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

March 12, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Mar-12 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 12 March 2009 Jeudi 12 mars 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT

(ORGAN DONOR LEAVE), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI

(CONGÉ POUR DON D'ORGANE)

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

LONG-TERM CARE

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

CHILD CARE

SENIOR CITIZENS

STELCO

TOURISM

SKILLS TRAINING

DISCIPLINARY HEARING

FLOODING

TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

PUBLIC TRANSIT

STELCO

TAXATION

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SKILLS TRAINING

ENDANGERED SPECIES

SENIOR CITIZENS

INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL

JUVENILE ARTHRITIS

AWARENESS MONTH

UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

JUVENILE ARTHRITIS

AWARENESS MONTH

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT (KEEPING OUR KIDS SAFE

AT SCHOOL), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

(SÉCURITÉ DE NOS ENFANTS À L'ÉCOLE)

MOTIONS

LEGISLATIVE MACE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

STUDENT SAFETY /

SÉCURITÉ DES ÉLÈVES

STUDENT SAFETY

STUDENT SAFETY

JOURNÉE INTERNATIONALE

DE LA FRANCOPHONIE /

INTERNATIONAL DAY

OF LA FRANCOPHONIE

PETITIONS

CHILD CUSTODY

CHILD CARE

LUPUS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

HOSPITAL SERVICES

PUBLIC TRANSIT

SALES TAX

CHILD CUSTODY

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

INACTIVE CEMETERIES

PROTECTION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES CIMETIÈRES INACTIFS

GREENBELT DAY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE JOUR

DE LA CEINTURE DE VERDURE

TRUTH ABOUT CALEDONIA ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 CONCERNANT

LA VÉRITÉ SUR CALEDONIA

INACTIVE CEMETERIES

PROTECTION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES CIMETIÈRES INACTIFS

GREENBELT DAY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE JOUR

DE LA CEINTURE DE VERDURE

TRUTH ABOUT CALEDONIA ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 CONCERNANT

LA VÉRITÉ SUR CALEDONIA

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT

(ORGAN DONOR LEAVE), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI

(CONGÉ POUR DON D'ORGANE)

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 10, 2009, on the motion for second reading of Bill 154,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 in respect of organ donor leave / Projet de loi 154, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2000 sur les normes d'emploi en ce qui concerne le congé pour don d'organe.

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

Mr. Peter Kormos: I have but a few minutes left of the one hour permitted me to address this matter. I'm especially looking forward to the comments today by the member from Parkdale–High Park, Ms.

DiNovo, who is passionate about this issue of organ donation, who has advocated on behalf of her own constituents who have been in need of organs and who has joined that broad, growing movement that wants to turn the organ donation culture on its head, that wants to create a whole new culture where we treat organ donation as benignly as we would treat giving blood at a Red Cross clinic, where we accommodate living donors—which is why the NDP are going to vote for the bill.

But this bill in and of itself isn't going to increase the number of organs by any substantial amount, if any amount, going to people on those waiting lists.

If we're going to get serious about ending that waiting list, if we're going to get serious about those 1,700 people a year, including kids, waiting and facing death in the face on a daily basis and dying on those waiting lists, then we adopt the models that have been adopted throughout most of Europe, including Israel, and we adopt a model—rather than the one that exists now, rather than the status quo, which is presumed denial, we say the default position should be what most Ontarians believe, and we know that most Ontarians believe that their organs should be used to save a life after their death; as simple, short and sweet as that.

We comment again that once you're dead, your organs are but dead weight for the pallbearers. Once you're dead, your organs are of no use to you whatsoever. God doesn't want your organs; if you believe in God, he or she wants your soul. As we're speaking, good organs are being burned and buried, this very morning here in the province of Ontario, organs that could well have saved a kid's life, a young mother's life or indeed perhaps some middle-aged person like I am and more than a few of you are, too.

Presumed consent: Let's grab the bull by the horns. This government should be showing leadership. The illustration of so many European countries demonstrates that once you create presumed consent, you create a totally different attitude and perspective and culture around organ donation, and the public will follow.

It's such a delight to be able to address the matter. I wish I had more time, on the last day of our pages' work here at Queen's Park. I know Patrick's parents are here; I talked to them downstairs. Of course they're here. I know Alexander's parents are here. I'm sure other folks are showing up. I just want to tell your parents, because that will tell you as well, that you've been as delightful a group of bright, talented young women and men as have ever worked here as pages. So all of us over here wish you well. We know you're going to do well.

You've demonstrated that each and every one of you has incredible potential. Enjoy your spring break; enjoy the rest of your school year. Look forward to better funding for your secondary years and even better funding for your post-secondary years. We'll be reading about you in the papers when you, as doctors, lawyers, engineers, veterinarians and, yes, politicians, do great things.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: I'm very pleased to rise and enter the debate on Bill 154. I want to congratulate the member from Welland. No one can argue that the member has a great passion for organ donations, the whole strategy about it; no one can argue that. We have had the opportunity and the privilege to hear the member speak on this on many occasions.

I speak in favour of Bill 154 today simply for this reason: It's all part of a strategy. It's part of a strategy of increasing the ability for organ transplants to become a possibility for those people who are waiting. We can only imagine what that must be like if it's your child or if it's yourself. The agony of waiting for an organ donation—I can't imagine what that would be like. It would be such a difficult journey. So when we have the opportunity to speak about it, part of the conversation has to be of how important it is for all of us, that we take ownership and we donate our organs as well and we lead by example.

Certainly, the member from Welland has spoken on it on many occasions, and I do want to congratulate him and thank him for the work he has done. I also want to thank a lady from my riding who has done a tremendous amount of work, Anne Miller. She has been, I tell you, a very, very strong advocate. When she had the—I'm trying to think of how one would word it. When her son was killed in a car accident and she was able to donate so many organs to help other children, I just can't believe how difficult a decision that would have been for her. But she tells the story. She is a strong advocate, and I personally wanted to thank Anne and the member from Welland for all of their hard work.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: The member speaks eloquently about the need for transplants and organ tissue, and he's absolutely right. There needs to be a change of culture. I'm not sure the Ontario public is quite ready for that change in culture, but that is the solution to this huge problem that we have.

He also speaks glowingly of the job that the pages do here. I always thought that whoever came up with the idea that pages should be serving in the House made a very wise decision, particularly in the ages of the pages, in grades 7 and 8—12 or 13 years old, are you?—somewhere in that ballpark.

As we're debating issues that face Ontarians, and perhaps most of our debate centres around issues that will face Ontarians, if not immediately, certainly within the next four or five years, it always gives us pause—it gives me pause, anyway—when I see the pages here and I think, "Well, how will this affect them in their lives to come?" Their very presence gives us a different dimension of thought when we're talking about the long-term effects of some of the issues that we discuss. So I've always thought it was a very wise decision that young adults of this age should be the pages in the House.

I remember when my grandfather was here—my grandfather served in the Legislature from 1919 to 1959. That was a long time ago. He was always very fond of the pages as well and would encourage them to be adventurous in their time here—I know you have been adventurous in your time here—and also in their lives to come. So I pass that on to you as well. Thank you.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I want to congratulate the member from Welland for his incredible, strong advocacy on this issue for quite a long time. He and George Marcello have been on a cross-country tour to talk about the need for people to donate organs, and he has been doing it for years and years, almost alone for much of that time.

I want to say that I agree with the member from Welland when he speaks badly of Bill 154, organ donor leave, as a way to deal with the problem of organ donation. This is but a little measure of what is desperately needed. The government says, "Yes, this is something we need to do as part of the way," but that is just a small measure of what needs to be done. It's clear we need to do more, and that's what the member from Welland has been saying for quite a long time.

I'm telling you that the public is more ready for this than they are for the Liberal initiative that's coming soon to harmonize the PST and the GST tax collection. There are going to be more attacks on that initiative coming from men and women and families than about their desire to give away their organs to help somebody else live.

That's what this is about. This is but a little initiative. You give somebody a leave for donating an organ. That's fine; that's good. It just is inadequate in terms of meeting the needs of thousands of people who are dying and waiting for an organ to be donated.

The member from Welland speaks about presumed consent. You give consent unless you say no. That's the way it should be, and those who feel strongly about it can say no. This would save lives, and that's the direction we need to move in.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I had the chance and the privilege to listen to the member from Welland in the last couple of days, I believe, and today, finishing his one-hour speech about organ donation. I think it's a very important topic and all of us, not just in Canada, Ontario and North America but worldwide, are speaking about this issue because it's important to save lives. As he mentioned, when we die we don't need our organs. We don't need our parts. If they can be used to give somebody life, and the support to live a good life again, I think that is very important.

I remember a gentleman from my riding of London—Fanshawe who had a heart transplant done in London, and I think he survived for a long time. Sadly, he died a year ago, but he had the chance to live almost 11 years. He got married and had kids, and in the end he died. But whoever donated his heart to him gave him the chance to live 11 years. I think that's very important, especially since when we die, we don't need our parts. I think that's a very important step and I want to congratulate him and his advocacy in this regard. I wish all of us can come and support this small step, this small measure.

As you know, last week, or maybe this week, the United States again permitted their scientists to work on stem cells. I think it's going to affect Canada very well when we talk about stem cells and research innovation and many different things. And when we talk about organ donations and natural parts, we don't have to do anything. It just comes naturally. We donate it to someone who needs it badly.

I want to congratulate the member for Welland. I wish you all the luck and success. I also want to congratulate the Minister of Labour for his efforts and endeavours in this regard.

And before I leave—I have 10 seconds—I want to wish all the pages good luck. Hopefully they've learned good habits from this place. I also want to thank the parents who give them the support to be here. I wish you all success and luck in the future.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Now we go back to the member for Welland, who has his opportunity to respond.

Mr. Peter Kormos: I thank all the people who responded. I think what it signals is that there is a clear passion in this chamber, in this Parliament, to proceed dramatically to improve the availability of organs. I close anticipating the critics, because I get the e-mails from the cranky people after I talk about presumed consent. They e-mail me: "You want my organs?" You bet your boots I want your organs. I want as many organs as we can get. We have the capacity to eliminate the waiting list here in the province of Ontario and, indeed, to help hundreds of others across Canada. So yes, I want your organs.

Two: Do I treat the matter rather trivially? Yes, because it's a rather trivial thing to give an organ when you no longer need it. That's not a gift. You're dead. I'm going to the tattoo parlour and I'm getting a dotted line up my belly and a little note that says, "Upon death, open here. Take what you need, if you can use it." And take the '94 Chev pickup parked down there in Welland in front of 121 Bald Street, because I'm dead. I don't have any use for that either.

