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

April 20, 2005

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2005-Apr-20 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 20 April 2005 Mercredi 20 avril 2005

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

PARLIAMENTARY PRAYER BREAKFAST

GREENBELT

HEALTH CARE

SEWAGE SPILL

FAMILY HEALTH TEAMS

LABOUR LEGISLATION

PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS /

SOUTIEN DE L'EMPLOI

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

LOBBYISTS

HURONIA REGIONAL CENTRE

AUTISM SERVICES

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS

RECYCLING PLANT

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

OAKVILLE HOSPITAL

SEXUAL REASSIGNMENT SURGERY

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

VISITORS

PETITIONS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

SEXUAL REASSIGNMENT SURGERY

WEARING OF HELMETS

WATERLOO-WELLINGTON

TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN

SENIOR CITIZENS

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

MOTORCYCLE INSURANCE

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

ONTARIO FARMERS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Yesterday the Fair Air Association of Canada and the Pub and Bar Coalition of Canada released the

most comprehensive analysis ever done on the economic impact that smoking bans will have on bars and pubs in four Ontario cities. The headlines today say it will cost Ontario $1 billion in revenue

and will see 50,000 jobs slashed in the broader hospitality sector. That $1 billion could easily be exceeded because it doesn't take into account Legions, charity bingos, casinos, doughnut shops

and other restaurants.

The study, conducted by economist Dr. Michael Evans, proves that smoking bans in several Ontario cities have had a real and dramatic impact on revenue. Bar and

pub sales in Ottawa, London, Kingston and Kitchener have plunged by $60 million between 2000 and 2003. Dr. Evans used Ontario Ministry of Finance sales and tax receipt data between 2000 and 2003 to

ensure accuracy. To date, no one on either side of the debate has come close to producing a study this thorough, this complete, with the government's own numbers as the source material.

How this Liberal government can ignore such findings and have such disregard for the hospitality industry, small business and their employees is beyond me,

especially when there is a scientific alternative: ventilation and designated smoking rooms.

PARLIAMENTARY PRAYER BREAKFAST

Mr. Mario Sergio (York West): This morning over 150 people gathered in the Legislature from all Christian denominations to prayerfully uphold

and encourage our government leaders.

In the Bible, the Book of Timothy exhorts us to pray for our government and its leaders every day so that we will walk with all wisdom and sound judgment, making

equitable decisions for those under our care and for the less fortunate.

There are daily battles to be fought here at the Legislature. Ultimately we, as leaders, must have the assurance that we have been divinely called to the

privilege of serving in our positions of authority. By acknowledging God, we can access the strength, perseverance and wisdom to stand at our post and not lose our joy.

So today we gathered to give thanks to our Creator for the many blessings He has lavished upon us and to recognize and honour Him in all our ways. We had a full

house this morning. We started very early and we had a number of wonderful speakers. We had many wonderful words praising the politicians, legislators, everything that goes on in this place that we

call our home and the home of our people. I hope their prayers and their blessing may be shed upon every member of this House.

GREENBELT

Ms. Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Yesterday the Minister of Municipal Affairs was scheduled to hike along the greenbelt with a group of

grade 2 students from Scarborough.

I hope the minister gave the students a well-rounded education and showed them both sides of the Liberals' greenbelt. To this end, the minister should have

planned his hike to end at the beautiful Forks of the Credit Provincial Park in the heart of the greenbelt near Caledon Village. There the children could listen for the roar of the gravel crushers

and pit trucks emanating from neighbouring gravel pits -- the largest contiguous set of gravel pits in North America.

For the sake of education and truth, I trust the minister told the students that the expansion of gravel pits and quarries within the greenbelt is now easier

because of the McGuinty government's changes to the provincial policy statement.

From the Forks of the Credit Provincial Park it would have been a short hike over to Highway 10, where the minister could have modelled a major highway, the type

this government is planning to run right through the greenbelt.

I just hope the kids took pictures, because, given the impermanency of the Liberals' floating greenbelt and with aggregate development eating up more and more of

the greenbelt with each and every passing day, at least, sadly, the students will have a memory of what once was.

HEALTH CARE

Mr. David Orazietti (Sault Ste. Marie): The health transformation initiatives that we are undertaking in partnership with our hospitals and

community health organizations are absolutely essential to improve health care in our province.

Unlike the previous government, which failed to manage rising hospital costs, which failed to invest in community health organizations and promote health and

wellness programs, we are targeting investments in a way that will improve health care now and in the future.

Under the previous government, the hospital in the riding I represent contained many long-term-care beds and, like many other hospitals, was forced to deliver

services that should have been delivered in the community. The result of the previous mismanagement burdened hospitals with significant deficits.

One of the key components of the health care transformation is the reinvestment in community-based health care services, such as long-term care, home care,

mental health and public health. Our city has seen over $28 million in new funding since our government has taken office. Our government's record investments have also meant new jobs in the health

care sector in Sault Ste. Marie. In fact, 124 full-time equivalent jobs, including 11 student health-related jobs, have been created. These positions include registered nurses, registered practical

nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, dieticians, health care aides, speech therapists and health fitness coordinators.

It's important to point out that job transfers in the health care sector clearly do not equate to job losses. While the opposition members continue their

fearmongering and attempt to generate negative headlines, we will continue to let residents across the province know the real story in health care: a transformation that will deliver improved

access to doctors, reduce waiting times and bring health care closer to home.

SEWAGE SPILL

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I rise today on behalf of the residents of Whitchurch-Stouffville who live in the vicinity of the sewage spill

that occurred last Friday evening at Warden Avenue and Aurora Side Road. The information we received from the Minister of the Environment's office was that 10 million gallons of raw sewage

overflowed from a lagoon at the King Cole duck farm and migrated into Bogart Creek, which flows into the Holland River and eventually discharges into Cook's Bay in Lake Simcoe.

Numerous residents have contacted me, concerned about how this issue was handled by the Ministry of the Environment. I would like to read from one e-mail in

particular. Mr. Grant Purdy writes as follows:

"To give an idea of the scale of this spill, the Environmental Defence website categorizes a 3-million-litre spill in Manitoba as large. The one at King Cole was

nearly ten times that amount." He goes on to say, "The press release on Saturday evening was ambiguous at best, so on Sunday I telephoned a number of agencies, including the MOE. My best

information came from an MOE worker I came upon by chance, who was taking water samples from the tributary."

Mr. Purdy and his neighbours living in the vicinity of this spill deserve answers to their questions. I want to serve notice today that I will be pursuing this

directly with Minister Dombrowsky. I will be convening a public meeting to which the minister will be invited, and we will want answers about this spill. We will be looking for answers as to the

consequences and the outcomes that affect Whitchurch-Stouffville residents, and we will be looking for assurances that every step is taken to guarantee the health and well-being of those

residents.

FAMILY HEALTH TEAMS

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): I'm very pleased to rise today to speak about the McGuinty government's family health team initiative.

Minister Smitherman has been working very hard to find a new approach to primary health care. The first 55 teams were announced last week.

Family health teams will be comprised of doctors, nurse practitioners, nurses, pharmacists and other complementary medical practitioners working together to meet

patients' individual needs 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It's important to note that the family health teams will emphasize prevention and healthy living as much as treating illness. In my

riding, the riding of Huron-Bruce, the Huron county family health team in Seaforth and the Maitland Valley health team in Goderich are absolutely thrilled to be able to provide better-quality

health care for the people who live in their communities and in the surrounding areas.

What has worked before is not working now. In the 21st century, we have new challenges, new technology and growing populations. We must have courage to try new

ideas and new approaches. I'm proud to be part of a government that is willing and able to work toward new solutions to old problems. This is a wonderful step forward for primary health care reform

in the province of Ontario.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Recently, a judge in Ontario suggested that anyone believing a political party's promises in an

election campaign was at best naive. That's a sad commentary on the way many Canadians view politics and politicians today. The Gomery inquiry, spelling out the flagrant misuse of tax dollars by

the federal Liberals, and the unapologetic breaking of critically important election promises by the McGuinty Liberals are understandably continuing to fuel voter cynicism and indignation.

Last night, in an incredibly stupid move, this gang that can't shoot straight, the McGuinty government, added more fuel to escalating citizen resentment. If you

can believe it, in the middle of debate on very controversial labour legislation giving construction unions the right to do away with secret ballots and organizing drives, the Premier and many of

his cabinet colleagues attended an unadvertised event where they were handed $200,000 by the same unions who benefit from their legislation.

This is beyond the pale. It is shameful conduct on the part of the Premier and his government. It casts a dark shadow over the legitimacy of Bill 144. I call on

the government to immediately withdraw the bill and remove the card certification provisions that now, because of this government's covert, offensive and clumsy fundraising activity, give the

strong impression that this legislation was bought and paid for. I call on the Premier to take full responsibility for dragging the name of his once proud party even deeper into the muck and

mire.

PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY

Mr. Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East): The rift within the Tory caucus continues to grow every day. We have the member from Nepean-Carleton

leaving for Ottawa and the member from Whitby-Ajax flirting or Flahertying with the idea. During the leadership, Tory called for the decorum in the House; meanwhile, his caveman caucus continues to

act up in the House.

Tory has also called for fiscal transparency. He has said, "The good news.... Mr. McGuinty has brought in some measures that will allow all of us to have an

objective examination of the books of the province.... And I give him full marks for that. It's the right thing to do." That was Focus Ontario, March 20, 2005. Yet every day, every member over

there of the Tory caucus voted against the McGuinty Liberal fiscal transparency legislation.

Now we've got the member from Erie-Lincoln openly contradicting his own leader. Mr. Tory has called on Premier McGuinty to soften his attack on the federal

Liberals with regard to the $23-billion gap that Ontario is currently facing. But just today, the member from Erie-Lincoln stated, "If McGuinty really wants to make a difference instead of just

paying lip service on this issue, he's got to ratchet up the temperature." The member went on to say, "Again, if McGuinty is really sincere about making changes on the gap, we should see him

calling Paul Martin out on this issue during the election campaign." Who's the leader over there?

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): It's clear to me that John Tory needs to check if his tiny Tory researchers actually passed grade 8 math.

It seems that they can't get their facts straight, even when they're presented to them in the simplest possible manner, but it isn't all that surprising coming from the party that thought a

$5.6-billion deficit represented a balanced Magna budget.

For example, yesterday in this House, they accused us of cutting $47 million in funding from municipalities. The truth is that we actually provided $38 million

more, an increase of 6.1% over last year. In addition, there's $233 million in one-time funding that will assist municipalities in their transition to the new funding model that we're implementing.

As a result, not one municipality will receive less money this year than they did last year.

In my riding of Perth-Middlesex, residents of Perth county are receiving an overall 16% increase in funding. Residents of Middlesex county are receiving an

overall 30% increase in funding.

