Procès-verbaux 2009-nov-24 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

PDF

Procès-verbaux 2009-nov-24 (PDF)


No. 191	No 191
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Votes and Proceedings	Procès-verbaux
Legislative Assembly of Ontario	Assemblée législative de l'Ontario
Tuesday November 24, 2009 Sessional Day 199	Mardi 24 novembre 2009 Jour de session 199
1st Session, 39th Parliament	1re session 39e législature
_____________________________________________________________________________________

PRAYERS	PRIÈRES
9:00 A.M.	9 H
ORDERS OF THE DAY	ORDRE DU JOUR
A debate arose on Government Order Number 30, on the motion for time allocation of Bill 210, An Act to protect foreign nationals employed as live-in caregivers and in other prescribed employment and to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

After some time, Mr. Hillier moved the adjournment of the debate, which motion was lost on the following division:-	Après quelque temps, M. Hillier propose l'ajournement du débat et cette motion est rejetée par le vote suivant:-
AYES - 6 NAYS - 42	POUR - 6 CONTRE - 42
After some time, pursuant to Standing Order 9(b), the motion for the adjournment of the debate was deemed to have been made and carried.	Après quelque temps, conformément à l'article 9 b) du Règlement, la motion d'ajournement du débat est réputée avoir été proposée et adoptée.

____________
Pursuant to Standing Order 9(a), the Acting Speaker (Mrs. Munro) recessed the House at 10:15 a.m. until 10:30 a.m.	Conformément à l'article 9 a) du Règlement, la présidente par intérim, Mme Munro ordonne une pause à l'Assemblée à 10 h 15 jusqu'à 10 h 30.
____________
10:30 A.M.	10 H 30
INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS	PRÉSENTATION DES VISITEURS
Pursuant to Standing Order 36, visitors were introduced.	Conformément à l'article 36 du Règlement, les visiteurs sont présentés.
____________

The Speaker delivered the following ruling:-

Le Président a rendu la décision suivante :-

On Thursday, November 19, the Member for Leeds Grenville (Mr. Runciman) raised a point of privilege relating to the consideration of Bill 218. I thank the Member for providing me with written notice of his point of privilege as required by the Standing Orders. Having read his submission carefully and listened to his argument and those put by the Government House Leader (Ms. Smith) and the Member for Timmins-James Bay (Mr. Bisson), I am now prepared to rule.

As the Member for Leeds-Grenville stated, privilege deals with the specific ability of individual members and the House as a collective, to carry out their Parliamentary duties.

In Marleau and Montpetit's House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Chapter 3, the rights and immunities of individual members and the rights of the House as a collective are clearly set out as follows:

Members individual privileges include:

Freedom of speech

Freedom from arrest in civil actions

Exemption from jury duty

Exemption from attendance as a witness

Freedom from obstruction, interference, intimidation and molestation

As a collective, the privileges of the House include:

The power to discipline its members

The regulation of its own internal affairs

The authority to maintain the attendance and service of its Members

The right to institute inquiries and to call witnesses and demand papers

The right to administer oaths to witnesses

The right to publish papers containing defamatory material

In order for a finding that a prima facie case of privilege has been made out, the Speaker must be satisfied that sufficient support exists for the proposition that one of these heads of privilege has been breached.

In his point of privilege, the Member for Leeds-Grenville argued that members individually and the House collectively have been obstructed in the performance of parliamentary duties and functions for two reasons. First, that Bill 218 contains provisions that allow for the government to enter into an agreement that will be binding beyond the next general election; and second, that the government is refusing to allow for full public hearings on Bill 218.

Let me first deal with the issue of a long-term agreement between one government and another. This is not an unusual occurrence. Indeed, the Free Trade Agreement comes immediately to mind. In that case, the Government of Canada signed a long-term agreement with the Government of the United States. Governments have in fact also signed agreements with private interests that are binding in the long term. As the Government House Leader suggested, the Highway 407 contract is a case in point.

