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

December 4, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-Dec-04 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 4 December 2006 Lundi 4 décembre 2006

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCHOOL FACILITIES

COLE GRUNDY

HIGHWAY 417

BRAMPTON FIREFIGHTERS

ORGAN DONATION

CANADA-VIETNAM BUSINESS MISSION

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM

EVENTS IN STONEY CREEK

ADVOCIS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PERIMETER INSTITUTE ACT, 2006

CENTRE FOR INTERNATIONAL

GOVERNANCE INNOVATION ACT, 2006

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

SPEAKER'S RULING

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

BOTTLE RECYCLING

SEAT BELTS

BOTTLE RECYCLING

SEAT BELTS

BOTTLE RECYCLING

CORRECTION OF RECORD

VISITORS

INTERNATIONAL DAY

OF DISABLED PERSONS /

JOURNÉE INTERNATIONALE

DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

IAN SCOTT

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

BOTTLE RECYCLING

HIGH-SPEED TRAIN ROUTE

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

BOTTLE RECYCLING

OBSTETRICAL CARE

HUMAN RIGHTS

CHILD CARE

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

PENSION PLANS

EDUCATION FUNDING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LE CODE

DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Ms. Lisa MacLeod (Nepean-Carleton): The time for a new public secondary school in south Nepean is now. We are the fastest-growing community in this province, with the highest birth rate in all

of Canada. The people who live there come from all walks of life and from every corner of Canada. Many of our residents are new Canadians and we are so proud of that in the national capital.

Recently, thousands of new homes have been built there, something that people in other parts of Ottawa and Ontario may not know. Presently, parents who have children attending three south Nepean elementary

schools -- Berrigan, Farley Mowat and Adrienne Clarkson -- must choose between sending their children on a school bus to another school zone or to another school board.

The new public high school would educate close to 1,200 students. That is why community leaders like former trustee Norm MacDonald and current trustees Alex Getty and Greg Laws are fighting for this school. So

too have all the council co-chairs, led by Scott Towaij and assisted by Wendy Giles and Sylvia Zanetti Kamal.

Our local city councillors, parents and teachers are supportive, and all three community papers -- the Barrhaven Independent and Derek Dunn, Nepean This Week and Malcolm MacMillan, and the EMC News and Erin

Kelly -- have delivered by promoting articles on this issue.

By next Thursday I will have delivered some 1,200 individual signatures on a community-driven petition in this Legislature calling on the province and the board to build this public school -- one signature for

each student who would attend this school.

The time to build is now, as I've said. Those 1,200 students deserve to be educated in the board of their choice within their own zone.

COLE GRUNDY

Mr. Wayne Arthurs (Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge): It's my pleasure to rise in the House today to congratulate Cole Grundy, a talented 16-year-old grade 11 student at Uxbridge Secondary School, whose

winning logo design will be the face of the proposed youth centre in the township of Uxbridge.

In early October, the Uxbridge youth committee called on Uxbridge teenagers to design a logo for the centre. The logo will be used on all promotional and marketing material as well as signage for the centre. The

youth committee has encouraged local youth to get involved in every aspect related to the centre, including the planning, fundraising and even the symbol for the centre, which will be recognized by locals for years to come.

With the guidance of an art teacher from Uxbridge Secondary School, high school students created their entries and had them submitted for the October 21 deadline. Cole Grundy was eager to begin his work on the

logo independent of assistance, and was the first of 30-plus finalists to hand his entry in.

Cole's winning design was described as "professional and easily recognizable" by youth centre committee leaders. As well, it is said to reflect "the sense of unity and energy hoped for in a youth centre for

Uxbridge."

When asked what inspired the design for his logo, Cole specifically mentioned the key element to his design, a house motif, signifying the shelter and safety that the youth centre will provide for local

teens.

Cole chose to participate in the contest to build his portfolio for prospective colleges and universities in the future. He, along with fellow students and the rest of the community, are greatly anticipating the

opening of the centre. Currently, efforts are being made to secure an appropriate location.

Cole is here with us in the House today, along with his parents, so we congratulate you once again, Cole, for your winning design. As well, I'd like to acknowledge the youth committee for their initiative and

commitment in this endeavour for Uxbridge youth.