Perhaps Mr. Flaherty and Mr. Hudak can't add either. These substantial investments will help municipalities pay for social services and policing costs as they

manage the Tory legacy of downsizing.

Only those who failed grade 8 math or are motivated by crass politics would try to mislead the public into thinking that municipalities are getting less in

provincial transfers. What's surprising is that John Tory likes to talk about wanting to practise a new type of politics. Apparently, the new type of politics that Tory wants to practise has

nothing to do with the truth. If you don't fire your incompetent underlings, then I say, "Brand new Tory; same old story."

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS /

SOUTIEN DE L'EMPLOI

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): I rise in the House to inform all

honourable members of an innovative pilot project my ministry is championinga project that will make a real and very positive difference in the lives of many Ontarians.

Last year, we made a number of changes to address many of our problems in our social assistance programs, problems that made those programs cumbersome, treated

people unfairly, and created barriers to helping people improve their lives. Now we're taking steps to restore integrity to our social assistance programs. We're moving forward to address one of

the root problems of financial dependence, and that's unemployment. We're launching an exciting initiative that is really going to help people move from working for welfare to working for a

living.

Ce matin, nous avons lancé le programme ActionEmplois -- un tout nouveau projet pilote qui offrira du counselling d'emploi personnalisé, des services

de placement et du soutien en matière d'emploi -- pour aider les gens à se trouver un emploi et ainsi quitter pour de bon le système d'aide sociale.

This is not another version of the previous government's work-for-welfare program. This is not about forcing single moms and disadvantaged people to take

make-work jobs that continue to lead to cyclical unemployment. This is about providing the right supports to help people improve their lives and become self-sufficient.

JobsNow is unique in four ways:

First, JobsNow specifically focuses on people who have been on social assistance for more than 12 months. We know from experience that lots of people stay on

social assistance for only a short period of time -- a few months, maybe -- while they're going through a temporary rough patch. JobsNow focuses on those people who have been trying to find

employment and turn their lives around for at least a year but who have been unsuccessful for any number of reasons. We're doing this because research shows that the longer someone stays out of the

workforce, the harder it becomes to get back in, and that one-year mark is a turning point. We know that once someone has been on social assistance for over a year, they're more likely to remain on

social assistance for two or three years at least. JobsNow targets this group specifically so they don't end up in a cycle of chronic unemployment.

Second, JobsNow provides clients with the personalized, one-on-one support they need to get back in the workforce and stay there. This is something that my

parliamentary assistant, Deb Matthews, the member for London North Centre, highlighted in her review of Ontario's social assistance programs, and we give kudos again to our member from London

North, Deb Matthews, for a tremendous report. During her discussions with front-line caseworkers, clients and people who currently provide employment supports to these clients, she heard one thing

loud and clear: One size fits all does not work. During her discussions, that's what she found. JobsNow is based on the principle that different people need different supports to find and keep a

job. JobsNow will work one-on-one with individual welfare recipients to help them overcome the unique barriers they face, and then go one step further by working with individual employers to match

the right person with the right job.

Third, JobsNow will connect with business and employers directly, through partners such as the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, to find those jobs that aren't always

so easy to find. We had a tremendous announcement this morning at the office of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce; thanks to that group for having us come and launch such an exciting project. We know

there's a hidden job market out there. Only a fraction of the jobs that are available actually get advertised. With JobsNow, we can help our clients find those jobs.

Fourth, JobsNow provides longer-term job retention support -- up to 18 months worth of follow-up support -- once somebody is placed in a job, because we know

that keeping a job is as important as finding one in the first place. Research has shown that individuals who are employed for more than 12 months have a much higher likelihood of remaining

employed. Our current Ontario Works employment supports include up to six months of job retention services. While this works for some clients, we know it has been less successful in helping

longer-term unemployed individuals return to the workplace.

JobsNow recognizes that many people who rely on welfare want to find meaningful work that will last and that will allow them to make a better life for themselves

and for their families. These people are not statistics. They're real people who want to find and keep a job. It's time our welfare programs worked as well. We believe JobsNow will get thousands of

people into the workforce. That's good for our clients, it's good for the Ontario economy and it's good for our taxpayers.

Our government made a commitment to restore integrity to Ontario's social assistance programming by streamlining administration, which we're moving on; improving

accountability, which we're moving on; and moving people off welfare into steady employment. I'm very excited about this latest part of our plan: a plan that will help improve lives across the

province; a plan that strengthens our economy and our communities; a plan that recognizes that our people are our greatest resource. When they can fulfill their potential, the entire province

benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that you too will recognize that this government has a whole new attitude when it comes to people who are on welfare. These are people who

want and deserve to work, and the Dalton McGuinty government is going to get them there.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Responses?

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I'm pleased to respond on behalf of our critic, the member for Burlington, to the minister's comments. We believe,

as Progressive Conservatives, that the best way to move people off welfare is into a job itself, into the workforce. The fundamental role of government is to make sure there are jobs for Ontarians,

to make sure our economy stays strong and we can afford improvements in health care or education. The lesson learned: If you want to keep our economy strong, you need to make sure that you reduce

taxes, control government spending and not run up massive Dalton McGuinty deficits, as we're seeing across the floor.

Let me point out another problem. This is a bit of an anagram: If you change the letters in "JobsNow," it's "snow job." This is a snow-job program and a snow-job

announcement by the minister across the floor. If the minister really wanted to help people off welfare into work, they would not raise taxes as they are doing, they wouldn't raise hydro rates

through the roof as Dalton McGuinty is doing, and they'd strive to balance the budget, which is the opposite of any effort that Dalton McGuinty is trying to make. What is worse, if you do succeed

in moving somebody from welfare to work, they're hit with a punishing new Dalton McGuinty health tax that impacts those of most modest income the greatest -- and shame on them. As soon as they get

into the workforce, bam, a new health tax is levied on these individuals.

Let me read some of the details of the program. Does this sound familiar? "A program that will provide a wide range of employment supports that include:

practical help in finding a job; community participation; employment placements; supports to self-employment; basic education and job skills training; literacy testing and training; the LEAP

program" --

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): That sounds familiar.

Mr. Hudak: As my colleague from Durham said, it should sound familiar, because that's Ontario Works, the Mike Harris program that, when this

member was across the floor, you had to pull her down off the roof complaining about work for welfare. My, these Liberals say one thing when they're in opposition, but when in government, they say

the complete opposite.

Interjection.

Mr. Hudak: The minister is heckling, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hudak: What I find interesting from the minister is that you're partnering with WCG International, a private, for-profit consulting firm. I

heard all kinds of stuff from the Liberals about the evils of working with the private sector and contracts with private sector providers, but holy smokes, Sandra Pupatello today getting in bed

with WCG International, a private, for-profit company? Man, who are you and what happened to the Sandra Pupatello who used to sit over here?

It sounds a lot like the Mike Harris program -- a program that was successful in taking 600,000 people off work for welfare --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hudak: If there's a program that has ideas, work for welfare -- we're proud of our record. Some 600,000 people moved from welfare back on

to the employment rolls, a success copied across North America. We're pleased that Sandra Pupatello seems to be taking the line of following a Conservative work-for-welfare policy.

We need a bit more detail. Where is the beef in this program? Please tell us. This sounds a lot like work for welfare -- maybe we'll hear from the minister how

it's not -- a program that she would criticize day after day, month after month, year after year. It's a contract with a private sector company, the kind of thing she criticized day after day,

month after month, year after year.

This ability of Dalton McGuinty's government to do these sorts of political gymnastics is incredible, where they say one thing before the campaign and

something completely different when they're in government. You say it's something different. JobsNow is nothing but a snow job the minister is trying to put over on the public here today.

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I don't often agree with my friend from Erie-Lincoln, but he hit the nail right on the head. This is

nothing but another Conservative policy. If you ask him if he's going to support you, of course he's going to support you, because you're doing exactly what Mike Harris did before. It has taken 18

months for your party to go from a party that said you cared for people into another government of Mike Harris on that side.

You said that this is a new and innovative program. It is not a new and innovative program; it is a program that you have stolen lock, stock and barrel from

the BC Liberals. It has been in British Columbia for a number of years. Even your

definitions are the same. Even the company's the same: WCG International. It's the same private business that is

not helping the people of British Columbia while it lines its own pockets. And you are doing the same thing today that you used to accuse the Mike Harris government of doing in the past. There is

no obligation from this private company -- absolutely none -- to make their finances public. You will pour in millions and millions of dollars to them, and not once will they ever have to tell the

people of this province how much you are paying them, how much profit they're making or what they're doing with the money.

It is quite normal that people on welfare go on and off welfare. In British Columbia, the people who were studying this program that you now laud as your own

found that two-thirds of welfare cases go out of the system within six months of going on welfare. Unfortunately, it's normal that two-thirds of those who find a job go back on to welfare within

two years following finding a job. The only thing that is sure in your announcement today is that WCG International, a private company that is raking in millions of dollars in BC, is now going to

rake in millions of dollars more in Ontario.

We have to ask, what are you going to do to protect the poor people of Ontario once they have to apply to this new, for-profit agency? How much are you going

to protect them?

I quote this from a publication in British Columbia. WCG vice-president and partner Diane Bradley was asked how much money the company makes. She said, "The

bottom line is, we really are proud of what we do." When she was pushed for an answer, she said, "It's profitable, and thank heavens it is," and that's what this is about.

The minister says that people are going to be placed off of welfare. What is the definition in BC of "being placed"? The definition in British Columbia, which

I think you're adopting here, is that you're no longer on the system. In British Columbia, if somebody moves to Alberta and gets off the welfare system in British Columbia, they are deemed to be

placed, and the company gets a profit. Is that what you have planned for Ontario? If somebody goes into a hospital and is off the welfare system, the company gets a profit. If somebody goes to jail

and is off the welfare system, the company gets a profit. Is that what you mean by "placement" in your bill? We think that's what it is.

We have to say that this is a Tory bill, a Mike Harris bill, a bill that's going to do nothing to help the poor.

As one person in British Columbia had to say about this program and how it didn't work for him -- and again, I quote from the paper:

"`I left income assistance for a permanent job,' one person said. `The job lasted [only] weeks. When I went back to human resources, I was told I couldn't

reapply for income assistance for the next five years. My MLA has not been any help. The government should tear up the contracts of those high-paid workers they have contracts with, and give people

like me a job.'"

Madam Minister, if you really want to help, you'll have non-profits do this job and do the placements -- non-profits who work to make no money at all. You'll

have training subsidies for those who need them. You'll have a requirement that employers, in order to get funds, will maintain the employment for one year or get no funding at all. Last but not

least, and most importantly, for the many people who have children, you will provide adequate subsidized child care so that people can actually go out and find a job and keep it.