In the case at hand, the Government of Ontario and the Government of Canada have entered into an agreement to harmonize the provincial Retail Sales Tax with the national Goods and Services Tax. The machinery required to do this is provided for in amendments to the Ontario Retail Sales Tax Act, set out in Schedule R of the Bill. While the fulfillment of this bilateral agreement is dependent upon the passage by Ontario and the federal parliament of the necessary legislation, it is the agreement itself that contains commitments about the duration of the accord; this is not in the Bill.

The Retail Sales Tax Act could again come before the House for further amendment at a future time in another Session of parliament, including even the complete repeal of any changes made at this time as a result of Bill 218. There is nothing in the Bill itself that prohibits a future government from proposing alterations to the Retail Sales Tax Act, or renegotiating an existing extra-parliamentary agreement. While doing so might constitute an abrogation of the agreement and could carry political or legal consequences, this is not something that is of procedural consequence to this Legislature.

The Member for Leeds-Grenville may be of the opinion that the terms of this particular agreement are an affront to democracy, but the fact that he holds this opinion does not make it a matter of privilege. The heads of privilege, which I just enumerated, are quite specific. Nothing about our current circumstances offends any of those heads – members are debating the Bill; no one has been obstructed from doing so. The key point is that this legislature is being presented with a specific proposal and has the opportunity and the power to grant or deny it.

As to the second point the Member makes, being the asserted refusal of the government to allow public hearings on the HST legislation in communities across Ontario, I have before me no evidence that that is the case. Indeed, the Bill has yet to pass second reading and as yet no referral or terms of referral have been made.

However, even if there were such evidence, under the rules of this House, the government has the ability to put to the House a motion that allocates time for each stage of the consideration of a bill. The House in turn has the ability to pass or defeat such a motion.

While there could very well be certain provisions contained in a time allocation motion that might make it out of order, the allotment of more or less time to committee consideration of a bill would not likely be one of them. Indeed, we have many examples of little or no time being allotted to committee consideration of a bill by way of a time allocation motion properly put, debated and decided by this House.

There is no head of privilege that dictates the extent to which public hearings must be held as long as they are determined within the rules of this House.

For these reasons, I cannot find that a prima facie case of privilege has been made out.

The Member further indicated that if I am unable to find a prima facie case of privilege he would then argue that a contempt of the House has occurred. Once again, on the same grounds I see no support for that conclusion.

I thank all members for their submissions on this matter.

____________
The Speaker delivered the following ruling:-	Le Président a rendu la décision suivante :-

The Member for Nepean-Carleton has given me notice of her intention to raise a point of privilege. Her point relates to the applicability of provisions of the Taxpayer Protection Act to Bill 218, An Act to implement 2009 Budget measures and to enact, amend or repeal various Acts.

I am prepared to rule on the matter without hearing further from the Member for Nepean-Carleton, as Standing Order 21(d) permits me to do.

There is substantial precedent, and universal support, for the notion that the Speaker does not have the authority to deal with legal or quasi-legal issues, and will not deal with requests for an interpretation of the law.

From a procedural perspective, Bill 218 is properly before the House at the present time, and whether there are any legal issues of the nature the Member raises would need to be decided by the courts. This question is not one for the Speaker to decide.

The Member has therefore not made out a prima facie case of privilege.

____________

ORAL QUESTIONS	QUESTIONS ORALES
Pursuant to Standing Order 37, the House proceeded to Oral Questions.	Conformément à l'article 37 du Règlement, la chambre passe aux questions orales.
____________
Pursuant to Standing Order 9(a), the Speaker recessed the House at 11:47 a.m. until 3:00 p.m.	Conformément à l'article 9 a) du Règlement, le Président ordonne une pause à l'Assemblée à 11 h 47 jusqu'à 15 h.
____________
3:00 P.M.	15 H
INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS	PRÉSENTATION DES VISITEURS
Pursuant to Standing Order 36, visitors were introduced.	Conformément à l'article 36 du Règlement, les visiteurs sont présentés.
____________
MEMBERS' STATEMENTS	DÉCLARATIONS DES DÉPUTÉS
Pursuant to Standing Order 31, Members made statements.	Conformément à l'article 31 du Règlement, des députés font des déclarations.
____________

The Speaker addressed the House as follows:-

I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 98(c), changes have been made to the Order of Precedence on the ballot list for Private Members' Public Business, such that:-

Mr. Hoskins assumes ballot item number 56 and Mr. Sorbara assumes ballot item number 79.

