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

April 5, 2005

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2005-Apr-05 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 5 April 2005 Mardi 5 avril 2005

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ARCHIVES OF ONTARIO

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

MARY MCBRIDE

SCHOOL SAFETY

BOBCAYGEON-VERULAM

COMMUNITY CENTRE

AUTISM TREATMENT

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

MOTIONS

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 133

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC SAFETY

CASINO WINDSOR

AUTISM TREATMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

ELECTRONIC SERVICE DELIVERY

SCHOOL CLOSURES

PENSION PLANS

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

SCHOOL HEALTH AND SAFETY

COMMUNITY USE OF SCHOOLS

NORTHERN AIR SERVICE

CORONER'S INQUESTS

LAKE ERIE FISHERY

PETITIONS

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

PENSION PLANS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR

THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

GO TRANSIT TUNNEL

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

TEACHER QUALIFICATION

CASINO WINDSOR

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR

THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

WATER EXTRACTION

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR

THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

TENANT PROTECTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PLACES TO GROW ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR

LES ZONES DE CROISSANCE

FILM CLASSIFICATION ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005

SUR LE CLASSEMENT DES FILMS

LABOUR RELATIONS STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

CONCERNANT LES RELATIONS

DE TRAVAIL

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ARCHIVES OF ONTARIO

Mrs. Julia Munro (York North): Six months ago, I stood in this House to condemn the government's decision to cancel our government's plan to

move the archives to a new facility. I pointed out to the government that a report several years ago said that the current space is unsafe and unhealthy, and that the preservation of documents is

at risk. The collections are starting to develop mould and the second floor is sagging. Historical documents and photos are at risk of theft or damage, and thefts have already been reported.

The Friends of the Archives of Ontario say, "This short-sighted move endangers irreplaceable records of Ontario's history. The current building was long ago

deemed inadequate and is at risk of fire, flood and theft." The Archives Association of Ontario is very concerned and said they "fear that this decision will put at greater risk the documentary

heritage that is to be found within the archives."

What is the plan of the McGuinty Liberals to preserve our archives? There is no plan. There is barely a plan to develop a plan. The Chair of Management Board

admitted to the House a month ago that it probably would take a couple of years before he finds a permanent long-term solution. Ontario's history and heritage cannot wait that long. The archives

need help now.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Ms. Laurel C. Broten (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): Recently in my riding I had the pleasure of facilitating a round table discussion with community

stakeholders regarding the need for affordable housing in Ontario, something my community of Etobicoke-Lakeshore is in need of. The purpose was to bring together the diverse ideas and expertise of

stakeholders, advocates and government alike to discuss the need for and provision of affordable housing and affordable housing supports.

Prior to and since my election, many constituents, agencies and organizations have communicated to me the need for affordable housing in Etobicoke-Lakeshore. I

understand the complex needs of various groups within my community and will continue to work to make their concerns known, because housing is a right. We must work to ensure that families who are

in need of affordable housing have access to it.

Increasing the number of affordable housing units in Ontario is vital, and I am encouraged that there will be a particular focus on appropriate housing for

persons suffering from mental illness, victims of domestic violence and the working poor. We have already committed to fund more than 3,300 units of affordable housing, almost eight times more than

announced by the previous government over two years, and are working on delivering more.

My community understands that helping to provide affordable housing to those in need is fundamental, and I want to say thank you to those leaders in our

community who attended the housing meeting for their input. I look forward to continuing my discussions with them and ultimately developing solutions as we work together for our community.

MARY MCBRIDE

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): I rise to pay tribute to my constituent Mrs. Mary McBride of Alliston on her receipt of the Prime Minister's Award

for Teaching Excellence. This esteemed award honours outstanding secondary school teachers who best equip their students for the challenges of a changing society and an increasingly knowledge-based

economy.

Mrs. McBride has made our community proud for her dedication to teaching Latin to the students at Banting Memorial High School, where she began teaching some 33

years ago. I attended BMHS in Alliston and I've seen first-hand the respect that staff and students have for Mrs. McBride.

A mere 15 Canadians are presented with this award each year. It is accompanied by a $5,000 donation to the local high school to be used under the direction of

Mrs. McBride to improve teaching and learning in our community. On March 28, I was pleased to join in a standing ovation from some 300 local residents, who recognized Mrs. McBride for this

outstanding achievement at the Alliston Rotary Club's annual rural-urban night at the Nottawasaga Inn.

This award is a tribute to the hard work and dedication Mrs. McBride has demonstrated, and it recognizes her valuable contribution to making our community and

our country a better place to live, work and raise a family. Mary McBride, thank you for giving so much of yourself to our community and to the teaching profession.

SCHOOL SAFETY

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): Last November my community was stunned by the sudden death of a young high school student, and

to many in my community bullying contributed to his suicide.

Safe schools should be a fundamental part of our education system. The Liberal government of Ontario is constantly striving to ensure these principles, so today

I would like to recognize the success of a group of students at Sir George Ross Secondary School in London. Last week this group of students from Sir George Ross presented an anti-bullying video at

the National Conference on Bullying. I would like to thank their vice-principal, Paula Greenberg, for endorsing such an important initiative.

I would also like to thank all the students who worked on the project, such as Justin Blackwell and Trevor Haugh. You are on the front lines, making schools a

safer place for students to be. I applaud them very much for that.

The Liberal government in Ontario has a strategy for safe schools. We have a plan that will make our schools safer. We are creating a bullying prevention program

in all schools. We are conducting safety audits for all Ontario schools and we are installing entranceway security cameras in at least 400 elementary schools by this fall. This will help keep our

students safe and foster a learning experience based on excellence. We are also investing at least $9 million this year and next to make Ontario schools safer.

I applaud the Minister of Education and I am proud to be part of a team that is taking concrete steps to secure the future of our students and the future of

Ontario. A safe school is a successful school.

BOBCAYGEON-VERULAM

COMMUNITY CENTRE

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): This past weekend I joined with people from throughout my riding to celebrate the 50th anniversary

of the Bobcaygeon-Verulam Community Centre. On April 2, we were treated to figure skating presentations, hockey games, public skating, music performed by the Bobcaygeon Olde Tymers and a colour

party from the local Legion branch.

In the past 50 years, the community centre has served as an anchor point for many local activities, drawing people together to share in hockey, skating, curling,

dances and carnivals. It has instilled pride in the community by hosting hockey, figure skating and curling championships and, of course, the famous Bobcaygeon fiddle and step dance contests.

I grew up in the area and attended the community centre all my life. My father, Bill Scott, refereed many a hockey game there.

The community centre helped to put Bobcaygeon on the map as it hosted thousands of visitors to the Bobcaygeon fall fair. The fall fair board originally owned the

building and deeded it to the community centre's use. The Honourable Leslie Frost, Premier of Ontario, opened it 50 years ago.

Community centres play an important role in smaller communities, and this is no exception. It is a place where people met new friends, and a place where people

could give back to their community by participating in one of the many charitable events.

The Bobcaygeon-Verulam Community Centre was a place to see big-time entertainers such as Don Messer, Whipper Billy Watson, Tommy Hunter, Stompin' Tom Connors or

the Tragically Hip. It was a place to cheer on the local hockey teams.

On Saturday night, we saw the next generation at the centre lacing up their skates. Here's to the next 50 years at the Bobcaygeon-Verulam Community Centre.

AUTISM TREATMENT

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): It's immoral for the McGuinty government to appeal the recent court decision on autism. Justice Kiteley found

that the McGuinty government has violated the charter rights of autistic children by discriminating against them on the basis of age and disability, and further, that the minister has violated the

Education Act by failing to ensure that appropriate special education programs are in place for autistic children without the payment of fees.

She said, "To deny the plaintiff children the opportunity to have treatment after the age of five is to stereotype them, to prejudice them, and to create a

disadvantage for them." Further, "The absence of ABA/IBI [in the schools] means that children with autism are excluded from the opportunity to access learning with the consequential deprivation of

skills, the likelihood of isolation from society and the loss of the ability to exercise the rights and freedoms to which all Canadians are entitled."

The government's reason to appeal is pathetic. The Attorney General said the Supreme Court ruled that governments are in the best position to design programs in

the interests of autistic children. The Supreme Court never said provincial programs should violate the charter rights of autistic children, which is exactly what the Ontario autism program

does.

Justice Kiteley agreed with Premier McGuinty that the age six cut-off for IBI is unfair and discriminatory. She ordered the government to do exactly what the

Premier had already promised in the last election: to end the discrimination against children over six. The Liberals have never ended this discrimination. It's clear they never had any intention

when they made the promise in the first place.

This government should be ashamed of its betrayal of autistic children. Stop fighting parents in court, end your violation of the charter rights of autistic

children, stop violating the Education Act and start funding IBI for autistic children who need it, when and where they need it.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

Mr. Tony C. Wong (Markham): Every year, people in my riding of Markham, along with other Ontarians, contribute their hard-earned tax dollars

toward the federal government in order to make this country strong and prosperous in all regions. But they are not getting a fair return for their dollar, and that is not the Canadian way. The

$23-billion difference between what is collected from us and what we receive results in real setbacks when it comes to Ontario being able to reinvest in our health care, our immigrants and our

infrastructure.

For instance, in my riding of Markham, we are in desperate need of investment support for our Markham Stouffville Hospital redevelopment costs and our Viva rapid

transit project to reduce gridlock in the ever-growing York region.

Investment is also needed to ensure that our immigrants are welcomed and integrated into our community in the best possible way. Ontario attracts the majority of

the country's immigrants -- 57%, to be exact -- with many of them choosing Markham as their destination, yet we receive just 34% of federal funding for their settlement.

Ontario cannot continue to afford this $23-billion gap. The Gap is not just some store at the mall; it is the $23-billion difference between what we as Ontarians

are paying and what we are receiving from the federal government. This must change. We need to invest in our health care, our post-secondary education and our people if Ontario is to remain the

economic engine that we are for this great country.

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mr. Wayne Arthurs (Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge): I rise today to speak about the McGuinty government's commitment to a mature relationship with

municipalities. For example, just last week, the government announced that the Ontario municipal partnership fund would replace the community reinvestment fund. The new program is equitable and

transparent and will target funds toward social assistance and policing costs for small, northern and rural municipalities. This represents a $656-million investment overall, and at a minimum,

municipalities will receive at least as much funding in 2005 as they did in 2004.

Roger Anderson, president of AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, had this to say about last week's announcement: "Today's reconciliation

announcement shows that the Premier is listening to municipalities. The province's decision to pay money owed to municipalities for 2003 and 2004 is good news for property taxpayers all over

Ontario." But that's not all. Kirkland Lake Mayor Bill Enouy said, "I think it is the right thing to do and I am very happy." Timmins Mayor Vic Power said, "I'm really pleased things worked out the

way they did."