VISITORS

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker:

I just wanted to take a moment to introduce the personnel from WCG who are here in the House with us. We're proud to have them here.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): That was not a point of order, but let me hear the point of order from the member from Niagara Centre.

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want the chamber to know that page Jessica Simoneau is joined by her

parents, Edith Toscher and Denis Simoneau; her sister, Emilie; her grandparents Toscher; her grand-mère Falardeau and her Aunt Caroline.

The Speaker: That is also not a point of order, but welcome.

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: In the east gallery, I'd also like to

introduce Mr. Peter Love, Ontario's new chief energy conservation officer, and his family.

Hon. Christopher Bentley (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --

The Speaker: Is this the same type of point of order?

Hon. Mr. Bentley: I'm wondering if it would be a point of order if I recognize St. Paul elementary school from the riding of London West up in

the gallery.

The Speaker: I hope that --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Let me get a point of order in too. I'd like better behaviour and no shouting across from one to the other, so that when I do

call oral questions, we get that co-operation.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Premier, Thunder Bay, North Bay and Sudbury collectively received

$3.2 million in gas tax revenues in 2004-05 but will lose $8.2 million in transfers under your so-called fairer municipal funding program. These municipalities have a choice to make: They can fund

public transit, as was intended with the gas tax money, they can use it to partially make up for the cuts in the transfer payments, or, of course, raise property taxes. Why are you cutting this $5

million from these northern cities and forcing them to impose big property tax increases?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I know the Minister of Finance is prepared to speak to this.

Hon. Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I know the Leader of the Opposition is still trying to recruit in his office, and I really recommend

strongly that he look for better researchers, because, as yesterday with the member from Erie-Lincoln, my friend just has it wrong on the new Ontario municipal partnership funding.

Let's just deal with the north for a moment. We're very proud of the two cents per litre in gas tax that is going to help in public transit. We're very proud

of the fact that we are going to be absorbing more of the cost of public health. And on the municipal financing partnership, I should tell the Leader of the Opposition that the special allocations

for northern and rural municipalities are going to be of significant help to municipalities right across the north. I recommend to the Leader of the Opposition that he pay more attention to his

details.

Mr. Tory: I would recommend that you might try answering the question, because I asked you not about the north; I asked about North Bay,

Thunder Bay and Sudbury, which you didn't deal with whatsoever.

My supplementary question is to the Premier. Premier, the city of Brantford received just over $700,000 in gas taxes for 2004-05 but will lose 10 times that

amount -- $6.681 million annually -- under your so-called fairer program for cities and towns. Brantford mayor Mike Hancock just two days ago said he felt a sense of betrayal. No wonder. Brantford

has a choice to make: They can either use the gas tax money granted for public transit while facing a $7-million cut in transfers, or they can raise property taxes. Can you confirm these numbers

for Brantford and tell us why you're forcing them to raise taxes in this way?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: My very good friend the Leader of the Opposition referred to Sudbury. Let's hear what Greater Sudbury ward 5 councillor Doug

Craig said recently in the Sudbury Star apropos of this program: "It is a reliable and predictable source of new revenue, and it's something we're very fortunate to get."

Now let's go to Brantford. Let's point out to the people of Ontario that under the new Ontario municipal partnership fund, no community in Ontario will receive

less than they did last year. Let's point out to my friend the Leader of the Opposition that this program in this year represents a 6.1% increase in municipal grants from the province of

Ontario.

Finally, let's point out to the Leader of the Opposition that we are scrapping what we inherited from the Tories, which was inequitable, very expensive, and

unfair, and we're replacing it with a program which, at the heart of it is driven by equity and fairness and appropriate levels of funding.

Mr. Tory: Again to the Premier: Let's point out to the people of Ontario, first of all, that you didn't answer the question, and secondly,

that there are an awful lot of cities and towns that are going to get a lot less next year and the year after that, whatever you say is going to happen this year.

My final supplementary: Your pledge to the cities and towns is to give them a share of gas taxes for public transit, and I would argue that it's a sham.

Kingston, the riding of your own Minister of Municipal Affairs, will lose $3.4 million under your so-called fair municipal funding program but receive just over $1 million in gas taxes. Can you

confirm these numbers and tell us why you are hurting Kingston this way and forcing them to raise property taxes?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I want to help out the Leader of the Opposition. He mentions Brantford, so I think it's appropriate to point out that

$792,741 in new gas-tax funds and public health funding will be going to the community of Brantford.

I regret that I don't have the funding for Kingston right in front of me, but he needs to know, the people of Kingston need to know and the people of Ontario

need to know that no community in Ontario will receive less this year than they did last year. So for him to suggest in this Legislature that somehow any community is suffering under this new

program is simply not in accordance with the facts.

I reiterate: We are putting 6.1% more in our new municipal partnership program than was in the program that existed, and we've scrapped the program that the

Tories had because it simply did not work.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): New question, the leader of the official opposition.

Mr. Tory: We didn't get an answer on the cuts to Thunder Bay, North Bay, Sudbury, Brantford or Kingston, and of course the minister is talking

about this year and very carefully not talking about next year or the year after.

Let's talk about Chatham. Chatham is losing a staggering $12.8 million under your so-called fair program, and yet they're receiving $610,000 in gas tax money.

The Chatham Daily News says property taxes will go up 10.5% as a result. Guelph will receive nothing -- zero -- under your new fairer program, a hole of $2.7 million, and they'll receive roughly

half of that in gas transfers.

Can you confirm these numbers and tell us why you are forcing those cities to raise taxes on their residents? Why are you hurting Guelph and Chatham? Why are

you hurting them?

The Speaker: The question is directed to whom?

Mr. Tory: To the Premier.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: The Minister of Finance.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Let's just go back to some basic principles, for example. At the last meeting of the Association of Municipalities of

Ontario -- AMO -- the tone, if I could sum it up, was simply this: "We are so glad, finally, that we have a government at Queen's Park that is listening to our concerns." As we were developing the

new Ontario municipal partnership fund, the leaders of AMO and communities all across the province said, "We need to make sure that we are able to reconcile our accounts for 2003 and reconcile our

accounts for 2004." So we made sure that, in developing this program, we did that, and that has resulted in some $233 million in transitional funding. It's one of the strongest points of the new

program.

The Speaker: Supplementary, the member from Erie-Lincoln.

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): Back to the Premier: I remember the recent Rural Ontario Municipal Association meeting, where your ministers on

the stage were booed and jeered regularly when they gave these types of weaselly answers to the questions municipalities were asking.

Minister, Premier, your so-called new deal for municipalities has turned out to be a raw deal for those municipalities. Let's look at Windsor, for example. In

2004, Windsor received $2.1 million up front and an additional $3.3 million under reconciliation -- a $5-million CRF transfer. Their new permanent funding under Dalton McGuinty is zero; zippo;

nada; not a penny. Do you expect them to pump their gas money into this hole that McGuinty has created, or to take the full $5 million from welfare and children's services?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: This is all based on the press release that my friend put out yesterday, which, not to put it too delicately, was trash.

Let's just talk about southwestern Ontario. Lambton county: from $9.03 million in 2004 to $10.29 million in 2005; Huron county -- very close to my friend's heart: from $13.6 million in 2004 to

$15.78 million in 2005; Perth county: from $10.88 million in 2004 to $12.64 million in 2005; the city of London: over $13 million in new funding. Why? Because it was the right and equitable thing

to do, to repair the broken monster that we got left with from the previous administration.

Mr. Hudak: I think the minister is being a little fast and loose with the numbers. Look at your own chart, Minister. You referenced Perth

county, close to my heart. They received $2.7 million last year. Their permanent base funding was zero. Your own numbers: their permanent base funding, zero. If you don't know your own program, no

wonder that municipalities across Ontario are calling you to account.

Belleville received half a million dollars, slashed from their program supports -- social services, policing -- under Dalton McGuinty's raw deal for

municipalities. The average income in Belleville is 16% below the provincial average. If you want to attract jobs to Belleville, it's not going to help that the municipality will be forced to raise

taxes or cut services because of Dalton McGuinty's raw deal and broken promises. What is your answer for Belleville? Do they use their gas tax and pump it into that hole that McGuinty has created,

or do they cut their programs to the local taxpayers?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I'd like to say to my friend from Erie-Lincoln that if he wants an opportunity to visit us at the Ministry of Finance to get

a better understanding of the Ontario municipal partnership fund, we will make time available in the morning, afternoon or evening. I'll say to him that the funding partnership is made up of a

number of grants, including a northern and rural grant which looks to the specific needs of northern and more remote communities where populations are spread out and the need for additional funding

is driven by the fact that services are more expensive; a policing grant, because particularly in smaller municipalities the cost of policing is an inordinate cost; and then a grant for social

services, recognizing that in some communities the cost of providing social services is much higher.

I wish my friend had the opportunity to visit the ministry and discover the mess that was left by them and their downloading on municipalities right across

Ontario.

LOBBYISTS

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Before the last election, you promised to set a higher ethical

standard, but yesterday we learned that your Minister of Transportation thinks it's OK to hire someone who is funnelling illegal money to political candidates; that it's OK as long as he isn't

facing criminal charges.

Today I want to ask you about some high-priced seminars for lobbyists. Over the last year, Leonard Domino and Associates have held a series of seminars. They

charge clients $550 a head to teach them how to get the inside track with the McGuinty government. My question is this: Do you think it's appropriate for your MPPs and cabinet ministers to actually

be providing the lessons at these lobbying sessions?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Once again the leader of the NDP is desperately pursuing a non-existent

lead. We take pride in having set what I think is a good standard when it comes to ethics and integrity. Let me tell you about some of the things we've done. I know the members opposite don't

support these kinds of things. For example, we've introduced greater transparency into government financing by bringing forward the Fiscal Transparency and Accountability Act, something the

Conservatives would not support. We've also been clear that we intend to expand the powers of the Provincial Auditor so that he can look, for example, at our colleges and universities and

hospitals, some of our transfer partners. Again, the members opposite gave us some difficulty in increasing that transparency and accountability.

Mr. Hampton: Premier, that was a valiant effort at avoiding answering the question.

We're not talking about ordinary speaking engagements here. This is a crash course on how to get goodies from the McGuinty government, and members of your

caucus and of your cabinet actually go and teach the lessons. In the advertisement for one seminar it states, "You'll need new strategies to deal with the new government ... whether your concerns

are primarily about funding, about regulation, about scope of practice or any other aspect of government policy." Just below that there's a photo of two lucky customers and Sandra Pupatello, your

minister. Take the picture to the Premier, please.