They're only organs. Most of us eat them. Not our own of course, not people's, but cows'. We eat kidney, we eat liver, we eat tripe. They're just organs. Stop this bizarre fixation with the fact that they're yours or they're mine, you can't take them. You're dead. There is no you left. There is no me left.

Let's start saving lives here in the province of Ontario. We can show leadership and set a standard for the rest of Canada. There are two and a half years left of this government, of this Parliament. We could do it within those two and a half years and show true leadership. This government can leave a real legacy.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jeff Leal): Further debate? The member for Parkdale—High Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: You got it right. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's an honour to stand. First of all, I want to say how really blessed we are with the member for Welland, Peter Kormos, who is coming up to 20 years of public service. He deserves applause for that—20 years of public service coming up in April of this year.

And certainly, I want to thank the pages for all of their hard work. It's been amazing.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: Hey, Cheri, we should have a party for him.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Yes, we are having a party for him—certainly we are—in Welland. It will probably be a day off in Welland, I'm sure.

And for the pages, for all their hard work, and their parents, of course, who have allowed us to experience them here; it's been a great blessing as well.

You know, this is such a tiny step where such a large step is needed. Sometimes I wonder about this government. It's almost as if the McGuinty Liberals—if Queen's Park were on fire, instead of putting out the fire, they would be off-site somewhere writing up legislation about using more fire-retardant materials. That's what this step is in terms of the huge catastrophe that the situation of organ donation is in our province—and it is a catastrophe. It's a catastrophe. We have 1,700 people waiting on a list. It's life or death for them.

They're waiting, they're taking up hospital beds; they're waiting for organs that aren't there. A hundred of them die on those waiting lists every single year. I call that a catastrophe: 100 deaths a year in Ontario alone waiting for organs that are not there when the answer is right before us.

The answer is in the bill put forward by the member from Welland. The answer is presumed consent. What does that mean? Presumed consent simply means that upon your death, it is presumed that you wish to donate your organs unless you sign a card stipulating otherwise. That's what this is about. You know, we've done advertising campaigns; there have been thousands—millions—of dollars spent. I know Trillium Gift of Life has done everything they can to try to up the number of donors. We in this Legislature have to finally admit it isn't working. Nothing is working.

We've tried it all, my friends, and nothing is working. There are 1,700 people waiting; 100 deaths a year. It isn't working. You know, "crazy" is continuing to do things over and over again when they didn't work in the past. That's what we're doing here.

What we're doing now, with this bill, is saying, "Well, you can take time off. You should be allowed by law to take time off to donate your organ if you're living." Please. Show me an example of some employer who won't give their employee time off to donate an organ or a part of an organ to someone else. I mean, Mr. Scrooge himself would have given Bob Cratchit time off to donate part of an organ. I would love to meet such an employer. In fact, the government hasn't brought forward any examples of employers or employees who would be affected by this bill.

Much more meaningful, of course, which isn't in the bill, would be to pay people for the time they take off—much more meaningful. That's not even here. And quite frankly, even if it were, it would only be an inch, an inch toward what we need. What we need is presumed consent.

You know, this whole issue was brought before me in a very real way by one of my constituents, Andres Cotic. Mr. Cotic is a phenomenal person. He was in the hospital when he called my constituency office. He said that he had been waiting for a liver transplant, at that point, for months, and he was going to die if he didn't get one. He had already had part of a liver transplanted, donated by an incredibly generous co-employee. That was 25 years ago, but the situation continued; it was a progressive disease, and he needed a whole new liver.

I don't know if all the members remember this, but he made the front page of the Toronto Sun when we brought him down to Queen's Park with his family, begging and pleading with this government to bring in presumed consent—begging and pleading with them for his very life. There was no response. Thank God Ontarians are more generous than the McGuinty Liberals. Because of the publicity, Mr. Cotic got his liver, but only because of the publicity and only because Ontarians will do what's right if they're given half a chance.

I would really challenge anybody watching this, anybody who is out of the loop in terms of organ donation, who hasn't really thought about it lately—quite frankly, most Ontarians don't until the need is theirs or until the need is for someone they love. I challenge them, even if they have filled out an organ donor card, to put their hands on it right away. Under the system that the member from Welland quite frankly and very honestly and very realistically defined as presumed denial, under our system, you have to have the card filled out.

How many of us walk around in life with an organ donor card in our pocket or on our person? What would happen if we were to die and they couldn't find the organ donor card? It's a very simple reality; it happens all the time.

I don't walk around with one. I think, quite frankly, it's in my car right now near my driver's licence. So, unless I die in my car, it's not going to be on my person, and I challenge anybody in this House to show me their organ donor card on their person. If they were to be hit by a car crossing the lanes on University, who would know that they'd signed one? That's the situation we have now.

Now, it doesn't hit home unless there's someone in your family who really needs it, just like giving blood. Giving blood is a perfect analogy to organ donation. This, after all, is part of your body: your blood. No less so, no more so than your organs. Giving blood is a no-brainer now. We all do it. Nobody—well, outside of a few—has an objection to it. We give blood because we know it saves lives, and, quite frankly, we don't care about it much anymore. There was a time, of course, when these kinds of discussions went on around giving blood. We've moved past them because we know it saves lives. We're past them as well when we know that organs save lives.

Over 50% of Ontarians would agree with a presumed-consent bill. To the members who say we're not there yet, the members should know that poll: Over 50% of Ontarians say yes to presumed consent. So Ontarians are there. They want this option. Why are the McGuinty Liberals stalling what most Ontarians want, particularly those who are in line and who are waiting?

Now, many of you know that my background is as a United Church minister, and so my truck was always with members of other faiths and members of my own. I went to a wonderful breakfast hosted by the Trillium Gift of Life Network at which members of all faiths were present. There were imams, rabbis, temple priests, Buddhists and Christians. There were a plethora of religious there, all of whom support the gift of life, the gift of life simply being something that I think and I know most Ontarians support. Speaking as a Christian, we hearken to a Saviour whose gift to the world was his body.

In the Eucharist, we celebrate the gift of Christ as the gift of his body. Surely that's a theological imperative upon every Christian across the province of Ontario to be generous with their body, and here is a classic case where the gift of one's body is the gift of life to someone else.

It's just that direct. The Trillium Gift of Life Network knows this, we know this, Ontarians say they know this and want this. The government won't give it to them. The McGuinty Liberals won't deliver what the vast majority of Ontarians and faith leaders want. You will always find, my friends, someone, somewhere, who objects, and objects vociferously, to the right thing to do. That doesn't mean you don't do it, particularly when, and again, I will keep coming back to these absolutely glaring and horrific statistics, 1,700 people are on the waiting list with 100 deaths every single year.

Now, those are just numbers, I know. But if it's somebody you know? To Andres Cotic's family, it was somebody they knew. It was their father, their loved one; it was someone they knew who was about to die because there was no liver available. When it's someone you know, then the issue becomes everything to you. We would be shocked and appalled—and we are shocked and appalled—if Ontarians didn't give blood. Why are we not shocked and appalled by the state of our current system?

Again, under this state of presumed denial, where we assume that nobody wants to give their organs unless they indicate that they do, the member from Welland is quite right: Every day in the province of Ontario bodies are buried and burned, organs are buried and burned that could save lives. It's common knowledge around the House as well—and I want to take this opportunity to thank all of those who have come up to me and offered their best wishes for my husband's recovery. He had a heart attack while playing with the Legiskaters last week. He's fine, he's back to work and all is good.

I want to thank you all, because I heard from all members, including the Premier, and I thank him as well for his best wishes.

But, again, when you have that kind of scare in your family, when you look at losing someone you love so much, had that been a case where somebody else's organ could have saved him, trust me, I would speak with no less vigour than I do standing here. Certainly anybody who has faced a life-or-death moment would wish that the medical personnel had all the tools they needed to save them.

Remember, we're not just talking about adults here; we're talking about children on those waiting lists. There are 1,700 people waiting for organ donations, and many of them are children—children. You should know that it's never too late to donate your organs. You could be 70 or 80 years old, and your organs could still be harvested. Imagine if you were an 88-year-old and your organ could be harvested to save a five-year-old. Would you not want that?

I can tell you, from my years in ministry, I don't think I would have ever talked to anyone who died peacefully at 88 who wouldn't have said, "Please, save the five-year-old. What difference does it make to me if my organs are buried or burned, when they could save the life of a five-year-old?" This is what we're up against, my friends. This is what we're up against. This is the horror of the present reality.

Now, it isn't everywhere. If you were lucky enough to be born in Italy or Austria or Israel, there and then presumed consent rules. There and then in many other countries in Europe, too many to mention—but it's interesting to mention particularly Italy, a very Roman Catholic country, and one could say faithful country, where presumed consent is the law. Israel is a very faithful country; one could say a very Jewish theologically based community. There, presumed consent is the law. If you were lucky enough to be born in either of those places, you wouldn't have a waiting list of 1,700 people waiting for donors.

The donors would be there. The organs would be there. You wouldn't be forced to lie in a hospital bed for months waiting. You wouldn't have to carry a beeper around on you on the off chance that somebody might die who had signed an organ donor card. No. My friends, that's sanity. That is sanity.

Everything we have done to the present in this province around the issue of organ donation hasn't worked. That is not to detract from the good people who have tried so hard at Trillium Gift of Life and others, because they've tried, under a very bad system, to help people, and they have. I certainly want to give thanks to all of those people who, under this ridiculous system, have still managed to find donors and get them to donate so that lives can be saved. We celebrate that when we have breakfast with them. We celebrate that every year, the Trillium Gift of Life. But how sad is it?

There's a sadness that goes with that breakfast, because you know, coming back to those ugly statistics again, that 1,700 people are still waiting, that 100 people a year are still dying. No matter how we celebrate the ones who were successful, we certainly have to, at the same time, mourn all of those who were not and who are not.

Again, I want to thank Andres Cotic and his family, because they really made the issue personal to me. When you see someone who is waiting for a liver transplant and witness somebody who is yellow and thin, and who is in a hospital on and on and doesn't want to be there and would rather be at home—think of the cost to our hospitals and our health care system of this current system of madness we have around organ donation.

Think of all those beds that could be used by folk who have a chance of getting better and getting out, that instead are used by people who are failing slowly, waiting and waiting for organ donors to come forward. This is absurd. People around the world think our system in Ontario is absurd—worse than absurd. They think it's horrific.

Andres Cotic thought it was horrific when it faced him and he realized he might die because of our system in Ontario. He might die because we do not have presumed consent but a system of presumed denial. As I said, nothing to try to increase the number of donors has worked enough to affect those horrific statistics—we have to admit it. And this bill isn't going to do it either; it's not going to do it.