What all this represents is that there's a new way of doing things in Ontario. As a government, we're committed to doing everything we can to make sure that

municipalities are at the table and that their voices are being heard.

Mr. David Orazietti (Sault Ste. Marie): I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to recognize the extraordinary work our government is doing to

build stronger municipalities. Last week, we announced the new Ontario municipal partnership fund and retired the previous government's flawed CRF formula. The new partnership fund is much more

fiscally responsible, more equitable and a more transparent way to meet the needs of Ontario's municipalities. Municipalities received $656 million for 2005, an increase of $38 million over 2004.

It represents the largest-ever transfer payment to municipalities.

This announcement was very well received in our city, with our mayor, John Rowswell, calling it "amazingly wonderful news," and that "this will make a

substantive difference for our budget." He also made reference to our municipality's request for reconciliation for 2003-04 costs and noted that this announcement surpasses that request. Our city's

chief administrative officer said that the new OMPF "will be very much appreciated and it is good news going into our budget this year." Sault Ste. Marie has been facing a significant tax increase,

and now that may be reduced by as much as 5%. As well, our finance ministry estimates that this could offset taxes by as much as $80 per household.

The point here is that we're responding to the needs of municipalities that were severely burdened by the past government. The downloading of provincial services

by the Conservatives was not revenue-neutral, as they told us, and as a former city councillor, I know first-hand what this irresponsible leadership did to our city of Sault Ste. Marie. Instead,

our government has chosen a formula that is based on the needs of municipalities across the province of Ontario, and I'm proud of this particular fund.

MOTIONS

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 133

Hon. Rick Bartolucci (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I move that the order for second reading of Bill 133,

An Act to amend the

Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act in respect of enforcement and other matters, be discharged and the bill be referred to the standing committee on the Legislative

Assembly.

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Attorney General. Last week, I asked you to initiate a review of the ruling

that granted bail to a man charged with the first-degree murder of his wife. You said at that time that you wanted to have an opportunity to look at the court transcripts. Seeing how quickly you

could decide to appeal the autism decision, might we ask that some of that zeal now be applied in favour of community safety in Bolton, Ontario?

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): I continue to

refuse to permit a member of this House to try and politicize a decision about what the crown does with respect to bail. I can update the member in saying that the individual in question is

currently incarcerated.

Mr. Tory: To hear this minister talking about politicization as if there's something that is foreign to him about that is a bit rich. Minister,

you wasted no time yesterday in announcing your government's appeal of the case involving treatment for children with autism past age six. You didn't need to see any transcripts in a case that had

a 217-page judgment.

The neighbours in Bolton and the families who send their kids to nearby schools, who go to play in those parks, are waiting for you to stand up and act. Will you

do so immediately for the sake of their community safety?

Hon. Mr. Bryant: I say again, the individual in question is incarcerated, and I understand that the court is receiving submissions from crown

and defence counsel with respect to his conditions of release. As soon as we have the materials in place that would permit us to file them with the Chief Justice of Ontario, if that determination

was to be made, then I'll be in a position to do that. But in the interim, I say to the member, the individual in question that you're speaking of is incarcerated.

Mr. Tory: The minister keeps repeating that, as if it's going to address the concerns of people. Their concern is, of course, what's going to

happen if the individual in question is to be out on bail, as the court has ordered.

If the minister won't listen to my plea, then perhaps I could share an e-mail with him that I've had from a neighbourhood resident in Bolton, addressed to the

Premier. In it she says:

"Mr. McGuinty, please do something about this while you still can. We are not questioning his right to a fair trial.... In the future, no person should ever have

to live through such a nightmare again. Bail should not be an option to anyone charged with violent crimes."

Surely you don't think it's right, Minister, as I don't, that someone accused of first-degree murder in these kinds of circumstances should be allowed back into

the community under what can only be described as minimal supervision. Will you do the right thing right away: finish your review of the transcripts and get on with requesting this review?

Hon. Mr. Bryant: What I think is right is that an independent court makes these decisions and that these decisions are not made by the leader of

the official opposition or, in fact, by any politician. What I am responsible for is ensuring that we are doing everything we can to protect the public, and we are doing that.

Of course we opposed bail in this matter. Of course we are going to do everything in our power to ensure that the community is safe. This member, who is a

lawyer, knows he's violating the rules of professional conduct, knows he's violating the sub judice rules, knows he's violating constitutional convention, knows he's trying to politicize the

courts, and I will have nothing to do with it. We will work on protecting the public. He can work on trying to politicize the judicial system, but I will have nothing to do with it.

Mr. Tory: What the minister will have nothing to do with is answering the questions of people in Ontario about issues of community safety.

CASINO WINDSOR

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): In the absence of the Premier, my question is to the Deputy Premier. Minister, the government House

leader, the Minister of Energy, undoubtedly one of the most senior ministers in your government, is positively gushing with excitement over the prospect of spending $400 million in government funds

on an expanded casino in his city. Today we learn that he is lobbying the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. to accommodate a $100-million gondola at the Windsor casino.

Mr. Deputy Premier, can you guarantee that not one cent of government money, not one cent of monies raised by the lottery and gaming commission that would

otherwise be turned over to the government, will be spent on this gondola?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I appreciate the question from the honourable member, particularly as it

reinforces our government's commitment to the people of Windsor to recognize that over a period of time, through investments by previous governments, the Windsor casino has been not only an

important source of revenue for our province and for the important goals that we support here, but obviously also an important source of local employment for the people of Windsor. It should come

as no surprise to anyone in this House that any honourable member from Windsor is standing up and doing their part, which is working hard on behalf of the people of Windsor.

Mr. Tory: It's tough to get answers, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Premier, at a time when hospitals in Ontario, as you well know, have received $91 million of our health tax money to fire more than 750 nurses, when

those very same hospitals finished the year with $330 million in accumulated deficits, your government has decided to spend $400 million on casino renovations and expansions in Windsor, and now we

hear about a gondola. How can you justify spending hundreds of millions of dollars on casinos and hotels and gondolas while hospitals are left wondering what they will do to deal with their $330

million in accumulated deficits?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: The honourable member constituent of mine, such a recent arrival, is obviously no student of history. If you were a

student of history, you would have taken note of the fact that when your party was in government, you certainly found resources to invest in casinos, but at the very same time your government cut

557 million real dollars from Ontario hospitals. While we're on the matter of funding for Ontario hospitals, I'll remind you, Mr. Tory, that your party while in government brought in a budget at

Magna. In that budget, they predicted funding for Ontario hospitals in fiscal year 2004-05, and to the tune, I might add, of hundreds of millions of dollars fewer than the actual expenses that we

float in support of the important mission of Ontario's hospitals.

Mr. Tory: We've gone from curious to furious and now to injurious. I find it amazing that you have the time and the money for gondolas and for

casinos and for sushi bans and for logo changes, and yet the hospitals have absolutely no idea what funding they will receive for the fiscal year that is now five days old. All the hospitals know

is that they ended last year -- still no word from you -- with $330 million in accumulated deficits. Without knowing that, they can't plan, they can't make staffing decisions, and inevitably that

is going to mean, down the road, more layoffs of nurses and others. Minister, when can the hospitals expect to receive word from you as to what funding they will receive for this year so they can

do some proper planning?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: On the issue of proper planning as it relates to hospitals, it's interesting that that honourable member -- sitting

beside, as he does, the longest-serving Minister of Health from the previous government -- instead of speaking with her and asking about the failed record of your government, would instead be

asking questions about our commitment to Ontario's hospitals. Let me refresh: We are the government that's bringing hospitals to a situation where they will be rewarded for being in balance; more

than 80 hospitals in the province of Ontario submitted plans to be in balance in fiscal 2005-06, and that is the goal toward which we work toward the end of this year.

Contrary to the suggestions by the honourable member, I met as recently as last week with representatives of the leadership of the Ontario Hospital

Association. We're working very closely with them, through the work we do together, to be able to offer earlier commitment to hospitals about their funding allocations. This is something we seek to

achieve because other governments have failed to in the past, but it will be part of our legacy.

AUTISM TREATMENT

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. During the election, the Premier had

no problem looking the parents of autistic children in the eye and promising to provide IBI treatment for children over age five. But yesterday we saw that the Premier wouldn't take responsibility

for his broken promise and that he wouldn't take responsibility for your government's violation of the constitutional rights of those autistic children. In fact, the Premier would not look those

children and their parents in the eye.

Minister, I believe that the Premier has to take responsibility. It was his promise and now it's his government. My question is, as Ontario's advocate for

children in the cabinet, do you think it's acceptable for the Premier to duck the questions about his promise and about his violation of those autistic children's constitutional rights?

Hon. Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children and Youth Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): I'm incredibly proud of the

support the Premier has given not only to children with autism but to children with special needs across this province. Under an extremely difficult fiscal situation, we found $200 million more in

last year's budget for children in this province -- the first-ever expenditure for children with mental health in almost a decade; the first-ever new expenditure for child care -- and we doubled

the spending for children with autism from $40 million to $80 million. I'm proud of our record and proud of our Premier and I'm standing by him and my government.

Mr. Hampton: I take it the minister must be proud of the court decision of Madam Justice Kiteley, which says that you are not living up to the

promise and that you are failing the constitutional rights of these children.

I want to refer to another document I have. This is a letter from your political assistant, Lisa Clements. In her letter she tells government MPPs and their

staff to avoid meeting with autistic children and their families. All phone calls should be forwarded to a bureaucrat. Why? Let me quote: "To minimize (well eliminate actually) the chances of your

MPP finding themselves in a difficult situation."

The Premier called denying IBI treatment to autistic children unfair and discriminatory. He promised to end this discrimination. Can you tell autistic children

and their parents why the Premier is ducking their questions? Why are McGuinty MPPs avoiding talking to or even meeting autistic children and their parents in this province?

Hon. Mrs. Bountrogianni: Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. I know my colleagues have met with families of children with

autism.

Interjections.

Hon. Mrs. Bountrogianni: Absolutely. My colleagues have met with families. They have brought their needs to my attention. My bureaucrats, as

well as my political staff, have met with families, and you know that very well.

We are very proud of our record. We have doubled our spending on this file. We have increased the number of children receiving IBI treatment by 25% and we have

reduced the waiting list for assessment by 72%. No longer will kids be languishing, just waiting for an assessment, for a diagnosis. We're very proud of our strategy and very proud about the

openness and the consultations with experts to develop our strategy. We will soon meet our goal of helping these children across the province, not only in the cities and boards where there were

resources, but in the cities and boards where there weren't resources.