Minister Pupatello isn't the only McGuinty Liberal who is providing access at a price. Here are George Smitherman, Brad Duguid, Mike Colle, David Zimmer, Mario

Racco, Lorenzo Berardinetti and David Caplan. It seems like for $550 a head you can meet a lot of Liberals.

Premier, will you release the names of the lobbyists who bought access to your caucus members and your cabinet members?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): First of all, I think you've got

to be truthful with people when you ask a question in this House. I'm glad you brought a photo here, because what I am telling you is that I recall very well the people I spoke with, people who

represent non-profit organizations trying to advance things for the most vulnerable: housing issues, social service issues, individuals who are struggling to make life work in our province.

That party thinks there's something wrong with asking the minister responsible for social services about what the dreams are of the Liberal Party as a

government. I stand by any organization I spoke with about the best way to help vulnerable people, and I look forward to another question on this matter.

Mr. Hampton: I heard a lot of bluster there, but I didn't hear an answer.

Before the last election, Dalton McGuinty said, "The Harris-Eves government gave money too much influence and citizens too little. We will put the public

interest ahead of special interest."

Premier, the last time I noticed, when autistic parents and their children were here, you wouldn't even look them in the eye, but if somebody has $550 a head

to pay to this lobbying firm, they can get access to your cabinet ministers, to your caucus members. All it takes is $550 a head. I should add that it's not just the opportunity to chat up your

members; you get Atlantic smoked salmon, tiger shrimp and grilled portobello mushrooms while they chat up your cabinet members and your caucus members.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Question.

Mr. Hampton: Premier, will you release the names of the lobbyists who bought access to your MPPs and cabinet ministers at these high-priced,

private lobbying seminars? Please don't tell us it was the poor --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: I would like this leader of the opposition to know, to understand. Do you know who I spend more time with in the boardroom

of the Ministry of Community and Social Services? Tories, who are out of work because that government lost, bring organizations to see me, to talk about the most vulnerable people in the province.

Individuals who used to work for that government come into my boardroom today to talk about how to get housing for people, how we make services work in social services. They come to talk to me

about long-term care. They come to talk to me about how to get more special services at home. Tories are bringing people to see me. That's my job.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr. Hampton: To the Premier -- and I'll send over the rest of the photos. By the way, the Premier makes it on to this advertising campaign at

$550 a head as well.

Premier, again, you were going to provide strong leadership, you were going to set higher standards, you were going to do things differently from your

predecessor. But it seems that you are just as addicted to inside advisers and backroom fixers and lobbyists as Mike Harris was.

Today, the Toronto Star reports that your chief backroom fixer, Warren Kinsella, held a secret meeting with Stephen Harper's senior adviser on April 6, the day

after you spoke to Stephen Harper about your problems with Paul Martin. We know that Mr. Kinsella is an effective lobbyist. We saw him take your spills bill on behalf of the chemical industry and

send it out the side door to a dead-end committee. He's very good.

The question I want to ask you is what is going on here? What is going on with your government?

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: I'd like to give the House a very good example of an individual who worked for Premier Dalton McGuinty. His name is Phil

Dewan. Phil Dewan called my office. He's a consultant, as this member would call him. Do you know what he did? He brought parents of individuals who live at Huronia into my boardroom. Moreover, he

wasn't paid for that work, but he certainly is a consultant. If that individual has a problem with the work that Phil Dewan was doing on behalf of parents from Huronia, I want him to say that too,

because those are the kinds of people I am proud to meet with.

The people who come to see me, the individuals I would step forward to talk to about what we have as policy as a government -- I am proud, because I can tell

you, for 10 years nobody wanted to talk about social services in this province. The people who were affiliated with my ministry were used as punching bags for the last 10 years. That has changed

under Dalton McGuinty, and we will continue to change that.

Mr. Hampton: More bluster from a cabinet minister who's trying to explain away a $550-a-head lobbyist session.

My question was to the Premier. It was about Warren Kinsella. You see, there's a remarkable string of coincidences with Mr. Kinsella. Mr. Kinsella is a staunch

opponent of Paul Martin -- just like you, apparently. He was your most prominent campaign insider and is now your backroom fixer. In fact, he is so close to you that even as a paid lobbyist he got

invited to, and attended, your cabinet meeting on March 23. Then, days later, on April 5, you get on the phone with Stephen Harper. The very next day, Mr. Kinsella attends a secret meeting with Mr.

Harper's senior strategist. Premier, can you explain Mr. Kinsella's role in your family feud with Paul Martin?

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: I'd like to refer that to the Premier, please.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: This is what you call a desperate attempt to pursue a story that was written this morning, to try to get in on that story.

The meeting to which the leader of the NDP makes reference was attended by Mr. Kinsella on his own behalf without purporting to represent me, our government or my party. Of course, he's free to

engage in those kinds of things.

I'm glad the leader of the NDP has raised the issue of the $23-billion gap, because I know that's what the people of Ontario are very concerned about. In

particular, I know that the leader of the NDP will want to again take the opportunity in a supplementary to lend his support, together with his federal colleague Jack Layton. I was pleased to

receive that support. I was pleased to receive the support of Mr. Harper, as I was of Mr. Tory on this issue. We will continue to maintain this campaign on behalf of the people of Ontario to ensure

that this matter can be effectively and fairly addressed by the federal government.

Mr. Hampton: Premier, New Democrats don't blame you for your conspiring against Paul Martin and the federal Liberals -- another Liberal

government that doesn't keep its promise. As I say, we know how effective Mr. Kinsella is as a high-priced lobbyist and backroom fixer, but I think you have to be straight with the people of

Ontario. There's a remarkable follow-on of coincidences here. Mr. Kinsella comes to the cabinet meeting -- very unusual for a high-priced, backroom lobbyist to come to a cabinet meeting. Days

later, you get on the phone with Stephen Harper. The day following, Mr. Kinsella holds a secret meeting with Mr. Harper's special adviser.

I'm just asking you to be open with the people of Ontario. Is --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Leader of the third party.

Mr. Hampton: Premier, I think you need to be straight with the people of Ontario. Is Mr. Kinsella leading your charge to bring down Paul

Martin, and if he is, who is paying the tab for this very high-priced lobbyist and backroom fixer?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: The leader of the NDP asked me to be straight with Ontarians. I don't know how he can ask that kind of question with a

straight face.

Notwithstanding -- I'll give him the benefit of the doubt -- the failed attempt at humour in this matter, this is a serious issue. We're talking about a

$23-billion gap that 10 years ago was $2 billion. We think it's important that we continue to reach out to everybody on Parliament Hill. We have had a good reception from the federal NDP and from

the federal Conservatives. We're now working actively with the federal government, and, notwithstanding the leader of the NDP's desire to find ghosts behind every corner, we have been very

transparent and very active.

There is one matter I'm sure the leader of the NDP would like to have drawn to his attention, because he made reference earlier to the lobbyist Leonard Domino

and Associates. I think he would be interested in learning that if you go to that lobbyist's Web site today, you will find a link to the NDP.

HURONIA REGIONAL CENTRE

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question today is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister and members of this

House, today we have present in the Speaker's gallery four residents from Huronia Regional Centre in Orillia. They're here with their attendants. Their names are David Rodgers, Carey Buss, Wendy

Sayer and Pip Bruce-Robertson. They have resided at the facility for a combined total of 170 years.

Minister Pupatello, you and your government have decided to close HRC, very clearly without any kind of plan. How can you and your government even consider

closing HRC when you haven't even met with the residents to determine their needs? You have yet to even lay out a detailed plan that will assure family members who are here today that their loved

ones will be cared for in the same manner as they have become accustomed to at Huronia Regional Centre.

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. Let's just sit down. Thank you.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): Can I say on behalf of every

member of this House how pleased we are to see individuals who live at Huronia here at Queen's Park today. We applaud you. We thank you for coming here today.

They may also know that both my parliamentary assistant, Ernie Parsons, who is with them in the House today, as well as myself have tried valiantly, despite

quarantines because of the flu, to actually be on-site at Huronia. That has hobbled us twice in our efforts to get there. We have had an opportunity to speak to parents. We will continue to do

that. We would like to speak to every single parent, because what we're committed to do in this House, on behalf of every government that has been the government since the mid-1980s that enacted a

plan that would close the institutions -- where we have moved from having 16 institutions in Ontario for people with developmental disabilities to three. We have announced the closure of those

three. There are still 1,000 people living there. We understand what the challenges and the fears are, and I appreciate the opportunity to see face-to-face and continue to strive to meet those

challenges and fears.

I look forward to the next question.

Mr. Dunlop: I guess that's why we don't call this "answer period."

I want to congratulate the minister, first of all, on her JobsNow project that she announced today. That will really help the 2,100 people from the Ontario

public service whom you're putting out of work with this decision. At a time when Community Living in Ontario says they have a crisis on hand because of a 25% turnover of staff due to your

underfunding and do not have enough funds to offer space to those on other waiting lists, you have made a decision, again without any plan, to close HRC, Rideau Regional Centre and Southwestern

Regional Centre and add 1,000 of the most profoundly disabled people to those lists. When will the families and residents actually see a plan to offer the same level of care and medical attention

that they receive today at HRC? I'm talking about a plan. When will you start to consult with those who actually care about these people?

Minister, I know you say you've tried to make it up there a couple of times, but the bottom line is that you've got lots of time to make it to your fancy

casino announcements and whatever $550-a-plate you were at recently, but you haven't had the courtesy to come to the Huronia Regional Centre and meet, as the landlord and as the person responsible

for these people --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: There are some things within my ministry and across the government that are completely non-partisan, and this is one of

them. When this member stands to ask a question, I remind him that he was part of a government, over the last eight years before we became the government, that continued with this plan to close

facilities. Your government never wavered. Your government continued to close institutions, because in 1980 we understood that it was the right thing to do, that we wanted to see people in our

community, as we have people in our House today, being in the community. I'd also like to know if this is the same MPP who has met on more than one occasion with the Minister of Training, Colleges

and Universities, who is now speaking about the "What next?" plan, the potential of a university on the site of Huronia. I will also tell him that those people who have worked diligently with us in

this ministry, the people who work in the institutions, are important to us. We have met with them and we continue to meet.

AUTISM SERVICES

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I have a question for the Attorney General. The thirty-five-year old Hasit Khagram has autism. For four

years now he's been kept in solitary confinement, in a unit that has windows that don't open, where he is not allowed outside because the fencing is inadequate, and where, if there is an effort to

bring in fresh air by opening that exterior door, it's soon frustrated as hordes of flies are attracted by the feces which are an inevitable part of Mr. Khagram's presence in the unit because he is

incontinent. Two one-hour visits per week with his mother and father are all he is permitted. Why? And how can that be allowed to happen in this province of Ontario in the 21st century?