As I said at the beginning, even Scrooge would let Bob Cratchit off to donate his organ to somebody who needed it if they had the system back then. Show me an employer who wouldn't give time off to an employee to donate an organ. They may not pay them, but that's not in this bill either. There's nothing in this bill that says you have to pay them. Most employers, especially in these economic times, would say, "Take the 13 weeks—can't pay you."

In a sense, this bill does very little. It does extremely little. It makes a nod in the direction. One can ask, why even bring this bill forward? Have done with it. Bring forward presumed consent; make this a reasonable jurisdiction like the others that have presumed-consent legislation.

One can only figure that they want to be on record. It's a photo op. They want to say something about organ donation. It's a popular topic, especially when somebody like Andres Cotic is on the cover of the Toronto Sun. Then it becomes a popular topic. They want to look like they're doing something, when in fact nothing is changed. Nothing is changed: 1,700 people on the waiting list; 100 deaths a year, deaths on our hands, deaths we could prevent with a simple stroke of the legislative pen, deaths we could prevent and we don't. We don't.

Imagine how this debate would look in Italy or Austria or Israel or any of the countries where presumed consent is the law—imagine. They would look at us as though we were neanderthals, as though we hadn't quite come into the 21st century yet. Again, that might be cute or not if it weren't that there are 1,700 on the waiting list and 100 deaths while waiting for organ donors.

I just want to conclude by thanking Trillium Gift of Life and praying that this government finally brings in presumed consent.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: I just want to bring this discussion back to what it's really intended to do. This bill is talking about trying to encourage live donors. We are looking at ways to make sure that people think about being a donor. In a way, that means a real sacrifice for themselves personally.

Last year, the Premier announced the Ontario organ donation strategy. Within that strategy is the program that reimburses people for the expenses they could incur if they look at donation as a possibility.

On Sunday, I came back to my apartment here in Toronto and found my sister and my niece there. It was a bit of a surprise. They had gotten my extra keys from my husband. Why were they there? Lindsey has a roommate whose mother has Wilson's disease, which is a disease of the liver, and Lindsey had volunteered to have herself tested as a donor. She spent the week at Toronto General here, and together she and her mom went through an incredible number of tests to see if she was compatible. Each time the tests came back, she was further and further compatible.

But yesterday, they found something that leaves her on the hold list; she's not completely compatible, and it's very critical in live donation that compatibility is there. For Lindsey, it means disappointment because she really wanted to do this.

Lindsey is in her second year of university at Western. She made this decision because she has known this girl for a year and a half, and this is a young woman's mother whom she wanted to do this for. We want to encourage people to think about donation, but it is a gift, a sacrifice, that you have to want to make for someone else. I want to congratulate my niece for her really generous spirit. I know she makes my family proud.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mr. Peter Shurman: I listened with interest to my colleague from Parkdale—High Park and the passion she brings to this debate, very particularly about the concept of presumed consent, which is the real nub of the discussion on the issue of organ donation.

What I find interesting about this bill is that it's like so many other aspects of Liberal government legislation that are introduced here. It's not that the bill is wrong; I'll vote for it. It is a piece of the puzzle; it's a small piece of the puzzle. It's more labour law than it is medical law. It basically says that if somebody is going to offer up the greatest gift that they can to another human being—an organ—they can get time off work. That's all well and good. It kind of reminds me of a constituent who came in last week on another piece of legislation, but very relevant in this context.

It was a person taking advantage of the lifting of the mandatory retirement age of 65, but being denied her benefits because she has turned 70 and nobody bothered to look at an overall policy. That's what we're talking about here and I think that's what my friend from Parkdale—High Park is referring to.

If you're going to take up the issue of organ replacement in the general sense, and you want to explore that fully and the operation of organ replacement as it affects citizens who are both donors and recipients in the province of Ontario, then, indeed, that's what you have to do. You don't take one little piece of the puzzle and say, "Look how well we've done."

Presumed consent: I can take either side of that argument. I understand why people who are passionately in favour of presumed consent are so. That debate has been on simmer for the past five, 10 or more years and, as the member correctly points out, it's not simmering elsewhere. There are sides that have been drawn up and we can easily debate that. What I'd like to see going forward is legislation presented that covers the full policy, not just on this, but on anything we're given to debate in this Legislature.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I listened to the member from Parkdale—High Park carefully when she was talking about this particular issue. I also listened to my colleague, the member from the Lambton area. She was speaking about the importance of the person who donates organs. We have to break the cultural and psychological barriers. We have to create that culture and encourage people to donate.

We also mentioned that a donation is a gift of life. We cannot force people to do it. I know this bill is talking about a small step, but it's a very important step, as the member from Thornhill mentioned, toward breaking the barriers and allowing people, if they want to donate something and they are working, to donate without losing their jobs.

As I mentioned when I spoke earlier, it's important to convince people to donate parts of their organs because it's a very important step in saving lives. Especially now, all of us around the globe are struggling to create research through stem cells in many different areas in order to create and grow tissues. If we have those tissues and organs with us that are fresh and natural, it would be a lot better, cheaper, easier and more convenient for many people to continue living among us and giving back to their communities and their nation. So I think this is a very important step.

I want to congratulate the Minister of Labour for breaking those barriers and allowing people to donate without being concerned about their jobs, and giving them the support they need in order to help someone. As my colleague mentioned earlier, people want to help. Canadians, Ontarians—they are generous people. We have to break those barriers for them, to give them that chance to give.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): We have time for one last question or comment.

I will return now to the member for Parkdale—High Park to reply.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I listened with interest to the comments. Certainly, if we had presumed consent, there wouldn't be such a heavy burden placed on the living to donate organs. I think prayerfully of the member from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex and her family. These are difficult decisions for living people to make that perhaps wouldn't have to be made if there was presumed consent.

I particularly listened to the member from Thornhill. He's absolutely right; that's what I said at the outset. It's like if Queen's Park were on fire, there would be Liberals off-site, not putting the fire out but drafting legislation about fire-retardant materials. That's what this government does best. It does photo ops; it does pieces of legislation that don't change very much but sound good. That's what we have here. It's a piece of legislation that doesn't change much. Show us an employer or an employee where this would be brought to bear. I mean, please. If they could, they would have already. We know that.

Certainly, one of the main objections to presumed consent that I didn't hear here is this idea that doctors would be pulling the plug too early, which is absolutely ridiculous. If it were the case, they'd do that on organ donors already.

We have jurisdictional examples around the world. We have the more egregious example right here in Ontario: 1,700 people on the waiting list, 100 deaths a year—waiting for donors. Do something. Show leadership. Bring in presumed consent. Stand up for all of those who are taking up hospital beds, whose families are praying, as we sit here, that somebody, somewhere, will come forward with an organ that they can use to save their loved one's life. Show leadership. Save lives. Here's an opportunity. Don't just do this silly little bill that won't change anything. Do something.

Do something, as the member from Thornhill said, that we can really debate. Thank you, and here are prayers for all of those waiting; they'll keep waiting.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate?

Mr. Frank Klees: I'm pleased to join this debate on a bill that, as other members have indicated during debate this morning, is perhaps, unfortunately, more of a diversion than it is an answer to a serious issue that we have in this province. I will be, of course, supporting the bill, because it is a small element of the bigger picture that this government unfortunately is refusing to address. It allows for 13 weeks of leave of absence without pay for employees who undergo surgery in order to donate organs to other persons.

When I first read the explanatory note of this bill, I must admit that I had great consternation, because I thought, how do we debate this bill in all seriousness? How do we spend debate time around a piece of legislation that on the one hand says, "Employees, we're going to give you the right to take 13 weeks off without incurring the penalty of losing your job," and how do we say to employers, "By the way, you have to keep that 13 weeks open for this employee who has the ability and the desire to save another life"?

So we're calling on the employer to make a financial commitment because to give an employee 13 weeks off, that employee has to be replaced. We are saying to the employer, "We, as the government, see it as your responsibility to replace an employee who has taken it upon himself or herself to give the gift of life, and it's okay for you to take on that financial responsibility," but we're saying to the employee, "Without pay. Thank you very much for doing that and for your sacrifice."

Reference was made earlier to the supposed strategy for organ donation that reimburses some expenses for this person who is giving the gift of life, but that's all. There's no compensation or recognition beyond that, no recognition for the fact that when someone gives the gift of life, they are essentially taking that person and putting that person back into the mainstream of life, taking them perhaps from a hospital bed that is costing thousands of dollars a day, and this government is not prepared to recognize that contribution.

I find it an insult, quite frankly, that this government continues to bring forward legislation, and, as the member for Parkdale—High Park indicated before, is willing to actually go out and do the photo ops and get the headlines and be perceived to be doing something. The way the articles are written and the way the media represents this, the perception across the province is that this government is actually serious about this issue of organ donation, when we know that they're not. We know that they're not, because repeatedly this government has had the opportunity to take serious steps forward, to put in place meaningful legislation, to put in place a plan, not just a strategy.

When we look at the code words that this government has used since its election in 2003, repeatedly the word "strategy" is there, but when you examine the strategy, there is no plan and there are no resources, and there is never any implementation. But they've had their headline, they've had their day in the Sun or the Star or the Globe. It seems that is really all that matters to this government—divert the attention and have the focus on the headline.

I support this legislation, but, as has been said before today, there are 1,700 people in this province at any given time waiting for an organ. One person dies every three days on that waiting list. So when we talk about a 1,700-person waiting list, it's only a fraction of the people who are in dire need of an organ to sustain their lives. To even talk about a 1,700-person waiting list does an injustice to the crisis that we really are experiencing in this province with people who desperately want only one thing, and that is to live. Every person in this province has it within them to give that gift of life, but we have no plan and we have no strategy with resources.

The Trillium Gift of Life Network is an organization that is doing its best, within the parameters and within the limitations that are given them by this government. I commend them for the good work that they do. What is sad is that they have to look at other jurisdictions and see what is actually happening, what others can do. The frustration they have is that they know what could be done, if only the government were to prioritize. And what the government, of course, will say is, "Here comes the opposition with another spend request." They will plead that they are without resources.

They're facing an $18-billion deficit in their budget, and so they will sidestep any request for serious focus on this issue by saying, "We don't have the resources. We don't have the money."

We're not asking for a spend. We're asking for priorities to be set right. We're asking for this government to get their priorities right when they sit at the cabinet table and determine how the funds, the taxpayers' dollars, are going to be allocated—how they are going to allocate that. We, in the official opposition, and I would say that probably the vast majority of members in this House in all parties, whether it be the third party or the Liberal Party—I believe that most members in this House fundamentally believe that we should be prioritizing health care.