____________

The Speaker addressed the House as follows:-
I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received the Report on Intended Appointments dated November 24, 2009 of the Standing Committee on Government Agencies. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(f)(9), the Report is deemed to be adopted by the House (Sessional Paper No. 545).
____________
REPORTS BY COMMITTEES	RAPPORTS DES COMITÉS

Mr. Orazietti from the Standing Committee on General Government presented the Committee's report as follows and moved its adoption:-			M. Orazietti du Comité permanent des affaires gouvernementales présente le rapport du comité et propose l'adoption comme suit:-
Your Committee begs to report the following Bill as amended:-			Votre comité propose qu'il soit permis de faire rapport sur le projet de loi suivant avec des amendements:-
Bill 185, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act with respect to greenhouse gas emissions trading and other economic and financial instruments and market-based approaches.			Projet de loi 185, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection de l'environnement en ce qui concerne l'échange de droits d'émission de gaz à effet de serre ainsi que d'autres instruments économiques et financiers et approches axées sur le marché.
The motion having been put, was carried on the following division:-			La motion, mise aux voix, est adoptée par le vote suivant:-
	AYES / POUR - 44

	Aggelonitis Albanese Arthurs Balkissoon Bisson	Dickson Gravelle Hoskins Jaczek Jeffrey		Mauro McMeekin McNeely Meilleur Miller (Hamilton East–Stoney Creek)	Phillips Qaadri Ramal Ramsay Rinaldi

AYES / POUR - Continued
	Broten Chan Colle Crozier Delaney Dhillon	Kular Kwinter Lalonde Leal Levac Marchese	Milloy Mitchell Moridi Naqvi Orazietti Pendergast	Ruprecht Smith Sousa Van Bommel Wynne Zimmer

	NAYS / CONTRE - 12

	Barrett Dunlop Hardeman	Martiniuk Miller (Parry Sound–Muskoka) Murdoch	O'Toole Ouellette Runciman	Shurman Wilson Yakabuski

And the Bill was accordingly Ordered for Third Reading.	En conséquence, le projet de loi est ordonné pour la troisième lecture.
____________

PETITIONS	PÉTITIONS
Petition relating to identity theft (Sessional Paper No. P-8) Mr. Ruprecht.
Petition relating to asking the Federal Government to reform the Employment Insurance program (Sessional Paper No. P-57) Mr. Colle.
Petition relating to the reduction of tuition fees and to increase funding for post-secondary education (Sessional Paper No. P-154) Mr. Wilson.
Petition relating to supporting The Caregiver and Foreign Worker Recruitment and Protection Act, 2009 (Sessional Paper No. P-215) Mr. Ruprecht.
Petition relating to a blended or harmonized sales tax (Sessional Paper No. P-224) Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Wilson.
Petition relating to stopping the 13% combined sales tax (Sessional Paper No. P-235) Mr. Martiniuk.
Petition relating to GO Transit's West Diamond project (Sessional Paper No. P-240) Mr. Ruprecht.
Petition relating to Simcoe County Paramedics (Sessional Paper No. P-269) Mr. Wilson.
Petition relating to making positron emission tomography (PET) scanning available through the Sudbury Regional Hospital (Sessional Paper No. P-272) Mme Gélinas.
Petition relating to amending the Liquor Control Act to permit the sale of beer and wine in local convenience stores (Sessional Paper No. P-277) Mr. Barrett.
Petition relating to the Youth Action Alliance (Sessional Paper No. P-309) Mr. Murdoch.
Petition relating to the creation of a psychiatric emergency service at the Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre. (Sessional Paper No. P-311) Mr. Mauro.
Petition relating to supporting the proclamation of the month of April of each year as Hispanic Heritage Month in Ontario. (Sessional Paper No. P-312) Mr. Colle.
____________

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ORDRE DU JOUR

Debate was resumed on the amendment to the motion for Second Reading of Bill 218, An Act to implement 2009 Budget measures and to enact, amend or repeal various Acts.