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): You started it

by making reference to an autistic individual; you made reference as well to a unit. I wish the member would provide me with more information so I'll be able to better answer his question. If there

something we can do, we will do it.

Mr. Kormos: Attorney General, Mr. Khagram is your ward. He is in the guardianship of the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, which put

him in this facility and approved this so-called treatment plan which, as psychiatrist Dr. Max Wheeler notes, has led to his deteriorated condition. "I am appalled by the fact that Hasit has had

essentially no human physical contact in four years.... Hasit's so-called family visits through Plexiglas.

"It is my professional opinion [that] isolation has led to deterioration in his behaviour socially. I feel very strongly that Hasit's social isolation should

not continue one more day."

The imposition of his solitary confinement at Bethesda Home in St. Catharines is a direct result of the directions given by your Office of the Public Guardian

and Trustee. Will you meet with Hasit's mother and stepfather, Dr. Shah, to discuss the options they have to restore health to their son and in fact save his life and his humanity from these

degrading conditions?

Hon. Mr. Bryant: I don't see why it would be inappropriate for me to do so. Unless there's some matter involving litigation, the answer is

yes.

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS

Ms. Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. As we heard earlier in the House this

morning, you announced a new employment supports initiative called JobsNow. I am pleased to say that one of the pilot sites is in Hamilton, so that should be of benefit to some of the residents of

my riding.

We know that the government is working hard to restore integrity to Ontario's social assistance program, and you've cited several examples: streamlining

administration, improving accountability, and, for the first time in 11 very long years, there is an increase in assistance.

I know that in my riding, there are people who are on welfare and don't want to be. They want to get a job, but the journey is long and a difficult one. How is

JobsNow going to help them make that long-term change from welfare to the workforce?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): I applaud the member from Stoney

Creek, who really took on this project. The fact is that JobsNow is being launched in Hamilton as one of six pilot sites, along with Ottawa, Nipissing, Peel region, Durham region and Windsor. I'm

very pleased to see the kind of support we've had in the Hamilton area.

The difference is this: Our current employment support programs last for six months. Our research tells us that we've got to get people into that job and

retaining that job past the 12-month mark. What we've organized with JobsNow through WCG International -- yes, a company that has had success in another province -- which we went searching for to

bring to Ontario, may I add.

We know that long-term support is the key. Most people, if they hit that first crisis in a new job position, end up finding themselves back on welfare. The key

is that the supports continue for 18 months. That is what we believe will be the key to people in Hamilton and beyond having success at finding and retaining work.

Ms. Mossop: There are employment supports and social assistance already in place, but we did hear from your parliamentary assistant, my

colleague Deb Matthews, in her report that there were some concerns about the work-for-welfare program that we inherited from the previous government. I need to know how JobsNow is going to improve

on the areas that were left behind.

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: I can tell you that this member, because of the work we did in our caucus, understood the dismay we had when we realized

that Ontario Works was not about working. As a matter of fact, only 13% of all people on welfare have any earnings whatsoever. It really was a public relations sham so that the public would believe

that workfare was somehow about working. It wasn't.

What we are doing is moving from working for welfare to working for a living. What we are determined to do is prove that what was essentially missing was

matching: finding the job and matching that job to the people on our rolls who want to work. I know that the member from Stoney Creek understands as well that the Dalton McGuinty government has a

new attitude -- far different from the last government's, I'll say. We expect dignity and fairness for people who are on welfare. We know that they want a job, and it's up to us to do what we need

to do and be as creative as we need to be to find people work in this province.

RECYCLING PLANT

Mrs. Julia Munro (York North): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Noxious odours from the Halton recycling plant in Newmarket

are adversely affecting the health and quality of life of residents and working people in my riding. Local families have lost the enjoyment of their properties for themselves and their children.

They face threats to their health and well-being and risk a decline in the value of their homes. The main RCMP detachment and other workers in the area are also being affected by the odours that

are making their working conditions intolerable. Minister, what are you going to do about this serious situation?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): The Ministry of the Environment received a request from the mayor of Newmarket, and

ministry staff did have an opportunity to meet with representatives of the town council on April 12. At that meeting, the ministry did commit to the following: a non-standard procedure with the

Spills Action Centre, which will result in the dispatch of the environmental response person, will be put in place; we will enhance response by ministry staff when we receive complaints from people

in that community; there was also a request for the trace atmospheric gas analyzer, our TAGA unit, a portable air monitor that will serve this particular situation; there will be regular attendance

by ministry district staff on a liaison committee that has been established as a result of this particular circumstance; and the ministry will update staff at future council meetings about the

progress on this particular issue.

Mrs. Munro: I've met with many constituents, and they are very concerned about the need for immediate action. I spoke to them after the April

12 meeting. Their concern is that they're not seeing the kind of progress they believe the ministry should undertake, so of course they are looking for answers. Among those is the concern about

whether this plant can in fact meet the kinds of demands that are necessary. Minister, when are you going to consider closing the plant?

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: In fairness, I think it's appropriate that the ministry work with the owner of the facility to see what can be done to

mitigate these very serious issues. The ministry has also committed to working with the community liaison committee so that they have a person they can contact with whom to share their concerns. As

a result of the communication that has already taken place, they have directed the company to remove wood waste from outdoor storage, repair the biofilter at the facility, complete permanent

enclosure for the vertical composting units, and submit outstanding reports required by the certificate of approval. I think it's appropriate, when dealing with these sorts of issues, that we take

a progressive approach, deal with the concerns that have come from people in the community, and work with the company to see how they can be mitigated reasonably and to the satisfaction of people

in the area.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal. Last week, the Canadian Centre for

Policy Alternatives outlined an alternative budget that would address your social deficit in Ontario. They provided your government with sound ideas to fulfill your election promise to build

thousands of affordable housing units, including 6,600 units of supportive housing that you and your government promised to groups like the Dream Team. The Dream Team came here today to find out

exactly what you're doing.

You can't be proud of your plan to provide a measly 935 units of affordable rental housing in Toronto when 73,000 people sit on the social housing waiting

list. You can't be proud of a couple of hundred condominiums that you promised to build as an answer to the crisis.

Minister, the Centre for Policy Alternatives has an idea. Will you pony up the provincial share, provide rent supplements and supportive housing, and build the

affordable rental stock that this province needs and not the condominiums you're promising?

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal): I would certainly agree with the member if the facts he presented are

correct.

Eight billion dollars in new taxes is not innovative or creative in any way. In fact, we've had other individuals talk about our record on delivering

affordable housing; for example, Heather DeBruyn, executive director of the Elgin branch of the Canadian Mental Health Association. I quote: "These new dollars will allow us to reduce our waiting

lists for affordable housing as well as provide support within our community."

That's in addition to the over 3,600 units of affordable housing that we have announced, that we are funding and that we have made groundbreakings on. It is by

far the single largest affordable housing expansion in a decade, and I am incredibly proud of it.

In the supplementary I will outline in detail for the member opposite the very exciting things that are happening in this province from one end to the

other.

Mr. Prue: Perhaps in the supplementary, you can talk about the 18 units you've so far built. Minister, you're not answering my question, and I

can't believe you're trying to fool us again with believing your claims of millions being poured into affordable housing. If that were true, you wouldn't have had the people from ISARC here last

week telling you that you're not building any; you wouldn't have had the Dream Team come here today to say that there is no supportive housing for them. They came here and handed over 4,000 cards

like these to Minister Smitherman. I don't know what's going to happen to those cards, but certainly there was no promise to them from that minister that anything was going to be done for them.

I'm asking you again -- and the question is clear: Will your government's next budget make housing Ontario's homeless a priority by putting shovels in the

ground and not simply making promise after promise that is never kept and never met?

Hon. Mr. Caplan: I'm delighted to contrast the approach that our government has taken, as far as community mental health and affordable

housing, with the cuts to community mental health that your government imposed when you were in government. I think, frankly, that Heather DeBruyn, the executive director of the Elgin branch of the

Canadian Mental Health Association, is far more credible than the member opposite.

The member attended a groundbreaking ceremony in Scarborough with us on hundreds of units, so I don't think the member has much credibility. In fact, I have

read the list of affordable housing: over $75 million this year alone in our budget and another $85 million; 3,600 units of new, affordable housing -- no thanks to the members opposite, I must say,

but all thanks to Dalton McGuinty and to the resolve of this government to get on with the job --

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

Hon. Mr. Caplan: We owe this member no apology. In fact, if he really cared, he'd be helping us to deliver even more.

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of Finance. Minister, yesterday in this House, some members of the Tory

party claimed that the McGuinty government was cutting funding to municipalities by $47 million.

Now, we both know that the Tory party accusing anyone else of giving municipalities the short end of the stick is nothing more than the pot calling the kettle

black. We also both know that Roger Anderson, president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, said, "This 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."

Perhaps, Minister, you could take a minute and explain to Messrs. Tory and Flaherty and Hudak exactly how wrong they really are on this one.

Hon. Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I appreciate the question from my friend from Perth-Middlesex. I think what we need to remember is

what dilemma we were trying to fix with the new partnership funding.

First of all, we were trying to repair the damage done primarily by downloading under the previous administration. If you look up "downloading" in the Canadian

political dictionary, you will see the definition goes something like this: "The act of offloading the cost of services to a lower level of government, primarily practised by the Harris-Eves

government, 1995-2003." It's right there in the dictionary.

The new partnership program is a key component of restoring equitable funding for public services in municipalities right across the province.

Mr. Wilkinson: Minister, as you know, I represent the riding of Perth-Middlesex, which includes my hometown of Stratford. The Tories had the

nerve to get up yesterday and say that Stratford would go from $2.8 million in funding last year to nothing this year. At the very least, their math is questionable That's something

unparliamentary. I have actually asked whether Mr. Tory checks to make sure that his little, tiny Tory researchers have actually passed grade 8 math.

Again, Minister, you and I know that Stratford got $2.3 million last year and will get the same amount this year, as well as almost $1.2 million in one-time

transitional funding. On top of this, Stratford will benefit from the gas tax, as well as the uploading of public health costs. Both of these sources of funding will increase in the future, and

this does not include the very welcome $90,000 given to Stratford for fire equipment and training.

My question is this, Minister: Can you fill the Tories in on why this makes them nothing more than the pot calling the kettle black?

Hon. Mr Sorbara: The very short answer to my friend from Perth-Middlesex is, no, I can't. The Tories will absolutely refuse to understand what

is going on in the new Ontario municipal partnership fund. They refuse to understand it because systematically, over the course of eight and a half years, they downloaded the costs of public

services to local governments. Since we have been elected we have legislated the provision of two cents per litre in gas tax to help municipalities with public transit. We are taking on more of the

costs of public health. We are helping fire departments all over the province with the training necessary to make sure they have state-of-the-art facilities. I want to assure you that every single

one of us is going to be going to the Stratford Festival when it opens later on this month.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I had a difficult time hearing the response of the Minister of Community

and Social Services.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): I would like to hear the point of order.

