I know that it was a different way of operating under a previous government, but this government believes in accountability and transparency and allowing all members to participate fully in the operation—

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

HOME CARE

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. The Minister of Health has repeatedly stated that this government is committed to providing quality home care and improving working conditions for the people who provide it.

Can he explain why a personal support worker will earn $84 after working a 10-hour day? And more importantly, can he explain how the government plans to provide quality home care when the people who provide it are often left struggling below the poverty line?

Hon. David Caplan: I would have hoped that the member would have taken the opportunity to welcome and thank personal support workers for coming here to Queen's Park today. I can tell you how much I appreciate the work that they do, the lives that they change, the communities that they support and the care that they provide. These are individuals who do tremendous work. That's why we have made an incredible investment in home care and in personal support workers.

I can tell you that one of the first things I had the opportunity to do was to increase—over 870 new and additional positions of personal support workers in the province of Ontario. That's why our recent budget reaffirmed our commitment to add over 2,000 additional personal support workers to provide home care services in the province of Ontario.

I know that all members of the Legislature would want to know, for example, some of the actions that we have taken, like a $30-million stabilization fund to help to boost the wages—

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

M me France Gélinas: The minister has argued that his government's system of cut-throat bidding for home care contracts will actually improve quality in the system. I find that hard to swallow. Instead, it is chasing out the professionals who go to the homes every day and provide the care. Why has the minister ignored his promise to set basic employment standards in the home care sector that will ensure that home care workers will be at least paid for the hours they spend travelling on the job every day?

Hon. David Caplan: I fundamentally disagree with the member opposite. Having feedback from clients about the quality of care they receive is important for us because whenever you can measure, you can improve. Having feedback from the workers about the kind of work that they do and the kind of care that they support is important because if you can measure it, you can improve it.

Since our government came to office, home care funding has increased by over $573 million since 2003-04—investments opposed by the member opposite and her colleagues. That represents a 50% increase in funding for home care and for the supports to clients, where we now have over 200,000 additional Ontarians today receiving home care services better than they had before.

Interjection.

Hon. David Caplan: The member opposite says that's shameful; I think that that's a truly remarkable—

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

DIAMOND INDUSTRY

Mr. David Ramsay: I have a question today for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines regarding our diamond industry. I know that all members are aware that a couple of weeks ago, our diamond industry created quite a bit of excitement here in the Ontario Legislature as we witnessed history as we had placed two of the De Beers Victor mine diamonds into the Legislature's mace. With the reintroduction of the mace so well received across this province, it's a good example of the great relationship our government has with the De Beers Victor mine up in Timmins—James Bay.

Minister, I understand that at the prospectors and developers' convention and conference held in March, you participated in other diamond announcement. I ask you if you would tell the members of the House about that.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: My thanks to my colleague from Timiskaming—Cochrane, one of the great advocates for mining, certainly in his riding and across the north. Indeed, he's right. This past month has been a great one for the diamond industry in Canada and specifically for the De Beers Victor mine in northern Ontario.

I'm happy to report that in early March, our government joined other stakeholders in establishing Canada's first diamond bourse here in Toronto. With the establishment of the bourse, Ontario has now joined the global stage as one of a few select countries that feature all of the elements of the diamond industry, from mining activities all the way to the retailing sector. This bourse, or diamond-creating centre, represents a very significant step in value-added activities across the province and throughout Canada. It will benefit North American retailers, wholesalers and buyers, who will be able to purchase or sell diamonds here rather than overseas.

With the establishment of the bourse and with other diamond announcements, I am confident that Canada and Ontario will become one of the world's—

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

Mr. David Ramsay: Thank you, Minister, for talking about Canada's first diamond bourse here in Ontario. This is great news for our province, as it will enhance Canada's position in the global diamond trade. Most importantly, it will add to our nation's reputation for the ethical production of the finest diamonds in the world.

Since the De Beers Victor mine opened last January, I know that our government has been working with De Beers and with representatives from the diamond sector to identify, develop and promote value-added diamond opportunities in this province. I understand that last summer you announced that our government had reached an agreement with De Beers Canada that would see 10% of the Victor mine's diamonds to be made available for value-added activities here in Ontario.

Minister, could you please inform the House about a very recent announcement that was made concerning De Beers value-added activities?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I am certainly pleased to report that this past Monday, Minister Bartolucci and I had the honour of announcing that Crossworks Manufacturing Ltd. will be opening Ontario's first diamond cutting and polishing facility in the greater Sudbury area, creating over 50 jobs, which is tremendous news. This is fantastic news as Ontarians can look forward to purchasing diamonds that have been mined and now cut and polished in Ontario in the very near future. This facility, which is part of the agreement between our government and De Beers, will open later this year and it will cut and polish an estimated $100 million of rough stones over the next two years—again, great news.

With this announcement, our government is not only following through on its commitment to create a value-added opportunity for mining diamonds in the province, but we're also placing greater Sudbury, already a great centre for mining excellence in the province, on the global diamond map, creating new employment opportunities in the process.

