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

June 12, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-Jun-12 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 12 June 2008 Jeudi 12 juin 2008

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COLLEGES COLLECTIVE

BARGAINING ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LA NÉGOCIATION

COLLECTIVE DANS LES COLLÈGES

PRAYER IN THE LEGISLATURE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

SCHOOL SAFETY

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

BROWNFIELD SITES

TOURISM

CHILD CARE

CLIMATE CHANGE

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

TOURISM

PESTICIDES

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

WORKPLACE SAFETY

MENTAL HEALTH

AND ADDICTION SERVICES

PETITIONS

LORD'S PRAYER

HOSPITAL SERVICES

LORD'S PRAYER

LORD'S PRAYER

HOSPITAL FUNDING

LORD'S PRAYER

HARBORD COLLEGIATE

HOSPITAL FUNDING

LORD'S PRAYER

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

LORD'S PRAYER

HOSPITAL FUNDING

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

LORD'S PRAYER

LORD'S PRAYER

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

LORD'S PRAYER

POPE JOHN PAUL II

HUNTER SYNDROME

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DISABILITY BENEFITS

CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY

PHILIPPINES INDEPENDENCE DAY

COMMUNITY COLLEGES

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

PORTUGUESE CANADIAN COMMUNITY

MANUFACTURING JOBS

MISSION LEGACY AWARD

PLAY WORKS

VOLUNTEER SERVICE AWARDS

REPORT, CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GENERAL GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT (REGISTERED DISABILITY SAVINGS PLANS), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT À L'AIDE SOCIALE

(RÉGIMES ENREGISTRÉS

D'ÉPARGNE-INVALIDITÉ)

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

AMENDMENT ACT

(SCENTED PRODUCTS), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ

AU TRAVAIL (PRODUITS PARFUMÉ

S) REGISTERED RETIREMENT SAVINGS

PROTECTION ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES RÉGIMES ENREGISTRÉS D'ÉPARGNE

EN VUE DE LA RETRAITE

MOTIONS

CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER

DEFERRED VOTES

PRAYER IN THE LEGISLATURE

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

HANDGUN MANUFACTURERS'

AND IMPORTERS' LIABILITY ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LA RESPONSABILITÉ

DES FABRICANTS ET DES

IMPORTATEURS D'ARMES DE POING

SKIN CANCER PREVENTION ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LA PRÉVENTION

DU CANCER DE LA PEAU

FAIRNESS FOR FAMILIES ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LE TRAITEMENT

ÉQUITABLE DES FAMILLES

HANDGUN MANUFACTURERS'

AND IMPORTERS' LIABILITY ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LA RESPONSABILITÉ

DES FABRICANTS ET DES

IMPORTATEURS D'ARMES DE POING

SKIN CANCER PREVENTION ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LA PRÉVENTION

DU CANCER DE LA PEAU

FAIRNESS FOR FAMILIES ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LE TRAITEMENT

ÉQUITABLE DES FAMILLES

The House met at 0900.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COLLEGES COLLECTIVE

BARGAINING ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LA NÉGOCIATION

COLLECTIVE DANS LES COLLÈGES

Resuming the debate adjourned on June 11, 2008, on the motion for second reading of Bill 90,

An Act to enact the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, 2008, to repeal the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act and to make related amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 90, Loi édictant la Loi de 2008 sur la négociation collective dans les collèges, abrogeant la

Loi sur la négociation collective dans les collèges et apportant des modifications connexes à d'autres lois.

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

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I welcome the citizens once again to this political forum. We're on live. It's 9:03. Yesterday I postulated that the House leader changed the rules in order to have debates at 9 o'clock in order to please those who are from out of town and who have nothing to do in the evening except go to bed at 9 o'clock, and get up at 5 or 6 in the morning, and they want to get here to Queen's Park at 7 because they're so bored and they're so sleepy that they need to get here and work. I postulated that. But I could be wrong. Peter Kormos would be here at 3 in the morning if he had to. I think he's that kind of a guy.

I was worried about why it is that the House leader changed the rules. Who knows? It could be that they changed the rules because people at home were simply bored. At 9 o'clock in the morning, they just didn't know what to do, and they were looking for excitement in this place.

They said, "We've got something for you." For whatever reason that you might be up in the morning at 9 o'clock–you might have a disability; you might be laid off; you might be unemployed—for whatever reason, people needed an important distraction, people needed to watch something that was exciting, that could turn them away from their boredom. So this is it; this is what they get. Early in the morning, people get up, have a coffee—not a beer anymore. No beer, no red wine; just a coffee to stiffen them up and ready them for the debate.

It's 9:05 in the morning; we are on live, in case you're up, ready and alert and alive to watch this political forum.

I'm happy to continue the debate on Bill 90. You will recall that this bill is about giving collective bargaining rights to college teachers who haven't had the rights for 33 years. They've been pushing governments, and they've been pushing this particular government for the last two years. Yesterday I had an opportunity to thank OPSEC AAT president Roger Couvrette and OPSEU president Warren "Smokey" Thomas for their relentless work to persuade the Liberals that they needed to bring a bill forward that finally recognized their right to collective bargaining. Yesterday I pointed out—

Mr. Khalil Ramal: We listened.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: They listened. It takes two long, painful years to listen. The minister yesterday said that when he went to that reception of college teachers, it was at that moment, when he spoke to them, that he finally realized he had to do it and that he had to deliver it for them—because he might never have met a college teacher before. But only at that time, when he met them face to face here at Queen's Park, he was given some revelation, and he said, "I've got to do it. I've got to do it today." That is what he said.

Delay and deny. Then people make reference to what other governments may have done in 1862, 1892, 1940 and so on. You are in government with the four big wheels that take you all over Ontario. You are the managers of this place. Not to say, "What did you do?" We are in opposition pushing you to do something. You are the government who says, "We're doing it." We wait and we wait, and finally when they deliver, they say, "We had to take our time to do it right." Whenever they don't want to do something, they need to take their time to do it right. It takes so long for governments to listen to what people have to say. That's why we introduced Bill 13.

My bill—I introduced it twice in this place. The government never listened to me, never even acknowledged that I introduced that bill or that I had asked questions in this Legislature or that Roger Couvrette, who was in this place, had anything to do with convincing, persuading, pushing this government to introduce this bill. It's okay; we don't need to be acknowledged by the government.

The only time the government acknowledges someone is when a Liberal backbencher stands up, asks a silly question and then they say, "What a great member we've got from here and there, doing great things." That's the only time they praise somebody. When opposition members have questions or bills in this House, they dismiss you. That's what they always do. But that's okay. Our job is to do our job, to present the facts, to present the arguments, to help the government every now and then to do something. It takes time, but that's okay. Eventually they deliver.

Here's the point. Remember the context in which I presented these facts. Colleges have been underfunded for a long time. In spite of what the government says about their historic funding, we are still numéro dix, at the bottom of the pack, in terms of funding in Canada. We are number 10. In spite of your Reaching Higher plan, the supposed $6 billion, you are proudly number 10 in per capita funding. I say to you: It's nothing to be proud of. It's a shameful statistic.

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: It's just a statistic.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Exactly. It's just a statistic; $6 billion is just a number. You just throw it out there. You're absolutely right. That's typical of what Liberals do on a regular basis. We have given so much and we are at the bottom of the heap. You can't be proud of those facts; it's embarrassing.

Here's a little fact—it's not a prop, really; it's written by Colleges Ontario, the very groups the Liberals were praising yesterday. They rarely praise them except when they do something that may please them, and then they say—actually, this doesn't necessarily please them all that much.

Here's a stat: Real operating funding per FTE—full-time students—for colleges in 2007-08 remained about 16% lower than in 1992-93. You understand, in 1992-93, when we were in government, in a recession—you're giving less today than we were in a recession. You have faced years of good economic times. In contrast, college enrolment levels were almost 20% higher, you understand. You are giving 16% less per capita than we were in 1992-93—nothing to be proud of; nothing at all to be proud of.

That's the context that I give: that people need to understand the problems that colleges have been facing. They have been cutting back and they have been hiring part-time teachers in order to save as much money as they possibly can. Half of the college teachers in the system work part-time. They're part-time because they're cheap labour. That's what it was: cheap labour in order to save money. Colleges did that because they haven't been getting enough support from this provincial Liberal government for many, many years.

Finally, we have Bill 90, which is going to give collective bargaining rights to college teachers and other support staff. We believe it's time they delivered; after denying and delaying, they've delivered something.

Here's the problem: The Supreme Court said they have a right; the International Labour Organization said they have a right. You, Liberal government, should deliver on that right. It isn't enough for the Liberals simply to give the right; they have to give the right by taking something else away. That's the way the Liberals do it. It wasn't simple enough for them to just give the right; they have to give and take at the same time in order to divide labour as best they can, in order to divide the opposition as best they can. That's what Liberals do on a regular basis.

What have they done? The new bill removes the deemed strike and lockout provisions. These provisions determined that when a bargaining unit was on a legal strike or lockout, the employees were deemed to be on strike or locked out and, as a result, no employee would receive any pay or benefits for the duration of the strike or the lockout. This provision effectively dissuaded any bargaining unit employee from crossing the picket line and prevented the employer from hiring employees from the unit during a lockout.

OPSEU president Warren "Smokey" Thomas said, "It is pretty outrageous that this government thinks that recognizing the charter rights of one group of workers means that another group of workers must give something up." He's absolutely right. You just couldn't give a right without having to take something else away. We decry that; OPSEU decries that; many college workers decry that. That is why we want to have the hearings: to allow college teachers and OPSEU members to come and speak to this bill, to either give praise or criticism of this particular bill. After that, we can come back, debate it one final time and deal with the problems that have been raised for the last 33 years.

With that, we have submitted our arguments as New Democrats. We have no desire to delay the hearings. We want hearings to happen. We will not put up other speakers; we feel the arguments have been made. We look forward to the hearings this summer to give the workers an opportunity to speak to Bill 90, after which we can come back, debate those changes and deal with this as effectively and efficaciously as possible.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Questions or comments?

Mr. Reza Moridi: Yesterday and today, the honourable member for Trinity—Spadina spoke quite lengthily, though he spent a good part of his speech on matters that really didn't relate to this bill. He claims that our government delayed in bringing this bill to the House, but the honourable member failed to acknowledge the fact that when his party was in government in 1992, they didn't look into this bill.

I'm proud that our government, under the leadership of our Premier, looked into this bill, looked into this fact that our part-time college teachers need to have the right to collectively bargain. Our Minister Milloy, Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, took the leadership and looked into the case. He asked Kevin Whitaker, who is one of the most expert persons in labour relations, to review the current act, consult stakeholders and come up with a report.