Mr. Dunlop: I had a difficult time hearing her response, but I understand she insinuated that I was in support of the closure of the Huronia

Regional Centre. That facility takes up 13 acres of --

The Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: You raised a point of order. You want me to rule on it, don't you? It is not a point of order.

OAKVILLE HOSPITAL

Mr. Ted Chudleigh (Halton): My question is for the Premier. On April 5, 2005, the Oakville town council sent you a resolution asking you to

give priority to the construction of a new hospital, which has become necessary because of growth. They desperately need this new facility. At the same time, your Places to Grow legislation will,

if passed, force Oakville's continued rapid growth, already one of the fastest-growing communities in Canada. On the one hand, you are withholding infrastructure growth in the form of a hospital;

on the other hand, you are forcing more residential growth in Oakville. Premier, does your left hand know what your right hand is doing?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The Minister for Public Infrastructure Renewal.

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal): First of all, in accordance with the town of Oakville, we have designated

midtown Oakville as the centre for what we call an urban growth centre, which would be a site for more intense services. In fact, Oakville's own official plan calls for significant growth. We've

worked with the regional planning commissioners in Halton region. They agree with the figures we have come up with, which are publicly posted on our Web site at PIR -- I hope the member will take a

look at it -- as far as household, employment and population distribution are concerned. So we are completely in accordance with Oakville.

Regarding the hospital site, you should not be lecturing anybody here. Your government left a complete mess as far as hospital capital goes in this province.

You went out and made cheque presentations to hospital community after community, without any money to pay for it. We are cleaning up the mess that this member and his government left, and we will

do so as quickly as we possibly can, complicated by the fact that you left us --

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

Mr. Chudleigh: It's always nice to hear the bluster from the minister.

I point out that the land available for this hospital was transferred from Management Board to the town of Oakville, or was almost transferred. Not a thing has

happened in the past two years under your administration. This hospital had proceeded down the road to where it was about a year and half away from construction, and since your election to

government in 2003 nothing has happened for the progress of that hospital.

It sounds like Oakville is not going to get their hospital, but they're going to continue to have that high growth. The people of Oakville have a severe gap

between their rapid growth and their lack of medical facilities. Are you going to redress that?

Hon. Mr. Caplan: I can inform the member that in fact this government did transfer to the town of Oakville a 50-acre parcel of land for the

construction of a new hospital.

I can tell you that we are working as fast as we can to remediate the mess that your government left in relation to health care. You were very quick to close

hospitals but you weren't very quick to invest in them. You were very fast to make cheque presentations but you weren't very fast to make sure the money was in the bank. I've got to tell you, with

1.7 billion new hospital dollars -- $700 million more than your government had in place in your infamous Magna budget -- our government has done considerably more than you even dreamed of.

I think the member should get a reality check. The lands have been transferred. We're dealing with the backlog. We're dealing with the chronic funding problems

that this member and his government left. It's a much brighter future for Oakville and for all communities across Ontario because of the actions of this Premier and this government.

SEXUAL REASSIGNMENT SURGERY

Ms. Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): My question is for the Premier. The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal's hearing on transsexual people's

right to sex reassignment surgery has just concluded. Your government forced this hearing because your Minister of Health broke his promise to the community to restore funding for the medical

procedure last spring, a decision that puts into question your government's commitment to fight for the rights of individuals who face extreme discrimination on a daily basis.

Members of the transsexual community are here today. They want to know where you stand. Premier, do you view sex reassignment surgery as a medically necessary

procedure?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): To the Attorney General.

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

member for her question. I hope it's fair to say that on the issue of discrimination and equality, the member and I agree more than disagree on issues. This is a particularly difficult one.

The member said in her press release that sex reassignment surgery "is not a casual decision for either the individual or the health care team involved," and I

agree. I respect and acknowledge that. The issue that's before the tribunal is what OHIP will cover and what it will not cover. The submissions have been made before the tribunal, and it is now

almost complete. We'll let the tribunal do their work and then take a good look at the decision.

Ms. Churley: Premier, when the Tories cut funding, transsexual individuals lost access to health care that had been recognized as a medical

procedure in Ontario since 1969 and continues to be funded in other provinces such as Alberta, BC etc. The impact of that decision has been particularly devastating for individuals who were

undergoing related procedures at the time. Their lives have been in limbo ever since.

Martine Stonehouse, one of these individuals, is here today. She has expressly written to you, Premier, calling on you to recognize that sex reassignment

surgery is a medically necessary procedure and is not a casual decision made by individuals and the health care professionals involved. I will send over a copy of her third letter to you.

I ask you, if the tribunal rules in favour of reinstating funding, will you ensure that your government respects the ruling and reinstate the funding

immediately after that ruling?

Hon. Mr. Bryant: I refer the supplementary to the Premier.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I want to be very, very direct to the member's question: Yes.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. On April 12 of this year, your ministry's

environmental SWAT team issued provincial officer orders to three industrial facilities in the Sarnia area. As the member for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, I recall that in early 2004 this government

sent the environmental SWAT teams into the Sarnia area to inspect industrial facilities after we had a series of spills into the St. Clair River that impacted on many of my constituents.

Minister, my constituents would like to know if these latest orders bring to an end the inspections initiative, and could you update the members of this

assembly, my constituents and the people of Ontario on the results of those inspections?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): Yes; in fact, it did take almost a year for the SWAT team to complete its assignment in

the Sarnia area. They inspected 34 industrial facilities, and 32 of those facilities have been issued provincial officers' orders. These orders require facilities to address concerns like spill

containment, the storage of chemicals, controlling air emissions, waste management practices, equipment calibration and the maintenance of their records.

Also, SWAT team officers will periodically visit those facilities in the Sarnia area that have been served orders to ensure that the company is following up on

the orders that were issued. Staff at the ministry office in Sarnia will, as well, work with our industry partners to assist them to achieve what we expect of them through their certificates of

approval.

Mrs. Van Bommel: I know that people in the downriver communities, such as Wallaceburg and Walpole Island, as well as the citizens of

Sarnia-Lambton are pleased that the government has taken this definitive action.

Minister, moving forward from this point, what more will this government be doing to ensure that the environment and human health are better protected from

spills from industrial facilities in the Sarnia area and, for that matter, all across Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the honourable member for the good work she provided to the province as a

member of the industrial pollution action team, which I established to provide the government --

Applause.

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: She did a fine job. That team has provided the government with recommendations that focus particularly on the health and

well-being of people not only in that community but across Ontario.

I'm very happy to say that we are looking at those recommendations to develop a plan that will shift the focus from just managing spills to preventing spills.

A couple of things have happened to date: Number one, our government was instrumental in having the federal government remove that ability for companies to deduct fines for such events from their

income tax. The second very significant item is that this government has introduced Bill 133, which is a penalties legislation that, if passed, will ensure that companies will have spills

prevention plans in place.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): We have with us in the Speaker's gallery two members of the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales,

Australia. They are Mr. Allan Shearan and Mr. Russell Turner. Please join me in welcoming them to the Legislature.

Mr. Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'd also mention that Mr. Paul Nanoff, the father of page Alexandre

Nanoff from Eglinton-Lawrence, is here. I'd like to welcome him to the gallery.

PETITIONS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I have a petition signed by the good citizens of Cambridge directed to the Parliament of Ontario that's

headed "Preserve Our Seniors Drug Plan":

"Whereas the McGuinty Liberal government is considering cutting and diminishing the present program of necessary prescription drugs for Ontario seniors;

and

"Whereas Ontario's seniors are presently struggling to maintain their health and homes against cost-of-living increases, including Ontario's new health tax,

Ontario's increased hydro rates, increased municipal taxes and gasoline prices;

"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the McGuinty Liberal government of Ontario maintain the present program of providing prescription drugs for seniors."

I sign this on behalf of the citizens.

SEXUAL REASSIGNMENT SURGERY

Ms. Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have a short petition that reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the previous government removed OHIP funding for sexual reassignment surgery on October 1, 1998, without consultation with medical professionals or

the trans-gendered community;

"Whereas Ontario is one of the only provinces in Canada that does not fund SRS;

"Whereas transsexual people in Ontario have the right to equality in health care;

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

"Reinstate OHIP funding for sexual reassignment surgery for transsexual individuals."

I will sign this petition, and I will also be delivering all these cards from the community, calling on the government to reinstate funding, to the

Premier.

WEARING OF HELMETS

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): I'm pleased to present this petition:

"Whereas each year tragedy strikes cyclists, in-line skaters, skateboarders etc. who are involved in collisions on our roadways;

"Whereas many of these involve injury to the head;

"Whereas the cost of treating an individual with a severe head injury can be $4 million to $9 million over the course of their lifetime;

"Whereas wearing a certified helmet can prevent 85% of head injuries;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to swiftly pass Bill 129 and make it mandatory for all individuals to wear a certified helmet when

cycling, in-line skating, skateboarding or using any other type of muscular-powered vehicle on Ontario's roadways."

I'm pleased to affix my signature to this petition.

WATERLOO-WELLINGTON

TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN

Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the residents of Waterloo-Wellington need and deserve excellent roads and highways for their safe travel; and

"Whereas good transportation links are vital to the strength of our local economy, supporting job creation through the efficient delivery of our products to

the North American marketplace; and

"Whereas transit services are essential to managing the future growth of our urban communities and have a relatively minimal impact on our natural environment;

and

"Whereas Waterloo-Wellington MPP Ted Arnott has asked all municipalities in Waterloo-Wellington to provide him with their top transportation priorities for the

next five years and beyond, all of them responded, and their recommendations form the Waterloo-Wellington transportation action plan; and

"Whereas former Transportation Minister Frank Klees responded quickly to MPP Ted Arnott's request for a meeting with the councillors and staff of

Waterloo-Wellington's municipalities and listened to their recommendations; and

"Whereas the Waterloo-Wellington transportation action plan contains over 40 recommendations provided to MPP Ted Arnott by municipalities, and there is

recurrent support for implementing the corridor study of Highway 7/8 between Kitchener and Stratford, a new four-lane Highway 7 from Kitchener to Guelph, assistance for Wellington county to rebuild

Highway 24 from Guelph to Cambridge, a repaired and upgraded Highway 6 from Fergus to Mount Forest, Waterloo region's light rail transit initiative, OSTAR funding for transportation-related

projects and other projects;

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

"That the provincial government support Ted Arnott's Waterloo-Wellington transportation action plan and initiate the necessary studies and/or construction of

the projects in it."