Mr. Hampton: I simply want to quote from your special assistant's letter again: "To minimize (well eliminate actually) the chances of your MPP

finding themselves in a difficult situation" with autistic children and their parents. That was the letter you sent to government MPPs.

I think the people of Ontario deserve better than a Premier who won't answer for his own broken promises. I think they deserve better than a government that

says, "We don't like this issue. This issue is troubling for us. Avoid these children. Avoid these parents. Pretend they really aren't on the radar screen right now." I think people deserve

better.

I'm going to ask you this: The Minister of Finance has a budget coming up. Will you guarantee those autistic children and their parents that the money will be

in the budget to meet the promise the Premier made to those parents before the election?

Hon. Mrs. Bountrogianni: In order to enlighten the member opposite about what we are doing, beyond what my ministry is doing, I will refer

this supplementary question to the Minister of Education.

Hon. Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): It is, I think, interesting to the families involved that you would try and characterize this in

the way you have. There's one party in this House that made a commitment to people with autism and to their families, and that's the Liberal Party. There was no commitment in your platform. There

was no advance consideration of these children and their needs.

I would say to you that last year our government faced and contemplated the needs of a very significant number of children in this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. I don't think you are interested in the answer, as a matter of fact, so I would ask for a new

question.

Mr. Hampton: I would just say to the Minister of Education, you're right. I didn't promise autistic children something knowing I wasn't going

to keep the promise.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. We know the McGuinty government is not listening

to autistic children and their parents, but you are listening to someone quite powerful. In October you brought forward Bill 133, your spill bill, and you were very rhetorical, saying this was

going to be leading edge, but in the meantime we've learned that a powerful coalition formed to lobby behind the scenes wants you to water down the bill. Today you have said that the bill is not

going forward for debate; you're going to shuffle it off to committee. Who is leading this lobby? Why, it's the Premier's personal fixer, Warren Kinsella, senior adviser to the Liberal election

campaign. Minister, who are you listening to: ordinary Ontarians, who want you to protect the environment, or Warren Kinsella, who is lobbying for the chemical industry?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): I'm very proud to say that this government is listening to the people of Ontario,

particularly those people who have been impacted by industrial spills, who have had their water intakes shut down. That is why we introduced the penalties bill. If passed, it will provide resources

directly to communities so people in those communities will be compensated when these horrible incidents take place.

Mr. Hampton: I think people are already putting their money on Warren Kinsella.

Here is the situation: You bring forward Bill 133, about six months ago, with lots of rhetoric, a virtual crescendo of rhetoric, and then for six months it

languishes on the order paper. Nothing happens. On March 14, Warren Kinsella signs up as the lobbyist for the chemical industry, which wants this bill watered down. Now, just days later, the bill

doesn't come forward for debate; it goes out the side door to committee. Groups like the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association, the Canadian Foundry Association and the Canadian Petroleum

Products Institute are very happy .

Minister, is it just a coincidence that mere days after the Premier's personal election guru, Warren Kinsella, signs up for these groups, your Bill 133 goes

sideways instead of coming forward for debate?

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: I would just like the honourable member to explain how it is that using a very legitimate process of this Legislature --

a committee hearing that will invite input from the public of Ontario -- is somehow a perversion or is slipping something out the side door.

I'm proud of the record of this government and how we have brought legislation forward. I am proud of the record that every bill that has been passed by this

Legislature has been amended. Obviously, we are a government that wants to build good and strong legislation and we are prepared to engage the people of Ontario in that process.

Mr. Hampton: Here is the big picture: You won't listen to autistic children and their parents, but when Warren Kinsella signs up as lobbyist

on behalf of some of the biggest polluters in the province, boy, things start to happen. You won't listen to the judge who says you're violating the constitutional rights of autistic children, you

won't listen to her when she says you're violating their human dignity, but when Warren Kinsella, the Premier's election guru, comes calling on behalf of the chemical industry, it happens right

away.

I want to know where you stand on Bill 133. Do you stand with all those Ontarians who want the environment protected or do you stand with Warren Kinsella,

lobbying for some of the biggest polluters?

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: I'm very proud of the penalties legislation that is before the House and that will go to committee. We're very

interested to hear the kind of support we will receive from the people. We believe there is strong support out there. I have a long list of endorsements for this legislation: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,

Dr. Isobel Heathcote from the University of Guelph, who co-chaired the IPAT, and just yesterday I spoke with David Suzuki, who encourages us to continue with this very worthy piece of

legislation.

That is a commitment from this minister. This government will do the right thing and will protect the environment. In Ontario, if you spill, you pay.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Health. Your government is intent on gleefully spending some $400 million on a

swanky new casino expansion in Windsor, despite ongoing serious decisions being made by hospitals across Ontario.

Last Thursday, constituents in Durham riding, including the regions of Oshawa, Whitby, Port Perry and Bowmanville --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. I'll ask the government members to come to order. I cannot hear the member from Durham.

The member for Durham.

Mr. O'Toole: Last Thursday, constituents in Durham region -- from Oshawa hospital, Whitby hospital, Port Perry hospital and Bowmanville

hospitals -- learned that their hospitals issued layoff notices to some 308 staff to deal with a multi-million dollar deficit. Hospital officials say in their release that it's going to have a

dramatic impact on patient care.

Minister, how can you possibly justify a $400-million expansion of casinos, and, worse yet, not rule out the $100-million gondola to the casino? Are casinos a

higher priority to you than are hospitals in Ontario?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): It's striking that a question like that would come from an honourable member

who's part of a political party that was investing in casinos at the very time that they cut hospital funding. That is the legacy, sir, of your time in government. Now you're sitting in a caucus

with a leader who's proposing an astonishing $2.4-billion cut to health care, and you ask me a question like that. I'm proud to stand here as part of a government that has invested more than $13

million in the operation at Lakeridge. If the honourable member wants to go and read the release further or the news coverage of it, he will know that the hospital predicted that many of the same

number of job layoffs are unlikely to come to fruition.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Cameron Jackson (Burlington): I think it would be erroneous to suggest that a legitimate tax cut is in any way a cut to health care, and

the member should know that.

This story gets absolutely worse. Minister, your $100-million gondola story is catching fire across the province, and I'll tell you why: Hospitals are asking

you legitimate questions about what you're doing. Last Friday, the Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital in Burlington closed three of its important clinics: their chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

clinic, their lipid heart program and their outpatient physiotherapy clinic. Last April, Joseph Brant closed 24 medical beds because of your hospital budget shortfall and in the last three months

there have been more surgical cancellations than in this hospital's 10-year history.

Minister, how can you sit at a cabinet table and listen to the member from Windsor tell you how important it is to spend $400 million to $500 million on a

gondola and a casino when you know your number one priority is to improve the quality of health care in this province, especially for those who present themselves in hospitals every single day?

Where is your priority?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: Our priorities are made rather obvious and stand in sharp contrast to that party's priorities. This is the party that

this year has made a $2.9-billion new investment in health care in the province of Ontario. Here is the point of rather stark contrast: That member is part of the caucus of a party that proposes to

reduce health care spending by $2.4 billion.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Ms. Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Today, after months of letting it languish on

the order paper, we learn that you've referred Bill 133 -- your "you spill, you pay" bill -- to committee prior to second reading and prior to any opportunity for debate in this House.

Two weeks ago Warren Kinsella, the Premier's senior adviser and war room strategist during the 2003 election, registered to lobby you, the Premier, as well as

other ministers on Bill 133. And on whose behalf is senior Liberal strategist Mr. Kinsella lobbying the Premier? Why, on behalf of something called the Coalition for a Sustainable Environment. Talk

about Orwellian; it's an industry front group composed of some of the largest polluters in this country.

Minister, I'm going to follow up on my leader and ask you again, will you come clean about why you're suddenly detouring this bill into committee prior to

debate in this House? What is going on?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): I think it's very clear that this government is committed to ensuring that the people of

Ontario have an opportunity, particularly on matters of important legislation, to provide their input to this government so that we can craft the very best, most solid legislation, particularly

when we're dealing with our environment. I believe that the penalties bill is a very, very important piece of legislation.

This is no trick. This is a legitimate manoeuvre that provides the people of Ontario, the members of the public, with an opportunity to comment on this

proposed legislation. I don't understand why the member is having such difficulty with this. Our government is committed to ensuring that the people of Ontario have a very strong voice in the

shaping of legislation, and that's exactly what we're doing.

Ms. Churley: Let me tell the minister why I'm having trouble with this. We know Mr. Kinsella is a prominent Liberal strategist and ally of the

Premier's. We know that just a little while ago he registered to lobby the Premier, yourself and other ministers on behalf of some of the largest polluters in this province. Now, today, we learn

that the bill has suddenly quietly been deferred to committee without any opportunity for debate in this House or any discussion with the opposition parties.

What part of Bill 133 do Mr. Kinsella and the coalition of polluters he represents want you to change in committee? Is it the environmental penalty provisions,

the reverse onus provisions? Is it holding corporate directors and officers liable for spills? Is it the definition of "containment" proposed for the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario

Water Resources Act? Minister, will you tell us what parts of Bill 133 Mr. Kinsella and his pollution coalition want you to change in committee?

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: I think I have some sense of why the member from Toronto-Danforth is having trouble with the fact that this bill has

been referred to committee. It might have something to do with the fact that she has been recorded publicly, Colin Perkel indicated that she said just a couple of weeks ago, that if the bill goes

anywhere, she would eat her hat. Well, it's going to committee, so I challenge the honourable member to eat her hat.

ELECTRONIC SERVICE DELIVERY

Ms. Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Business Services. Last Thursday, we announced in North Bay

the opening of northern Ontario's first Service Ontario kiosk. As you know, in northern Ontario we often have to drive great distances to obtain essential services. Having driven a long way, these

people must then drive from office to office seeking different government services, such as OHIP cards, hunting and fishing licences and information about northern health travel grants. In my

riding, my residents in Mattawa must drive 45 minutes to North Bay for many services. Can you explain how the integrated service delivery concept will make government service delivery more

efficient for all the residents of Nipissing?

Hon. Jim Watson (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): What a great question. It comes as a bit of a surprise to me; I wasn't expecting

this. But I do thank the honourable member for Nipissing.

This concept called Service Ontario is something our ministry and our government are very proud of. I want to also thank the Minister of Northern Development,

Mr. Bartolucci, because the Ministry of Northern Development runs the government information centres in the north on behalf of our ministry.