Le débat reprend sur l'amendement à la motion portant deuxième lecture du projet de loi 218, Loi mettant en oeuvre certaines mesures énoncées dans le Budget de 2009 et édictant, modifiant ou abrogeant diverses lois.

After some time, Mr. Miller (Parry Sound–Muskoka) moved the adjournment of the debate, which motion was lost on the following division:-	Après quelque temps, M. Miller (Parry Sound–Muskoka) propose l'ajournement du débat et cette motion est rejetée par le vote suivant:-
AYES - 15 NAYS - 41	POUR - 15 CONTRE - 41
The debate continued and, after some time, Ms. MacLeod moved the adjournment of the debate, which motion was lost on the following division:-	Le débat se poursuit et après quelque temps, Mme MacLeod propose l'ajournement du débat et cette motion est rejetée par le vote suivant:-
AYES - 14 NAYS - 38	POUR - 14 CONTRE - 38
The debate continued and, after some time, Ms. MacLeod moved the adjournment of the House, which motion was lost on the following division:-	Le débat se poursuit et après quelque temps, Mme MacLeod propose l'ajournement des débats de l'Assemblée et cette motion est rejetée par le vote suivant:-
AYES - 12 NAYS - 40	POUR - 12 CONTRE - 40

After some time, pursuant to Standing Order 9(a), the motion for the adjournment of the debate was deemed to have been made and carried.	Après quelque temps, conformément à l'article 9 a) du Règlement, la motion d'ajournement du débat est réputée avoir été proposée et adoptée.
____________

At 6:00 p.m., the question "That this House do now adjourn" was deemed to have been proposed pursuant to Standing Order 38(b).	À 6 h, la motion portant «Que la présente Assemblée ajourne les débats maintenant» est réputée avoir été proposée conformément à l'article 38 b) du Règlement.
After two matters were considered, the question was deemed to have been adopted.	Après l'étude de deux questions, la motion d'ajournement des débats est réputée avoir été adoptée.
____________

The House then adjourned at 6:21 p.m.

À 18 h 21, la chambre a ensuite ajourné ses travaux.

____________

le président

Steve Peters

Speaker

____________

PETITIONS TABLED PURSUANT TO STANDING ORDER 39(a)

Petition relating to reconstructive surgery after extreme weight loss (Sessional Paper No. P-313) (Tabled November 24, 2009) Mrs. Albanese.

____________

RESPONSES TO PETITIONS

RÉPONSES AUX PÉTITIONS

Petition relating to getting GO Transit to extend the tunnel beyond St. Clair Ave. West (Sessional Paper No. P-6):

(Tabled September 28, 2009) Mr. Ruprecht.

Petition relating to construction of an Ambulatory Surgery Centre to serve the Mississauga Halton area (Sessional Paper No. P-23):

(Tabled October 26, 27, 28; November 3, 4, 2009) Mr. Delaney.

Petition relating to fraudulent loans involving notarized affidavits (Sessional Paper No. P-44):

(Tabled December 13, 2007; February 26, 2009) Ms. Horwath.

(Tabled December 13, 2007; March 4, 2009) Mr. Prue.

Petition relating to preventing the commercial application of non-essential herbicides in Northern Ontario (Sessional Paper No. P-47):

(Tabled March 17, 2008) Mr. Bisson.