PROVINCIAL PURCHASING POLICY

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure. Ontario's nuclear industry employs over 30,000 women and men. Most of these jobs are dependant upon the success of one company headquartered in Mississauga. Over 100 other businesses supply this company with parts and services, and they are spread throughout the province of Ontario. Recently, you said that it was a crappy decision on the part of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. to purchase 22 Mercedes-Benz for a prize giveaway and you realized that was not supporting a domestic industry that provided thousands and thousands of jobs.

Do you think that buying French nuclear reactors at a cost of $26 billion of Ontario's money—sending that overseas and killing an Ontario industry during a recession—would amount to a crappy decision as well, Minister?

Hon. George Smitherman: I think that there's quite a bit in the honourable member's question that might live up to his regularized use of that word. The point is that when go to purchase two new nuclear reactors, we do see the stakes as somewhat different than when we're purchasing some automobiles. I think that at hand here is the sheer necessity of making sure that associated with the purchase of any nuclear—

Interjections.

Hon. George Smitherman: We think it's very important, as we seek to acquire two new nuclear power plants in the province of Ontario—two new reactors—that we do so with a view towards their long-term reliability, to the costs associated with them and to the economic impacts that will accrue to the province of Ontario. That's exactly what our process is leaning toward. I don't know why the honourable member —

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yesterday, the Premier compared nuclear reactors to bottles of wine. I'm sure that you have had time to review the report by McKinsey and Co. commissioned by your own government. It is very clear on three points, the most important being that the only difference between the three technologies and that of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. was that their bid had a greater economic benefit to the province.

Again, given the thousands of high-tech jobs at stake and the billions in Ontario GDP that will be gone because of a loss of export sales, are you going to stand up and support Ontario or send $26 billion to France and the United States, thereby sending 30,000 jobs, 100 companies and a vital Canadian industry down your crapper?

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: It is a crappy decision. I withdraw.

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

Hon. George Smitherman: There is nothing that the honourable member presents as fact in the form of his question that I wish to corroborate. It is mischief-making, it is misinformed and it is irresponsible. We have a very fair process ongoing by which three companies were given the opportunity to tell us why we should build their product here, why we should take advantage of it. Those include reliability and price, and they most certainly give opportunity, with 20% of the rating focused on the economic opportunities associated with it.

Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. certainly has an opportunity to make a strong case as to the economic impacts associated with their technology, but there is more to the purchase than that. We will continue to review this most important purchase on the basis of a wide variety of things, including price and reliability.

ATTAWAPISKAT FIRST NATION

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Premier. You will know that the Department of Indian Affairs recently demolished the J.R. Nakogee school in Attawapiskat. In doing so, they've exposed what is a large diesel spill that has been there for some time, not only underneath the J.R. Nakogee school, but in the surrounding areas. Now what you have is a school that has been demolished, you have the ground that has been exposed and you have diesel fumes that are emanating throughout the community, into the school and into community homes.

The community has asked you to send in inspectors from the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour in order to assess the situation because they have no confidence in the federal government's ability to do so.

These are Ontario citizens. Are you prepared to take your responsibility as Premier and protect the health and safety of these citizens?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know that the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services can speak to this.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I want to thank the member for the question. Obviously, as he knows, Emergency Management Ontario is monitoring the situation and will provide advice and assistance to both the community and INAC as required. He also points out a very important point, that point being that the federal government has jurisdiction with regard to that.

It's my understanding that recent testing completed by Health Canada indicates that there are no significant risks to the health and safety of the residents. But let me reinforce that Emergency Management Ontario is monitoring the situation and, certainly, if called upon through INAC, will be more than happy to go in there.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Here's the problem: Those health officials at the federal department, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, are the same officials who said it was okay to bathe your children in Kashechewan in E. coli. So they have no confidence when it comes to those officials. That's why the chief and council, the local education authority and Mushkegowuk council are asking you to do what you did in the case of Kashechewan, and that is to use provincial ministry officials to go in and do the inspection to make sure that these people are in a situation that doesn't deteriorate their health conditions.

If it was good enough for this assembly to take the diamonds of Attawapiskat and put them on the mace here in this Legislature, why is it not good enough for us to ensure the safety of these citizens?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Let me reinforce that the government of Ontario is doing their job. We will continue to do our job. Emergency Management Ontario will continue to ensure that they have a presence there. We will offer the help that the community and the federal government want if they ask for it.

The community knows that we have said that if the community would like the province to provide expertise to help verify the situation in the community, they can request our assistance through the federal government, through INAC, and we will assess the request and respond as expeditiously as possible. But let me reinforce that Emergency Management Ontario, our Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and his ministry—

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

GO TRANSIT

Mr. Jeff Leal: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. GO service to the city of Peterborough has long been an issue in my riding, and I constantly hear from constituents on this matter. They're asking, "When will it arrive?" I've been asking the same thing and have met with the Minister of Transportation a number of times about GO to Peterborough.

Many of my constituents travel outside of Peterborough to work, commuting to Oshawa, Whitby-Ajax and even as far as Toronto. There are students attending Trent University and Fleming College who moved here from all over the GTA and return to their families on weekends, for the summer and throughout the holidays. I've heard from these individuals about the concerns of congestion on our roads and how this government can help ease the gridlock they see.