Our seniors and people who are most vulnerable in our society should be at the top of the pyramid when we set our priorities for spending. That should be the guiding principle when cabinet ministers get together. When the Minister of Finance and the Premier determine what this next budget will look like, they should be looking at priorities, not working backwards and saying they're going to dump billions into a failing industry where we will never, ever see where that money is going.

Let's start at the top and say these are our priorities: health care and people who are dying. It's one thing to lose someone in an accident; it's another thing for government to allow people to languish in hospital beds, knowing that there is an answer, knowing that there is a gift of life that will save that life and put them back into the mainstream of life. It will give them a quality of life, reunite them with their family and allow them to be productive again in our society.

To simply turn our backs on them—that is essentially what we are doing by refusing to put in place a framework for organ donation that we know will work. We are simply responding with pieces of legislation like we have before us today. That isn't even a building block. It's a chip off a block, which is important, but it solves no problems. It does not address the issue.

This House has had before it many private members' bills. My colleague the member for Welland has repeatedly brought legislation forward proposing presumed consent. I have had private members' bills before this House; the most recent was the Mandatory Declaration Act. My bill was broadly supported by this Legislature. It was supported by the Trillium Gift of Life. But the government refused to bring it forward for third reading. Instead, what the Minister of Health did was to refer the entire matter to a study. The study came forward with a number of recommendations and, interestingly enough, one of the recommendations was that there should be a mandatory declaration.

Now, what that bill did not address was the issue of presumed consent, because frankly I do have concerns on that issue. I happen to believe that organ donation is a gift of life and that gift should be given graciously and voluntarily. It is a personal decision on the part of each and every person in this province. And because we still don't have the level of awareness and education about organ donation, I believe it is perhaps still premature for this House to make the move to presumed consent.

But what I do believe is that we should have a mandatory administrative requirement in this province that every individual citizen who applies for or renews a provincial health card or driver's licence is required to answer a question relating to organ donation, that every individual who is involved in that administrative process is confronted once every two or three years with the question, "Do you want to be an organ donor?" The bill provided for three answers: One is "yes," the second is "no" and the third is "undecided," because quite frankly, many people are not ready to make that decision.

They either don't know enough about it or they're uncertain about it themselves, and so they should have the opportunity to say they're undecided. But what that would do is at least ensure that people are confronted with the question and given an opportunity to become aware of the issue.

This government refused to implement that. When I had discussions with the Minister of Health at the time, he could give me no answer as to why a simple administrative measure like that could not be implemented and why the government wasn't prepared to move forward on it. We draw our own conclusions: Was it perhaps because the proposal came forward from a member of the opposition? There was no other reason. It's not a costly measure. It's common sense. There's broad public support for it.

I became interested and compelled to become involved in the issue of organ donation because of my experiences as a member of provincial Parliament. On a number of occasions, I've had constituents sit across from me, telling me they are waiting for an organ and that their lives are at a standstill. They're at different stages of health. I had one constituent come to me who had not been working for a number of years and was in a very weak state. He told me that he had been on the waiting list for a kidney for about five years and his health was failing rapidly.

The next time I saw this individual sit across from me at my desk in my constituency office, he was a new man. He looked 20 years younger. He told me that he had gone to Miami to have a new kidney. He was able to do that within three months after making application. It cost him a lot of money, but it didn't cost him nearly as much as his constant dialysis and medical treatment was costing the health care system.

So he came back to me and said, "Do you think the provincial government would be willing to reimburse me for the cost of having my transplant in Miami?" Of course the response from the government came: "No." Penny-wise, pound foolish. Had he not had the transplant, he would have continued to cost the system hundreds of thousands of dollars.

So when my colleague the member for Thornhill talks about the lack of a comprehensive plan, that's another aspect of it. If the organs are not available here, then should we not be willing to step into the gap and say that if we can't provide it here in the province of Ontario, but it is available elsewhere, we're willing to cover the cost of that transplant—restore a life, give a life? Think of my constituent Gerri Seeley, who today is healthy because someone stepped forward as a living donor and gave her life.

We are fully aware of what it means for someone to step forward and offer to be a living donor.

What we, today, on this side of the House, do not understand is why this government continues to dabble on the edges on this very important issue, why they're not willing to come forward, put in place a comprehensive plan and resource it adequately to ensure that those 1,700 people who are on that waiting list, that one person who dies every three days because we don't have an adequate system of organ donation in this province—why we won't reach our hand out to those people and say: "We recognize that this is a priority.

We will prioritize not only the planning but also the resourcing, and we'll do the right thing."

I will vote for this legislation, but I want the government to know that no one is being fooled by this—no one. And while the minister will no doubt be applauded when this bill is finally passed, the minister will know that his government continues to fail people who need organ transplants in this province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It's a pleasure to rise and speak to the comments made by the member from Newmarket—Aurora.

I just want to say, first off, that we in the New Democratic Party are supporting this legislation. I mean, apple pie, motherhood; we support those, too. The problem is, as the member pointed out, this is not going to change anything. It's not going to answer anything for those 1,700 people waiting for an organ donation and the 100 people who die every year waiting for an organ donation. This isn't going to change their lives in any way, shape or form, and the member was quite right to point that out.

I just want to say, in terms of the member's own bill, mandatory reporting is a very good step in the right direction. We would certainly support that if it came forward. Even that would be a little bit more robust, a little bit healthier and a little bit more courageous than what the government has done. But ultimately what we need is what they already have in other jurisdictions around the world: We need presumed consent, because only that way will we have enough organs—medical personnel will tell you this; ask them—to be able to save all the lives that need saving.

This has been shown over and over again in jurisdiction after jurisdiction. We are way behind in our response to this, and this won't get us any further ahead.

We're united here in that realization. I think even government has to admit that this isn't going to change the landscape much, if at all, in the organ donation crisis that we face right now in Ontario. So, again, all I can do is repeat the numbers: 1,700 people waiting, 100 people dying. There is blood on our hands. We need presumed consent, and we need it now.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mr. Peter Shurman: A very eloquent contribution to the debate by my colleague from Newmarket—Aurora, asking the questions that, in a very real way, should be on all of our minds here.

It's very clear that we in the official opposition will accept this as the thin edge of the wedge and vote for it because, as my colleague from Parkdale—High Park has said, it's apple pie and motherhood. The NDP will clearly vote for it, and obviously, as government legislation, we can expect our friends on the government benches to vote for it.

But I am willing to bet—and I wish there was a way to determine if this were true—that if you took a straw poll of everyone who sits in any seat for any party, including the government, in this Legislature, and you said on a private basis, "Tell me: Should there be more or is this tiny little piece of the puzzle enough?" the answer would be, "No.

There has got to be something to a strategy that makes it robust, when you call something a strategy." You can't talk about a subject as serious as organ donation and the saving of lives, with 1,700 people sitting on a waiting list, without getting deeper than, "You can have up to 13 weeks off work and, by the way, at no pay." That is patently ridiculous.

I wonder what debate costs in this Legislature: thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars per hour for us to sit here, the clerical support and all the rest of it, and what are we constantly debating? Bills that answer one element of a question, whether that's the mandatory retirement age that I referred to earlier and the implications that have never been addressed, or whether you're talking about an element that contributes to Smoke-Free Ontario, like not smoking in a car with people under 16. You vote for all of them. They're correct, but they're only a single element of an overall problem that this government never wants to discuss.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

I'll return to the member for Newmarket—Aurora, who has two minutes to respond.

Mr. Frank Klees: I want to thank the member for Parkdale—High Park and my colleague from Thornhill for their comments.

I will just leave this final appeal with the government: When this bill passes, I would ask them to focus on the words "without pay" that are inscribed in this legislation.

I would ask them to give consideration to whether it is, in fact, not simply mora,l in addition to making good economic sense, that they should go back to their strategy that, as it stands now, is prepared to reimburse expenses for living donors, and whether it does not make good sense to provide compensation, at the very minimum, up to the formula that we have in place for unemployment insurance; that people who come forward should be appropriately compensated; and that it is a responsibility of the provincial government because of the multimillions of dollars that this province would save by having individuals step forward, being enabled to do so.

There are many people who are willing, but they can't. So we should, at the very least, be prepared to step into the gap and provide that kind of financial support. I leave the government with those thoughts. I thank you for the opportunity to speak to this important topic.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate?

Mr. Fonseca has moved second reading of Bill 154. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I ask that the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): So ordered.

It being close to 10:15, this House is in recess until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: I'm more than pleased to introduce you to Arbi Kevrkians, who is a guest today and in the Legislature for the first time and enjoying an opportunity to see how well we work together.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I would like all members to join me in welcoming four guests from Durham region this morning: Allison Kahnert, Susan Pollard, Jean Mayne and Melissa Annan. Welcome.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I would like to introduce, from Barrie today, Brandy Hayes.

Hon. Gerry Phillips: I would like to introduce a good friend of mine and a great Canadian, Dorothy Davey, who is in the gallery. Many of the members would know her husband as well, Senator Keith Davey, who is also a great Canadian. Welcome, Dorothy.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to introduce the family of page Emily Wilson: her mother Susan Wilson, sister Elizabeth Wilson, uncle Jim Ruddy, and they're here today as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the member for Oakville and page Alexander Glista, I would like to welcome his mother, Rochelle Defehr, his sister Victoria Glista and his father, who is here as well in the east members' gallery.

I would also like to welcome some former pages from the page program last fall. They are in the west members' gallery: Kevin, Elise, Helen, Willem, Adriane, Shaukat, Karlee and Meagan. Welcome back to Queen's Park.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would just like to take this opportunity on behalf of all members to say thank you to the group of pages. Today is their last day. We wish each of you all the best in your future endeavours, and perhaps one day some of you will be joining us here in the Legislature. So on behalf of all members, thank you very much.

There being no further introductions, it is now time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: My question is to the Deputy Premier. The Premier has previously said that the upcoming budget will address the crisis in the auto industry. Deputy Premier, before you finalize the details of the budget, would you agree to an immediate three-month PST holiday on the purchase of new cars priced up to $40,000? Would you agree to that?

Hon. George Smitherman: While I do want to agree with the honourable member that we are all anticipating the presentation of the government's budget in this place on March 26, I'm very confident that at that time Ontarians will see that our government continues to be moving in a direction which will enhance our capacity to provide a good quality of life for people in the province of Ontario.

We won't be making tax policy on the floor of the Legislature today. But on the issue of the automotive sector, it's very gratifying to see the honourable member joining the ranks of those in this Legislature who are supportive of our automotive sector. That has been somewhat inconsistent on the honourable member's part over the last number of years, but we agree with him forthrightly that it is necessary to look for opportunities to enhance the automotive sector in Ontario. It's such a staple of the Ontario economy.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: This minister seems to be a little sensitive on the automotive side of things. Given the widespread support for this idea, I would have hoped for a firmer commitment from the minister.