HIGHWAY 417

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): Since my election to this House in October 2003, I have continued to bring to the attention of the Minister of Transportation the importance of

prioritizing the four-laning of Highway 417 beyond Arnprior to Renfrew and beyond.

Finally, we're getting some response from the minister, to the degree that she has actually written a letter to the editor of the Pembroke Observer. She says, "I want to assure residents and businesses that the

Ontario government understands that expanding Highway 17 is important to residents in Renfrew county."

She is getting the point. However, these are just words written in the newspaper in Pembroke. We need some concrete action.

On Wednesday, I'm going to be meeting with ministry officials to discuss highway improvement plans in my riding of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke. I have repeatedly raised this issue in question period. I have been

presenting a petition for weeks now. We have made the point that the economic future of Renfrew county depends on the four-laning of this highway. When I talk to mayors and reeves in the county, they say that this project is the number one

priority.

I think the minister should hear the words of Reta Adlam, who says, "Please don't just talk about it or make idle promises for the future.... We in this area, the largest county in the province, demand respect

and we demand action now."

We demand it now. We want an answer on Wednesday that this will, in fact, be in next year's five-year plan.

BRAMPTON FIREFIGHTERS

Mr. Kuldip Kular (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I'm happy to rise in the House and tell you about an amazing occurrence that happened in Brampton last month.

On November 12, fire station 207 got an unexpected visit. After 33 years on the job as a firefighter, Jake Haines thought he had seen it all. But that was before Haines and firefighters Greg Enright, Tom Debski

and Rob McMaster were called into action to make a special delivery.

Julie Little, an expecting mother, was at the Georgetown Santa Claus parade with her family when she started having contractions. Andrew, Julie's husband, knew that he would not be able to drive her to the

hospital in time, so he did the next best thing: He drove to the nearest fire station. When the firefighters at the station heard the doorbell ringing, they expected anything but this. Within six minutes, the firefighters had delivered a healthy

baby weighing seven pounds and 15 ounces.

Firefighters today do much more than fight fires: They aid in bringing new life into this world. I'm glad to stand up here today and share with you this true story of the courage of these Brampton firefighters.

What started out as a surprising, unexpected event turned into a test of courage that was inspired and welcomed by a new Bramptonian, a healthy and happy little boy.

ORGAN DONATION

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): Every week, people die in this province while waiting for an organ transplant. Yet the only commitment to increase organ donations they've received from this

government and this Minister of Health is the announcement on November 24 of a citizens' panel to hold public discussions on the matter. That announcement is yet another attempt by the McGuinty government to divert attention from its failure to

act on what is the most inhumane waiting list in this province today.

In fact, the implementation of a simple administrative measure, a declaration on drivers' licences as contained in private member's Bill 67 -- which was, I would remind the Minister of Health, unanimously

endorsed by all parties in this Legislature seven months ago -- could be saving lives today. It has the endorsement of the medical community and has received province-wide public support as well as that of Ontario's Trillium Gift of Life Network.

This bill would make it mandatory for anyone applying for a driver's licence to make a declaration relating to organ donation at that time, while respecting the right of each individual to make that very personal decision. They can answer yes, no

or remain undecided.

I welcome any step that can be taken to advance the cause of organ donation and I will, for that reason, be making a presentation to the panel myself on behalf of this important issue. But this government's

refusal to deal with this issue is unconscionable.

CANADA-VIETNAM BUSINESS MISSION

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I would like to thank the Canada-Vietnam Friendship Association and its president, Mr. Trac Bang Do, for leading a business delegation to Vietnam for the purpose

of signing a friendship agreement between Toronto and Ho Chi Minh City and to expand bilateral trade and investment between Ontario and Vietnam.

Last week, I was present when two significant events took place in Hanoi. First, Vietnam joined the World Trade Organization, and second, Vietnam, as the fastest-growing economy in South Asia, hosted the

Asia-Pacific Economic Conference, of which Canada too is a member.

As the red-hot economies of the Asian Pacific Rim propel them into the stratosphere, it becomes clear that we need a cohesive strategy which links us up with these hungry economic tigers; otherwise we will be

caught in their claws or their takeoff turbulence and our manufacturing base will be left in tatters.

The McGuinty government had some significant successes, especially in the auto sector, but now we need to find ways, in co-operation with the federal government, to encourage private sector involvement.