I was pleased to hear that this government listened to the constituents of Peterborough, and our efforts were recognized. On Friday, April 3, I was able to announce the GO service bus to Peterborough. I'm hoping the Minister of Transportation can share with this House the exact details and what this initiative will mean to the good residents of Peterborough.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I'd like to thank the member for his question. He has been a tireless advocate on this specific issue. I have indeed met with him on a number of occasions, and I'm pleased he was able to deliver for his community.

Peterborough area commuters will benefit from GO bus service as the province expands the GO Transit service area to bring additional and better transit service to more individuals. The new GO bus will travel to and from the current GO station in Oshawa, allowing those who work in Oshawa to leave their cars at home, and, for those who work beyond Oshawa, to easily connect with the Lakeshore East GO rail service.

GO is currently developing an implementation option—several options, in fact—for bus service to Peterborough, and plans to introduce bus service by the fall of 2009. GO Transit is also engaging in an environmental assessment to extend rail service from Oshawa to Bowmanville. This will bring the bus-rail connection even closer to Highway 115, making it more convenient for those communities.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Leal: First the hospital, and now GO bus. Ontario's transit planning and implementation efforts are really coming together, and this government seems to be working hard to include Peterborough in these plans.

These announcements show how Ontario is working to build a regional transit network with more transit projects to create jobs, stimulate the economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and congestion.

I was hoping the Minister of Transportation would shed some more light for this House on more—

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: Friday's announcement built upon the $250 million in federal and provincial funding previously announced by the Premier and Prime Minister for GO Transit expansion, parking facilities across the greater Toronto area and the Hamilton Junction rail-to-rail grade separation project, bringing the total commitment to $500 million. In addition to maintenance activities across the system, GO will refurbish locomotives, purchase new two-level passenger rail coaches, install snowmelt systems and build bicycle shelters.

This announcement means Burlington GO station will see a new pedestrian bridge, Streetsville will see bus storage expansion, Exhibition station will see pedestrian tunnel extension, and Richmond Hill Centre bus terminal will see a third platform and two new shelters. We will continue to make public transit a priority for everyone—

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

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Yesterday, the Premier was given an opportunity to be accountable to the hard-working taxpayers in the province of Ontario by calling in the Auditor General to conduct a value-for-money audit of the Smart Systems for Health Agency, an agency which, of course, was quietly abolished after spending $647 million of taxpayer money. Well, yesterday, the Premier said no to accountability to taxpayers. Today, he has an opportunity to say yes. Will the Premier support our party's opposition day motion and our accountability amendment to the budget to be debated this afternoon and say, "Yes, I am accountable to the taxpayers of this province"?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. David Caplan: Of course all members are accountable, not only to this Legislature but to Ontarians.

I know that the member would want to tell the full story. The Auditor General, along with his counterparts right across the country, is undertaking a thorough audit of eHealth, following up on the investments of Canada Health Infoway. I know that the member knows this, but she somehow tries to weave a tale where these things are not happening, including the cost-effectiveness and the approach to procurement. I'm looking forward to learning about this audit and incorporating it into our plans and processes.

In fact, it was my predecessor who undertook an operational review. It did not take an auditor or an opposition member or anybody else but his own initiative—an operational review of the Smart Systems for Health Agency. What they found, as the member did disclose yesterday, is that that agency was set up with an incorrect roadmap by the previous—

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I'm very disappointed that the Premier chose not to answer the question regarding whether or not he is prepared to be accountable, transparent and honest with the taxpayers in the province of Ontario, because we do know that this government has received warnings from the Auditor General about slush fund abuse and year-end spending sprees.

In fact, its knuckles were rapped just before the 2007 election and a minister was forced to resign when the AG revealed that this government gave the Ontario Cricket Association a million dollars when they asked for $150,000 and gave a host of other groups thousands and thousands of dollars, again, without anybody submitting applications, and with no criteria or any transparency.

So I ask you again, Premier: Have you learned your lesson or will you continue to deceive the people in this province—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just ask the honourable member to withdraw that comment.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Mr. Caplan: The member opposite simply doesn't get it. Ontario cannot afford not to proceed. Electronic health will reduce hospital stays. It will avoid duplication and unnecessary testing, resulting in more appropriate drug utilization and other efficiencies.

This member really needs to do her homework. We have a huge challenge ahead of us, and we will ensure that the dollars are spent wisely. But make no doubt, anyone here, that we need to invest in change, including projects, people, and engaging contractors, vendors, partners and employees.

Listen, we're competing with our American neighbours. President Obama plans to spend $50 billion over the next five years to get electronic health records for every American. That massive investment dwarfs what we're doing in Ontario, but I can assure members of this House that Ontario has the opportunity to beat the United States to that finish line—

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

ASSISTANCE TO THE DISABLED

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Last week, we celebrated community living in this Legislature. A whole bunch of flowery speeches were made, but they were much ado about nothing. If this government was really honest about providing barrier-free community living, why are people living on ODSP subjected to regulations that are tantamount to hu