The concept, really, is quite straightforward and simple. It's one-stop shopping, bringing together services so that consumers, the citizens of North Bay and

Nipissing, don't have to travel from pillar to post to get Ontario government services. These are services such as replacing a health card, obtaining a fish or wildlife licence, accessing business

information -- all done with professional staff in a one-stop-shopping concept. It's something we're very proud of at our ministry. We're working hard to spread the concept to other jurisdictions

and work with other levels of government as well.

Ms. Smith: That's great news for the north. As you're aware, Mr. Minister, in some areas of the very remote north it's very difficult to get

into even these centres. I understand that the Service Ontario Web site has increased access to essential services for all Ontarians. What services are now available on the Web site for the

residents of northern Ontario as well as for those across the province?

Hon. Mr. Watson: On November 2 of last year I had the pleasure, along with my colleagues the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Culture,

of launching serviceontario.ca, which, again, is a one-stop-shopping concept on the Internet. Individuals can register their business name, renew their health card or driver's licence, and gather

other useful information, such as, when retiring or when an individual is having a baby, with respect to birth registration, birth certificates and so on.

We're also working with the other levels of government, federal and municipal, so we can truly create a one-stop-shopping concept so that individuals don't

have to have a civics lesson to figure out which level of government is responsible for what. In Brockville, with the member from Kitchener, Mr. Milloy, we signed a memorandum of understanding with

the federal government to work with them so that we can eventually have more federal government services. We're also working with municipalities across the province, including my city, the city of

Ottawa, to locate the government information centre, the Service Ontario kiosk, within Ottawa city hall, saving money and aggravation for people trying to find out who does what within the three

structures of government.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question is to the Minister of Education. Under your watch, scores of rural schools are on the chopping

block. There is a great deal of uncertainty in school boards right across this province about whether rural schools will remain open. Your Premier, the self-proclaimed education Premier, said this:

"It's time for a government that will keep rural schools open." Can you, as education minister, tell us today how many rural schools will be closed this coming year? Can you tell us that, in light

of your leader's comments and commitment to keep rural schools open? How many will be closed this coming year?

Hon. Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): As the member opposite may be aware, we have made a commitment to the people and the communities

of rural Ontario that is being lived out this year with $30 million more dedicated simply to making those schools more viable. For some reason, the last government caused over 200 small, rural

schools to shut down -- a record number. The only thing remarkable about their management of education was how many private schools they managed to open.

We called for and had co-operation on a moratorium on school closures over approximately the last year and a half. Approximately six or seven schools were

closed in that period, very few of them in rural areas. We have now started a discussion with the areas that have heavy declining enrolment because that is where the particular challenges are. We

will know some time between now and the time of the budget exactly what else we'll be doing. But I will say that we're already far above the assistance given to rural schools under the last

government and far above even what Dr. Rozanski asked for in terms of health for rural schools.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Supplementary.

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): Minister, you promised to keep rural schools open and you've broken that promise. As a result

of your broken promise, the Renfrew county school board in my riding has been forced to decide to close six schools, with one to be decided later this year.

You've received many letters on this subject from distraught parents and also community leaders asking for your intervention on this matter. Minister, will you

address the funding shortfall and advance the necessary funds so that these vital schools, so important to those communities, can remain open?

Hon. Mr. Kennedy: I think the people of Renfrew, Deep River and so on would be disappointed to hear that their representative is here

supporting a school board that is closing schools. We instead have asked that board and every board in this province to take into account and to follow a complete new set of school guidelines for

closure. The board in question is coming to terms with how they want to do that, but we have said to them and to other boards around the province that they need to take a look at the extra spaces

required, for example, for lower class size, the initial supports for rural areas and the fact that we are providing additional support for capital all across the province.

At the end of the day, schools will be valued for the first time in this province on the benefit to the community, on the benefit to local economies and,

ultimately, on the benefit to our rural areas. No other government was willing to take a stand. We are, on behalf of rural Ontario, and we ask the board and we ask the members opposite to join us

in the help we're providing.

PENSION PLANS

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): In the absence of the Minister of Finance, I will direct my question to the Acting Premier. For the last

couple of months I have been criss-crossing the province listening to average Ontarians talk about their pensions. They are telling me, frankly, that they are scared.

In Guelph, I met with a number of members of the Cooperatives of Ontario trusteed pension plan, and they are scared because the collapse of their pension plan

means their benefits were cut in half and they're having trouble paying the rent and putting food on the table.

In Windsor, I talked to workers who paid into their company plans all of their lives and have seen inflation reduce their benefits by half because their plans,

like the vast majority of plans in this province, have no inflation protection.

Now, a new study by the Conference Board of Canada confirms these stories of average Ontarians: An astonishing two thirds of corporate CFOs believe there is a

crisis with pension plans not having enough assets to meet their obligations.

We have a pension plan crisis in this province, and your government has been completely missing in action. Where is your plan right now to deal with this

growing crisis in Ontario's pensions?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): It would be helpful, when asking a question like that, if the honourable

member would stand up and confess to the record of her party while in government on the issue of pensions, and particularly on the impact on significant employers in her very own community of

Hamilton from the pension holiday that party brought in under the premise that there were pension funds in our province that were too big to fail.

I say to the honourable member that the Minister of Finance is taking this issue very, very seriously. But interestingly, the honourable member is unwilling,

it would seem, to recognize the contribution her own party has made to the very serious circumstances in her question.

Ms. Horwath: The Acting Premier needs to recognize that revisiting history does not get their government off the hook for solving this

problem. That's not good enough. There are many facts you need to recognize regarding this pension crisis. Millions of Ontarians -- an astonishing 60% -- have no workplace-based pensions.

Eighty-three per cent of those in the private sector who have pensions have absolutely no inflation protection and are having a harder and harder time paying the rent and putting food on the table.

We have a pension backup fund, called the pension benefits guarantee fund, which is in financial trouble and hasn't been updated since 1980, and it's increasingly unable, in this day and age -- not

in ancient history -- to protect the pensions of millions of Ontarians.

The conference board study shows 44% of CFOs have abandoned or are considering abandoning their guaranteed benefit plans for pension plans that are far

riskier. Minister, my question is, what is your government -- your government -- doing about the pension crisis? We're talking about retirement savings of millions of Ontarians. What is your

plan?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: I'm sure that many Ontarians would wish to agree with the honourable member that the 1990s were ancient history, because

it would be to the benefit of many Ontarians to be able to forget about the legacy of that party while in office. Regrettably, on the issue of pensions, it's impossible to do so because many of the

same challenges that the honourable member speaks about in her question were created in large measure by actions that party took while in government. We are continuing to deal with the challenges

left by the continued legacy of these parties.

The honourable Minister of Finance is taking this issue to heart and is working hard on it. We're working to protect the interests of these employees, many of

whom were left behind by that party while in government.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. The region of York is launching a $2-million promotional

campaign aimed at attracting commuters, such as working people and students, to use public transportation. The objective of this project is to remove people from their cars and for them to make the

choice of using public transportation instead. Our roads will be less congested, our air will be cleaner and our economy will be stronger. In the end, a greater demand for public transportation

will have been created.

Minister, are you prepared to co-operate and assist Viva, which is the name of the region of York transportation system, in achieving that objective?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): First of all, I want to thank the member from Thornhill for asking this question. He is

a very strong advocate for York region.

The short answer to his question is, we are absolutely going to help and work with York region to achieve that, but let me tell you what we have already done.

We have given them $5 million in gas tax funding. In addition to that, we have given them another $2 million in other transit funding, and we have also given them $50 million actually for the first

phase of Viva. We feel that York region has done a really good job in promoting public transit in York region. We will continue to work with them to further their initiatives in attracting more

people to use public transit.

Mr. Racco: I remember particularly that the PCs provided a plastic cheque for $50 million and we provided the actual $50 million some time

ago. I remember that part.

Our government has done a great deal in terms of funding transit in the GTA, not only for Viva. For instance, the two cents that we promised in the campaign is

a reality today since we already approved the first one cent.

We need to know that the students of York University and York region, as well as the workers at the university, which is where the subway should be built --

that the subway will be built in the near future. What is your ministry doing today to make sure that the extension of the Spadina subway to York University will become a reality, not only for the

people of Toronto but for the region of York and for every Ontarian? As we build public transportation, our economy will do better and it will be good for the entire province.

Hon. Mr. Takhar: Let me tell the member that the investments we are making in public transit are already paying off, and especially our

initiative of giving the gas tax money to municipalities has been a great success. In particular, on that issue alone, we have already given $1.5 million to the city of Toronto for the

environmental assessment aspect of the Spadina line. That environmental assessment is currently being worked on, and hopefully we will see the results soon. In addition to that, as I've already

indicated, we have given $50 million to York region to promote public transit in that region, but we also have buses that run on the 407 connecting York University to Oshawa and it also connects to

McMaster. We will continue to keep working with them to further that.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): A question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: At a recent reception at the home of

Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey Liberal candidate Bob Duncanson, Premier McGuinty told the town of Caledon regional councillor Richard Paterak that when it comes to Peel region restructuring, "The

province would adhere to the mediator Justice Adams's report." I'll say this with a straight face, Minister. We know one thing in this House: When it comes to his word, Premier McGuinty's word is

his bond. Are you really going to follow through with Justice Adams's recommendations when it comes to municipal restructuring in the region of Peel?

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): As the member well knows, this has been a

matter that has been on the public agenda for some time and there has been much discussion about it. We received Judge Adams's report some time just after Christmas and we're looking at it. As a

matter of fact, we have tentatively arranged a meeting with the three heads of council, as well as the chair for Peel region, some time later on this week, to discuss the report with them. At that

point in time, we will deal with them further on the issue. As we know, Peel has been an extremely fast-growing region over the last number of years, and the report from Justice Adams has certainly

helped to deal with the entire situation.

Mr. Hudak: The problem with the minister's answer is that I would have expected, if the Premier had said something, you would follow through

on what he had promised. In fact, the minister himself had a similar word on August 30, 2004. He wrote to all Peel municipalities and stated, "... the government continues to be interested in

comprehensive, locally developed solutions, supported by a consensus of all those affected...." But lately, we're learning that in fact the Premier and his minister may be backing away from Justice

Adams's report and imposing their own.

The Brampton Guardian said the problem "all comes down to ... the indecisiveness and the pandering of the Premier." They have had a series of issues and

positions on this. It's like watching a ball bounce around inside a pinball machine. Minister, just tell us, do you have a plan, and what exactly is that plan for Peel region?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: We all know the record of that government when it comes to local government. They downloaded services on them. They

disregarded any opinion that local leaders may have had. Basically, municipal government was under attack for many years during the eight years they were in power.