In a message to the members of the Canada-Vietnam business mission, Premier McGuinty had it right when he said, "This business mission is an opportunity for Ontario companies to develop partnerships in Vietnam

which will bring jobs to our province, expand economic development opportunities and create strong ties between our two jurisdictions."

Let's hope that Ottawa pays attention to the Premier's message.

ONTARIO DISABILITY SUPPORT PROGRAM

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): People who rely on the Ontario disability support plan have a tough time financially at the best of times, but the McGuinty government pushes them into

further trouble by issuing ODSP cheques after the date that hydro utility bills are due.

I urge the McGuinty Liberals to work with local utilities to set up a systemic response, addressing the fact that ODSP cheques are not mailed early enough to meet hydro bill payment deadlines. Through no fault

of their own, ODSP recipients may be late paying the amount they owe for hydro because their cheques simply don't arrive on time. Then they get defined as "high risk" and must post exorbitant security deposits and late payment charges, which of

course they don't have the money to pay.

It should not be difficult for the McGuinty government, through the Ontario Energy Board, to recognize and do something about this very obvious problem. All it requires is better coordination and a government

that cares. There are two public bodies involved: the utility and the provincial government. The McGuinty government, the higher order, should take the lead. Let's ensure that no disabled person in Ontario is penalized for a hydro payment that is

late because of the government's unsynchronized cheque-issuing schedule.

I suggest that the McGuinty government turn up the heat on hydro utilities and have them develop a policy that when late payments are the result of ODSP cheques arriving after a set due date, those customers

aren't put further behind by late payment charges and security deposits.

If the Premier and the Minister of Community and Social Services can't deliver a solution, then the McGuinty government is in fact creating more homelessness and hardship for people with disabilities who rely on

them for help.

EVENTS IN STONEY CREEK

Ms. Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): I rise today to applaud the efforts of the emergency services in Hamilton who came to the rescue of my constituents in the Greenhill neighbourhood in my

riding of Stoney Creek that was flooded during Friday's rainfall and storm.

The water rose so quickly -- very quickly -- that within an hour cars were being submerged and water was pouring through people's backyards and into their basements. The fire department, police and other

emergency services and city personnel acted very quickly to ferry the stranded residents to safety and to help them secure their belongings.

I visited with some of the residents over the weekend as they continued to clean up after the mess that was left behind after the storm. It was a very scary situation for them. I commend them for supporting each

other throughout this ordeal. This is the first time that this area has been hit this badly by flooding. I assured them that I would be working with their city councillor, Chad Collins, to ensure that everything possible is done to prevent a

recurrence of this situation. I've also written a letter to the Premier and some of our ministers to make them aware of the situation.

Also, on a lighter note on the weekend, I'd like to just say thank you to all the volunteers and all the people who were involved in the two Santa Claus parades that were held in my riding, one in Stoney Creek

and one in Grimsby. They were both fabulous, and tens of thousands of people came out to watch. I think anybody who has been involved in the parade knows how much work it is, how much coordination. It takes all year long. They were just

spectacular events, so big congratulations to those volunteers as well.

ADVOCIS

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): I rise with pleasure today and ask all members to welcome Advocis to Queen's Park, many of whom are joining us in the members' gallery.

Advocacy and professionalism drive the Advocis mandate. As the largest voluntary professional membership association of financial advisers in Canada with more than 5,500 members right here in Ontario, Advocis

serves the financial interests of millions of Canadians. Advocis members are expert financial advisers who adhere to a professional code of conduct committed to putting their clients' interests first. Advocis promotes values such as integrity,

objectivity, competence, fairness, confidentiality, professionalism, diligence and a promise to abide by all applicable legislation and regulation.

Advocis, as a self-regulating organization, has produced a third edition of its best practices manual. The standards that this manual lays out have been implemented across many practices and disciplines of the

Canadian financial services industry. Best practices standards aim to increase the professionalism of financial planners, to the benefit of clients and advisers alike.

As the first certified financial planner elected to the Ontario Legislature and as a member of Advocis for over 20 years, I can tell you that the values of integrity, objectivity, fairness and professionalism I

have practised as a member of Advocis have served me well.