Changing this bill is not something where you can just look at it, delete some articles and add another article. This is very important legislation before this House. It affects the lives of 17,500 people. We have to look into this very carefully. That's what our government, our minister, has done.

We have asked a very expert person in this area to review the current legislation and come up with a report. The report is public. This present bill that is before the House is based on the recommendations given by Mr. Whitaker. In our college system, there are 39,000 people working, and 17,500 of those people didn't have the right to collectively bargain. Based on this legislation—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you. Further questions and/or comments? Being none, further debate?

Ms. Laurie Scott: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak this morning on Bill 90,

An Act to enact the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, 2008, to repeal the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.

I'll begin by saying what other members of the caucus have said, including my colleague from Simcoe North yesterday, that we fully appreciate, as does the PC caucus, the work of all the world-class universities and colleges that we are fortunate to have here in the province of Ontario.

I know that many of our offices have met over the years with the part-time workers at the colleges, asking for this act to be repealed and changes made. In my riding of Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, I had, a couple of times, a great delegation—I believe they were all ladies—who came in to see me about the repealing of this act and the changes they would like to see happening. They do tremendous work at our colleges. All the staff do.

I know that in my riding we have Fleming College, formerly known as Sir Sandford Fleming College. I have the Frost campus in my area, in Lindsay. I also have a satellite campus in Haliburton, which is a school of fine arts, but it does offer many different classes as the years have evolved. They have a beautiful new campus there. In the last six or seven years since it opened, it's been just a tremendous campus to visit. The home campus, Fleming College, is in Peterborough, so I share that with my colleague from Peterborough; Fleming College has branches in both of our ridings. Trent University is in Peterborough, and of course a lot of people from my riding go over to Trent University.

Bonnie Patterson is at Trent University, and we now have the great Tony Tilly as president of Fleming College. The past president, Brian Desbiens, was president for over two decades, and they just dedicated a great technology wing of Fleming College in Peterborough to him for all the work he has done, not just with the college, but he's a tremendous community person—all the committees he sits on that have helped and enhanced our communities. I thank him for that dedication and work. I know that the principal at Fleming College, Blaine Harvey, is doing a great job at the Frost campus.

The college system was the brainchild of Bill Davis, the former Premier. It was a fabulous idea. I myself am a graduate of the nursing diploma program at Loyalist College. The nursing program has evolved; it's now a degree program. But the colleges are still a big part of that. I know that Fleming College and Trent University have a partnership—many others do across the province of Ontario—and the coordinated efforts that both of them make are truly exceptional. Fleming College is always coming to my office and asking, "What do you think the community needs? What courses can we offer?"

Fleming College has an incredible reputation for its environmental wing, which was built within the last 10 years. They have the Centre for Alternative Wastewater Treatment, which promotes constructed wetlands and other innovative forms of waste water treatment, and they have a demonstration site right there where you see the weeds and cattails and everything that's filtered through. They've gone up to northern Canada and instituted that. I know that they've been recognized globally for their awards, and all from a small campus in Lindsay: the Frost campus.

They have certainly been great partners in our community. I know that they were working with business incubators, and we'd love to see some environmental businesses come and start up in partnership with them, using Fleming College and other close-proximity properties we have. That initiative is going to expand, and that is just fabulous for our area. The colleges are fortunate to have Linda Franklin as CEO of Colleges Ontario.

I have a November 2007 note from the College Compensation and Appointments Council with respect to the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, which is the topic of the bill we're discussing today, and I want to get a couple of points on the record. In terms of support staff, the college pays 100% of the wages and benefits for the support union bargaining team, which consists of seven members, for every day of face-to-face negotiations, plus seven days' preparation—in 2005, that was increased to 10 days' preparation.

The last round of negotiations, in 2005, which was a total of 23 days, cost an estimated $33,651; in 2003, that cost was $43,548. So in terms of academic staff, the college pays the seven members their full wages and benefits from the date that notice is given until the signing of a collective bargaining agreement.

In this case, notice of the last round of negotiations for academic staff was sent in January 2005, and negotiations ended in August 2006, 19 months later—long negotiations. The average annual salary for the seven members of the support union bargaining team was nearly $75,000. The total cost of the negotiation—again, it lasted some 19 months—was $1,007,000. I just want to put it out there that this isn't cheap; collective bargaining agreements cost a lot of money just to get established in the first place. So I'm very interested in what the minister would have to say about the increased cost of negotiations.

What are his estimates going to be on this? Have they considered it? I know that we're here today and we want to send this to committee for further discussion, but I'm hoping that the ministry has done some background work on the cost. It's essentially taxpayers' money, and it's only fair that taxpayers know what that money is being used for.

I know that the PCs and the Liberals differ greatly on accountability. It's quite apparent that for the Liberals, accountability only matters once the media catches on, which leads me to this real issue of funding. I know that my colleague just mentioned that Ontario colleges received the lowest per-student government funding of all the provinces. That's a pretty pronounced fact that we can't ignore. The Premier, as has his MO, in fact promised to bring the funding to the national average. He signed a pledge—another one of his MOs; signing pledges saying he would do so.

I think it was over eight years ago that he signed the pledge. Extending those bargaining rights would increase the cost to colleges up to the $200-million figure.

If the colleges are to go down this path, they'll have to have financial support from the government. This is going to cost. You can't expect the colleges themselves to bear the full brunt of this; they'll have to have some provincial money. I've already mentioned that they receive the lowest per-student government funding of all the provinces. So I think it's a fair question to the minister to explain this to the people of Ontario.

I want to comment on the apprenticeship-journeyman ratio in this province. I know that my colleague from Simcoe North has been a strong advocate of apprenticeships for many, many years—ever since I've been in the Legislature. He's been a great mentor to me; I'm very passionate about the apprenticeship program. He has brought forward some good suggestions, and I hope we're here next Thursday, because I want to debate my resolution that would establish—

Mr. Peter Kormos: Dream on. The Liberals have run out of steam.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I know. I wish they wouldn't, because they need to change this apprenticeship ratio to one to one, instead of being the odd one out in the whole country. In Ontario today, it's a three-to-one ratio. We want more skilled trades out there. We want the one-to-one apprenticeship ratio. We need it for our province; we need to do this for our children. This motion is being brought forward next Thursday, and I hope the government would support that. The one thing that is highlighted many, many times is the need for more skilled trades in Ontario.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak this morning and brag a little bit about the colleges in my riding: Fleming College and its two campuses in Lindsay and Haliburton. I know that this bill is going to committee. I have raised some questions this morning, and more questions will be raised as we go to committee, so we're going to end this debate from our side. Thank you very much for the opportunity.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Questions and comments?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I'm delighted to comment on the member from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock. She spoke about many details. It's important to remind the member that there's been no government in the past that has worked with the colleges and universities like our government has. While we're looking forward to—

Mr. Mike Colle: Dispense.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Your own whip is trying to shut you down.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: It's very important for all of us to—

Interjections.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: Nobody is listening this morning.

It's important to remind the member about our initiative to always support the colleges and universities. I'm happy to go out there and tell the people.

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

The member has two minutes to respond. No?

Mr. Milloy has moved second reading of Bill 90. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

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

Hon. Michael Bryant: I ask that the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on General Government.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): So ordered.

Orders of the day.

PRAYER IN THE LEGISLATURE

Hon. Michael Bryant: I believe we have unanimous consent to put forward a motion respecting the report of the Speaker's panel on prayer in the Legislature, and that each party be allotted up to 10 minutes to speak to such motion, following which the Speaker shall put the question without debate or amendment.

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

Hon. Michael Bryant: I move that the Speaker commence each meeting day of the assembly by reciting the Lord's Prayer, followed by another prayer, or the presentation of a verse or passage, or call for a moment of silent reflection, or any such other similar activity which, in the opinion of the Speaker, will serve to reflect over time the general demographic composition of this chamber and of the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate?

Hon. Michael Bryant: We are debating a motion the subject of which has not been considered by this Legislature since 1969. It is a motion addressing an important ritual that takes place at the opening of this Legislature—namely, the opening prayers.

This subject and issue, this ritual, the reading of the prayers by the Speaker, is the domain of the Legislature. We are debating a legislative recommendation which is set out in a report unanimously submitted by an all-party panel, chaired by the Speaker, and signed by the committee members, MPPs Balkissoon, Dunlop and DiNovo, and attached to a letter to the Premier from the Speaker of June 11.

The recommendation was—and I'm going to read from the report: "The panel has concluded that it is appropriate for each day of the Legislature to continue to be opened with the recitation by the Speaker of the Lord's Prayer." It goes on to say: "It is not explicitly and unambiguously inclusive of all faiths. To address this shortcoming, the panel recommends that the existing non-denominational prayer be discontinued"—that's the prayer that takes place at the immediate opening of the Legislature—and that "the Speaker will lead the House in an additional prayer" following the recitation of the Lord's Prayer.

That additional prayer could also be a "moment of silent reflection such that the faith and non-faith demographics of the chamber and of the province would be proportionally expressed over time. It is expected that the Speaker would be assisted in the collection of suitable prayers for this purpose by members of the Legislature and by faith groups."

That recommendation is being effected in this motion. The report was a response to a letter sent by the Premier to the Speaker on February 11—sorry; let me correct that. It was not a letter to the Speaker; it was a letter to the leader of the official opposition and the leader of the third party, Mr. Runciman and Mr. Hampton. In that letter, the Premier stated:

"The last time the Ontario Legislature updated the daily prayer recited in the legislative chamber was in 1969. Our counterparts in other provinces and the federal government have adjusted their customs to reflect the diversity of the population."

The Premier goes on to propose "that we form a legislative committee to be chaired by the Speaker," and then it goes on to propose what the all-party agreement ended up consisting of: one member from the government, one from the official opposition and one from the third party. The Premier then writes, "Based on that advice, [the panel] would make recommendations to the Legislature on a new procedure to open our daily proceedings."

He says in closing, "The members of the Ontario Legislature reflect the diversity of Ontario—be it Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh or agnostic. It is time for our practices to do the same. That is the Ontario way."

That is the Premier in his letter to the leaders of the official opposition and the third party. Again, we are today debating an all-party committee recommendation. Is it a perfect result? Perhaps not. Is it a consensus recommendation? Yes. Is it the resolution of an all-party committee? Yes. Is it one that certainly members of our caucus and, my understanding is, all members of this Legislature support? Absolutely.