SENIOR CITIZENS

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): This is a small petition -- not in terms of numbers but in terms of literature -- which comes from the

people of Hamilton, largely in the lower city, because that's where a great deal of nursing homes are.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"To immediately commit to action and funding to ensure the rights and protection for our senior citizens living in nursing homes and retirement homes in

Ontario."

Mr. Speaker, I present this petition with pride. It will come down by way of Jessica. I thank you very much for the opportunity.

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I'm pleased to present a petition to the Legislative Assembly from Peter and Iris Orphanos and some of

their neighbours. It's about improvements to the Credit Valley Hospital, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas some 20,000 people each year choose to make their home in Mississauga, and a Halton-Peel District Health Council capacity study stated that the Credit

Valley Hospital should be operating 435 beds by now and 514 beds by 2016; and

"Whereas the Credit Valley Hospital bed count has remained constant at 365 beds since its opening in November 1985, even though some 4,800 babies are delivered

each year at the Credit Valley Hospital in a facility designed to handle 2,700 births annually; and

"Whereas donors in Mississauga and the regional municipalities served by the Credit Valley Hospital have contributed more than $41 million of a $50-million

fundraising objective, the most ambitious of any community hospital in the country, to support the construction of an expanded facility able to meet the needs of our community;

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

"That the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care undertake specific measures to ensure the allocation of capital funds for the construction of A and H block at

the Credit Valley Hospital to ensure the ongoing acute care needs of the patients and families served by the hospital are met in a timely and professional manner, to reduce wait times for patients

in the hospital emergency department and to better serve patients in the community in Halton and Peel regions by reducing severe overcrowding in the labour and delivery suite."

I agree with this petition. I thank all the folks on Drenkelly Court for sending it to me, and I'll send it down with Alexandre.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): The member for Durham.

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the prompt recognition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the federal Income Tax Act at present has a minimum amount of medical expenses for which a taxpayer is entitled to claim a non-refundable income tax

credit;

"Whereas the health and medical expenses of every citizen in the province of Ontario, great or small, affect their overall net income;

"Whereas the Ontario Liberal government moved in their 2004 budget on May 18, 2004, to delist publicly funded medical services such as chiropractic services,

optometry examinations and physiotherapy services;

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

"That the Income Tax Act remove the present minimum amount of medical expenses for which an Ontario taxpayer is entitled to claim a non-refundable income tax

credit."

I am pleased to endorse and sign this in support of my riding of Durham.

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the current government has proposed province-wide legislation that would ban smoking in public places; and

"Whereas the proposed legislation will also prohibit smoking in private, non-profit clubs such as Legion halls, navy clubs and related facilities; and

"Whereas these organizations have elected representatives that determine the rules and regulations that affect the membership of the individual club and

facility; and

"Whereas by imposing smoke-free legislation on these clubs disregards the rights of these citizens and the original intentions of these clubs, especially with

respect to our veterans;

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

"That the Legislative Assembly exempt Legion halls, navy clubs and other non-profit, private or veterans' clubs from government smoke-free legislation."

I have signed this petition, and I want to thank Edward Beaven, who is the veterans' services officer of the Royal Canadian Legion, Tottenham, branch 329.

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly from Florian and Eunice Bergeron, and it read as

follows:

"Whereas there are no established, Ontario-wide standards to deal with anaphylaxis in Ontario schools; and

"Whereas there is no specific comment regarding anaphylaxis in the Ontario Education Act; and

"Whereas anaphylaxis is a serious concern that can result in life-or-death situations; and

"Whereas all students in Ontario have the right to be safe and feel safe in their school community; and

"Whereas all parents of anaphylactic students need to know that safety standards exist in all Ontario schools;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario support the swift passage of Bill 3,

An Act to protect anaphylactic students, that requires that every school principal in

Ontario establish a school anaphylactic plan."

I agree with this petition. I will affix my signature to it, and I thank Florian and Eunice Bergeron of Crickadorn Court in Meadowvale and all of their

neighbours for having signed and sent it to me.

MOTORCYCLE INSURANCE

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): This petition is titled "Fix Motorcycle Insurance."

"Whereas responsible motorcyclists have been hit with huge increases in insurance or are being denied coverage; and

"Whereas motorcycle insurance has increased over 40% in the past two years; and

"Whereas sales of motorcycles in Ontario have dropped over 7%; and

"Whereas many businesses and individuals in the motorcycle industry are suffering because of the loss of sales and decreased employment that high insurance

rates are causing;

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

"That the Dalton McGuinty government take steps to make motorcycle insurance more affordable and ensure that motorcyclists are treated fairly and equitably by

the insurance industry."

I certainly affix my signature to this petition, and I will let the Speaker know that Friday the 13th is coming up next month.

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): I appreciate having two petitions in one day.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the undersigned,

"Share the concern of Ontario pharmacists that the government is considering changes to the drug program that could restrict access to some medications or

force patients to pay more for their prescriptions, placing seniors, low-income families and many other Ontarians at risk;

"Recognize that these changes could affect the ability of pharmacists to continue to provide quality programs and services, decreasing Ontario's access to

essential health care services; and

"Believe that pharmacists, as advocates for quality patient care, should have a greater role to play in advising the government when it considers changes that

will affect the health of Ontarians;

"We hereby petition the government of Ontario:

"To work with Ontario pharmacists to prevent cutbacks to the drug program; and,

"To establish a process that brings pharmacists to the table to provide solutions that will protect patients and strengthen health care for all Ontarians."

I'm pleased, on behalf of the pharmacists of Ontario, the OPA, to sign this and endorse it. I encourage the Minister of Health to follow up on the

recommendations.

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): "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 is deteriorating and in danger of destruction because of the inaction of

the Ontario Historical Society; and

"Whereas the town of New Tecumseth, under the leadership of Mayor Mike MacEachern and former Mayor Larry Keogh, 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 and the Liberal government step in to ensure that the Banting homestead is kept in good repair and preserved for generations to

come."

I agree with the petition and have signed it.

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): It's my pleasure to rise today to assist my seatmate, Kim Craitor from Niagara Falls, with this petition

forwarded to him from a Niagara area support group. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there are no established, Ontario-wide standards to deal with anaphylaxis in Ontario schools; and

"Whereas there is no specific comment regarding anaphylaxis in the Ontario Education Act; and

"Whereas anaphylaxis is a serious concern that can result in life-or-death situations; and

"Whereas all students in Ontario have the right to be safe and feel safe in their school community; and

"Whereas all parents of anaphylactic students need to know that safety standards exist in all Ontario schools;

"Be it therefore resolved ... that the government of Ontario support the swift passage of Bill 3,

An Act to protect anaphylactic students, that requires that

every school principal in Ontario establish a school anaphylactic plan."

I thank the parents from the Niagara area for sending in this petition. It's my pleasure to sign it and to ask Alex to carry it for me.

ONTARIO FARMERS

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): "Whereas thousands of Ontario farmers and rural Ontarians have been forced to take their concerns

directly to Queen's Park due to a lack of response from the Dalton McGuinty government; and

"Whereas the Rural Revolution believes that rural Ontario is in crisis due to lost property rights and a crushing regulatory burden, and ... demonstrating

their resolve and determination at Queen's Park ... ;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, ask the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to consider the issue of municipal jurisdiction brought forward by the Rural

Revolution's resolutions to respect property and prosperity as follows:

"Resolution number 5: Municipal governments shall be constituted to take control and jurisdiction over matters that pertain to their constituents.

"Resolution number 9: All municipalities forced or coerced with amalgamations shall hold a binding referendum on de-amalgamation at the next general

election."

I sign this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 4, 2005, on the motion for second reading of Bill 92,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act, 2001 / Projet de loi 92, Loi

modifiant la Loi de 2001 sur les municipalités.

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

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): Mr. Speaker, before I commence my debate, I would like personally to thank you for sitting in that chair

today. Members of the Legislature may not be aware, but it is my turn to be there, and since this is the second time that the rotation has come through for my lead, it was not possible to do so

without the kind co-operation of the Speaker. So I thank him very much for allowing me to make this speech here today.

This is an issue that, on the face of it, looks kind of simple. On the face of it, it looks like Ontario has signed a memorandum of understanding with the

Association of Municipalities of Ontario and everyone is going to feel -- it's a feel-good thing, that we're going to consult, we're going to talk to you and we're not going to do anything we

shouldn't be doing. Yet, there is so much in this bill that really cries out for answers, that cries out for dealing with municipalities in a different way.

There are two difficulties that we see with this bill at the outset. The first is that it does not cover all the municipalities of Ontario. There are some 465

municipalities in Ontario, and around 410 belong to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. That leaves out some 50, and chief and, I think, foremost amongst all of those that are not members

would have to be the city of Toronto, Ontario's and Canada's largest city, which has chosen for reasons of its own not to belong to AMO.

The second problem we see with it is that AMO is not an elected organization. It is an organization which is sort of an amalgamation, if you want to put it

that way, or an association of various municipalities -- some very large, some very small -- that band together, more in an education capacity than anything else. They pass resolutions -- if you've

ever been to one of their conferences or conventions, as I'm sure you have -- intended to be passed down to other levels of government, primarily this. As to the feelings that the majority of

members hold to be true, they are not always united; they are not always unanimous. As any organization that exists can tell you, it does not happen. They purport and, I think attempt, to try very

hard to speak for the majority of their members. But it is not a truism to say that this is an organization that is unique and that does not speak for its constituent members on an individual

basis. Therefore, if there is a dispute from one town to another, or a dispute within town functionings, then quite simply AMO is not the appropriate authority to speak for them.

We in the New Democratic Party support consultations between municipalities and the province on issues related to their governance. AMO is a good place to

start. If you're going to talk in very broad terms about what needs to be done for municipalities in general, then I can't think of a better organization than that one to talk in broad terms of

what affects all municipalities. But that isn't the reality of many of the day-to-day consultations with municipalities, which are individualistic. Whether it be the minister talking to the people

of Kawartha Lakes about whether or not they can de-amalgamate, whether it's the minister or the finance minister talking to the people of Hamilton as to whether they are going to get sufficient

monies that they should be getting because of downloaded services, whether it's the minister or the Minister of Finance or the Premier talking to the mayor of Toronto about how much money is needed

for the TTC, the majority of, I would put to you, very large-scale operations involving municipalities are done on a one-to-one basis; they are not done through the Association of Municipalities of

Ontario.

The province has in the past, at least for the past eight or 10 years, been very good at dumping responsibility and services on to the backs of municipalities

without necessary funds to deliver them. This bill that we have here today, Bill 92, talks about the consultation and the negotiation, but sadly -- and I understand why -- it does not deal with the

wherewithal of providing the necessary funds to the municipalities to allow them to be self-sufficient.