Tonight, Advocis, myself and my colleagues the members from Oak Ridges and Beaches-East York are hosting a reception of all MPPs in the legislative dining room. On their behalf, I invite all members to attend

and hear how Advocis can help their constituents and communities.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr. Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly and move its adoption.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Lisa Freedman): Mr. Racco from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly presents the committee's report as follows and moves its adoption.

Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 28,

An Act to require the taking and analysing of blood samples to protect victims of crime, emergency service workers, good Samaritans and other persons and to make consequential amendments to the Health

Care Consent Act, 1996 and the Health Protection and Promotion Act / Projet de loi 28, Loi exigeant le prélèvement et l'analyse d'échantillons de sang afin de protéger les victimes d'actes criminels, le personnel des services

d'urgence, les bons samaritains et d'autres personnes et apportant des modifications corrélatives à la Loi de 1996 sur le consentement aux soins de santé et à la

Loi sur la protection et la promotion de la santé.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PERIMETER INSTITUTE ACT, 2006

Mrs. Witmer moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr31,

An Act respecting the Perimeter Institute.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Pursuant to standing order 84, this bill is referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

CENTRE FOR INTERNATIONAL

GOVERNANCE INNOVATION ACT, 2006

Mrs. Witmer moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr32,

An Act respecting The Centre for International Governance Innovation.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Pursuant to standing order 84, this bill stands referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, Deputy Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 to 9:30 p.m. on

Monday, December 4, 2006, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1351 to 1356.

The Speaker: Mr. Caplan has moved government notice of motion number 250. All those in favour will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Balkissoon, Bas

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Colle, Mike

Delaney, Bob

Elliott, Christine

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Jeffrey, Linda

Klees, Frank

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Marsales, Judy

Martiniuk, Gerry

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Smitherman, George

Sterling, Norman W.

Tory, John

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yakabuski, John

Zimmer, David

The Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

DiNovo, Cheri

Horwath, Andrea

Kormos, Peter

Prue, Michael

Tabuns, Peter

The Deputy Clerk (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 43; the nays are 6.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): I beg the indulgence of the House to take a few moments to comment on and perhaps add some clarity to events last Wednesday during question period.

The member for Leeds-Grenville rose on a point of order during question period respecting comments that were made by the minister responsible for aboriginal affairs. In doing so, the member requested that the

Speaker review Hansard, presumably with a view to determining if anything said by the minister violated standing order 23, although not specifically what section.

Let me start by saying that my preoccupation in question period is and always has been to facilitate its progress with as few impediments as possible. In this regard, members will know that I have expressed

some intolerance for points of order raised during the hour. Under our standing orders, the time taken for points of order is included within the 60 minutes allotted for question period, Speakers having consistently encouraged members to, wherever

possible, refrain from raising points of order until the completion of question period. This is usually possible unless a point of order raised relates to the process itself and needs to be corrected before we can proceed any further.

This was my motivation in suggesting to the member from Leeds-Grenville that points of order should be raised outside the time allocated for oral questions. It was not my intent to chide the member, but

rather, in the face of what I perceived to be a general misunderstanding, to clarify for all members why I have exhibited intolerance with respect to points of order raised during question periods past.

Having said that, my mindfulness of the question period clock may have caused me to rush my response to the point of order raised by the member for Leeds-Grenville without sufficient contemplation and

explanation. I would like to now take a minute to do so.

In the course of drafting a ruling, the Speaker may, from time to time, review Hansard in order to confirm his recollection of what was said. This was the process undertaken upon my ruling, for example, of

June 21, 2006, to which the member made reference in an open letter to me last Wednesday. So the Speaker may, but does not as a matter of course, review Hansard in a ruling on the orderliness of language used.

This was borne out in several rulings in this House, but most specifically in a ruling by Speaker Warner, dated December 12, 1991, in which he said that "it is basically a question of order at the time when

that language that is deemed unparliamentary is used; therefore, it is ... not useful to go back over a previous day's proceedings and look to see whether ... a term was unparliamentary or parliamentary and that is because the possibility of

disorder is then past."

On the same subject, Speaker McLean had this to say on May 15, 1996: "The Speaker cannot be expected to review Hansard and reflect upon the words spoken. The words have to be heard in the particular context in

which they were spoken to determine if they were unparliamentary or not."