Petition relating to asking the Federal Government to reform the Employment Insurance program (Sessional Paper No. P-57):

(Tabled October 6; November 23, 2009) Mr. Colle.

Petition relating to meters on private wells (Sessional Paper No. P-118):

(Tabled June 11, 2008) Mr. Yakabuski.

Petition relating to requesting fairness for Ontarians to the Federal Government (Sessional Paper No. P-138):

(Tabled February 17, 2009) Mr. Mauro.

Petition relating to widening of Highway 17/174 from two to four lanes between Trim Road and Prescott-Russell Road #8 (Sessional Paper No. P-139):

(Tabled March 31, 2009) Mr. Lalonde.

Petition relating to allowing hospices across the province to be exempt from municipal taxes (Sessional Paper No. P-153):

(Tabled October 30; November 3, 6, 17, 19, 24, 25, 26; December 1, 4, 11, 2008; February 18, 2009) Ms. Aggelonitis.

(Tabled October 16, 20, 27, 2008) Mr. Colle.

(Tabled November 19, 2008) Mr. Leal.

Petition relating to the reduction of tuition fees and to increase funding for post-secondary education (Sessional Paper No. P-154):

(Tabled October 27, 2009) Mr. Wilson.

Petition relating to enhancing long-term care (Sessional Paper No. P-161):

(Tabled November 2, 2009) Ms. Jones.

Petition relating to enforcing standards on information about access to pension funds (Sessional Paper No. P-162):

(Tabled October 29; November 17, 2008; March 31; September 15, 2009) Mr. O'Toole.

Petition relating to Burk's Falls Health Centre (Sessional Paper No. P-198):

(Tabled September 17, 2009) Mr. Miller (Parry Sound–Muskoka).

Petition relating to a Sales Tax Holiday for trucks and cars (Sessional Paper No. P-200):

(Tabled February 17, 18; March 3, 2009) Mr. Barrett.

(Tabled February 23, 2009) Mr. Klees.

(Tabled February 23, 2009) Mr. Miller (Parry Sound–Muskoka).

(Tabled March 26, 2009) Mr. O'Toole.

(Tabled February 17, 2009) Mr. Ouellette.

(Tabled April 21, 2009) Mr. Wilson.

(Tabled March 25, 2009) Mr. Yakabuski.

Petition relating to introducing a provincial sales tax holiday for the purchase of new, North American produced vehicles (Sessional Paper No. P-203):

(Tabled February 25; April 6; September 15, 2009) Mr. O'Toole.

(Tabled February 25, 2009) Mr. Ouellette.

Petition relating to rolling back property assessment values to the base year of January 1, 2005 (Sessional Paper No. P-205):

(Tabled March 2, 9, 23, 25; April 6, 21, 2009) Mme Gélinas.

Petition relating to "Freeze 'til sale" for fairness to Ontario's property tax system (Sessional Paper No. P-207):

(Tabled March 5, 9, 10, 31; April 2, 6, 7, 20, 2009) Ms. DiNovo.

Petition relating to access to locked-in retirement accounts (Sessional Paper No. P-219):

(Tabled March 26; April 9, 27; May 4, 7, 14, 2009) Mr. Chudleigh.

(Tabled May 12, 2009) Mr. Hardeman.

(Tabled May 4, 2009) Mr. O'Toole.

(Tabled May 7, 2009) Mr. Shurman.

Petition relating to Bill 149, Inactive Cemeteries Protection Act (Sessional Paper No. P-220):

(Tabled October 20, 21, 22, 2009) Mr. Brownell.

Petition relating to a blended or harmonized sales tax (Sessional Paper No. P-224):

(Tabled September 14, 2009) Mr. Arnott.

(Tabled May 5, 2009) Mr. Bailey.

(Tabled October 19, 2009) Mr. Barrett.

(Tabled October 20, 2009) Mr. Chudleigh.

(Tabled April 20, 2009) Mr. Dunlop.