I want to give credit to the members of provincial Parliament—Mr. Balkissoon, Mr. Dunlop, Ms. DiNovo—and the Speaker for forging a consensus and finding a way in which this Legislature would open that not only had the support of the Legislature but reflected the differences of the members of this Legislature and the differences that exist within our province.

I always personally felt that the Legislature opening with a Christian prayer—and it is a Christian prayer. It's one recited in my church; it's not one that I am aware of being recited in synagogues, temples or mosques. It made me wonder whether the members of the Legislature who were not members of the faith that I have, the faith that recites the Lord's Prayer, found this to be an exclusionary moment—in other words, a moment where the official ritual of the Legislature included one denomination's prayer but not another's. The effect of that was certainly not the intention of any members of the Legislature, I know.

In 1969, when this was looked at, the diversity of the Legislature was nothing like it is now. The diversity of the province was nothing like it is now. It was without question an inadvertent ritual, arguably, of exclusion for those people who do not share the mainstream religious faith that is shared, held and worshipped in some cases by a majority of the population here in Ontario.

This is an effort to reflect the diversity not only of this Legislature. I think we can all imagine standing in the shoes of those who do not share the religion to which the Lord's Prayer is attached and imagine what it would feel like if that was the only prayer recited in the Legislature. It might be one of exclusion.

I want to say in closing that I believe this to be a very good resolution, not just because we have addressed the issue of equality and equal liberty and religious equality. Governments must, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, take a position that is not fundamentally secular but in fact is equal. In other words, one religion cannot be preferred over another.

The Legislature does not operate under the domain, for example, of the Human Rights Code. That has been settled by the courts. The Legislature is governed by the people in the Legislature. By forging this solution, resolution and recommendation, I believe that the province and this Legislature—again, very much to the credit of Mr. Balkissoon, Mr. Dunlop, Ms. DiNovo and the Speaker—have come forward with a recommendation that also reflects our politics.

The religious divisions in the United States, for example, drive into political divisions, and parties form around those divisions. The democratic debate, to a large degree in the United States—perhaps decreasingly so, but nonetheless it is the case that much of that debate is driven by those political divisions based on religious divisions.

We have not done that. We have found in this Legislature a solution. The report has recommended a solution that is not divisive but rather seeks to be inclusive; that does not reflect division within the Legislature but in fact is one that is unanimous of the panel. It is my hope that it will be supported by this House, but it will be for this House to decide.

In doing so, I believe we have not only modernized the ritual of the Legislature but we have also allowed for Ontario and Canadian politics to reflect a unique identity that does not allow religious divisions to drive political parties and to drive political movements but is one that reflects the equality in Canada for which we are very proud; one that reflects political divisions, yes, but is not driven by denominational differences; and one that reflects the multiculturalism of the province and of Canada.

I would say, as the Premier says in his closing words: That is the Ontario way.

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

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I'm very pleased this morning to respond on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party to the motion that's before the House.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to begin by thanking you for your leadership on running the all-party panel and coming forward with this motion, which I think is a very fair motion for this House to adopt. I also want to thank Mr. Balkissoon and Ms. DiNovo for their input and of course your staff and the legislative staff that assisted us in the drafting of this resolution. In particular, I'd like to thank my leader, John Tory, who asked me to sit as a member of this all-party panel to examine the use of the Lord's Prayer in the Legislature, and I'm very proud to do so. Ms. DiNovo, Mr.

Balkissoon and yourself, Speaker, were great to work with, and I think we've come up with something that is very fair.

In particular, I'd like to thank the citizens of Ontario who have come forward with petitions—I believe it's way over 20,000 by now. They're rolling in each day, with 11,000 hits to our website. It was fairly evident from the beginning, particularly in the area that I represent, that 85% to 90% of the people supported retaining the Lord's Prayer to be recited in this Legislature each day. We didn't know this was coming at us to begin with.

We had this debate back in 2000, and that followed a court hearing that a fellow by the name of Henry Freitag took against the town of Penetanguishene, which removed the Lord's Prayer from municipal council meetings. It was determined after that that only parliamentary privilege would remove it from this chamber.

As a representative from the riding of Simcoe North back in those days, I can tell you that people were hurt; they were really saddened to see something as powerful and traditional as the Lord's Prayer removed from the municipal council meetings. Many, many councils across this province were opposed to and hurt by this decision. We felt that by bringing a petition into this Legislature at that time, in summer 2000—we actually had another 11,000 signatures back in the year 2000 asking for the Lord's Prayer to be retained in the Legislature.

There are a lot of reasons for it. I have to say, from the beginning back in February, when we spoke to the media, to the Premier's office and to people in our ridings, it was clear from our party's perspective, the Progressive Conservative caucus, that removing the Lord's Prayer was not an option. It had to stay as far as we were concerned, but we were very clear that we were also open to other suggestions and other prayers being added. I know that our leader, John Tory, mentioned it a few times.

I think even the Premier got around to mentioning it, along with our member from Oak Ridges, Frank Klees—he mentioned that a second, rotational prayer reflecting multi-denominational faiths would be something that we would clearly accept.

I have to stand in the House today and tell you that we are very pleased with the outcome of this motion. Why? I want to just back up for just a moment and talk about why we are so pleased about having the Lord's Prayer retained. Personally, I, myself, and a lot of people in our caucus—and, I hope, a lot of the people in the House—are very strong traditionalists, and I know they believe in the heritage and culture of this wonderful province and this wonderful country. Our system here in Ontario and in Canada is based on the British parliamentary system, and that of course dates back to the Magna Carta.

I wanted to add a couple of things just for the record. In the British parliamentary system, before parliaments were formed, the original meetings of Parliament were held in cathedrals. We have so many symbols in our Legislature: the carvings, the coat of arms, our flags, our mottoes. The very architecture of these buildings is based on Christianity and on the British parliamentary system.

In our caucus, we're just not prepared to send that out the door. We believe very strongly that the Lord's Prayer is part of that, that Christianity is part of the very foundation of our wonderful country, and we want to retain that. Again, that's why we are so pleased.

On the other hand, I took a walk last night down Yonge Street—I always walk each night or each morning for exercise—and I can tell you, when you look at the culture, when you look at the makeup of our province, when you look at the makeup of the citizens of our cities and our province, it's clear that we are a wonderful, wonderful place in the world to live. Regardless of the political policies that we fight about with each other, you know what? This is a place we should be proud to call home, a place to accept other people into our culture and into making Canada their home.

I think a good example was made yesterday. There were two things that happened yesterday. First of all, I thought that the apology that Prime Minister Harper made to our First Nations people was a very brave move. All people, all Canadians, should be proud of that moment: that our Prime Minister would come forward and say that.

As we move forward with how we perform the prayers in the opening sessions, I think we can accept this well into the future. Obviously there will be years ahead when we will re-examine this once again, but for now, I'm proud to say that, working with our all-party panel, we've come up with a very reasonable solution. The Speaker already has in his hands a number of the prayers from other denominations that have come forward. We'll be happy to see those proceed in the weeks, months and years ahead in this Legislature.

In hindsight, as I said earlier, we didn't expect this to come at us. We thought there were probably more important things to be debating and more important things to spend committee time on, because we believed that the Lord's Prayer was part of this, part of our daily routine. But we have problems. We have issues around smog, around the loss of manufacturing jobs, around poverty, around the declining economy. We have to remember that those are priorities as well. As we move forward, we in our caucus did not want to spend a lot of time debating this.

That's why, as we bring the recommendations of the panel forward, we're so pleased to see that we have something that all members of this House can accept and hopefully support well into the future.

Mr. Speaker, with that I want to once again thank you for your efforts. I hope I'm not letting anything out of the bag, but I think you told me originally that you were on a beach in Cuba when you got your first phone call on this. I hope you don't take your BlackBerry and your cellphone to the beach.

But you know what? It has been a challenge. It was interesting to read through the thousands and thousands of letters and e-mails that we received as we went forward with this motion.

I hope everyone in the House will support this. I appreciate the—

Mr. Peter Kormos: Too much.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Once again, I hear Mr. Kormos heckling. I meant to say, Mr. Speaker, that you needed a break. It was good that you got away. The reality is, he mentioned it to us at our committee. He made it clear that he was tired and was there for a rest.

This was a surprise to him. It's something that we didn't really need, but the all-party panel has reported. Our caucus is extremely happy with this. We hope that the members of the assembly will be happy with this and we hope that the citizens of Ontario will be happy with this.

Once again, as I close, I want to thank the citizens of Ontario who have responded in such a positive manner to seeing the drafting of this resolution come forward. We will be supporting it 100% in this caucus. On behalf of John Tory, Bob Runciman and the Progressive Conservative caucus, I'm pleased to make these comments today and to thank Ontarians once again for responding to this all-party panel.

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and indeed thank you for your role in this. I also want to thank Todd Decker and Larry Johnston, and Maggie—I don't know her last name; the assistant to the Speaker. Certainly, everyone worked very tirelessly on coming up with this.

Before Dalton McGuinty started talking about possibly revoking the Lord's Prayer—which, let us be clear, was implied when he said "review the Lord's Prayer"—before he mentioned it, I don't believe I received one e-mail on revoking or reviewing the Lord's Prayer.

Here are the top e-mails that I receive: One in six children living in poverty in the province of Ontario; 200,000 manufacturing jobs lost in the province of Ontario; 120,000 households waiting for housing in the province of Ontario; only one in 10 children having a space in daycare in the province of Ontario; and of course the minimum wage in the province of Ontario that keeps people in poverty. That's what I receive e-mails on; that's what New Democrats receive e-mails on—not revoking the Lord's Prayer and the saying of the Lord's Prayer in this place. Not one e-mail did I receive on that.

It's interesting that this move of the government has more of figures than faith in it, more of expediency than ethics in it, because of course what this represents for Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal Party is retreat. It's a retreat in the face of the overwhelming number of e-mails and responses from the people of Ontario. You heard the Progressive Conservatives talk about the sheer number—20,000 and counting—who wrote in demanding that the Lord's Prayer be said, with a small portion asking for the revocation of prayer in this place. That's what this is about.

I wish I could say it were something else. I'm a United Church minister by trade and I'm first and foremost a United Church minister. I am a politician by avocation, not by vocation. Every morning, my husband and I say prayers together. One of the prayers we say is the Lord's Prayer. The other prayer we always say—it's why I'm standing here; it's why I survived one of the ugliest by-elections in the history of this province—is that we pray for our enemies. We pray for those who want to harm us. We pray nothing but blessing and joy upon them for that day. It's prayer that keeps me here.