We have heard many times in this Legislature, including today in question period, answers from the government, taunting other members in this Legislature,

"When are you going to get on board the government's plan to try to wrest some $23 billion more from the federal government?" The municipalities can ask the same question -- I am sure every one of

them is asking the same question: "When can we expect the people of Ontario to get on board and in line with the mayors of the various cities and towns in making sure that the cities and towns that

produce the wealth in Ontario get their fair share back from the provincial government?"

I cannot speak for all cities and towns, and I don't know how many have done the exercise, but the city of Toronto estimates -- using almost identical research

and data that the Premier touts in the $23-billion scenario. They've done their own, which concludes that the people of the city of Toronto give $11 billion more in taxes and government monies than

they get back in services from the province and the federal government. If we have a right in Ontario to say that Confederation is not working -- at least in this regard, as far as the people of

Ontario go -- then I think it behooves us to listen to the municipalities who are saying that the selfsame thing is happening in the relationship between their taxpayers and how much money is

flowing or not flowing back from the province and the federal government. In regard to Toronto alone, that is some $11 billion. If we believe in the justice and the justness of our own cause, we

must believe in the justice and the justness of their cause, which is almost identical.

The downloading, as I said, happened for most of the last eight to 10 years. I am not for a moment suggesting that the government opposite is responsible for

that. The responsibility lies elsewhere, in a past government or governments. You have inherited what I would suggest to you has been a bit of a mess in terms of the relationship between the cities

and towns of Ontario and this province.

If you look for a moment at some of the largest cities in Ontario, those that are over 200,000 people, it's quite a small list in Ontario. I have the list here

of what those largest cities are. There is, of course, Toronto, followed by Ottawa, Mississauga, Hamilton, London, Brampton, Markham and Windsor. All other cities in Ontario are fewer than 200,000

people. We only have eight of them that are large and probably produce a great deal of the wealth of this province.

We see what is happening in these large cities. We see that the city of Toronto had a budget shortfall of $119 million for this fiscal year, and that the

province came along and allowed an increase in business taxes worth $27 million and an additional $45 million, leaving a shortfall of some $47 million, which the taxpayers of the city of Toronto

have had to pick up in order to sustain this city. We see that the city of Hamilton had a $51-million budget shortfall because of downloading this year. After $15.1 million in provincial funding

found its way to that city through the infusion from the government, they are still left with a $35.9-million shortfall, which undoubtedly will lead and has led to increased taxation.

I have to say, we know that the money was not sufficient. We know that the cities are starting to hurt in some very real ways. This bill will not do what is

necessary to redress what has to be the chief problem that cities are facing. This is the reality of municipal governments that exist today, and we have a bill here which purports to try to sit

down and talk a little more. But I would suggest that what the cities need, and certainly what the mayors of the cities are telling us they need, are additional powers, including, but not limited

to, powers to obtain additional funds, and they need Queen's Park to have a hands-off approach in a lot of areas that, quite frankly, I don't believe serves us any good to get involved in. I'm

going to get into that a little later.

The Liberals claim they do things differently from the Conservatives and there is a new municipal partnership fund. We heard a lot about that today in question

period. We had a number of questions that were put forward by the official opposition. I believe there was even one small statement contained in a question from the New Democrats here today.

Various cities and municipalities have come forward to say, however, or at least have made public statements to the effect that they are going to be worse off

under this program. I heard the finance minister today try to assuage those fears. I heard him saying today that there are plans to make sure that the cities and towns are not going to find

themselves with even less money. But I think it's clear for the record, from the statements made by the city of Peterborough, various municipalities in the Niagara region and some in the north,

such as the township of Fauquier-Strickland, that they are going to be in much worse circumstances.

In almost every case the municipalities are asking for money, not for dialogue, yet what this bill is going to do is talk about dialogue. With whom is that

dialogue going to take place? It is going to take place with the association of municipalities. This is not a government. This is not like the negotiations of the Premier with the Prime Minister or

the Premier and the pseudo-Prime Minister, who wishes he was Prime Minister and who may call and force an election. This is not a government body; it is a group of municipalities that are bound

together, and I don't see how the negotiations can possibly take effect.

AMO must represent all municipalities that choose to belong to it, and, as I told you, there are some 410, including some of Canada's and Ontario's largest

cities, but the majority of its 400 members are from small-town Ontario. I tried to do some research to find out which was the smallest member of AMO, one that participates, one that sends people

to the AMO conference, one that is a fully functioning member, and I think I found it. My apologies if there is a smaller one --

Mr. Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): East York.

Mr. Prue: No, the smallest wouldn't be East York. East York was bigger than Pickering, by the way, Mr. Member, and still is. The smallest one

I could find was Burpee and Mills township on the island of Manitoulin. It had a population in 2001 of 362 people and a population in 1996 of 368 people. The sad reality is that they've actually

lost six people in the five-year period between 1996 and 2001. But in terms of square kilometres, it is a large municipality, covering some 218.49 square kilometres. The Association of

Municipalities of Ontario must, under its bylaws and constitution, give the same credibility to the municipality of Burpee and Mills as it does to the city of Toronto, the city of Ottawa, the city

of Hamilton, the city of London, the city of Windsor.

This is a difficulty. I don't know how this government can expect to negotiate with AMO, which is a body that cannot make decisions or enforce its rules

between municipalities, that tries to do things on consensus when it must deal with some of the very small and rural municipalities, such as the one I've cited, and some very large ones like

Hamilton or Ottawa or, formerly, like Toronto.

This bill purports to give powers to facilitate one municipal voice in the memorandum of understanding. I question what the government will do if approached by

individual municipalities on issues. You can't send them to AMO, and this seems to me to be at the crux of the problem and the dilemma that this government has had.

I'd like to cite two very clear examples. The first one is what is happening today in the regional municipality of Peel. The minister stood up here last week

and announced that he had a new plan for the people of Peel, a plan which has been, I think, severely castigated by the mayor of the city of Brampton.

His plan is to increase the size of the regional municipality of Peel by three members, giving two more members to the constituency in Mississauga and one more

member to the constituency in Brampton. This runs diametrically opposed to what his own government study said. It runs diametrically opposed to what Justice Arthurs, I believe his name was, had to

say in his ruling. The justice was appointed by the Minister of Finance and brought down a long-awaited report suggesting that it was Brampton, not Mississauga, that was underrepresented, and

suggesting that the solution to the dilemma that Peel was finding itself in was to give five more members to Brampton and one to Mississauga.

The minister chose to ignore that very specific advice, but in doing so and coming up with his own plan, he also ran exactly contrary to what he has said in

this particular bill. This particular bill says that there is going to be dialogue and that the dialogue is going to be facilitated through the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. Instead of

doing that, the minister has chosen to unilaterally make a decision contrary to the best advice he was given by the learned judge, contrary to the best advice he was given by the municipalities

themselves, and contrary, I would suggest, to the way things have been done in Peel and in other regional municipalities for a number of years. Where there have been disputes in the past between

one municipality and another, even close municipalities like Mississauga and Brampton and Caledon, this was resolved at the regional government level. There was a committee struck. There was an

opportunity for all sides to be heard. The committee was supposed to make a recommendation. The Ontario government was supposed to act on that recommendation. None of this has been done in the case

of Peel this time, and Mayor Fennell is understandably quite exercised over what has happened and what continues to happen.

I had a very short conversation with her today, because I was going to be making this speech and I wanted to know precisely what her feeling was. She said that

there had been no meeting and continues to be no meeting in the region of Peel. A facilitator was brought in, as I said, named by the Minister of Finance. There was a news blackout imposed so that

no one could talk about it until the facilitator's solution was made. Then, when it was introduced and Brampton seemed, for at least an hour or two, to be kind of happy with the results, the next

thing she knew, without any consultation whatsoever with the government, and contrary to the best advice she had been given by MPPs on the government side of the House who represent the Brampton

area, a decision was unilaterally imposed upon her and the people of Brampton. The minister did not even seem to want to consult with them -- the same way, I would suggest, that he did not want to

talk to or consult with the people of Kawartha Lakes.

It's all well and good to say that you have a consultation document, and it's all well and good to say that you want to consult with the Association of

Municipalities of Ontario, but when it comes right down to dealing with an individual municipality, I'm afraid that just doesn't work. We have the very sad case of the people of Kawartha Lakes, a

people who were led to believe by this government and by this minister and by this Premier that there was a real chance that democracy could come alive and work in their municipality. You see, a

few years ago, under the previous administration, under the previous government, they were amalgamated against their will, like so many other municipalities. And, like so many other municipalities,

they were very upset at how they were treated. But in a unique turnabout, the then minister who represented that area -- I'm trying to think of what his ministry was; it was Minister Hodgson, in

any event -- negotiated and said that --

Mr. McMeekin: Municipal affairs.

Mr. Prue: -- the Minister of Municipal Affairs -- he would undo that amalgamation if the people of Kawartha Lakes wanted to undo it. A deal

was struck between that Minister of Municipal Affairs, the people of Kawartha Lakes and all sides of this House that if a referendum was held and the majority of people voted to de-amalgamate,

knowing full well the costs of the de-amalgamation, the pros and cons of the de-amalgamation, it would be honoured.

Mr. McMeekin: Did they know that?

Mr. Prue: They knew it. They had all of those facts available to them. They knew it, and in the last municipal election they voted -- not

overwhelmingly, but by majority -- to de-amalgamate.

It is a shame what happened to them following that, because this minister, who now purports to want to have a dialogue, refuses to have a dialogue with the

people who democratically voted to de-amalgamate their city, one that the majority of them feels does not work in the best interests of the people who live there. They have continued to organize;

they have continued to have meetings. they have continued to come up with alternatives, because now the minister says he needs alternatives to de-amalgamation because he doesn't believe that all of

the constituent municipalities of that new city are able to function on their very own.

If this is what we can see in this bill, that there will be consultation with municipalities, we can see, in at least two very clear examples, one involving

all of the people of the city of Kawartha Lakes, who took the bother and the time to go out and vote and to exercise their democratic franchise, that the minister was not and is not, and this

government could care less about consultation with them or what their democratic wishes are.

On the other hand, if we look to the more recent example, that of Peel, and if we see what has happened there, we can see quite clearly that this government

did not wish to consult and imposed a person to do a study. When the study came out and the government didn't like what it said, it ignored it and unilaterally imposed its own findings upon the

people of that region.

It is no wonder that politicians at the municipal level are skeptical of this bill. Even though the bill purports to do the right things, it quite frankly does

not do so. No one will believe that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario is going to have the kind of clout that has been denied to ordinary cities and towns.

The city of Toronto has sent a very clear message about AMO and to AMO. They have decided that AMO does not meet their interests. The 2.5 million people who

live in the city of Toronto, in this new megacity of Canada, in this largest and most populous place, have decided that AMO does not work for th