Last January, my PC colleague the member for Haldimand—Norfolk started a petition and asked the Minister of Finance to look into a PST holiday. The Ontario Auto Dealers Association has given its full support, as have both Ford and Toyota, for a consumer incentive to stimulate new car sales.

Minister, it's a no-brainer. Why won't you support this initiative?

Hon. George Smitherman: It's always good to see the honourable member picking up on the newspaper clipping of the day and making policy as he goes. He suggests that it's a no-brainer; I won't comment further on that.

But I do think that the presentation of the budget is the appropriate place for the consideration of tax matters going forward. March 26 is the day when our government will bring that forward. Over the last five years we've worked hard to try and rebuild public services in the province of Ontario. The challenges that are of a global nature, but which are impacting Ontario at the moment, are top of mind in the presentation of such a budget. It's good to see that the honourable member is already anticipating that.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I'll avoid comment on the first comments the minister made, other than to mention bus shelters.

This proposal has a proven success record. In 1980, a PST holiday on the sale of 1979 models resulted in a 17% increase in car sales. Quebec brought in a similar program in 2007 for hybrids. And President Obama's stimulus package also included tax incentives for car purchases.

This proposal puts financial assistance to the auto industry in the hands of consumers. Minister, will you commit to this tax holiday today and give car dealers and consumers the assurance and tools they need to get through this crisis?

Hon. George Smitherman: I do want to say to the honourable member that we're very, very appreciative of the support from him and from his party around the needs of the automotive sector. Over the last five years, we've been able to have investment in the automotive sector, which we believe is a good platform going forward to ensure that automotive continues to be an important contribution and dynamic in the economy of the province of Ontario.

As I said a couple of times already, obviously I won't be making tax policy for the government today, but we're taking note of the honourable member's interest, and that of others on this subject. On March 26, we'll look forward to the finance minister's presentation in this very Legislature.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: In the absence of others, I will go to the Deputy Premier, I guess. My question is—

Interjections.

Hon. James J. Bradley: We're going to have to send out a posse to find the Tories.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Those flights to Florida are going early.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister of Transportation. Perhaps you may want to be going there.

The member from Kitchener—Waterloo.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question then going to the Deputy Premier. As the Deputy Premier knows full well, there are residents in our long-term-care homes who are asking your government to make them—our seniors—a priority in your 2009 budget. So far, MPPs of all stripes have received more than 35,000 postcards signed by the residents, their family, their friends and staff, urging your Premier to provide desperately needed funding. They have indicated that there has been a steady erosion in funding in services to support resident care, comfort and safety.

In recognition of the fact that today the residents in our long-term-care homes are older—average age 83 years—and have more complex needs, will your government immediately implement the already promised 2,500 extra personal support workers and 2,000—

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

Hon. George Smitherman: I would have thought that some of those people might be interested in signing cards to the honourable member asking her and her party to repudiate their commitment to eliminate $3 billion of health funding through the elimination of the health premium. I would think that if we want to live up to the honourable member's rhetoric, where she said there has been an erosion of funding, it's almost like she's projecting onto the long-term-care file the idea that she won the last election. That wasn't the case, and as a result, we've continued to make investments in long-term care.

Funding for long-term care has increased by 50% since our government came to office. That's more than $1 billion, and a $300-million increase this year alone. It's not to suggest that there are not pressures in long-term care. That's why we continue to invest in it, even in difficult and challenging economic times, and that's why it's so unfortunate that the honourable member is part of a party that continues to promise a $3-billion cut to health care.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: The Deputy Premier again is making statements that are not true. There will be no cut to health care. Also, I would remind him that it is the Ontario Long Term Care Association who is indicating that there is a need to correct the six-year erosion in funding for services that support resident care, comfort and safety.

Let's not play politics with this issue. There are 77,000 residents in this province who desperately need care. As the Deputy Premier knows, Ontario funds significantly less care for residents than Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba and New Brunswick, where they receive about 3.2 hours or more; we only provide less than three. Will you live up to your promise to provide three hours of care per day per resident?

Hon. George Smitherman: The honourable member says we only provide less than three, but when she was in office in the same role, she eliminated the regulations that called for a minimum standard at all in our long-term-care homes. When we came to office, the number was 2.25, and we've invested $1 billion since then in bringing that forward. We've raised resident hours of care; we've had a 33.6% increase in daily raw food allowance; we've increased personal allowance, the comfort allowance for residents, several times by at least 9%; and this year alone, we've invested an additional $300 million in long-term care.

It's true that there will always be opportunities to enhance the quality of care for individuals in long-term care. That's why we've taken many steps and why we will continue to do so. But what is not fair is that that honourable member stands in this Legislature today and doesn't tell the long-term-care association what most of us know, which is that when she was in office, they eliminated all standards for long-term care.

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: We're very proud of our track record. In fact, we were the government that built the 20,000 new long-term-care beds; we were the government that recognized that seniors deserve decent, safe housing; and we redeveloped 16,000 beds. We're still waiting for the 35,000 beds that you haven't developed. In fact, you have no plan of action and we currently have 25,000 people waiting on a list for long-term care. Many of them are languishing in hospitals—they're called alternative-level-care patients. They block emergency rooms and contribute to delays in surgery, and they don't want to be there.

They want to be either in their own homes, in supportive housing or in long-term care.

So I say to you: There are 25,000 people on a waiting list for long-term care. Will your government develop a plan to build more homes and beds, and will you—

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

Hon. George Smitherman: I want to say to the honourable member that she's here with the long-term-care association today and has found her voice, but in the 2007 election, which wasn't that long ago, not one word of reference in their platform to increase staffing in long-term care—not a word. A history of cuts, the elimination of minimum standards—this is the honourable member's record with respect to long-term care.

She says she wants a plan for new builds: 2,277 beds are being built this year, and we're moving forward in partnership with the sector, with OANHSS and OLTCA, on the redevelopment of 35,000 beds over the next 10 years. The honourable member said she was proud of her record. I suppose she's also proud to be part of a party that plans a further $3-billion cut to health care.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. Late yesterday in Ottawa, Chrysler CEO Thomas LaSorda made a very disturbing presentation to a parliamentary committee. Chrysler is threatening to slash the jobs of 9,400 Ontario workers unless governments provide more than $2.5 billion in loans and the CAW agrees to reduce labour costs by 25%. I want to be clear that during this time of crisis in the auto sector New Democrats support financial assistance to companies like Chrysler, but we do not believe that large, foreign-based corporations should dictate the terms for taxpayers' assistance.

Will this government stand up to Chrysler and demand guarantees on jobs, investments and pensions before any money flows?

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

Hon. Michael Bryant: I appreciate the member's question and, as well, the words of support for the government's approach, which is, number one, acting in the public interest. There was a presentation yesterday where a representative of the company spoke in a fashion that represented the investors' interest, and I understand that. This has been a negotiation that has been under way for several months. As long as Chrysler proves itself to be a viable company, there is a deal to be had, if they are willing.

We'll continue to work with Chrysler and continue to talk to them about the issues they've raised and, yes, we will continue to ensure that there are production guarantees and that there is a footprint there so that we can ensure that there are future jobs for Ontarians with Chrysler.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Here is what New Democrats say needs to be part of the deal with Chrysler if we're going to be forking over more taxpayers' money. We need an iron-clad guarantee that Chrysler will keep its promise to invest $1 billion in Brampton and several hundred million dollars in Windsor. We need an iron-clad guarantee that it will maintain one quarter—25%—of its North American production in Ontario. We need an iron-clad guarantee that it will honour all pension and benefit obligations to employees and their families.

These are guarantees, Minister, that were absent the last time this government forked over hundreds of millions of dollars to the Big Three. Has this government finally learned its lesson from its past mistakes and will it ask for these guarantees this time?

Hon. Michael Bryant: I appreciate the member laying out some information and, yes, the government will continue to act in the public interest. We will continue to negotiate with Chrysler in a fashion that ensures that we have a footprint in Ontario so that we can have continued production and continued jobs. I say to the member as well that it has always been and always will be the government's position that when we enter into these agreements there are iron-clad understandings as to exactly what the companies need to do. They are understandings that are in the form of a contract and those are contracts that can and will be enforced.

We want to work with Chrysler right now. We want to enter into an agreement if, in fact, the company is viable. I appreciate the member's comments with respect to the position that the member thinks the government should take.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: There's something else this government needs to demand, not just from Chrysler but from all companies that receive taxpayers' money. With hundreds of thousands of workers and their families having trouble keeping a roof over their head and food on their table, senior corporate executives must be sharing in the pain and sacrifice. There must be a hard cap on executive pay and perks. Why won't this government demand such a cap as a condition of any further taxpayers' investment?

Hon. Michael Bryant: The leader of the third party is a little late to the parade. This has been one of the conditions that the government placed from day one, and the United States government has placed as well. In fact, there is an acknowledgment by Mr. LaSorda in his remarks that this is exactly what the company intends to do, which is to comply with those restrictions that are placed on executives. There needs to be equality of sacrifice. Obviously, they are asking for a loan that is a sacrifice on behalf of the taxpayers; there needs to be sacrifice on behalf of management.

The CAW has already come to the table with very significant concessions, acknowledging there needs to be sacrifice on their behalf as well. To the member: I agree. There needs to be equality of sacrifice in order for there to be a future, and I would like to be confident that there will be a future.

CHILD CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: To the acting Premier: Across our province, parents are struggling to find child care. Only 12% of Ontario families have access to licensed child care in this province. It's not a luxury; it's an economic imperative. It allows parents, especially mothers, to attend school, continue working or actively seek employment. Yet in London, Ottawa and Toronto, those three cities together, we have at least 23,000 eligible children on waiting lists. How can this government continue to let down so many children and parents?

Hon. George Smitherman: I think there is a necessity for agreement on how important child care is in the lives of families, most certainly. Our government has been very, very committed to the circumstances, especially for lower-income individuals and families with children. That's why the Ontario child benefit is featured so prominently in the work we've been doing to try to enhance the livelihoods of people.

I think it's important to note as well that that member is part of an organization, a party, that has a story where, in their legacy, they did cut child care subsidies. We have worked over the course of the last several years to open new spaces all across the province of Ontario, and with families under $20,000 or so eligible for a full child care subsidy.