It's prayer, I believe, that keeps us all here. That's what my husband and I do every single morning. For us, it's about faith. For us, it's not a "ritual," to quote Mr. Bryant. It's not an empty ritual; it's something in the very substance of our beings. And for many out there in the province of Ontario, it is as well, clearly.

I love a quote from 1 John. The quote from 1 John defines God for me, where 1 John writes, "God is love." God is love. There's an equal sign there. "Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God lives in them." I used to say that at the beginning of every wedding I performed.

Clearly, out of love, Ontarians responded here. Even those who are humanists and secularists responded out of ethics, out of a real sense of what is right, of what is just. They responded out of love. They didn't make their decision based on the numbers, on polls, on expediency; they made it from the very marrow of their being, from something that really meant something to them.

A year ago, I brought in a motion to this House called "A place for all people." What I asked for in that motion was that there be a place for all people in this place which people of all faiths and of no faith could use for meditation, time out. There is such a place on Parliament Hill. Just about every large institution where people work has such a space. We need such a space here.

I witness many who are Sikh or Muslim running across four lanes of University Avenue to go over to the Hart House chapel to pray because there is no space here for them; none whatsoever. I have the assurance of the Speaker, and I'm delighted in it, that that place will be found, a place that's accessible and open for everyone. I'm delighted about that. I'm delighted that that is a by-product of what has happened here today.

Jesus, when he said the Lord's Prayer, was a Jew; he was a Rabbi. Certainly, Dow Marmur, in his comments in the Toronto Star, highlighted that. Jesus said those words in Aramaic. "Abba" is what he calls "Daddy"; he's saying "Daddy" in Aramaic. It's a very intimate prayer. It's a prayer that he said out of love. It's a prayer that one should never—and, may I just say, and put great emphasis on this—be forced to say. Faith is the antithesis of force. No one should ever be forced, in this chamber or anywhere else, to say a prayer they don't believe in, simply to mouth the words, simply to get along.

That goes for all prayer, and I hope that everyone here takes that to heart: that what we're saying has nothing of force in it; absolutely nothing. Those who don't want to pray should leave the chamber and be allowed to stand and not pray, and that a moment of silence should be one of those options. We made sure that we included a moment of silence.

When we're talking about what's right, what's just, what's of faith and ethics and not of expediency and figures, we're talking about something for everyone, particularly something for the minority. Our secular and humanist brothers and sisters made a very good point when they said that human rights is about, in a sense, marginal rights, minority rights, and not just what the majority wants.

Of course, that's not what this government has done here. Again, there is more figures than faith, more expediency than ethics about their move this morning. Because it was very clear what Dalton McGuinty did. It was very clear the move he made when he looked at the possible revocation of the recitation of the Lord's Prayer in this place.

I was delighted to be on the panel; I think we came to a very good conclusion. We came to the conclusion that most Ontarians came to. Most Ontarians—and let us be clear about this—voted with their e-mails, with their deputations, with their letters, against what Dalton McGuinty wanted, against what the Liberal Party wanted. They spoke out of ethics. They spoke out of deep compassion and a sense of justice. They spoke the same way that Jesus spoke: out of love. They spoke out of love, compassion and ethics. They didn't speak because they were frightened. They didn't speak because they were in full-scale retreat. They didn't speak because it was politically expedient to do so.

I'm delighted that the Lord's Prayer stays. I'm delighted that we've opened the door to the prayers of other faiths. I'm also delighted that we will now have a moment of silence as well to acknowledge those who do not share faith.

I'm delighted, again, that Ontarians, like New Democrats, speak out of a sense of justice, a sense of compassion, a sense of what's right and not what's popular—the same sense, we might say, out of which those who embody the spirit, those who embody love of all faith traditions and no-faith traditions speak; that is, out of, at the end of the day, a sense of love.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to my colleagues who sat on that panel. I think this is a just solution to a problem not of our creating, but a problem of Dalton McGuinty's creating. Finally, finally, we've put that to rest. Finally, we've done what's right.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Mr. Bryant has moved that the Speaker commence each meeting day of the assembly by reciting the Lord's Prayer, followed by another prayer, or the presentation of a verse or passage, or call for a moment of silent reflection, or any such other similar activity which, in the opinion of the Speaker, will serve to reflect over time the general demographic composition of this chamber and of the province of Ontario.

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

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Under the new standing orders, this vote will be deferred until this afternoon.

Vote deferred.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Orders of the day.

Hon. Michael Bryant: I seek consent for the House to recess until 10:45.

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

The House recessed from 1000 to 1045.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Please be seated.

Interjection: Pray be seated.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I think only the Lieutenant Governor can say that.

On behalf of the Minister of Health, we'd like to welcome a number of guests to the chamber today as part of the Cancer Care Day of Education: Richard Ling, chair of the board, Cancer Care Ontario; Dr. Terry Sullivan, president and CEO of Cancer Care Ontario; Dr. Carol Sawka; Dr. Bill Evans; Dr. George Pasut; Dr. Linda Rabeneck; Sarah Kramer; and Michael Power. To all of our guests, welcome.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SCHOOL SAFETY

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Yesterday, I brought to the Premier's attention a situation where a principal failed to report to the police a situation of student-on-student assault during school hours on school property. The Premier responded by assuring us that he would ask the Minister of Education to look into the matter, to investigate the matter, and he also assured us that the safety of our children in our schools was an absolute priority for this government.

I would ask if the Deputy Premier could advise us what steps the government is taking to ensure that students are in fact safe and that the appropriate reporting will take place should an assault take place.

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Education.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I appreciate the member opposite bringing the incident to our attention. Obviously all students have the right to be safe in their schools, and more than that, I completely agree with the member opposite that families have a right to know what is happening in schools and when there have been incidents. My understanding is that the director of the board has indicated that the principal did not follow protocol in reporting the incident. We are actually in the process of reviewing police protocols and we are monitoring those very closely.

Mr. Frank Klees: I appreciate that, and I appreciate the minister following up on that. We'll look forward to the specific reports.

The government must know that currently there is in fact no legal obligation under the Child and Family Services Act for school officials to report a student-on-student assault to the police. Currently the only legal obligation is to report child abuse at the hands of a parent or person in authority, not abuse or violence at the hands of another student.

Given the Premier's assurance yesterday and the minister's assurance now that student safety is a priority for the government, can the minister assure us that the government will bring forward legislation that closes that loophole that does not require mandatory reporting under the law? And will the minister commit to bringing that legislation forward so that we can deal with it before we rise for the summer?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Obviously these are very serious issues that the member opposite raises, which is why we re-enacted our safe schools action team, led by my parliamentary assistant, the member for Guelph. She is currently looking at both the police protocols and also the reporting mechanisms, because there are various reporting mechanisms and requirements in place. What we want to be clear about is that any gaps in those are filled, and that is certainly what I will be expecting in her report within the coming months.

Mr. Frank Klees: We know what needs to be done. Apart from protocol and reporting obligations, we know that there's a loophole in the law today that can be fixed by this Legislature before we rise for the summer. Given the Premier's commitment for student safety, we, the official opposition, are ready to co-operate with the government to approve that legislation—the amendment to the act that will make it a requirement for school officials to report assault directly to the police when it happens.

My question to the minister is this: Will she commit to bringing that legislation and count on the support of the opposition parties to pass that legislation, so when kids go to school in September, parents can rely on the law and the obligations under law that administrators will look after the safety of their children?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What's interesting in this situation is, the precipitating event for the member's questions was a situation where in fact the protocol was not followed. I've already said that we are looking at protocols, we are going to be looking for the gaps, and we're going to be reviewing those reporting mechanisms.

The point is that, apart from all the protocols, what we need is good communication. In this instance or in any other instance where there's an incident at a school, parents need to be apprised of that; they need to be apprised the incident in a reasonable period of time. There's a blend of common sense and protocol that needs to be in place in the running of any school. We're looking at the protocols; we're looking at the reporting mechanisms. In this case, it's very unfortunate that the parents were not apprised of the situation. That should have happened.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: To the Minister of Economic Development and Trade: To paraphrase Albert Einstein, if you repeat the same experiment over and over again, don't expect different results. The massive job losses that we are seeing make workers and businesses wonder whether this government's investment strategy is caught in a cycle of failure. Minister, will you allow for an independent review of your auto investment strategy so that taxpayers, and especially auto workers, can be sure that they aren't being taken to the cleaners?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I appreciate this question, because it gives us once again the opportunity to show Ontarians that their taxpayer dollars are working hard to bring investment to this jurisdiction. I would reference the launch of the Flex at the Oakville plant with Ford Motor Co. That was an opportunity for Wayne Gretzky to assist in launching this Flex vehicle that only happened because of the Ontario government's investment with Ford Motor Co., to the extent that Ford Motor Co. is busy hiring 500 people for that Oakville plant. That's an important symbol of investment in innovation to land new investments and new product in this province in our automotive sector.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I'm afraid I'll have to take that as a no.

We need to shine a light on these contracts, because we keep getting different answers about what's actually in them. This government doesn't even know whether GM job guarantees have been breached or not. The Premier says, "Yes"; the minister says, "We'll have to wait and see." This confusion does not instill confidence in either workers or manufacturers.

As we hopefully enter into new contracts with GM and other auto manufacturers, Ontarians deserve to know that their tax dollars will guarantee results. I ask again, Minister: Will you allow the Auditor General to perform a value-for-money review of the entire auto investment strategy?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I would hope that some of the MPPs opposite who actually come from the region north of Toronto would appreciate the fact that our participation with the GM Beacon project meant a $60-million investment in post-secondary institutions to assist in the development of new technologies that will make our auto industry strong.

I would hope that people who represent the area around UOIT would understand that $58 million in participation by this government will allow that university to be built up, to grow, to be strong, and that $2 million of that amount going to McMaster allows for the kind of innovative R&D that that sector needs for the future products that will be going into our cars.

This is an important investment through the Beacon project. It's exactly why we may well have an opportunity to land a new car product: because of the Flex system that we helped to develop for that plant. I expect this member in particular to understand the importance of this.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: The thousands of people who've been laid off at General Motors, Ford and Chrysler may not agree with that answer. The PC Party has always supported creating an investment environment that brings good, sustainable jobs. I remind you of the million new jobs that we created in our term of government. Your auto investment strategy is not achieving this goal.

Make the contracts public. Let the Auditor General review them. Learn from your mistakes, so that any future discussion that we hope you will have with GM and other automakers will bring positive results for businesses and workers alike. Will you do that, Minister?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: What I think we have to acknowledge is that the big mistake that was made was in this very House when members of the opposition refused to support the automotive sector. They refused to be supportive when initiatives came forward, either through the automotive investment strategy, through budget initiatives meant directly to help the sector—the very sector that looks like they're needing the help the most. These members opposite refused to stand up. They don't stand up for the workers and they don't stand up for our automotive sector either.