We have decided to take a different approach. We believe first of all in locally driven solutions if at all possible. We also believe that municipal leaders

are just as legitimately elected as people at the other two levels of government. So we want to work with our municipal partners, whether in Peel or elsewhere throughout the province, because we

really believe that it's for the benefit of the people of Ontario if all orders of government work well together so we can continue to enhance all the great benefits that we have in the

province.

SCHOOL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): My question is to the Minister of Education. The Toronto Parent Network has just released a report on

school health and safety, and what they found is truly disturbing: exposed asbestos, mould, vermin and poor air quality in Ontario schools. The report reminds you and us that children and

adolescents are more susceptible to asbestos and poor air quality than adults. Parents want to know why your government has failed to set health and safety standards for our schools. When will you

set health and safety standards and end the neglect of Ontario schools?

Hon. Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): As the member opposite may be well aware, we have already ended the neglect of Toronto and

provincial schools. There will be more repairs and more improvement done to the environment for students, for teachers and for everyone associated with the school community over the next 18 months

than there has been in the last eight to 10 years. There will be more repairs done with a special $3-billion fund, and we've asked every school -- we've asked them, their occupational health and

safety and also their safety committees that will be doing safety audits shortly -- to make sure they take first priority and to make sure that our environments are safe but also functional.

Finally, we are able to provide that, and the city of Toronto is going to have all of its urgent and immediate needs taken care of under this plan, the first instalment of which will take place

this summer, with $175 million, beginning the renewal that has been neglected sadly by both of the other parties in this House.

Mr. Marchese: Making some money available so school boards can borrow money to repair schools is not the same as keeping up with maintenance.

You know it, the Toronto Parent Network knows it, People for Education knows it and I know it. If you don't know it, something is wrong with your knowledge of the educational system. You can

install a new window, but if no one is paid to do the caulking once in a while, that window will be less effective. You have not increased maintenance dollars to hire caretakers or eradicate mice

or maintain ceilings or ensure air quality. They are not there. Boards have $2 per square foot less than it costs to keep up school buildings. There are no standards.

Stop being negligent and stop putting students at risk. Minister, will you set health and safety standards and will you fund boards so that they can meet those

standards?

Hon. Mr. Kennedy: There was a government, once upon a time in this House, that was famous for passing standards and doing nothing. Instead,

what we have done is provide the aforementioned fund, over $175 million in Toronto alone; $1 billion already across the province. Every community in this province will benefit from improved health,

safety and function in their schools beginning this summer.

In addition, we have provided a 6% increase in the amount of money for school operations: for maintenance, for cleaning, for the basic things, $76 million. We

have exceeded what Dr. Rozanski said should be provided in terms of capital funds, we've already increased above inflation operations funds, and despite the rhetoric opposite, that is exactly what

we intend to continue to do: provide the quality of schools that the children of this province have long waited for but really do deserve.

COMMUNITY USE OF SCHOOLS

Mr. Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland): My question is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. On February 9, at a school in my riding of

Northumberland, we had the privilege of announcing a community use of schools agreement between your ministry and the Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School

Board. Minister, can you tell the members of this Legislature here today a little bit about this important agreement?

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): I'm glad the member asked that question, because it's a very important one. He

would remember that last year Gerard Kennedy, the Minister of Education, and I made an announcement that $20 million would be going to school boards across Ontario so that they could lower the user

fees and increase the hours of access for non-profit organizations throughout the province.

The community use of schools agreement mentioned by the member from Northumberland involves a grant of some $145,000 for increased and affordable access to 38

schools and is a result of a commitment by the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, the Ministry of Education and the PVNC Catholic school board to reopen their neighbourhood schools, which were

shut as a result of a funding formula implemented by the last government that amounted to cuts in this field.

This has been very good for people who want to have access to schools for which they've already paid their taxes. It allows for them to exercise and to have

many community activities take place outside of the regular school hours.

Mr. Rinaldi: Thank you, Minister, for that response. I know that giving our school gymnasiums and playing fields back to our local groups will

go a long way toward making our public schools the hubs of communities that they were before the Conservative government took over in the mid-1990s. Minister, can you tell the Legislature what this

agreement is going to mean to groups in my community?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Yes, I have the details on the agreement that you're speaking of, for the Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and

Clarington Catholic board. The agreement between my ministry and the board will significantly decrease the user fees that non-profit groups like the Girl Guides, Boy Scouts, senior social clubs and

recreation groups will have to pay.

Here are some of the details. In this particular agreement, classrooms will go from $10 an hour to zero, single gyms from $15 an hour to zero, double gyms from

$20 an hour to zero, the annual custodial supply fee of $75 is now zero and the rates for weekend use on the annual application fee have been reduced by some 65%. I'm also pleased to point out that

a similar agreement with the Kawartha Pine Ridge school board has also been signed, making all schools in the member from Northumberland's riding more affordable and accessible for non-profit

groups.

NORTHERN AIR SERVICE

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, you've recently shut down the Frost Centre,

and options are currently being reviewed as to the use of it. Is your ministry currently considering selling off Ministry of Natural Resources assets?

Hon. David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources): The answer to the question is no.

Mr. Ouellette: Minister, as you know, the ministry's air service has a long and dedicated service to the province of Ontario. From

firefighting to evacuation to research, the air service has been serving the province of Ontario for a long time with distinction. Recently, it's been brought to my attention that potential changes

may be forthcoming within the air service. Can you or will you confirm or deny that your ministry is currently reviewing proposals for privatizing or selling off the air service?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I'm very happy to address this question to the member and the former minister of this department. As the member will know,

you have ongoing reviews of operations within any ministry; that's good business practice. We are doing that review throughout our particular ministry.

Aviation services has a proud history in MNR. We're the world's leaders in firefighting and in the wildlife management that we do, and we share that expertise

with countries around the world. We are reviewing the full operation of that. As you know, it's quite an integrated service between the executive aircraft, the technical aircraft and the

firefighting aircraft -- some of the best in the world. We're looking at that. We're always looking at that to make sure we can do a better job.

CORONER'S INQUESTS

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Acting Premier. On November 29, Paul and Maryann Murray came to Queen's Park to

ask the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services to order an inquest into the death of their daughter. Their daughter Martha died in September 2002 after she was prescribed and took

lithium to deal with her bipolar disorder. She also suffered from a potassium deficiency known as hypokalemia. Unbeknownst to her and her family, she should never have taken the lithium because of

the potassium disorder, because it could cause cardiac arrest.

The minister at that time refused to order an inquest into the death. Just after that, they were speaking with a former aide to the Premier, Bob Lopinski,

about what the next step was for the family. Mr. Lopinski suggested that the government might establish a legislative committee to look at the findings of deaths related to natural causes as

described by the coroner when in fact these deaths might not be natural at all.

We have been following up with Aaron Lazarus in the Premier's office to find out whether or not the government is interested in establishing such a committee.

Can we get some kind of indication from the government today: Is the government going to move forward on this important issue on behalf of the Murray family?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I would like to take the excellent question from the honourable member under

advisement. I have not had any involvement with that issue to date, but we'll endeavour to work on the government's behalf to get back to you as quickly as possible. Beyond that, I'm not in a

position to shed much light on the question.

Ms. Martel: I appreciate that offer. I should say to the minister that the Murrays have been very concerned about the statement that has come

back from the coroner saying that this death was from natural causes, especially in light of all the medical evidence that clearly shows she should not have been prescribed or taken the lithium.

They have at every attempt tried to talk to the coroner's office and to everyone else who should be involved in this matter about how to get some changes either to the Coroners Act or federal

legislation to make sure that when this type of thing happens, the federal government is advised of these incidents. They have gotten nowhere.

We very much appreciate the suggestion that was made by the former aide. We hope the government is serious about establishing a legislative committee. This is

not the only death where the coroner has alleged natural causes and where the circumstances appear to be otherwise.

I would ask the minister, will he undertake to get back to this Legislature as soon as possible with the government's recommendation in this regard, so that

the Murray family can know that someone is finally taking this issue seriously, and so that an investigation can take place, not only with respect to the death of their daughter but other people

who have died under similar, very difficult and suspicious circumstances?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: I think I have significantly given the member the undertaking that I'll do that. I would say that the presentation of the

information or facts as she knows them are not known to me. I can't confirm them in any sense at all. But we'll endeavour to get information and report back to the honourable member with our

government's view.

LAKE ERIE FISHERY

Mr. Bruce Crozier (Essex): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. As many of us know, Lake Erie is the smallest of the five

Great Lakes and ranks 18th in the world by volume of fresh water. It supports at least 140 species of fish, of which at least 18 are caught by anglers and 11 by commercial fishermen.

To help make the walleye, or pickerel as we know them, and the yellow perch management decisions, a Lake Erie committee has been made up of representatives of

the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and the

Michigan Department of Natural Resources. I know that every March a committee made up of the province and these states meets and reviews the status of the fisheries in the Great Lakes. What I would

like to know, Minister, is, of those allowable --

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Thank you.

Hon. David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources): I want to assure the member that while it's a small lake, it's a mighty small lake, and

it's a very healthy lake and it's teeming with fish. Because of that, we've been able to increase the American walleye -- the proper name of that fish -- by 143% this year. That's good news for the

villages along Lake Erie and the commercial fishery there. It's also good news for the sports angling industry, which is a huge, multi-million dollar industry in this province, very important to

the economy of Ontario and especially to all our Great Lakes.

I would say to the member, because it looks like I probably won't have time to give him a supplementary, that we've also had an increase of 7% in the yellow

perch catch for this year in Lake Erie. That's also very important to this industry.

PETITIONS

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): "Support Volunteer Firefighters.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas many volunteer fire departments in Ontario are strengthened by the service of double-hatter firefighters who work as professional, full-time

firefighters and also serve as volunteer firefighters on their free time and in their home communities; and

"Whereas the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association has declared their intent to `phase out' these double-hatter firefighters; and

"Whereas double-hatter firefighters are being threatened by the union leadership and forced to resign as volunteer firefighters or face losing their full-time

jobs, and this is weakening volunteer fire departments in Ontario; and

"Whereas Waterloo-Wellington MPP Ted Arnott has introduced Bill 52, the Volunteer Firefighters Employment Protection Act, that would uphold the right to

volunteer and solve this problem concerning public safety in Ontario;

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

"That the provincial government express public support for MPP Ted Arnott's Bill 52 and willingness to pass it into law or introduce similar legislation that

protects the right of firefighters to volunteer in their home communities on their own free time."

It was signed by hundreds of people from my riding, and I support this.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Could I ask the members who are leaving the chamber to do so quietly so I can hear the members who are

presenting their petitions.