I would look forward to continuing to work on this matter with the honourable member, but I remind her as well that our government's commitment around the Ontario child benefit stands as one very strong example of the dedication that we have to the lowest-income families in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Deputy Premier should know very well that the Ontario child benefit is no replacement for real child care spaces in this province. The minister should take his response to Susanne, a mother from Toronto who is on 25 child care centre waiting lists. She's been waiting since 2007, when she was still only a couple of months pregnant. Now, with only a couple of months left in her maternity leave, she still does not have a child care space. She and her husband are being forced, the two of them, to each take time off work, something that is completely unaffordable to that family.

What does this government say to Susanne and so many other working mothers and fathers who still can't access a program that is essential to our social and economic well-being?

Hon. George Smitherman: For the honourable member to say that income support for lowest-income families in Ontario is unimportant even in the context of providing for their needs around child care is, I think, challenging. I understand that there are circumstances where individuals are seeking these spaces, but for that member to raise a question about Toronto as an example, 4,276 additional spaces have been created through efforts that we have made in the province of Ontario, focused here in Toronto in particular.

In the member's own community, Hamilton, and in Niagara the number was more than 2,000, evidence that there has been, alongside efforts like the Ontario child benefit, a strong desire to try to enhance the services that people need to be able to support their families.

I accept that there is room for more improvement here. I also acknowledge that there are some limitations on a resource which make balancing all of those things somewhat difficult, but we'll continue to charge ahead and do the best for working families.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Regardless of the numbers the Acting Premier is floating around, the reality is that only 12% of Ontario's children are in child care—12% in licensed, regulated child care in this province. It's a dismal failure.

A new report from the Ontario Association of Food Banks says that 500,000 more Ontarians will fall into poverty unless this government takes serious action in its upcoming budget. That includes investing at least $300 million in new child care money now. Two weeks from today, when it announces its budget, will the McGuinty government make this investment, and if not, tell those parents and tell those children why not?

Hon. George Smitherman: As one who has observed matters around child care for quite a long time, I was one of those who was disappointed that the New Democrats at the time, in the federal Parliament, took down a party that was implementing a national child care plan. This was a piece of progress that many had awaited for decades and decades, and instead they pulled the political trigger, all so that they could elect one or two additional members of the Legislature. I think it's also—

Mr. Paul Miller: History, history, history.

Hon. George Smitherman: Well, the member doesn't like history, and I'm not surprised that the member for Hamilton doesn't like the history of his party, where they killed a national child care program in pursuit of their own political objectives.

But I think it's very, very important to acknowledge as well that we are implementing full-day learning for four- and five-year-olds in the province of Ontario. This is about enhancing their capacity, of course, to learn and will also free up more child care spaces for younger children. It's disappointing that the leader of the third party, when she had the chance to vote in favour of full-day learning for four- and five-year-olds, voted against it.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the minister responsible for seniors. Seniors across the province are not immune to the economic downturn. They've worked hard to put aside funds in a retirement account, and they're counting on that income to pay their day-to-day living expenses. Many of those retirement accounts are eroded. The income from those retirement accounts is considerably less than it has been. My question is this: Has the minister responsible for seniors advocated with the Minister of Finance to allow seniors in this province to have access to 100% of their locked-in retirement accounts, and if not, why not?

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: I can assure the honourable member that, the Seniors' Secretariat being part of my portfolio, I am cognizant of the pressures of this economy on seniors in Ontario. I take every opportunity to convey to the Minister of Finance my concerns on issues such as elder abuse and the fiscal impact as well. The property tax initiative, of course, was a response to that very dilemma, and it was done by this government in advance of the current economic malaise that we are now dealing with.

Be assured, honourable member, that I will continue to advocate on their behalf to the best of my ability.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: My question was very specific. Seniors from across the province are asking for the right to their own money. This is money that seniors have put aside through their hard work for the day that we now have, and that is when they are in need. This is their money. Under current legislation, they cannot access their own retirement funds. It will take

an act of this Legislature to open up those locked-in retirement accounts.

I'd like to know from the minister, has she specifically made the request of the minister to include that measure in the next budget, and if she hasn't, will she commit today that that will in fact be her request of the Minister of Finance on behalf of seniors across the province?

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: As I assured the honourable member, I have conveyed, and continue to convey my concerns and those of seniors in Ontario to the Minister of Finance. As the honourable member knows, we took measures to allow seniors more access in the budget of 2007. Unfortunately, the honourable member chose to vote against it.

There are indeed a number of aspects of this particular dilemma that belong in the federal domain. I have not had an opportunity to speak to the Minister of Finance at the federal level; I leave that to my colleague in cabinet to do so. But I can only assure the House and the member that many of the initiatives that we have taken are assisting these seniors in these turbulent times. I would look for his support when we bring in a very, very excellent budget in a couple of weeks' time.

STELCO

Mr. Paul Miller: To the Acting Premier: Hundreds of workers slated to be laid off at Stelco are just months short of qualifying for their pensions. The heart of the problem is that there are hundreds of workers who are coming up a few months short and will be forced to rely on EI if a practical bridging solution is not found.

The difference between a pension payment and employment insurance is significant, with a typical Stelco pension averaging about $2,600 a month; employment insurance pays a maximum of $1,800 a month.

Will this minister get on the phone to US Steel/Stelco executives and management and demand that they bridge these workers so that they can begin collecting their pensions rather than relying on employment insurance?

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

Hon. Michael Bryant: From day one in working with the head of the Steelworkers' union, we have been endeavouring to try and broker a solution. Just as the member has said, there are circumstances where potential early retirement, or other alternatives to layoffs, are options that ought to be pursued.

The local management is not the issue here. We have been reaching out to head office in order to do this, working with the union. It's a circumstance where the company needs to recognize that this is a union that will come to the table and will, in fact, work with the company to come forth with solutions that, in some cases, will save the company money. We will continue to push for that to happen because I think it's in the best interest of those workers.

Mr. Paul Miller: There are a few more details of the situation and how I understand them. To begin collecting a pension, workers must have 30 years of credited service acquired through their years in the plant. At Lake Erie Works, about 50 workers fall just short by months. The number doubles when you add workers who have 30 years of service but are short on their pension credits because of layoffs or strike time.

At Hamilton Steel, where three quarters of the workforce have more than 25 years of service, there are about 300 people in this position. I repeat: Will the minister get on the phone to US Steel/Stelco management, whether it's Pittsburgh or whether it's here, and demand that they bridge these workers so that they can begin collecting pensions that they've worked a lifetime to earn and that they deserve?

Hon. Michael Bryant: Again, I just want to assure the member that that has been the approach of this government from day one, pursuing this solution through a variety of means and working with Leo Gerard, who I'm going to see again today. We want to bring the parties to the table in order to come up with a solution.

The member has aptly summed up the situation for a number of workers. We always need to be pursuing alternatives. It's troubling that this is the first time in 25 years that Leo Gerard has not been given the opportunity to come to the table and work out alternatives. But that doesn't mean that we can't still try and do it, and the government is going to do everything it can to make that happen.

TOURISM

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: My question is to the Minister of Tourism. Recently it was announced that the McGuinty government is providing funding to help the National Capital Commission and region host the 2009 Genie Awards and Genie week. I understand that the awards will take place on April 4 at the Canadian Aviation Museum in Ottawa.

There is no doubt that tourism helps local economies and creates jobs throughout the province. Can the minister outline why investments such as these from our government are important to communities throughout the region and throughout the entire province?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: On Tuesday, I had the opportunity to attend the Genie Award nominee reception here in Toronto, together with my colleague, the Honourable Jim Watson, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, who's a huge proponent of Ottawa. I want to congratulate all of the nominees for our Genie Awards this year.

I was pleased to announce, on behalf of the McGuinty government, that we will be investing $150,000 to help the National Capital Commission host the Genie Awards and Genie week. Absolutely.

It's support like this for high-profile events like the Genies that help to bring focus to a community and attract visitors to the area. Festivals and events like the Genies are a great way to invigorate local economies, and I'm particularly delighted to see that Ottawa will be hosting this year.

As you know, tourism is an important economic driver in our province with over $22 billion in revenues from tourism in 2007, and over—

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

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: Again to the Minister of Tourism: I am pleased that the Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television decided to hold the Genies in Ottawa this year. I may, however, be quite partial. From what I understand, this is the first year that the academy has hosted this event in the national capital, and I'm sure it will draw quite a bit of attention to the area. Can the minister comment specifically on the impact of this event for the region, and why it is important for the McGuinty government to work with the National Capital Commission on tourism initiatives in the area?

L'hon. Monique M. Smith: Merci au membre de Glengarry—Prescott—Russell pour sa question et pour son travail dans la région d'Ottawa. On apprécie bien son bon travail.

At the Genie Awards nominee reception, I met with Marie Lemay, who is the CEO for the National Capital Commission. They are working to organize a fabulous Genie week in Ottawa. They have events planned throughout the week, culminating with the big Genie event, the awards ceremony itself.

The commission is known throughout the province for hosting successful annual events like their grand Canada Day celebration, as well as Winterlude. We recently provided funding to the National Capital Commission for a spectacular new light show at this year's Winterlude. I hope many of the members of the House had the opportunity to participate in that.

Ottawa is a perfect place to be hosting the Genies, as its tourism is heavily based in culture, and we hope—

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

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question today is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. On February 26, this House passed a resolution calling for the government to adequately fund community-based literacy and basic skills programs due to rapid growth in enrolment. On Monday and Tuesday of this week, your ministry consultants informed the agencies that their funding increase for 2009-10 would be 0%—frozen now for over a decade in spite of demands put on the agencies by the tens of thousands of Ontarians who are losing their jobs each month. Thousands of these individuals require basic literacy in order to return to the workforce.

Minister, why are you turning your back on Ontarians who require the services of community-based literacy and basic skills programs?

Hon. John Milloy: I appreciate the honourable member's interest in literacy—certainly a very serious issue that our government takes seriously. We invest $75 million a year to get individuals the literacy and basic skills services they need at almost 300 sites across the province, including colleges, school boards and community-based organizations. This year, we provided a special $2.68 million in one-time funding to literacy and basic skills service providers to help them deal with some of the additional pressures. We continue to work with the sector to assess their needs and make sure that we can offer the literacy services that are needed across this province.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Thank you, Minister, but clearly you did not answer the question. We are talking about the funding of community-based literacy and basic skills programs. You continue to ignore them. You even denied a chance to meet with them. By April 1, these literacy groups will be laying off staff and releasing thousands of learners from their programs.

Minister, can you explain to the House and the people of Ontario why your government seems to find money for things like Liberal-friendly cricket clubs, cost overruns by tens of millions at dysfunctional casino expansions and handing out European sports cars as prizes for gambling, yet there doesn't seem to be any money to help Ontarians with literacy problems at a time when the community-based agencies desperately need and are pleading for your leadership on this file?