I would ask this member to call on the very individual who leads all of those automotive workers, Buzz Hargrove. Have you had one conversation with this individual? Have you had one conversation with the very leader who has said, "Without provincial support, including its participation in GM's Beacon project, the situation facing the industry today would be far, far worse"? Those are the words of Buzz Hargrove.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is for the Acting Premier. In 1937, in Oshawa, the historic strike by auto workers against General Motors happened. David Croll, the Minister of Labour in the Hepburn Liberal government, made a difficult decision: He resigned from the Liberal government and issued this statement: "Thousands of working men and women of the province of Ontario have come to look to me as their protector and their champion. I feel that I cannot now fail them. In my official capacity I have travelled the middle of the road, but now ... my place is marching with the workers rather than riding with General Motors."

An hour from now, I and my NDP colleagues will be marching with the workers in Oshawa. My question is: Whose side is the McGuinty government on—General Motors'?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I think there will be no mistaking where the Ontario government sits when it comes to General Motors and the thousands of workers who work for General Motors. Not one government has been more supportive of the automotive sector than this one, and not one Premier has been more supportive of the Canadian auto workers than this one.

Last night, we had an opportunity to fete Buzz Hargrove as he celebrated his many years in service, not just to the automotive sector but to this nation. Who was there first in line? It was Premier Dalton McGuinty, to establish the two of them not only as close colleagues but to understand the deep respect we have grown to have for the CAW. I challenge the members of the opposition; I challenge them to ask that very leader if they feel that the Ontario government has been supportive of them.

Mr. Howard Hampton: If the McGuinty government calls the layoff of tens of thousands of auto workers—unprecedented in the history of Ontario—a success, then I would hate to see how they measure failure.

But my question was very simple: Will we see any members of the McGuinty government marching with the auto workers in Oshawa today? I suspect we can conclude: No.

The fact is, this government's handling of the present crisis in Ontario's manufacturing and resource sectors has many parallels with the Liberal government of Mitch Hepburn. The McGuinty government hands $235 million to General Motors but doesn't get a production guarantee that the new hybrid-powered, fuel-efficient half-tonne will be built in Oshawa by Oshawa workers. This is a major setback.

My question is: Will any member of the McGuinty government march with the workers, or are you going to continue—

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

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I find it a little bit strange that the leader of the third party wants to quote Senator David Croll, the member who actually came from Windsor, Ontario, and understood the automotive sector better than most people in the House even at that time. There are members of this Legislature who have stood up for automotive workers since day one, since their election to this very House. Since this government became one in 2003, there has not been a government that has been more behind these automotive workers than these members of the Legislature right here.

When I ask you today if you will stand up for the automotive workers, you haven't been standing up for these last five years, but this government has.

Mr. Howard Hampton: The McGuinty government wants people to believe that handing $235 million to General Motors, and then watching General Motors break what it promised in a collective agreement and lay off thousands of workers, is somehow the McGuinty government's standing up for workers. Hogwash. Nonsense. No one would measure that as any kind of success.

The McGuinty government has bungled its own auto strategy. It has allowed General Motors to bully not only communities but workers.

My question is: What is the McGuinty government going to do to force General Motors to meet the very things it promised before it signed a collective agreement a few short weeks ago—keeping a product at the truck plant in Oshawa?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: This is the very leader of the political party who was quoted, when talking about the CAW: "You can bash your head against a wall talking to these people. It's just not worth it." That's what the leader of the third party said when it came to talking about the CAW.

I just ask you: If you think that you're going to speak on behalf of the CAW, why is it that the very leader of the CAW doesn't agree with you? Why is it that Buzz Hargrove in fact stands together with Dalton McGuinty to make the automotive sector stronger? Why is it that the leader of the CAW has said, "There's not a leader in the free world who has delivered the way Dalton McGuinty has for our automotive sector"?

Thank goodness we wouldn't leave it to you, because if it was up to you, we would be marching at the back of the parade instead of at the front.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Howard Hampton: To the Acting Premier again: The fact is, General Motors signed a collective agreement with the workers just last month. Before they signed that collective agreement, they said that the truck plant in Oshawa would continue to have a vehicle to produce into 2011. Despite General Motors getting $235 million from the McGuinty government, despite what they said before signing the collective agreement, 2,600 workers at that truck plant are now being laid off. That's why they're marching today.

My question is this: Having bungled its negotiations with General Motors, when will the McGuinty government finally show some backbone and do something to force General Motors to at least meet the obligations and the promises they made before they signed the collective agreement?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I think, once again, I would like the member opposite to listen to the words of Buzz Hargrove. He purports to support and stand for automotive workers, and here's the one leader who has garnered more support from his own membership than anyone in the history of the CAW. He says, "The attacks of Runciman and Hampton on Ontario's auto strategy are anything but informed. They're an attempt to make cheap political points at the expense of tens of thousands of hard-working auto workers in Ontario who quite rightly fear for their future." Buzz Hargrove says, "My members and I are deeply offended."

You go on and show up at that parade. What we know is, you're an offence to the CAW.

Mr. Howard Hampton: I gather that members of the McGuinty government think that the 2,600 workers are going to be marching today because they're happy about being laid off; they're happy that the McGuinty government gave General Motors $235 million of the public's money and didn't get a product guarantee for the truck plant.

The fact is, this sets a very bad precedent. What will now stop Ford, which received $100 million, from simply going back on its promises and laying off workers? What will stop Chrysler, which received close to $100 million, from simply going back on their promise and laying off workers?

I ask again: When is the McGuinty government going to stand up to General Motors and say to them, "You must keep the promises you made before you signed the collective agreement"? When is the McGuinty government going to stand up for the workers and stop simply toeing the line for General Motors?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I think it's very clear. The people who are speaking on behalf of the CAW understand full well where this government has been for the automotive sector. I think it's very clear that General Motors themselves have said they may well be in a position to prepay that loan on the strategy that we signed with them. That's an acknowledgment by General Motors themselves.

What I do know is that we move forward our discussions, on practically a daily basis, with representatives of the auto workers. The very people who may be losing their jobs don't see the NDP as supportive of them. They only see that this Ontario government has been prepared to look out and say: "How do we bring future projects to this jurisdiction? How do we find ways, in the face of a challenge that is worldwide, to bring investment to Ontario?" The only government that has been on this aggressive path has been the Dalton McGuinty government. That is acknowledged by the leadership of the CAW. You, sir, do not speak for the auto workers in this country.

Mr. Howard Hampton: I've been to meet with the auto workers in Oshawa twice now outside GM headquarters. I haven't seen any members of the McGuinty government there. I haven't seen anyone there from the McGuinty government supporting those workers.

My question is this: New Democrats believe that government has an important role in trying to sustain manufacturing jobs in this province. Part of that role is that if you're going to hand out hundreds of millions of dollars to multinational corporations, you get product or job guarantees. The question that those auto workers are now asking is this: Is the McGuinty government going to do anything to require General Motors to live up to the promise they made before they signed the collective agreement to maintain product and jobs at the Oshawa truck plant? Are you going to do anything at all?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I do find it quite amazing that, perhaps in these last couple of weeks, all of a sudden you're supportive of government participation with the automotive sector. Where were you when our Minister of Finance tabled a budget with the most historic investment available for participation with our auto sector? How did you vote on those initiatives? You said no to the auto workers.

Where were you when we tabled those business initiatives to lower costs for business? The very initiatives that you suggest in this House we should be doing, you voted no to. But when the big camera is on you, you want to march over to Oshawa and stand behind the auto workers. I think it's time that you showed your true colours. You either support the automotive sector or you do not. I suggest that you have never supported the automotive sector, and it's apparent by your behaviour today.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Minister, media reports today indicate that the Premier is opposed to federal legislation that ensures that taxpayers' money is not used to finance the production of films that are pornographic, excessively violent or denigrating to identifiable groups.

Minister, your government doesn't fund drugs approved by Health Canada for cancer victims; you've de-listed chiropractic services, physiotherapy, eye exams, and on and on. But your Premier is quite prepared to spend limited tax dollars on films that most Ontarians would find offensive. Why is that and how do you justify that?

Hon. George Smitherman: On the matter of the supplementary, I'll be asking the Minister of Culture to comment, but the comments by the honourable member really are not appropriate to leave unaddressed. On a day when courageous individuals who work on the front lines of health care delivering enhanced capacity to support people in our province with cancer—for you to talk up and make a suggestion that back in the day when you were in charge, every drug that Health Canada approved you automatically put on the formulary is phooey.

Since the amendments that we've made to drugs alone, 14 additional cancer drugs have been funded in our province. We've made investments all across the health care landscape. The honourable member's suggestions are to play one thing off against another. I want to see this honourable member stand up in his place, talk about health care and acknowledge that it is his party's plan to cut $3 billion out of health care, rather than playing one group of Ontarians off against the other.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I ask the honourable member to withdraw that statement. It is well known that only thing we wanted to cut out of health care was him.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): That's not a point of order.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: That's cheap theatrics, with a dose of dishonesty tossed in.

The legislation in question passed the House of Commons with the support of all parties, including the Liberal Party. Five provinces have similar constraints in their film tax credit programs with no problems. It's called spending public money responsibly, and that's a concept you're not very familiar with.

Minister, when you can't find the money to fund cancer drugs, to provide PET scans, to unclog emergency rooms, why are you prepared to pour scarce tax dollars into a pornographic, violent and derogatory film?

Hon. George Smitherman: The honourable member's assertion is incorrect on all points. First off, he says we haven't funded cancer drugs. We've tripled the funding for cancer drugs in the last five years and recently added 14 new cancer drugs. He says we can't find the resources to address emergency rooms, but we've funded $109 million in the last two weeks to enhance our capacity to provide support for Ontarians who go in search of care to Ontario's emergency rooms.

It's unbelievable that the honourable member, who leads a party in this Legislature that holds firm to the position that they would eliminate the health premium and thereby eliminate $3 billion in expenditure for health care, has a lot of audacity to stand in his place and pretend that this is the party that—

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: For months now we have been listening to this false information from the minister that we would eliminate $3 billion from—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): That is not a point of order, and I have ruled on that in the past.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: He's not telling the truth.

Hon. George Smitherman: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order: The honourable member knows that in estimates committee yesterday, I tabled a press release from the finance critic of that party indicating that—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I know it's a Thursday and—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Niagara West and the Minister of Health: If you want to have that discussion, take it outside, please. I know it's a Thursday. It's been a very warm week—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Excuse me. I'd just like some order in the House for a moment, please.