PENSION PLANS

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas it has been more than 15 years since the last significant reform of Ontario's pension laws;

"Whereas the New Democratic Party believes that all Ontarians who have worked hard all their lives should be able to live out their retirement years with

dignity and security;

"Whereas the fact that 60% of Ontarians are not covered by a workplace-based pension plan of any kind is simply unacceptable;

"Whereas the fact that 83% of workers in the private sector who do have pensions have absolutely no inflation protection and will inevitably see their pension

benefits seriously eroded over their retirement period; and

"Whereas Ontario's pension backup, the pension benefits guarantee fund, only guarantees benefits up to $1,000 a month and excludes multi-employer plans;

and

"Whereas pension plan members now have to wait two full years before they are able to take the employer's contributions to their plans with them if they

leave;

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

"To immediately establish a special legislative committee to examine pension issues and recommend real reforms to protect pensions and ensure all Ontarians

dignity and security upon retirement.

"To support a plan of meaningful pension reform as proposed by Howard Hampton and the NDP whereby:

"All plan members receiving benefits under a defined benefit pension plan in Ontario would receive some inflation protection;

"The pension benefits guarantee fund would be increased to $2,500 a month and multi-employer plans would be covered as well;

"Members would have immediate ownership over all contributions to their plan; and

"Measures would be taken to increase the proportion of workers covered by workplace-based pension plans."

I agree with this petition and affix my signature thereon.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr. Bill Mauro (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I have a petition here addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas, since Bill 99 was passed in 1997 by the Harris government, the situation for injured workers with respect to income, recognition of their injuries by

the compensation system, treatment by the employer and opportunities for re-employment has dramatically deteriorated; and

"Whereas employers have more power today to frustrate and intimidate injured workers and are less accountable for their actions; and

"Whereas employers are increasingly putting greater effort into avoiding reporting of claims and associated costs than into preventing injuries; and

"Whereas the compensation system is increasingly more concerned about minimizing costs for employers than ensuring full compensation for workers; and

"Whereas it is the responsibility of the provincial government to ensure fair and adequate compensation for workers and to ensure healthy and safe

workplaces;

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

"To direct the provincial government to immediately:

"Change the name of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board back to the Workers' Compensation Board;

"Implement full cost-of-living protection for injured workers;

"Establish full coverage for all workers and all work-related disabilities and diseases under the ... system;

"Abolish experience rating which encourages employers to, and rewards them for, hiding occupational injury and illness by giving them money back from their

premiums;

"Enforce health and safety in the workplace by hiring more inspectors and sending them to workplaces;

"Enforce employer re-employment obligations and abolish provisions which deem workers to be receiving wages from jobs they don't have;

"Conduct a complete review of the workers' compensation system in order to write new legislation which ensures fundamental benefits and rights for workers,

including survivors of workers killed on the job, as called for in the CAW Jobs or Full Compensation platform."

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR

THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm going to really reinforce this petition today.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty and his Liberal government were elected based on their promise to rebuild public services in Ontario;

"Whereas the Minister of Community and Social Services has announced plans to close Huronia Regional Centre, home to people with developmental disabilities,

many of whom have multiple diagnoses and severe problems that cannot be met in the community;

"Whereas closing Huronia Regional Centre will have a devastating impact on residents with developmental disabilities, their families, the developmental

services sector and the economies of the local communities; and

"Whereas Ontario could use the professional staff and facilities of Huronia Regional Centre to extend specialized services, support and professional training

to many more clients who live in the community, in partnership with families and community agencies;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the government to keep Huronia Regional Centre, home to people with developmental

disabilities, open, and to transform them into `centres of excellence' to provide specialized services and support to Ontarians with developmental needs, no matter where they live."

More than ever, I am pleased to signed this.

GO TRANSIT TUNNEL

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario, the minister of infrastructure services and the Minister of

Transportation that reads as follows:

"Whereas GO Transit is presently planning to tunnel an area just south of St. Clair Avenue West ... making it easier for GO trains to pass a major rail

crossing;

"Whereas TTC is presently planning a TTC right-of-way along all of St. Clair Avenue West, including the bottleneck caused by the dilapidated St. Clair-Old

Weston Road bridge;

"Whereas this bridge ... will be (1) too narrow for the planned TTC right-of-way since it will leave only one lane for traffic; (2) it is not safe for

pedestrians ... and (3) it creates a divide, a no man's land, between Old Weston Road and Keele Street. (This was acceptable when the area consisted entirely of slaughterhouses, but now the area

has 900 new homes);

"Therefore, we the undersigned demand that GO Transit extend the tunnel beyond St. Clair Avenue West so that trains will pass under St. Clair Avenue West, thus

eliminating this eyesore of a bridge with its high banks and blank walls. Instead, it will create a dynamic, revitalized community enhanced by a beautiful, continuous cityscape with easy traffic

flow."

I'm delighted to sign my name to it.

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): I have a petition to save the Banting homestead.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Sir Frederick Banting was the man who discovered insulin and was Canada's first Nobel Prize recipient; and

"Whereas this great Canadian's original homestead located in the town of New Tecumseth" -- Alliston -- "is deteriorating and in danger of destruction because

of the inaction of the Ontario Historical Society; and

"Whereas the town of New Tecumseth has been unsuccessful in reaching an agreement with the Ontario Historical Society to use part of the land to educate the

public about the historical significance of the work of Sir Frederick Banting;

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

"That the Minister of Culture endorse Simcoe-Grey MPP Jim Wilson's private member's bill entitled the Frederick Banting Homestead Preservation Act so that the

homestead is kept in good repair and preserved for generations to come."

I agree and I've signed this petition, and I want to thank the people at the Nottawasaga Inn in Alliston for circulating this.

TEACHER QUALIFICATION

Ms. Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the 2005 graduates of the publicly funded faculties of education in the province of Ontario will have met all the requirements of the individual

faculties; and

"Whereas these same publicly funded faculties of education in the province of Ontario have all met the stringent standards as outlined and controlled by the

Ontario College of Teachers; and

"Whereas the 2005 graduates of the publicly funded faculties of education in the province of Ontario will be placed at a severe disadvantage if they are given

a provisional certificate of qualification by the Ontario College of Teachers;

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

"To make the changes necessary to the Education Act and/or its regulations in order to grant the 2005 graduates of the publicly funded faculties of education

in the province of Ontario a permanent certificate of qualification, or

"To deem that the bachelor of education degree granted to the 2005 graduates of the publicly funded faculties of education in the province of Ontario deems

them to have completed the equivalent of the Ontario teacher qualification test, thus allowing the Ontario College of Teachers to grant these same graduates a permanent certificate of

qualification."

I affix my signature thereto.

CASINO WINDSOR

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the province of Ontario has announced plans to spend $400 million on renovating the Windsor casino" -- can you imagine it? -- and

"Whereas we believe health care, education and agriculture are among the many areas that have a higher priority than gambling; and

"Whereas the $400-million casino expenditure announced by the provincial government on February 15, 2005, is enough money to hire 3,600 full-time nurses or

1,480 full-time doctors for two years or eliminate the projected deficit Ontario hospitals" like Lakeridge "are facing this year;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the McGuinty government not to gamble with the health of Ontario citizens. And we further urge the McGuinty government to

postpone the" reckless "spending of $400 million on the Windsor casino and to invest this amount in the real priorities of Ontario's citizens, such as a healthy, vibrant and prosperous

Ontario."

I'm pleased to sign this on behalf of the employees and the patients of Lakeridge Health, Oshawa, and beyond.

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR

THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent-Essex): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty and his Liberal government were elected based on their promise to rebuild public services in Ontario;

"Whereas the Minister of Community and Social Services has announced plans to close the Southwestern Regional Centre, home to people with developmental

disabilities, many of whom have multiple diagnoses and severe problems that cannot be met in their community;

"Whereas closing the Southwestern Regional Centre will have a devastating impact on residents with ... disabilities, their families, the developmental services

sector and the economies of the local communities;

"Whereas Ontario could use the professional staff and facilities of the Southwestern Regional Centre to expand specialized services, support and professional

training to many more clients who live in the community, in partnership with families and community agencies;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the government to keep the Southwestern Regional Centre open as a home

for people with developmental disabilities, and to maintain it as a `centre of excellence' to provide specialized services and support to Ontarians with ... needs, no matter where they live."

This is signed by a number of residents from Blenheim, West Lorne and Ridgetown. I have hundreds of signatures, and of course I have signed this petition.

WATER EXTRACTION

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I have received many signatures over this winter concerning the fee for a permit to take

water.

"Whereas farmers across Ontario are facing an income crisis;

"Whereas farm businesses are not able to absorb this expense, at $750 to $3,000;

"Whereas the fee for permits to take water will discourage farmers from participating in this water management activity;

"Whereas agriculture water usage is only applied under extreme conditions for crops, which farmers apply best management practices on a regular basis;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario government to exempt agricultural water users for irrigation purposes from any fees

pertaining to the permit to take water regulations."

I understand this is in progress, and I affix my signature to that.

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR

THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty and his Liberal government were elected based on their promise to rebuild public services in Ontario;

"Whereas the Minister of Community and Social Services has announced plans to close Huronia Regional Centre, home to people with developmental disabilities,

many of whom have multiple diagnoses and severe problems that cannot be met in the community;

"Whereas closing Huronia Regional Centre will have a devastating impact on residents with developmental disabilities, their families, the developmental

services sector and the economies of the local communities; and

"Whereas Ontario could use the professional staff and facilities of Huronia Regional Centre to extend specialized services, support and professional training

to many more clients who live in the community, in partnership with families and community agencies;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the government to keep Huronia Regional Centre, home to people with developmental

disabilities, open, and to transform them into `centres of excellence' to provide specialized services and support to Ontarians with developmental needs, no matter where they live."

TENANT PROTECTION

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I received another petition from the Doversquare Tenants' Association. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the so-called Tenant Protection Act ... has allowed landlords to increase rents well above the rate of inflation...;

"Whereas the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal ... created by this act ... awards major and permanent additional rent increases to landlords...; and

"Whereas our landlord, Sterling Karamar Property Management, has applied to the Ontario Municipal Board ... to add a fourth high-rise unit to our compound in

order to circumvent city of Toronto restrictions on density and the city's opposition to its project;

"Whereas this project would lead to overcrowding in our densely populated community, reduce our precious green space, further drive up rents and do nothing to

solve the crisis in affordable rental housing;

"Whereas this project will drive away longer-term tenants...; and

"Whereas before ... October 2003" it was promised that real protection would be instituted;

"Whereas our own MPP ... called for a rent rollback...;

"We, the undersigned residents of Doversquare Apartments in Toronto, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"To institute a rent freeze until the exorbitant Tory guideline and above-guideline rent increases are wiped out by inflation;

"To abrogate the Harris-Eves `Tenant Protection Act' and draw up new landlord-tenant legislation which shuts down the notoriously pro-landlord ORHT...;

"To keep the McGuinty government to its promise of real changes at the" Ontario Municipal Board, "eliminating its bias toward wealthy developers and enhancing

the power of groups promoting affordable housing, sustainable neighbourhoods and tenant rights."