Hon. John Milloy: I've been very happy to meet with literacy groups and organizations, and I recognize their importance to our economy, especially in times of an economic downturn.

As I said to the honourable member, this year alone we are providing $75 million for literacy and basic skills. We made an allowance of $2.68 million for special one-time funding to deal with pressures, and we're going to continue to work with the sector.

I'd also point out to the honourable member that our Second Career program, to which the most recent statistics show over 7,000 people have come forward, has a literacy and basic skills component, as does our rapid reemployment and training service.

We recognize the importance of literacy on this side of the House, and we're going to continue to work with the sector.

DISCIPLINARY HEARING

Mr. Peter Kormos: To the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services: How much more public money will OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino be allowed to burn through in his pathetic attempt to oust the adjudicator at his embarrassing disciplinary hearing?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Obviously it's a matter that's before the courts, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment. The member knows full well that that is the case.

Mr. Peter Kormos: You see, it's the taxpayers who are picking up the tab. Commissioner Fantino has three law firms on retainer, all being paid exorbitant fees by the taxpayers of Ontario. Why doesn't this minister just tell Fantino to get on with finishing his cross-examination so that we can be spared further mockery of the justice system on the public's dime?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Let me reinforce and repeat what I said: It would be very inappropriate for me to interject myself in those proceedings. That's not right; that is inappropriate. I don't plan on doing anything that's inappropriate or not right.

FLOODING

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, as we move into the spring after an unusually wet and snowy winter, many communities across the province are concerned about flooding. As the accumulated snow and ice continues to melt, it's not uncommon for many areas to experience risks. Last spring, we saw a few declarations of emergency due to flooding in communities throughout the province. Clearly, flooding has the potential to have devastating effects, including property damage and public safety concerns, particularly if people aren't adequately warned.

Would the minister outline for the House what steps our government is taking to prepare and adequately warn communities that are at risk of flooding?

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: Thank you very much for the question. The spring is coming and the floods are inevitable, so the challenge becomes how we manage it. It's an opportunity for us to share, through the Ministry of Natural Resources, what we are doing.

We have over 4,000 sensors at 1,200 stations across the province. They provide us the information. The water control structure has managed to minimize the impact of the flooding, but remember that at this time of year people forget that the flooding that may occur in the north hasn't hit us yet. It will hit us and can be significantly damaging to personal property and personal safety.

What we want to say to you, all of you—and we've sent a letter to every member, every municipality—is that safety is paramount; ensure that children stay away from running water; and, secondly, to access that information instantly on our website as to the different levels of flooding that are occurring in southern Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: Minister, I understand that the Ministry of Natural Resources is responsible for flood forecasting and that flood advisories are then communicated to municipalities and local conservation authorities, which have plans in place to deal with such situations. However, I think we remain concerned about unorganized areas where there isn't a municipality or conservation area in place to deal with floods. This includes rural areas in southern Ontario, as well as First Nations communities in the north, such as the James Bay First Nations communities, which often experience flood emergencies in the spring.

Would the minister clarify for the House what plans are in place to aid these areas in case of flooding?

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: Again, it gives us an opportunity to share with the House and with the general public what we do. In the far north and in the unorganized territories, we work very closely with emergency management. There are five major rivers that flood into Hudson Bay and James Bay, and flooding does occur. We do daily flyovers and often we take our First Nations with us so that we can have, from the air, an on-the-ground look at what is happening so that we're able to work with, in particular, emergency management, when and if there is flooding.

Again, I can't emphasize how important this is. Just because spring comes here, don't forget it's further in the north in times of thaw, and that thaw ultimately may flow down through our major river systems, so safety is paramount.

You have an opportunity to get the message out to your community. Have them use our website and our conservation authorities that work very closely with us, in order to get accurate, up-to-date information that we can—

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

TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES

Mr. Robert Bailey: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Minister, in 2008, Premier McGuinty sent greetings to an organization, Staffing for Canada Week, where he said, "I applaud the staffing industry and temporary and contractual employees for their invaluable contribution to the continuing prosperity of our province and country as a whole."

We on this side of the House have some concerns with parts of Bill 139, which, if passed, will kill the temporary staffing industry, which employs, as you well know, over 200,000 people and is a very vital part of Ontario's economic recovery.

Minister, given your Premier's warm sentiments toward this industry and the importance that this industry plays in our economy, why are you and your party trying to kill this industry with Bill 139?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I want to thank the member for the question. I also want to thank the member for the supportive comments he has made on this legislation, where he said, "In general, we are supportive of the government's efforts to offer protection to workers in temporary agencies." We agree with the member.

The member wasn't here at the time that his party was governing this province, but I can tell him that the approach they took was one of weakening labour legislation, weakening employment standards legislation. We don't agree with that. What we have brought is a fair and balanced approach to address vulnerable workers in this province, some of our lowest-income workers. We want to ensure that they have the same rights as other employees in Ontario. I think this is something the member knows in his heart of hearts he should agree with. We want to ensure that those employees have opportunity.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert Bailey: I'd like to thank the minister for the history lesson, but we're talking about the here and now. Yesterday I met with ACSESS, the Association of Canadian Search, Employment and Staffing Services, who told me quite clearly that they would support this bill if you would agree to make two amendments that would not change the intent of your bill but would allow this industry that employs 200,000 Ontarians to continue to prosper. I know your own members are going to hear from these industries as well.

If you don't support these technical amendments, the industry will die and will not be in a position to help meet Ontario companies' staffing needs when this economy does pick up. In effect, you will hamstring the economic potential.

Minister, will you commit to amending Bill 139 and listen to the stakeholders that you failed to consult with when you brought this bill forward?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: What I say to the member is that we highly respect the legislative process. I've had the opportunity—actually, I think the member is speaking to a number of stakeholders in particular, but ACSESS would be one of them. I would say that in my time as Minister of Labour, in the five months, I have spent more time with that stakeholder, ACSESS, and we're happy to do so and listen to their concerns that they bring to the table. Also, this is going to committee.

There will be more opportunity to bring forward deputations, but what we are doing is changing some unfair practices that we feel are out there right now in the temporary help agencies sector: charging upfront fees to these workers and charging a temp-to-perm fee, where a lot of them feel that they can't find that permanent employment.

Also, what this legislation will do is give those workers the information—

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

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Acting Premier. A Toronto Star

article on March 4 stated that "data analysis ... found that 11,000 worker injuries were downplayed or improperly handled over a seven-year period, including 3,000 amputations, fractures, dislocations, bad burns and other injuries, that companies" did not report one day of lost work. It further stated that "at the time, WSIB chair Steve Mahoney said the Star's findings proved exceptional behaviour, not the rule."

It is clear from the Morneau Sobeco report that this behaviour is not and was not the exception for a number of years. What immediate action is the government taking to get this situation corrected?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I want to thank the member for the question. I also want to thank Morneau Sobeco for their report and review of the experience rating system, which is what it is called, and the Toronto Star's David Bruser for his in-depth report on this very important file. What it is about is that we want to incent employers on good behaviour when it comes to health and safety in the workplace.

That is why this government for the second time is doing a value-for-money audit of that program. We want to ensure that we get it right. After many, many years of that program, where it was not addressed—I could tell you that under the Conservative government they took a laissez-faire approach to this program. They took it out of the WSIB and we have had to manage this program—

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

Mr. Paul Miller: The chair of the WSIB responded to the Toronto Star article, stating that he has been saying that "sound, rational changes" are needed and have been needed for some time. This is the same WSIB chair who last year denied that the Ontario Federation of Labour has been raising the flawed experience rating system with him for some time.

It is clear that no action was taken before the NDP, with the support of the Ontario Federation of Labour, supported them and raised this extremely serious issue during an opposition day motion last year. When will this government finally admit that the WSIB has been in serious trouble for some time and replace the chair with someone who gets it?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I am glad that the chair took leadership on this file and is addressing this file. That's why the Morneau Sobeco report was asked for. The recommendations out of that report are being taken to the stakeholders by the chair of the WSIB. It is being discussed with the board. They're working with injured workers; they're working with employers; they're working with trade unions. They want to ensure that they get it right.

I can tell you that when I go out there and speak with all these various stakeholders, one thing they all tell me is that we do need a program to incent good and great behaviour when it comes to health and safety in the workplace. That's why we have taken such a keen interest in this: to get it right, because this is about lowering injury rates in the workplace, and we've done an excellent job on—

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

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Bob Delaney: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Public transit gets people in western Mississauga from where they live to where they work, study or go for entertainment. GO trains are our daily lifelines, and I'm one of those commuters. I generally take the train from either the Streetsville or Lisgar stations. GO Transit users help ease congestion on our roads. GO trains help us arrive on time; for many, with the advantages of a commuter catnap.

There are three GO train stops on the Milton line serving our western Mississauga neighbourhoods of Lisgar, Meadowvale and Streetsville. Milton is the third-busiest line on the GO network, with about 27,000 daily riders. GO Transit has worked very hard with our communities to build a new station and improve our existing facilities, but we need more. Will the Minister of Transportation—

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: The member from Mississauga—Streetsville will be pleased to hear, as all members will, that GO Transit will soon be adding two new weekly trains on the Milton line. This new rail service on the Milton line is in part due to the $2.5 billion that this government has invested in GO Transit since 2003.

The first train will be added to the morning

schedule and will arrive at Union just after 9 a.m. It will give customers the benefit of a slightly later morning arrival. The second train will be added to the evening schedule, departing Union Station shortly after 5:30 p.m. This will allow for even more options to choose from, making it easier for commuters to get home to their families even faster.

To help encourage GO ridership, on average, GO Transit subsidizes almost 65,000 people per month in Mississauga alone to take Mississauga Transit to the GO station. Most of these initiatives are helping—

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

Mr. Bob Delaney: More than 4,000 commuters in neighbourhoods like Streetsville, Meadowvale, Lisgar, Churchill Meadows and central Erin Mills, which I represent and the member for Mississauga—Erindale represents, are pleased to hear that the Milton line will soon benefit from this much-needed increase in service. For more than a dozen years between 1990 and 2003, public transit on the Milton GO line was simply lost in the 1980s. Put simply, nothing happened.

The system still needs better integration and needs more places more often on the line, especially Pearson airport. While GO trains are a great way to get downtown quickly for consumers, there are other public transit options open to us in Mississauga. In Peel region, we need to move north-south and east-west without taking a car and get where we're going quickly and conveniently. Will the Minister of Transportation share with the House—

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: The member for Mississauga—Streetsville is an advocate for public transit. Everyone can see that. We appreciate all the work he has done on this front.