It's a Thursday. It's been a warm week. Everybody has worked hard, but let's end this week. We've got a lot of students here. Remember how we should be carrying ourselves in this chamber. We expect things of these students in their schools. I think we should offer the same thing to them within this chamber. So I just ask members to tone it down a bit.

New question, the leader of the third party.

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

Mr. Howard Hampton: To the Minister of Northern Development and Mines: The northern Ontario heritage fund announced less funding in the eight months since the last election than it announced in the four days prior to the last election being called. Can the Minister of Northern Development and Mines tell us how that could be?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: We're very proud of the tremendous job creation opportunities that are brought about as a result of the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp. We're particularly proud about the fact that our government has committed to increasing the heritage fund from a $60-million-a-year fund to a $100-million-a-year fund, and again confirmed in our budget.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: From the party that stole $60 million from the heritage fund.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thank you very much for reminding me of that. From the party that indeed took money out of the heritage fund on their way out of office in 1995, it's an interesting question.

We're very proud of the investments that we've made since then. We've created and retained over 9,000 jobs as a result of the heritage fund. We've spent $345 million in new investments in the north, creating jobs once again. We're very proud of how the heritage fund has performed and the difference it has made in terms of job creation in northern Ontario.

Mr. Howard Hampton: The minister talks about jobs. I think the only thing that people have experienced in northern Ontario is a loss of jobs.

What's interesting is that in the eight months prior to the election call last year, the McGuinty government announced $105 million in heritage fund projects. In the week just prior to the election call, more than $31 million was announced. In the eight months after the election, only $29 million has been announced—more in the four days before the election was called than in the eight months since the election. Why is the minister continuing the tradition of the McGuinty government of banking the northern Ontario heritage fund money until just before an election?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: That is simply not true. The fact is that, as the member knows, we have a northern Ontario heritage fund board made up of individuals from all across the north who meet once every six weeks to try to make some decisions related to good projects that are moving forward. We were very, very pleased about the projects. Since I've become minister, we've had three or four meetings, some very good projects have been announced, and we're very proud of the funding that was done in the last government.

The fact is that over that four-year term of the McGuinty government, after we changed the criteria to allow the private sector to once again play a role in terms of job creation, with the heritage fund's help we created over $300 million in new investments, and some 9,000 new jobs were created or retained. I'm extremely proud to be the minister leading the heritage fund and chairing it and I'm very proud of the Ontario government for increasing the amount of the heritage fund from $60 million to $100 million a year. We look forward to more important investments in northern Ontario.

BROWNFIELD SITES

Mr. Charles Sousa: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. In my riding of Mississauga South, we are blessed with a gem of a lakefront. It's where people live, businesses thrive, and it is famous for its beautiful lakefront. However, some of our lakefront is sitting empty and unused because it is in need of remediation. We have two huge brownfields on our lakeshore corridor. The former Imperial lands on Mississauga Road are 70 acres, and the site of the former Lakeview coal plant has 200 acres. Both sites are prime waterfront locations, and the people in Mississauga South don't want them to sit empty any longer.

I understand that the major hurdle in developing these and other brownfields in Ontario is one of liability. The companies that own such lands would prefer to leave them as is rather than assume the legal risks involved in developing them. Can the minister please inform the House and the people of Mississauga South of what he is doing to resolve the liability issue and facilitate the rehabilitation of these sites?

Hon. Jim Watson: A very good question. I thank the member for Mississauga South.

Reforms passed as part of the 2007 budget included legislative changes that make Ontario the leading jurisdiction in Canada when it comes to addressing liability and regulatory issues with respect to brownfield redevelopment. We're proud of those changes that were brought forward. Let me just give the member a couple of examples of those regulatory and liability changes.

We've increased protection for municipalities from civil suits when they approve plans or issue building permits based on inaccurate information in a record of site condition, allowed the province to take steps to ensure adequate protection of the health and safety of the public on abandoned properties, and increased liability protection provided to property owners who redevelop a brownfield site.

Ontario is a leader when it comes to brownfield redevelopment. We were recognized by the Canadian Urban Institute and will continue to do what we can as a government to ensure that we rehabilitate these brownfield sites for the betterment of all Ontario.

Mr. Charles Sousa: Minister, as you know, Mississauga is preparing for intensification, which will bring more residents and businesses to our city. This means there will be a need to redevelop some residential neighbourhoods, but accommodating intensification could be made much easier if our brownfields, especially on the lakefront, could be put to better use.

This strategy is in keeping with smart growth. For example, the Lakeview visioning project has proposed that the Lakeview site be redeveloped to accommodate a new mix of residential and business, with a boardwalk area on the lake. In addition, proposals abound for projects like a new stadium, an aquarium, or even a university campus. At the Imperial Oil site, residents have high hopes of building recreational and commercial facilities.

The residents and developers are excited about these proposals and want to get started on them as soon as possible. In addition to their aesthetic benefits, these developments would also be a major economic boost to the riding. But as long as these lands sit unremediated, none of these areas and ideas can become a reality.

Minister, can you—

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

Hon. Jim Watson: I'd like to tell the member that where there's a will, there's a way. I know that Mayor Hazel McCallion, who's a good friend of the member from Mississauga South, is very determined to deal with a number of these brownfield sites. So I will assure the member that I will continue to work with him, Mayor McCallion and the city of Mississauga.

Our ministry is making it easier for cities, developers and environmental leaders to redevelop brownfield sites. Recent changes to the Municipal Act put municipalities in a better position to deal with abandoned brownfield properties. We've removed crown liens and introduced greater flexibility in the tax sale process.

Our government's brownfields financial tax incentive program continues to provide tax assistance to landowners in order to encourage environmental rehabilitation, and we have streamlined the administration of this program, making the regional offices of municipal affairs and housing the key points of conduct for program approval. So I can give the member my assurance that we will work with him to get the job—

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

TOURISM

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is for the Minister of Tourism. Yesterday, my friend the member for Simcoe North informed this House that North Bay city council is supporting John Tory's idea to suspend the retail sales tax on attractions and accommodations this summer. This would provide an immediate boost for tourism in its time of need to avert a summer of discontent. Thousands of jobs in communities across Ontario are at stake.

Today, I spoke with Doug Reynolds, the executive director of NOTO, Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters. He said that this should be a non-partisan issue and that our tax break proposal makes a lot of sense.

Yesterday, the minister dismissed the considered opinion of the duly elected council of the city of North Bay. Today, is the minister going to dismiss NOTO's views as well?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I thank the member for Wellington—Halton Hills for the question. I ask often about good ideas and ask our ministry staff and everybody in the ministry if we've gotten any calls on this proposal, this poor band-aid solution by the Tories and John Tory: zero emails, zero letters, zero phone calls. It's gotten almost zero support from all our partners in tourism.

Where we've had great success in tourism has been with our marketing campaign, "There's no place like this." That campaign has really bolstered tourism within Ontario, which is 80% of our tourism market. The Tories would like to scrap that campaign. So where we've had success, where our partners are telling us that we're doing the right things, that we're moving in the right direction, the Tories have decided that that is not the—

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

Mr. Ted Arnott: The minister is completely out of touch. Yesterday, in reply to the member for Simcoe North, the minister said that the opposition voted against the government's budget. To that, I say it's our job to oppose your broken promises, your high taxes, your out-of-control spending, your questionable priorities, your slush funds and your cuts to the Ministry of Tourism.

It's unfortunate that some Liberal MPPs whose ridings are dependent on tourism are apparently not even speaking up to support it. For example, a quick search of Hansard shows that the member for Thunder Bay—Atikokan hasn't even mentioned the word "tourism" in this House in the past year. When will this minister start listening to NOTO, to the city of North Bay, to the tourism industry which has expressed their support for this initiative, and to anyone outside of the Premier's office?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: We are listening to our partners in tourism, in all the regions across Ontario. Ontario is a wonderful, four-season destination for tourism.

The member fails to mention that last fall we had an economic stimulus package from the Minister of Finance, a $30-million injection into tourism. That party—those parties—voted against it. In our budget bill—again, $92 million over the next five years in tax measures, in initiatives to be able to help the tourism sector: That party voted against it.

What we are doing is making sure that we have a comprehensive strategy working in lockstep with our partners in tourism to make sure that the tourism sector is strong, viable, and sustainable, today and well into the future.

CHILD CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Today the Canadian Labour Congress released a report card to rate federal and provincial progress on quality, affordable, accessible child care. How does the Deputy Premier explain the McGuinty government's D grade for child care, the second-poorest rating in all of Canada?

Hon. George Smitherman: I do think that the rating will provide interesting analyses for individuals, but I think everybody would agree that if the federal New Democrats had not killed a government in Ottawa that believed in national child care, all provinces would have been substantially advanced.

We always find it passing strange that the party in the Legislature here can conjure up such a sense of excitement about daycare, but when there was an opportunity to build on the strength of national programs and to create a national child care program, they decided that their political interests were more important, that it was more important to get Olivia Chow into the House of Commons than it was for the people of Canada to have a national child care plan.

Notwithstanding that blow, we've created 22,000 additional quality spaces. We think it's important that we continue to build on these sorts of capacities. It would be nice if their actions met their words.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Deputy Premier would know very well that the only reason there was a child care plan for the federal Liberals was because Jack Layton put it there. The reality is that the federal Liberals are propping up a government that refuses to fund child care. What's his excuse for that?

The reality, and every child care advocate knows it, is that 75% of mothers are in the workforce right now, but there are only enough regulated spaces for about 12% of children in Ontario.

The McGuinty government is advertising spaces right now—they're sending out flyers with spaces and subsidies being advertised—yet everyone knows that the waiting list for those subsidies and spaces is about one to two years. I have to ask the government, why such poor grades and why the false advertising in terms of subsidy availability?

Hon. George Smitherman: I want to thank the honourable member for her acknowledgment about the expansion of child care programs that is ongoing in Ontario, a part of 22,000 new spaces that are being built, 2,090 of them in the communities of Hamilton and Niagara, where the member comes from.

But I found it curious that the honourable member, who claimed credit for Jack Layton, then went on to basically acknowledge the story that, after he pushed for it, he decided to take the actions to kill it. We know that those party members sign a joint federal and provincial card. Why is it that they bring this tone to the Legislature of Ontario, but when they stand up in the House of Commons, they act to kill national child care? This is the legacy of that party. Notwithstanding that, we've been working to enhance the capacity for Ontarians to access these crucial services.