(Tabled June 2, 4; September 24, 29, 30; October 1, 19, 27, 29; November 5, 16, 17, 18, 19, 2009) Mr. Hardeman.

(Tabled April 7, 8, 20, 27; May 4, 25, 28; June 1; September 14, 23; October 5, 19; November 2, 16, 2009) Ms. Jones.

(Tabled September 24; November 18, 2009) Mr. Lalonde.

(Tabled May 25; November 18, 2009) Ms. MacLeod.

(Tabled April 21, 28; May 5, 11, 12, 26; June 3; September 15, 29; October 20; November 3, 17, 2009) Mr. Murdoch.

(Tabled November 17, 2009) Mr. Orazietti.

(Tabled June 2; October 5, 19; November 4, 2009) Mr. O'Toole.

(Tabled May 6, 26; June 3; September 23; October 5, 29, 2009) Mrs. Savoline.

(Tabled April 28; May 5, 12, 13; June 4; September 15, 16, 17; October 6, 22, 29; November 17, 2009) Mr. Wilson.

(Tabled June 2, 3; September 15, 23, 28, 30; October 7, 8, 28; November 17, 18, 2009) Mr. Yakabuski.

Petition relating to rejecting the harmonization of GST and RST (Sessional Paper No. P-225):

(Tabled April 6, 7, 27; May 6, 11, 27; September 16; October 19, 2009) Mr. O'Toole.

Petition relating to the Clarkson Airshed Study (Sessional Paper No. P-226):

(Tabled April 7, 8, 2009) Mr. Sousa.

Petition relating to a budget that protects all Ontarians (Sessional Paper No. P-228):

(Tabled April 6, 8, 21, 27, 30, 2009) Mr. Berardinetti.

(Tabled April 21, 2009) Mr. Kular.

(Tabled May 5, 2009) Mr. Naqvi.

Petition relating to protecting General Motors pensioners (Sessional Paper No. P-233):

(Tabled April 22, 23, 27; May 6, 11; October 20, 2009) Mr. O'Toole.

Petition relating to stopping the 13% combined sales tax (Sessional Paper No. P-235):

(Tabled November 5, 18, 2009) Mr. Arnott.

(Tabled September 24; October 1, 2009) Mr. Klees.

(Tabled May 13; June 4; September 24; October 1, 6, 7, 21, 28; November 2, 18, 2009) Mr. Martiniuk.

(Tabled May 13; June 2, 2009) Mrs. Munro.

(Tabled April 22; May 13; September 29; October 6, 19, 20, 21, 26, 27, 28; November 2, 16, 19, 2009) Mr. O'Toole.

(Tabled May 26; September 28, 2009) Mr. Ouellette.

Petition relating to removing the harmonized sales tax from the 2009-2010 budget (Sessional Paper No. P-236):

(Tabled April 27, 29; May 11; June 1, 2, 4; September 17, 24, 28, 29; October 1, 8; November 17, 19, 2009) Mr. Miller (Parry Sound–Muskoka).

Petition relating to halting implementation of the HST (Sessional Paper No. P-237):

(Tabled April 28; May 4; October 7, 2009) Mr. Prue.

Petition relating to supporting the Single Sales Tax in the 2009-2010 Budget (Sessional Paper No. P-242):

(Tabled May 6, 2009) Mr. Delaney.

(Tabled November 3, 4, 2009) Mr. Ruprecht.

Petition relating to cancelling the scheduled implementation of sales tax harmonization (Sessional Paper No. P-244):

(Tabled October 29, 2009) Mr. Bisson.

(Tabled November 16, 2009) Mme Gélinas.

(Tabled May 12, 2009) Ms. Horwath.

(Tabled October 6, 2009) Mr. Marchese.

(Tabled September 16; October 7, 21, 2009) Mr. Miller (Hamilton East–Stoney Creek).

(Tabled October 7, 2009) Mr. Tabuns.

Petition relating to delaying the implementation of Bill 150 (Sessional Paper No. P-245):

(Tabled May 12, 2009) Mr. Murdoch.