Since 2003, this government has invested almost $200 million in public transit in the city of Mississauga. Most recently, it was announced that Mississauga received $15.8 million in gas tax funding, which can be used for introducing service improvements such as additional buses, expanded routes and improved security infrastructure.

Metrolinx, which plans for transit across the GTA and Hamilton, has recently released their regional transportation plan for Mississauga. It envisions rapid transit along Hurontario Street from Highway 407 to Port Credit GO station and along Dundas Street West from Kipling Avenue to Brant Street, and electrification of the Lakeshore GO rail line. We're already moving forward. One of Metrolinx's—

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

STELCO

Mr. Toby Barrett: A question to the acting Premier: 1,200 steelworkers from Lake Erie Steel attended a meeting this past Monday in my riding to hear the latest on the idling of our area's largest employer, US Steel. These jobs are now on hold indefinitely. As well, 1,200 steelworkers met in Hamilton this week. As the Simcoe Reformer reports, these people walked out of that meeting filled with doubt, uncertainty and anger.

Acting Premier, do you plan on abandoning these steelworkers, just as you abandoned the 300,000 people in the manufacturing sector who lost their jobs before them?

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

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Michael Bryant: Well, really, what a bunch of—

Hon. James J. Bradley: Baloney.

Hon. Michael Bryant: Yes.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Michael Bryant: This to a government that in fact, as a result of investments made in 2006 for US Steel workers, then Stelco workers, literally saved those workers' pensions. This was a company that was in receivership, and literally, the government stepped in to save the pensions.

But to the other part of the member's question, we do want to work with both the company and the workers. We want to try to broker a solution, as I said before, because that's in the best interests of the workers. This is a circumstance where the company needs to come to the table, needs to work with the workers in order to see what alternatives there may be.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Toby Barrett: I'm sure idled steelworkers phoning my office will take cold comfort in your opening comment there: the government that has taxed and spent its way onto the dole itself. Perhaps you have the wherewithal to have an answer in the coming budget.

You've found out that your emperor has no clothes. Three quarters of people in Ontario realize this government has no plan. Steelworkers need an industrial plan; they need a strategy; they need action for primary industry.

You saw this meltdown coming, and instead of setting aside $27 billion, the extra revenue, for these tough times, you spent it. Please explain to these steelworkers in my riding why you have mismanaged Ontario's spending so badly that you now have nothing left to help when they need it most.

Hon. Michael Bryant: Unlike the other members who are representing these workers, who are not playing politics with this issue and are trying to come forward with a pragmatic solution, this member chooses to play politics.

But I want to assure those steelworkers in his riding that nonetheless, this government is going to continue to try to broker a solution between workers and management, because that is the right thing to do. The very least that the management can do is come to the table and talk about solutions with people who know how to come up with solutions, and in some cases save money for the company, but most important of all, create a future for those workers and for those communities, too.

TAXATION

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the acting Premier. With jobs harder to come by, times are tougher for everyone, especially for everyday families. The Premier has suggested that he may harmonize the PST with the GST, immediately raising the price on basic goods. For a mom going shopping with her kids on a Saturday afternoon, Atlantic-style harmonization would mean paying 13% more for diapers, children's clothing, footwear, the corner hot dog treat and women's hygiene products.

Why would the McGuinty government increase prices on necessities when families are just struggling to get by?

Hon. George Smitherman: I would have to say that the member's question was about a minute of uninformed speculation.

Associated with the economic challenges that Ontario is facing, we're working diligently as a government to bring forward for presentation in this House on March 26 a budget which will allow us to move Ontario forward. We know that there is a lot of work to be done on that point. I just want to say to the honourable member that we should all look forward to the opportunity on that day in this House to hear the presentation of the budget from the government of Ontario, but I'm not in a position to be involved in the speculation that is the honourable member's fancy today.

Mr. Michael Prue: It is the Premier's musings that caused the questions and the people out there to be concerned. The PST exemption was created for a reason: because these goods are considered to be the basics. Families aren't going to be able to avoid paying the tax. The Acting Premier—and the Premier—has a chance here to tell Ontarians that his government isn't going to raise taxes on necessities like diapers, children's clothing and shoes. Why won't the Acting Premier commit today to ensuring that any tax harmonization plan maintains the current PST exemptions? Tell people so they won't have to wait around and they don't have to be worried until March 26.

Hon. George Smitherman: I just wouldn't want to deprive the honourable member of his opportunity for these kinds of points of speculation. I think, though, that in his use of the word "necessity" and the demonstration of those items he referenced, there is obviously something that many of us would agree with. I think that there is, in the presentation from the honourable member, some information that the Minister of Finance might want to take a look at in the context of the presentation of his budget.

I could just remind members that we're going to stick with the tradition commonly held in our province of presenting a budget here in the Legislature on March 26. We're going to have that done, as is the tradition, by the Minister of Finance.

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

Mr. Khalil Ramal: My question is to the Minister of Research and Innovation. Minister, the Robarts Research Institute was officially merged with the University of Western Ontario on July 1, 2007, with the help of funding from our government. These two world-class research institutes are conducting groundbreaking research in the field of biotechnology and the medical devices field. This accomplishment is a source of pride in London. We're proud of the University of Western Ontario and the Robarts Research Institute because they're doing a great job for our community and for the province of Ontario.

Minister, my question to you is, what are you doing through your ministry and our government to support those world-class institutes to serve our community, our province and our nation?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank my friend for the question and his advocacy, and the other members of the London region, who are so very, very proud of the University of Western Ontario and the Robarts Research Institute.

I want to share with the House that we made an investment of some $12 million to bring the two institutions, UWO and Robarts, together through an investment made by my ministry. Robarts is installing two new brain scanners—something the opposition may want to hear about—which will provide insights into learning perception and communication for the diagnosis and treatment of such things as psychiatric disease, dementia, depression and Alzheimer's. I know the opposition wanted to hear about that.

The capital funding is a tremendous investment in the world-class research of such scientists as Dr. Ravi Menon, Mel Goodale and Aaron Fenster from the brain and mind centre. We're particularly proud of the new 7-Tesla MRI—

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

Mr. Khalil Ramal: Recently, a report was released in the province of Ontario talking about the importance of innovation and research in order to carry this province toward a brighter future. What are you doing, Minister, to ensure support for research and innovation in this province to make sure we are part of the movement toward a brighter future for the province of Ontario and this nation?

Hon. John Wilkinson: What we understand on this side of the House is that we need to attract top talent and give them the very best tools. At the Robarts institute we have acquired through our investment what is known as a 7-Tesla MRI machine, the most powerful MRI in this country and one of only three in the world. It is amazing that we've been able to make that investment because we believe in the amazing talent of Mel Goodale, Aaron Fenster and Ravi Menon and all the other researchers in the group.

Biotechnology and life sciences are an area where this province leads, and though there may be others around the House who don't understand that, I think the people understand. Because of the advocacy of members like the member from London—Fanshawe and the other members of our London caucus, how strong they are, we're so very—

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

The time for question period has ended. This House stands recessed until 1 p.m.

The House recessed from 1135 to 1300.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey: I rise in the House today to recognize the region of Peel on becoming the first winner of a Public Sector Leadership Award from the Institute of Public Administration of Canada, earning gold in the municipal category. The leadership awards recognize public sector organizations that have demonstrated outstanding leadership by taking bold steps through advancements in public policy and management. Specifically, the award profiles individuals and/or teams who have dared to take their organization in a new direction.

The region of Peel's Common Purpose Transition Program aims to achieve three outcomes: employee engagement, client satisfaction and trust in the services that they deliver. The program involved a complete change in service delivery, from a corporate perspective, shifting to a customer point of view.

Countries from around the world often come to Canada to learn how to emulate the innovation and success of public sector organizations like the region of Peel. Successful leadership is about taking a calculated risk. As Robert Kennedy once said famously, "Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly."

Congratulations to the region of Peel for being innovative and for having the courage to dare to take the organization to the next level. The region of Peel has long been a leader in public sector management in Canada. This award just confirms and recognizes their hard work.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I'm looking around for our guest, but he's not here yet. I want to acknowledge nonetheless that Stu Auty, of the Canadian Safe School Network, is going to be joining us.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I guess my guests haven't arrived yet, but I want to mention their names: Youssef Mertti, and one other person whose name I don't remember very well.

Mr. Jeff Leal: I know this individual hasn't arrived yet, but John Sheehan from Peterborough will be here this afternoon. He just left Mr. Brownell's office. He's been very involved in the preservation of heritage in Peterborough for many, many years and will be here this afternoon to view the debate on Bill 149,

An Act to protect Ontario's inactive cemeteries, in this House later this afternoon.

Mr. Dave Levac: I would like to introduce my mother.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I'm pleased to rise today to comment on community-based literacy and basic skills programs. I want to say right off the bat that it's my understanding, dealing with the stakeholders I've been working with across the province of Ontario, that these organizations are severely underfunded, and it is with great regret that the minister stood in the House today and tried to defend the action of the McGuinty Liberals.

We thought that the resolution we passed in the House back on February 26 was supported by all the members and voted on. It was that they supported the fact that it would need additional and adequate funding to continue on into the future.

That being said, these organizations have seen substantial increases in the number of clients coming to the door who are called learners. With 300,000 or 400,000 people out of work today in the manufacturing sector, more than ever we need people who can teach community-based skills, reading and writing etc. What's happened now with the fact that the minister has frozen funding for the last 10 years, even with these community-based programs, we're going to see layoffs.

I can tell you that that's a sad day for the province of Ontario. These are programs that work in Ontario. I would urge all members of this House, as the budget approaches, to call their MPPs, call the Minister of Finance—and please ask him to increase the funding in these particular areas: community-based literacy and basic skills funding.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

Mr. Jeff Leal: I had the distinct pleasure of welcoming the Honourable Donna Cansfield, Minister of Natural Resources, to my riding of Peterborough on Friday, March 6.

Minister Cansfield contacted me after receiving letters from grade 4 students attending St. Catherine Elementary School. They wrote about the Endangered Species Act, a topic of great importance to them. Their letters revealed a comprehension beyond their years, and a passion to preserve our natural resources and protect our endangered species. These young people will grow to be great stewards of this province.

During her visit to St. Catherine school, she spoke to the general assembly about species at risk and environmental conservation. The minister spoke about the importance of preserving wildlife and their habitat. She talked about the steps that Ontario is taking to do this through the creation of the Species at Risk Act.

During the question period that followed, a student asked, "What species are at greatest risk in the province of Ontario?" Clearly, these children recognize the value of protecting our wildlife for the future—their future.

After the general assembly, the minister visited Mr. Pat Mackey's grade 4 class a