We're proud of the progress that we've made. We acknowledge that there are opportunities to continue to make improvements. It would be nice if their actions were the same as their words.

CLIMATE CHANGE

Mr. Bob Delaney: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Ontario's climate change plan includes a wide array of initiatives, including the phasing out of coal-fired generation and developing renewable sources of energy, as well as investing in public transit. Trees are also an important component as forests are home to a wide range of biodiversity. Planting trees can assist us in mitigating the effects of climate change.

Having large forested areas and planting trees throughout the province is vital to the health of Ontarians. In southern Ontario, forested areas can be hard to come by due to the lack of foresight in past development practices. To the minister: How does the government's plan to fight climate change address the importance of planting more trees in southern Ontario?

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: I thank the member for the question. We have a very aggressive program in place to plant 50 million trees by 2020. I think it's difficult at times to recognize exactly what that might mean, but by 2054 it would mean that the carbon dioxide in the air would be reduced by 172 million car trips between Toronto and Barrie.

I sent a note to every member of this House to help them get involved in Trees Ontario planting and the rural Ontario tree program through the Ontario stewardship program. I encourage each and every one of them to help make a difference as we move forward with this very aggressive tree-planting program. You're right: It can make a difference for the air we breathe, a habitat for a species that might be at risk, and also provide the shade and the energy savings for our homes. I encourage everyone to get involved. You can go to the Ontario "Plant a Tree" website..

Mr. Bob Delaney: The minister mentioned trees being planted in rural regions of southern Ontario, which is great, but I need to ask about urban areas. Urban areas are indeed hot spots for greenhouse gas emissions. This makes cities more susceptible to smog and other pollutants, and this is particularly evident now as the hot weather approaches. Many Ontarians living in urban environments feel that the green space in cities is hard to find. Would the minister describe any initiatives that the ministry has outlined and whether they specifically target urban centres?

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: Absolutely. We have Trees Ontario in the rural, and we have Evergreen in the urban. We plan to plant 100,000 trees in 2008-09, and, of course, involving the community. You can get hold of Evergreen, and they will help you in terms of planting some of those trees.

Without question, we know that if we are to make a difference, each of us has to take some responsibility. Encouraging changing, for example, the concrete jungles that we have around some of our schools and ensuring that they become more natural landscape, and going back to our Carolinian forest and planting native trees, can make a huge difference. What we're doing is encouraging everyone to get involved. So in rural Ontario, it's Trees Ontario; in urban Ontario, it's Evergreen. I ask each and every one of you to do your part to make Ontario a little greener in the future than it was in the past.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): New question? The member from Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington.

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question was to go to the Minister of Small Business, but after watching the behaviour of the other side today, I choose not to ask a question of this House. There will be no intelligent response.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. In the ongoing negotiation with the OMA, will the minister agree to support a 100% salaried model for physicians working in community health centres and aboriginal health access centres so that Ontarians' access to community-based primary care is not undermined?

Hon. George Smitherman: I think it would be highly suspect for me to be leading negotiations with the Ontario Medical Association from the floor of the Legislature. As I had a chance in the estimates committee to identify to the honourable member, we're very proud of the expansion that we've made of community-based models and interdisciplinary approaches, which sees Ontario leading in the reform of primary care delivery across the country.

On the specific matter at hand, it would be inappropriate to comment further, given that we are in negotiations at present with the Ontario Medical Association.

M me France Gélinas: The minister knows that CHCs and AHACs are concerned. CHC and AHAC physicians deliver some of the most complex and demanding primary care to the most vulnerable populations and patients. The incentive introduced in the 2004 OMA agreement is tearing the CHC and AHACs health care teams apart and eroding the collaborative care that they deliver.

An independent OMA poll survey showed that 98% of CHC and AHAC physicians want to be paid on salary. In the ongoing negotiations between the OMA and the Ministry of Health, the physicians from CHCs and AHACs are asking for your support. Will you support a 100% salaried model for physicians?

Hon. George Smitherman: I understand where the honourable member is coming from, and I think the principles are very good. We had a good exchange on this matter in the estimates process, but I don't think it really is appropriate for me to be taking an issue with respect to something that is being negotiated in the context of our ongoing discussions with the Ontario Medical Association.

Of course, they're part of a

section within the Ontario Medical Association. They've been making their views known as well to the OMA side in these discussions. I think we have a really fantastic group from both sides who are working on an agreement which can build on the progress that we made in the last agreement, which resulted in 650,000 more Ontarians enjoying access to family health care. We'll look for progress to occur at the table but not speak more specifically to any matter that is currently a subject of negotiation.

TOURISM

Mr. Phil McNeely: Recently, the state of Canada's tourism industry has been featured in headlines on a national scale. With gas prices soaring, the parity of the US and Canadian dollar, and confusion regarding identification and security requirements for crossing the border between Canada and the United States, it seems that the tourism industry is entering into a summer of economic uncertainty. I know that in Ottawa, tourism is a strong economic contributor during this time of year.

To the Minister of Tourism: How is the McGuinty government working with our partners in the tourism industry to ensure that the upcoming summer months are prosperous?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I want to thank the member for Ottawa—Orléans. He's quite right, as usual: The issues facing the tourism industry are apparent across the country, not only here in Ontario.

The McGuinty government recognizes that this industry is such a strong economic driver in so many areas across our province. That's why we're implementing a long-term strategy to address these challenges. In 2007, we announced $30 million in funding to enhance our successful marketing and promotional campaigns, like the "There's no place like this" campaign. Just weeks ago, we voted to approve a budget that is going to provide investments and tax measures totalling $92 million to the tourism sector over the next five years. These investments are a vital step in accessing Ontario's share of what is a huge global tourism market.

Mr. Phil McNeely: The government has made investments in the tourism sector that will help promote Ontario and even address the issue of dwindling visitors from the US.

Minister, you made mention of Ontario's current marketing campaign. Recently, the Leader of the Opposition said that this campaign is a waste of money and that it's time for the McGuinty government to stop "misusing taxpayers' money for feel-good ads that don't fill a single motel bed or put a bum in a theatre seat anywhere."

I wonder if the minister would tell us if there's any reason to believe that these ads are making a difference in Ontario's tourism numbers.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: They are make a huge difference. The "There's no place like this" ad campaign, which was launched in March through June 2007 to have Ontarians travel within Ontario—we just got the numbers back from Statistics Canada. In their report, they said that Ontario saw an increase in domestic travel of 5% over that period. That means 21 million visits. Also, Ontarians are spending more money within the province. We saw an increase in that period of 3.7% over the previous year. That's $2.3 billion to our economy. And from April to June 2007, Ontarians made more overnight trips—an increase of 6.2%—and they spent $1.4 billion on those trips. That is a great success.

PESTICIDES

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. It has to do with Bill 64, a bill that makes for good headlines but is not science-based. On Monday, during committee meetings on this bill, we heard presentations claiming that products like 2,4-D are harmful. Government members opposite agreed. It's interesting that over one year ago, Industry Task Force II wrote to your ministry asking if the province took issue with 2,4-D. Your own ministry responded by saying that the decisions on this matter remain with the federal Pest Management Regulatory Agency.

This government's very own pesticide advisory committee also responded by saying that there was no need for additional restrictions on this product.

Minister, over the course of a year, who have you spoken to who has convinced you that you should abandoned science-based risk assessment and risk management protocol in this matter?

Hon. John Gerretsen: First of all, I look forward to that party's voting in favour of Bill 64, because it's all about unacceptable health risks to children. That's what the bill is really all about. We want to make sure that those children who play in their front yards, who play in their backyards, at the playgrounds and in parks etc., are not subject to an unacceptable risk. That's what it's all about.

As the member well knows, at the same time that we came out with the bill, we came out with about 80 different ingredients and about 300 different products, which are on a list right now and are going to be looked at. We're going to have consultation on this to determine exactly what should be in the regulations. It may very well be that some of the products and ingredients that are listed there may be taken off or put on the list, but I can assure you that the entire bill and the entire regulatory process will be science-based.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I've been watching very closely to make sure that it is science-based. On Monday, in committee, I asked your members if the Ontario Pesticides Advisory Committee, OPAC, had been consulted on the drafting of the legislation. One of your colleagues said that she couldn't answer the question, but a few minutes later, your own parliamentary assistant said, "My understanding is, the group was consulted with three times during the preparation of the proposed bill."

Given that your own parliamentary assistant couldn't confirm whether or not OPAC had been consulted, why didn't you call on OPAC to testify, or are you choosing to ignore the scientific evidence that OPAC has suggested? I have their letter right here for you.

Hon. John Gerretsen: I can tell you that I've met with the chair of the committee. We intend to involve the committee, through its regulatory process, entirely. We have great faith in the pesticides committee that's been set up. I can assure you that the work that will be done by the committee and the ministry with respect to the 80 different ingredients and the 300 different products that are out there right now in the regulatory framework of things will be based on a scientific basis.

We want to make sure that at the end of the day we have a piece of legislation and we have protection for children out there to a much greater extent than currently exists. We believe in what we're doing, and we look forward to the support of both that party and the third party in the passage of this bill as soon as possible.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, you will know that there are a number of communities where people are having to undergo life-sustaining treatment such as dialysis, radiation therapy or chemotherapy. One such community is Hearst. We have people who are having to travel three times per week to get dialysis services because it's not offered in their home community.

My question to you is simply this: Are you prepared to work with myself, Hôpital Notre-Dame and others to find a way to allow the northern travel grant to pay somebody travelling for these types of treatments when they're just under the 100-kilometre limit that's set out currently in regulation?

Hon. George Smitherman: I want to thank the honourable member for the question. I'll address two parts of it, both chronic kidney disease and also the northern health travel grant.

Just last year, we made very substantive improvements to the northern health travel grant, extending by $10 million or $15 million a year the support that's on offer to residents of northern Ontario. We know that it is a very vital lifeline. I'll look at the very specific question that the honourable member asked.

In addition, I want the honourable member to know that under active development at the moment is a chronic kidney disease initiative which also ought to enhance our capacity to provide nocturnal dialysis, as one example, right in the home community. This is something the honourable member from Sudbury has been championing very vigorously, amongst others, and I hope that the combination of these two efforts might allow us to make some progress.

We can understand that it's a big hardship for people to have to make that trip, and I'll try to work with the honourable member to make improvements.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I recognize the work we're doing in trying to bring dialysis services to communities. In fact, Hôpital Notre-Dame, the mayor of Hearst, Roger Sigouin, myself and others have been working towards that in co-operation with the LHIN and the Ministry of Health. But the specific problem is that until we get there, we've got people who have to travel—and it happens to be that Hearst, like other communities, is just under the 100-kilometre number that you need to qualify for a travel grant.