Petition relating to Elmvale District High School (Sessional Paper No. P-249):

(Tabled November 3, 2009) Mr. Wilson.

Petition relating to harmonizing the PST and GST and the Taxpayer Protection Act (Sessional Paper No. P-251):

(Tabled May 25; September 30, 2009) Mr. Sterling.

Petition relating to abandoning the sales tax increase announced in the 2009 Budget (Sessional Paper No. P-256):

(Tabled May 27; September 16; October 7, 21, 28; November 18, 2009) Mrs. Munro.

Petition relating to the Social Assistance Review of ODSP allowances in the Region of Peel (Sessional Paper No. P-258):

(Tabled May 28, 2009) Mr. Prue.

Petition relating to population-based social services funding (Sessional Paper No. P-263):

(Tabled November 3, 4, 2009) Mr. Delaney.

Petition relating to placing a moratorium on the building of a wind farm in the Village of Seagrave (Sessional Paper No. P-264):

(Tabled June 3, 2009) Mr. O'Toole.

Petition relating to opposing adoption of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) Report on the Five Year Review of Automobile Insurance (Sessional Paper No. P-268):

(Tabled June 4, 2009) Mr. Prue.

Petition relating to scrapping the Cosmetic Pesticide Ban (Sessional Paper No. P-270):

(Tabled June 4, 2009) Mr. Barrett.

Petition relating to making positron emission tomography (PET) scanning available through the Sudbury Regional Hospital (Sessional Paper No. P-272):

(Tabled October 27; November 2, 3, 4, 2009) Mme Gélinas.

Petition relating to not reducing or eliminating financial incentives that rural communities and small towns need to attract and retain doctors (Sessional Paper No. P-274):

(Tabled October 19, 21, 26, 27; November 2, 3, 2009) Mr. O'Toole.

Petition relating to amending the Liquor Control Act to permit the sale of beer and wine in local convenience stores (Sessional Paper No. P-277):

(Tabled November 16, 2009) Mrs. Albanese.

(Tabled October 28, 2009) Mr. Arnott.

(Tabled October 6; November 4, 2009) Mr. Bailey.

(Tabled September 15, 2009) Mr. Klees.

Petition relating to enacting Ontario's comprehensive tax reform measures (Sessional Paper No. P-282):

(Tabled September 23, 24, 29; October 6, 19, 26; November 4, 2009) Mr. Delaney.

(Tabled September 30, 2009) Mr. Leal.

Petition relating to not imposing a new tax on Ontario's hard-working families and businesses (Sessional Paper No. P-288):

(Tabled September 29, 2009) Mr. Shurman.

Petition relating to cancelling the HST in relation to condo fees (Sessional Paper No. P-289):

(Tabled September 30, 2009) Mr. Martiniuk.

Petition relating to cancelling the plan to introduce a harmonized sales tax on July 1, 2010. (Sessional Paper No. P-293):

(Tabled October 29, 2009) Mr. Bisson.

(Tabled October 20; November 17, 2009) Mme Gélinas.

(Tabled October 6, 2009) Mr. Marchese.

(Tabled October 21, 2009) Mr. Miller (Hamilton East–Stoney Creek).

Petition relating to Burk's Falls and District Health Centre and Rural Health Care Policy (Sessional Paper No. P-302):

(Tabled October 22, 2009) Mr. Miller (Parry Sound–Muskoka).

Petition relating to abandoning the RFP process for school bus companies (Sessional Paper No. P-303):

(Tabled October 22, 29, 2009) Mrs. Witmer.

(Tabled November 4, 2009) Mr. Yakabuski.

Petition relating to Nortel pensions and convening a national summit on pensions. (Sessional Paper No. P-306):

(Tabled October 28, 2009) Mr. Tabuns.

Petition relating to the Youth Action Alliance (Sessional Paper No. P-309):

(Tabled November 3, 2009) Mr. Murdoch.

____________

24 novembre 2009