Since I agree, I have signed my name to it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PLACES TO GROW ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR

LES ZONES DE CROISSANCE

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 8, 2005, on the motion for second reading of Bill 136,

An Act respecting the establishment of growth plan areas and

growth plans / Projet de loi 136,

Loi sur l'établissement de zones de croissance planifiée et de plans de croissance.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Further debate? Does the minister wish to --

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal): No.

The Speaker: Mr Caplan has moved second reading of Bill 136. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those against, say "nay."

I think the ayes have it.

Call in the members. There will be a 30-minute bell.

Pursuant to standing order 28(h), a request has been made that the vote on the motion by Mr. Caplan for second reading of Bill 136,

An Act respecting the

establishment of growth plan areas and growth plans, be deferred until Wednesday, April 6, 2005.

FILM CLASSIFICATION ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005

SUR LE CLASSEMENT DES FILMS

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 9, 2005, on the motion for second reading of Bill 158,

An Act to replace the Theatres Act and to amend other acts in

respect of film / Projet de loi 158, Loi remplaçant la

Loi sur les cinémas et modifiant d'autres lois en ce qui concerne les films.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Further debate?

Does the minister wish to reply? No?

Mr Watson has moved second reading of Bill 158. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those against, say "nay."

I think the ayes have it.

Call in the members. There will be a 30-minute bell.

Pursuant to standing order 28(h), a request has been made that the vote on the motion by Mr. Watson for second reading of Bill 158,

An Act to replace the

Theatres Act and to amend other acts in respect of film, be deferred until Wednesday, April 6, 2005.

LABOUR RELATIONS STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

CONCERNANT LES RELATIONS

DE TRAVAIL

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 30, 2005, on the motion for second reading of Bill 144,

An Act to amend certain statutes relating to labour relations /

Projet de loi 144, Loi modifiant des lois concernant les relations de travail.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Questions and comments?

Mr. Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East): It's a pleasure to speak to the Labour Relations Statute Law Amendment Act, 2005, Bill 144, under the

tutelage of our great Minister of Labour, Chris Bentley. He has brought forward a piece of legislation under the McGuinty government that will restore fairness and balance to the labour relations

system, to improve workplace relations and maintain the stability necessary for a productive economy, something we all want and cherish here in the great province of Ontario.

Businesses make their decisions to invest in a province, in a country, based in large part on many different factors, including, yes, taxation regimes,

interest rates, the valuation of currency, a well-educated workforce and a stable economy. Businesses, however, are known to invest in Ontario for a variety of reasons that we are investing in,

namely, a highly educated workforce, our technological capability, our proximity to major North American markets and the high quality of life found here in Ontario. We're continuing to create an

economic environment in Ontario that will ensure that businesses continue to invest and grow.

Ontario's combined federal and provincial income tax rate was 36% in 2004, which is lower than the Great Lakes states, with an average of 40% when looking at

the United States.

Often, you may hear some fearmongering from the previous government about this piece of legislation, but it's important to note that all the companies that are

talking about this legislation had always invested in Ontario prior to the law being changed by the previous government that really shifted the balance away from labour and over to big

business.

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): It's a pleasure to respond to the member from Nickel Belt. That's actually the process we're in, in the procedure

here.

I just want to put on the record that in my riding I hear from people on Bill 144 who are happy and those who are displeased with the status of this particular

legislation. It is an important bill -- I would say that -- but our position clearly is that we're moving backwards in the labour relations field. I think we need to strengthen the Employment

Standards Act.

I'm looking at a letter here from Ron Boivin, chair of the TDS Automotive Unit, CAW Local 222. It's a letter dated February 8 to Dalton McGuinty, the Premier:

"After hearing your government's position of late regarding a two-tier certification process for workers, we felt we had to speak up. Most non-unionized workers face discrimination in their

workplaces on a daily basis and now they face the same from your government." I believe that says a lot for the position that I believe the NDP will be voicing.

I want to put on the record that certainly in my position as an elected person serving all the public in Durham, I'm pleased to listen to all input from all

sides. That's the balance. But it seems the government is relentlessly pushing for their agenda, and their agenda only. I believe in this case they're not listening to the CAW's position, which

according to today's paper is looking at certification processes at Toyota.

I want to say on this bill that it's the need to disclose salaries that needs to be addressed. The Ontario Labour Relations Board will now be able to

arbitrarily, as a last resort, grant union certification. There's a lot of movement here. I believe the minister should make sure that the Employment Standards Act addresses and protects the needs

of workers in Ontario, while at the same time making sure you have democracy in the workplace.

McGuinty is making Ontario an unattractive place for employers and indeed investment, which results in jobs for the people of Ontario and a resulting increased

quality of life for all of us to share because of the strong economy. Send a signal to Ontario. In many cases, this government is sending a signal that we are not open for business in Ontario.

That's the wrong message, Minister.

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): It's certainly my pleasure to provide some questions and comments, particularly around the debate on Bill

144 provided by the member from Nickel Belt. I have to say that I had a chance not necessarily to hear her comments in her debate but certainly to take the time to review them, and I have to agree

with her on a number of issues that she raised very appropriately in this debate. I look forward to doing so as well later on this afternoon.

The issue is one of this government's refusal to basically reinstate what was law in this province in regard to card certification for decades, under Premiers

of every stripe since the 1950s. It's very difficult for us to understand how the government on the one hand talks the talk about doing the fair thing and then, when anybody takes a good look at

the legislation they bring forward -- and not just this legislation but unfortunately many other pieces of legislation -- they're doing the exact opposite. Some of us would call that different

things, but what I would call that in this particular case is a big, huge disappointment, as would many, many people across the province.

Unfortunately, as the member from Nickel Belt mentioned in her speech, the very people who are going to be affected negatively by this government's refusal to

reinstate a long tradition of card certification in this province are the people who are most vulnerable in the workplace. Those people include women workers, immigrant workers and visible minority

workers. In fact, this minister is doing no good service to workers in this province, because he's refusing to reinstate a very key aspect of, quite frankly, democracy in the province of Ontario

through the provision of card certification. Unfortunately, he has decided that one group of workers is able to certify their trade union in their workplace with a card-based process but not all

workers. This is simply unacceptable.

There are other issues that this minister refuses to deal with, like scab labour, for example -- another issue raised by the member from Nickel Belt.

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): I was fortunate enough to hear the member from Nickel Belt, and she has laid out some challenges for us to take a look

at. I want to remind the member that the maiden speech the Minister of Labour made indicated that there's more to come. They're going to be looking at this as a balanced approach, with the

understanding that there might be more things to be investigated in the future in terms of what labour relations are all about and how we perform in the province. It does give us an opportunity to

take a breath and say, "Where is this balance? Where do we need to find it?"

I hope the member will excuse me if I move to the remarks of the member from Kitchener-Waterloo, who professed profoundly that the sky is falling and we are

going to go to hell in a handbasket because we are going to do card certification. As the member from Nickel Belt so nicely pointed out, we existed long before that -- I think it went back to Frost

-- whether or not we introduced card certification. Because of this pendulum swing that went so far to the other side, the minister was charged with trying to find a balance. I think he's struck a

chord with us to find where we're headed, and I think the direction is reasonable.

The other point I want to make is about investment. For Pete's sake, we've got some investments that even the unions are lining up and saying, "Good work for

you," because people are coming to our province. Perfect examples would be Ford, GM and Toyota.

In my riding, we're taking a look at Ferrero Rocher, for the first time in North America, supplying NAFTA communities with chocolates and their product: 1,300

jobs. Let's look at the reason why they're coming. They're looking at availability of the job market. They're looking at the health care that we have in this province, which is an advantage of

about $2,500 per worker compared to the United States. They did their due diligence and they're picking Ontario.

Chicken Little is proclaiming that the sky is falling and no one's going to invest in Ontario. In fact, the climate has never been better, and we're moving

forward with it. I thank the minister for his thoughtful process.

The Speaker: The member from Nickel Belt has two minutes in which to wrap up.

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Thank you to all the members who participated.

I'm opposed to this bill for two reasons. First, I'm not going to support a bill that discriminates against a class of workers, and this is exactly what Bill

144 does. Secondly, I'm not going to support a bill that brings forward amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act and fails to bring forward provisions that would ban scabs from the province

of Ontario during strikes or lockouts.

Let me deal with the first issue. Members have said that the minister has found a balance. Isn't it strange that previous governments, beginning in 1949 and

right up to 1995, found a balance by ensuring that all workers -- all workers -- had access to card-based certification in a union drive? Now this government says they have found a balance because

they are going to discriminate against the majority of workers by allowing only workers in the construction trade to have access to card-based certification. That's wrong. That's discrimination.

That doesn't represent the balance that had been achieved between 1949 and 1995 by successive Conservative, Liberal and NDP governments.

It is wrong to discriminate against immigrant women, women of colour and disabled women, who are particularly vulnerable to employer intimidation during a

union drive. That's why previous governments, with the exception of the Ernie Eves and Harris Conservatives, made sure that card-based certification was applicable to and accessible by all workers

across all sectors. These are the people who are most likely to be intimidated. These are the workers who most need -- who most need -- card-based certification. I'm not going to support any

legislation like this one that specifically discriminates against other classes of workers. That's just absolutely wrong.

I'm not going to support this bill, because previously in opposition there were a number of Liberal members who said, "We need to ban scabs again." Here's the

time, here's the place, here's the opportunity, with amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act before us. Where is the prohibition against scab labour?

The Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): Mr. Speaker, I'll be sharing my time with the member for Mississauga West. It's going to be a very

interesting 10 minutes.

We're here to speak on Bill 144, the Labour Relations Statute Law Amendment Act. This bill brings back fairness and balance to Ontario's labour relations after

14 years of a time when fairness and balance were not really part of the vocabulary from both sides. It might have been from one side at one time, from the other side at another time, but never for

the entire labour relations environment here in this province.

The previous two governments, first the NDP, then the Tories, each took extreme, philosophical approaches to labour relations. The result was, first, a hit on

Ontario businesses and our competitiveness as a province by the NDP, and second, a hit on the working people of Ontario by the Tories.