In the case of Hearst, they're 98 kilometres, but because they're 98 kilometres, the individuals who have to travel to Kapuskasing for dialysis treatment can't get their travel grants approved.

So I ask again—and I think I got a partial answer earlier: Will you work with us to ensure that we can get these patients to qualify for the travel grant in those types of situations?

Hon. George Smitherman: I think it's important that I acknowledge the issue but not make up policy on the fly. If the 100 number is reduced to 95, then someone who's at 93 asks, "Why not 90?" I think that any time you have a number, it's going to create some difficulties.

But I understand the matter at hand. It's a substantive matter for those individuals who, three, four times a week, are in need of these services. That's disruptive enough when it's in your local community, much less that you have to make the distance. That's why we're opening more satellite dialysis and looking at nocturnal options.

I will take a look at the underlying issue of the northern health travel grant and endeavour to get back to not just this member but all members who represent northern Ontario.

WORKPLACE SAFETY

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Every year, about a quarter of a million workers are injured in this province. These hard-working Ontarians are fathers, mothers, uncles, aunts, brothers and sisters and sons and daughters who deserve to go home safe and sound to their families at the end of each shift. Minister, can you tell us about what our government is doing to improve the health and safety of workers not only in my riding of Scarborough—Rouge River but across the entire province?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I'd like to thank the member for Scarborough—Rouge River for his work with injured workers in his community. I know how passionately he feels about injured workers in his community and across the province.

Yes, indeed, yesterday I had the privilege of announcing our Safe at Work Ontario plan, which is our plan to enforce the Occupational Health and Safety Act. This plan builds on what was a very successful four-year strategy brought in by this government to target the bad actors in workplace health and safety as best we could, and it did have good results. We saw a 20% reduction in workplace injuries—significant. That's 50,000 people, 50,000 families, that did not have to suffer the pain and suffering of a workplace injury. That's $5 billion in costs that our business community did not have to incur. That's significant. It's great success, but we've built on that success.

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: I want to thank the minister for that information and to commend the Ministry of Labour for the work they're doing to ensure that Ontario workers are safe at work. Minister, can you tell us more about this new program and what the ministry is doing to build a strong health and safety culture throughout Ontario's workplaces?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I was honoured yesterday to be able to announce our safe-at-work strategy. This strategy focuses on workplaces with higher-than-average lost-time injury rates and claim costs, but it focuses on a number of other items as well, which is very, very important, because we listened to our stakeholders—our employer stakeholders, our labour stakeholders and advocates for injured workers. We listened very carefully to what they had to say, and they wanted us to broaden the factors that we take into consideration when we target those workplaces.

We're considering the history of compliance with health and safety regulations. We're considering hazards inherent to the work itself. We're considering the length of time businesses have been operating. We're considering the size of the businesses. We're considering the incidents, such as critical or fatal injuries, and I know that this is very important to all of us here in this Legislature. We're considering the presence of—

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

MENTAL HEALTH

AND ADDICTION SERVICES

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Deputy Premier. This year's Ontario budget noted, "The government will be developing a comprehensive mental health and addictions strategy," but did not mention any timelines or any funding for it. I'm disappointed to see that nothing seems to have been happening today. Deputy Premier, can you please advise us when you intend to start developing a comprehensive mental health and addiction strategy for Ontario?

Hon. George Smitherman: If the honourable member wants to be disappointed, she should look at the history of her party with respect to helping people with mental illness in the province of Ontario. Including during the time when the predecessor member from her very riding was the Minister of Finance, including at the time when the deputy leader of their party was the Minister of Health, community-based mental health services in Ontario received not one single penny for growth.

In the time since our government has come to office, we've increased the support by tens of millions of dollars. She talks about addiction; she misses that two days ago in Ottawa we announced the expansion of youth treatment drug capacity, and more announcements are forthcoming. If the honourable member wants to come and join in the debate at estimates, I'll be very happy to give her much more information about what we've done and about what she didn't do.

PETITIONS

LORD'S PRAYER

Mr. Frank Klees: I want to present a petition that bears the names of more than 2,500 members of the Greek Orthodox community across Ontario. They were collected and sent to me by His Eminence Metropolitan Archbishop Sotirios, Primate of the Greek Orthodox Church in Canada. It reads as follows:

"Petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Premier Dalton McGuinty has called on the Parliament of Ontario to consider removing the Lord's Prayer from its daily proceedings; and

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer has been an integral part of our parliamentary heritage that was first established in 1793 under Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe; and

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer is today a significant part of the religious heritage of millions of Ontarians of culturally diverse backgrounds;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to continue its long-standing practice of using the Lord's Prayer as part of its daily proceedings."

I'm pleased to affix my signature to this petition, and we trust that the Legislature will do as petitioned.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

M me France Gélinas: I have a petition that goes as follows:

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

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

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

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

They ask the assembly,

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

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

I support this petition, will affix my name to it and send it with page Ellen.

LORD'S PRAYER

Mr. Jeff Leal: I have a petition today—literally hundreds of names.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the current Liberal government is proposing to eliminate the Lord's Prayer from its place at the beginning of daily proceedings in the Ontario Legislature; and

"Whereas the recitation of the Lord's Prayer has opened the Legislature every day since the 19th century; and

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer's message of forgiveness and the avoidance of evil is universal to the human condition; it is a valuable guide and lesson for a chamber that is too often an arena of conflict; and

"Whereas recognizing the diversity of the people of Ontario should be an inclusive process, not one which excludes traditions such as the Lord's Prayer;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, ask the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to preserve the daily recitation of the Lord's Prayer by the Speaker in the Legislature."

LORD'S PRAYER

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I'm pleased to present a petition from the Polish community at home given to me by Dr. Andrew W. Caruk.

"Whereas Premier Dalton McGuinty has called on the Ontario Legislature to consider removing the Lord's Prayer from its daily proceedings; and

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer has been an integral part of our parliamentary heritage that was first established in 1793 under Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe; and

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer is today a significant part of the religious heritage of millions of Ontarians of culturally diverse backgrounds;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to continue its long-standing practice of using the Lord's Prayer as part of its daily proceedings."

I'm pleased to sign this petition along with the 300 others.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Bob Delaney: I have a petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly. I thank many of the staff at Credit Valley Hospital for having sent it to me. It reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

I'm pleased to sign and support this petition and to ask page Taylor to carry it for me.

LORD'S PRAYER

Mr. Jim Wilson: "Whereas Premier Dalton McGuinty has called on the Ontario Legislature to consider removing the Lord's Prayer from its daily proceedings; and

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer has been an integral part of our parliamentary heritage that was first established in 1793 under Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe; and

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer is today a significant part of the religious heritage of millions of Ontarians of culturally diverse backgrounds;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to continue its long-standing practice of using the Lord's Prayer as part of its daily proceedings."

I agree with this petition and I've signed it.

HARBORD COLLEGIATE

Mr. Rosario Marchese: "Whereas the Toronto District School Board has decided to close the MID program at Harbord Collegiate and relocate the students outside of their community; and

"Whereas the students have benefited greatly from the program and the involvement in their community;

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

"That the Minister of Education intercede on behalf of the MID students at Harbord Collegiate to keep the program open."

I support this petition.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Joe Dickson: "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Central East Local Health Integration Network ... board of directors has approved the Rouge Valley Health System's deficit elimination plan.... ; and

"Whereas, despite the significant expansion of the Ajax-Pickering hospital, the largest in its 53-year history, a project that could reach $100 million, of which 90% is funded by the Ontario government, this plan now calls for the ill-advised transfer of 20 mental health unit beds from Ajax-Pickering hospital to the Centenary health centre in Scarborough; and

"Whereas one of the factors for the successful treatment of patients in the mental health unit is support from family and friends, and the distance to Centenary health centre would negatively impact on the quality of care for residents of Ajax and Pickering; and

"Whereas it is also imperative for Rouge Valley Health System to balance its budget, eliminate its deficit and debt and realize the benefits of additional Ontario government funding;

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

"That the Rouge Valley Health System continue to provide the current level of service to our Ajax-Pickering hospital, which now serves the fastest-growing communities of west Durham; and

"That the Ajax-Pickering hospital retain the badly needed 20-bed mental health unit."

I shall affix my signature to this and pass it to Ellen.

LORD'S PRAYER

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the current Liberal government is proposing to eliminate the Lord's Prayer from its place at the beginning of daily proceedings in the Legislature.... ;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to preserve the daily recitation of the Lord's Prayer by the Speaker in the Legislature."

I agree with this petition. I affix my name thereto and give it to page Alie.

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

Mr. Mike Colle: I have a much shorter petition here from Sol Mednick and the members of the Forest Hill Lions Club in support of animal protection. It says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act has not been updated since 1919;

"Whereas Bill 50 would require all veterinarians to report suspected abuse and neglect, protecting veterinarians from liability;

"Whereas it would allow the OSPCA to inspect and investigate places where animals are kept;

"Whereas the bill would prohibit the training of animals to fight;

"Whereas Bill 50 would allow the OSPCA to inspect roadside zoos;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to pass Bill 50, entitled the Provincial Animal Welfare Act, 2008, to protect our animal friends."

I support this petition and give if to page Aaron.

LORD'S PRAYER

Mr. Norm Miller: I have hundreds of petitions here from the Powassan and Nipissing area to preserve the Lord's Prayer. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Premier Dalton McGuinty has called on the Ontario Legislature to consider removing the Lord's Prayer from its daily proceedings; and

"Whereas the recitation of the Lord's Prayer has opened the Legislature every day since the 19th century; and

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer's message is one of forgiveness, of providing for those in need of their 'daily bread' and of preserving us from the evils we may fall into; it is a valuable guide and lesson for a chamber that is too often an arena of conflict; and

"Whereas recognizing the diversity of the people of Ontario should be an inclusive process, not one which excludes traditions such as the Lord's Prayer;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, ask the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to preserve the daily recitation of the Lord's Prayer by the Speaker in the Legislature."

I support this petition.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Bob Delaney: I have another petition, signed by many people in my neighbourhood in western Mississauga, in support of the western Mississauga ambulatory surgery centre. It reads:

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

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

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

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

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

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Ms. Sylvia Jones: "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas many young people with developmental special needs have no meaningful social, recreational or vocational opportunities after high school; and

"Whereas many of these young people have no real options for living independently in the community; and

"Whereas current supports in place are insufficient to meet the needs of these young people;

"We, the undersigned, petition t