In labour relations, governments should be neutral, favouring not labour but balance, favouring not business but fairness. For the last decade, fairness and

balance have been replaced by philosophical extremism, pro-labour versus pro-business. The result: Over a dozen years of Tory and NDP extremism in labour relations has polarized workplaces, led to

business and labour instability, confrontation and unrest, and an economy that has not performed up to its potential. The McGuinty government approach contrasts with the past dozen years: a fair

and balanced approach, which will result in stability in the workplace, improved economic growth, increased productivity, the encouragement of investment and enhanced prosperity.

This bill would remove some of those unnecessary and provocative measures that created disharmony and instability in the workplace. It will remove the

requirement, for instance, to post decertification information. This was purposely provocative, a stick in the eye to union members that did absolutely nothing to promote a healthy business climate

or a stable labour relations environment. It will remove the requirement for unions to disclose the remuneration paid to union officials. Again, this was just another stick in the eye to union

members and union officials, another policy brought in by the anti-union Tory government just to annoy and provoke, just to destabilize, something that this bill will ensure we can get away

from.

Giving more teeth to the Ontario Labour Relations Board is an important part of this bill. It restores the traditional power to certify a union when an

employer breaches labour relations laws. This is balanced by restoring the Ontario Labour Relations Board's power to dismiss an application for certification where a union violates labour relations

laws.

This legislation recognizes the distinct nature of the construction industry, making the special bargaining and dispute regime for the residential construction

sector in Toronto, Halton, Peel, York, Durham and Simcoe counties permanent. It also adds a card-based union certification system as an alternative to a vote-based system in the construction

industry, recognizing the vagaries of the construction industry, recognizing that the construction industry is often very difficult because people are moving around all over the place. It's very

difficult to pull workers together in one particular site.

What we have here is a creative way of making sure that we'll have a fair labour relations environment, a regime that discourages employer interference in

union organizing. When a business threatens to close down a workplace if a union is certified, when an employer dismisses, suspends, lays off or disciplines workers because they're union

supporters, when the labour relations environment is poisoned to this degree, measures have to be taken to protect those workers to ensure that they have the ability to organize.

There are a lot of remedies available. The Ontario Labour Relations Board has before it the ability to cease and desist certain actions, remove discipline from

an employee's record, post in the workplace or mail to employees the board's decisions, reimburse organizing costs, and provide the union with names and contact information of employees in the

proposed bargaining units.

All of these remedies can be effective, but they don't always work, and that's why we need more. That's why we need to have more teeth in this legislation.

That's why, when these measures and remedies fail, stronger measures are necessary.

To address the worst labour relations violations, this bill will restore the Ontario Labour Relations Board's historical, long-standing powers to certify a

union automatically where an employer has breached the labour relations laws during a union organizing campaign.

It's all about balance, it's all about fairness, and that's what this legislation will bring to our labour relations environment in Ontario.

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): When you study science or mathematics, one learns that in nature, its competing forces seek a sustainable

equilibrium. A sustainable equilibrium -- something that in business we call a level playing field -- is an environment that my colleague the Minister of Labour is rebuilding step by step within

Ontario.

Bill 144 amends three pieces of legislation enacted between 1995 and 2001. Its purpose is to strike a fair and reasonable balance in the organization and

certification of a collective bargaining unit.

The relationship that a company has with its users, clients or customers drives its ability to sell its products and services, but the relationship that a

company has with its employees drives its ability to function. Is a union appropriate in all circumstances? No. As an old friend who taught me labour relations in my postgraduate studies once told

me, "Generally, if a company gets a union, it gets the union it deserves." If a company treats its employees well and is open and caring with them, those employees often won't form a collective

bargaining unit. But if the structure and circumstances of a company or an industry place the people in an industry or a company at the risk of unfair treatment, the structure within which they may

choose to form a collective bargaining unit should be fair, timely, transparent and hard to abuse. This is the balance that the Minister of Labour has achieved with Bill 144.

Bill 144 restores to the construction sector the option of applying for certification on the basis of union membership by signing a union card. In a card-based

system, at least 55% of employees in the proposed bargaining unit would need to sign a card. Why would a card-based certification be appropriate in the construction field? Because the field itself

is unique in several ways: It's project-related, job sites come and go in days or weeks or months, and its workforce tends to be transient. Requiring a process whose duration may exceed the

lifetime of the project isn't much of a solution. So the construction industry retains the option of using card-based certification for a bargaining unit. Of course, a construction union retains

the option of seeking certification under a mandatory vote. For the prospective members of the bargaining unit, having as few as 40% of the workers sign cards requires the Ontario Labour Relations

Board to order a vote, and a majority of the ballots cast will then decide whether a bargaining unit will be certified. As a check and balance in the process, the OLRB has the power to order a

secret ballot vote if the board feels it would be appropriate in the circumstances.

Bill 144 also abolishes some of the more provocatively abusive measures enacted by the former government. For example, it's no longer necessary for individual

unions to disclose the names of those in the union earning $100,000 or more, although such umbrella organizations as the Ontario Federation of Labour are still subject to this disclosure. It is no

longer mandatory for employers in unionized workplaces to publicly post and distribute information about the decertification process to employees. In fact, employers will receive a 30-day

transition period to remove such posters. One wonders why such a provision might be enacted in the first place, and I join with my friends in the union movement in saying, "Good riddance to a bad

law."

Bill 144 makes permanent a temporary bargaining and dispute-resolution mechanism for the residential sector of the construction industry in the GTA. The

temporary regime provides for a common three-year bargaining cycle, a 46-day window for strikes and lockouts, an arbitration process, and a structure of meetings between stakeholders and the

Ministry of Labour. These provisions have worked; however, they are due to self-repeal at the end of this month. Imagine: The previous government actually designed something workable for both

management and labour.

Bill 144 repeals the mandatory repeal of these workable provisions and makes them permanent. These temporary -- and, upon passage of the bill, permanent --

visions came about after a major disruption in the construction industry in 1998. They proved to be successful. Contractors supported them; so did home builders, buyers and suppliers.

Bill 144 isn't rocket science -- and it's a great relief because, while the minister is a superb manager and a great trial lawyer, he'll never be a rocket

scientist. But the bill is good sense, and it reflects the plain-spoken, no-frills good judgment that my colleague the Minister of Labour displays daily in this House and in his daily work. The

balance, the fairness and the clarity in Bill 144 reflect well on the balanced playing field that it promulgates in our workplaces. It also reflects well on the talent of the minister and his

hard-working staff. I look forward to the speedy passage of Bill 144.

The Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): I find the comments from members opposite quite intriguing -- both the member for Mississauga West and

Scarborough Centre, I believe. First of all, something the public would understand: We had brought in disclosure legislation for those union leaders making over $100,000. Both honourable members

who just spoke think it's a triumph that suddenly they're getting rid of that transparency in most cases and going back to the good old bad days, as I say, of secret union organizations and secret

salaries and we didn't know what their pay was. We have to disclose our salaries. Public servants have to do that, people in the greater public service have to, and it's only logical that elected

members of unions do that too.

Scrapping secret ballots -- we're going to go back to the old days of intimidation. This government probably won't be in government by the time all of this

bill takes effect and we see it in full bloom on the front lines of unions and shops across the province. But the fact of the matter is, throughout this bill you're taking away the rights of

workers.

We finally had a government -- our government -- that stood up to the unions and said, "You're not in this for your own self-interest; you're in it to provide

good leadership and representation to your members. To do that, you need to have secret ballots. You need to have a democratic process that everybody can understand and have faith in without

intimidation." You're just going to go back to the old brutal days of head-beating and beating everybody up and intimidating people.

I see it all the time as they try and unionize Honda in my riding. Unionize Honda and, I tell you, Honda will close down. They will leave those two plants and

the 5,000 jobs, some of the best-paying jobs and the best benefits in the province. Their benefit packages are better than the so-called Big Three auto companies. And by the way, they're making

more cars now than some of the Big Three auto companies, so we should be calling Honda a Canadian firm and not a Japanese firm, as the government often refers to it.

Finally, I just want to say, this is just giving in to the unions -- your buddies. You did the same thing with the teachers' unions; you did the same thing

with the LCBO unions when you cancelled agency stores in our small towns. Shame on you.

Ms. Horwath: It's my pleasure to rise to make comments on the debate provided by the members from Scarborough Centre and Mississauga West. I

have to tell you that it's quite interesting to listen to the flowery rhetoric that these members were speaking just moments ago and the fancy words they were using -- things like "balance,"

"equilibrium," "level playing field." I find it quite galling because, really, the big word that's not being uttered by this government, and should be, is "discrimination." It's a big, ugly word,

and unfortunately it really does reflect what this bill is all about.

They had the gall to go on and on, particularly the member from Mississauga West, about the details of the process for card certification, without even

mentioning once that this bill is saying that only some workers in Ontario, only a very few workers in Ontario, are going to be able to use that system that he took pains to describe in order to

make sure that their workplace is represented by a trade union. You know what? I find that very disturbing. Although it's disturbing, it is quite typical of this government to ignore the fatal

flaw, the glaring problem with the legislation that they're bringing forward and to pretend that it's something that it's not. That's not something we're unaccustomed to when we see the legislation

coming forward from the Liberals, as well as the way they describe their legislation.

Quite frankly -- we've said it before, we'll say it again and we'll continue to say it throughout the entire debate -- this bill just does not cut the mustard.

It doesn't cut the mustard in regard to representation or in regard to covering all workers in Ontario with the card certification process. Also, it does not cut the mustard in that it forgets or

ignores many other distasteful pieces of labour legislation the previous government brought in that simply do not belong in an open, democratic society that respects workers in every workplace in

the province.

The Speaker: Questions and comments? The member for Perth-Middlesex.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's good to see you here today.

I wanted to enter into the debate on Bill 144 yet again on my premise that there are those people in this province who seem to have ideological blinkers on

when it comes to labour relations, who seem to have a knee-jerk reaction.

I listened to the member from Simcoe-Grey. His dislike for unions is almost palpable, forgetting, of course, that we live in a free and democratic country, in

a free and democratic society, where if people want to get together, have a common interest of working in the same workplace and want to form a union, that is their right. There are some people who

just seem to be opposed to that, even though I think it's a cornerstone of our democracy. There are other people who are opposed to it because they feel that somehow there should be an ideological

balance, or an imbalance, to the people who are working.

I want to relate that I come from a long and illustrious line of capitalists. My grandfather was a trust officer, my father was a chartered accountant and I'm

a certified financial planner. I consider myself to be a small business person, and I've been quite successful. Now, my wife, for many years, was a cashier at Zehrs -- Loblaws and then it became

Zehrs -- and as a result, she was a member of the union. She's the first person in her family ever to belong to a union. She comes from rural Ontario, from Marmora, and there weren't, I think, any

union jobs up t