In this respect, our practice in Ontario does differ from the federal House of Commons, where the Speaker more frequently, although even there not in every case, reviews Hansard.

That being said, I've had some opportunity to reflect upon the specific words in question, and I have some concern with respect to the language used, whether or not it is in order.

I caution the minister responsible for aboriginal affairs that comments of that sort are unbecoming and make it difficult to maintain any level of decorum in this place. While I appreciate that the minister

rose in the House last Thursday to offer an explanation, his remarks the previous day were not helpful in the circumstances.

I am disturbed by the increasing use of intemperate language. There's frequently a stunning lack of regard for the traditional hallmarks of parliamentary discourse and, specifically, respect for the Chair and

the integrity of all members. To engage in such behaviour is to be destructive not just to the member or members targeted but to all of us and to this institution.

It seems to me that the role of the Speaker has slowly and increasingly become, if you will, that of referee of the first resort instead of referee of the last resort. This House frequently fails to regulate

itself with maturity and temperance but rather pushes to and often beyond the limits of everyday civility. In that, we are not alone. Very recently, the House of Commons committee on procedure and House affairs felt compelled to undertake meetings

dedicated specifically to the issue of decorum in the House. It is a problem for all of us.

While this place is neither a church nor a classroom demanding the level of decorum expected there, a parliamentary chamber nevertheless requires at least a minimum level of respect and regard for the work

that we have all been elected to carry out and the manner in which we do that. The Speaker and members are partners in this endeavour.

For my part, I will endeavour to be vigilant as we go forward and to intervene when I perceive either the use of language or decorum not befitting this parliamentary institution.

I urge all members to recognize that you have a duty in the preservation of order as well.

Finally, to the member for Leeds-Grenville, I assure you that it was not my intent to be dismissive last Wednesday. Feeling aggrieved by remarks made by another member, you stood in your place and you brought

them to my attention, as you should have.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

BOTTLE RECYCLING

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, Deputy Government House Leader): It's a pleasure to rise in the House today because in September, our government made what amounts

to no less than an historic announcement, one that significantly strengthens our government's capacity to protect our province's cherished environment. I am pleased to report on an important step forward.

The province has signed a contract with Brewers Retail Inc. to be the service provider for Ontario's deposit-return program for wine and spirits containers. In February, Ontario consumers will pay a deposit on

all wine and spirit containers purchased in the province of Ontario at the LCBO, agency stores and winery and distillery retail outlets. They will be able to return the containers to the Beer Store for a refund. When the deposit-return program is

up and running, Ontarians will be able to participate in a crucial venture: reducing the waste that goes to our municipal landfills.

The Beer Store runs one of the most successful return systems in the world, and it has the existing infrastructure and expertise to implement the new deposit-return program quickly and efficiently. It makes

sense to build on the Beer Store's tremendously successful bottle return process. It makes sense to call upon the celebrated marketing expertise of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. They, indeed, will lead a two-year public awareness campaign

to encourage optimum participation in the deposit-return program.

We are very encouraged by the level of support that this initiative brings amongst our key stakeholders, and I'd like to read to you a couple of quotes. This one is from Jo-Anne St. Godard, executive director

of the Recycling Council of Ontario:

"The Recycling Council of Ontario applauds Premier McGuinty for demonstrating leadership.... Deposit-return systems have proven their worth when it comes to maximizing the reuse and recycling of bottles....

The proposed deposit-return system is a good step towards extended producer responsibility in this province."

This one is from the president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, Mr. Doug Reycraft: "This is an important step for environmental protection in Ontario and good news for municipal governments. It

builds on the Premier's commitment to an effective LCBO deposit-return system and will result in a more efficient blue box program in Ontario."

There is more. This one is from Jan Westcott, president and CEO of Spirits Canada. He says, "The McGuinty government is committed to preserving the environment for future generations, and the Ontario spirits

industry fully endorses and supports these efforts."

We will continue to work with our partners -- the Beer Store, the LCBO and all our stakeholders -- to make serious advances in reducing what goes into our landfills. We will continue to count on Ontarians,

people who are guided by goodwill toward their environment. This is nothing less than a win for our environment, a win for our municipalities and a win for all Ontarians.

SEAT BELTS

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield (Minister of Transportation): I'm pleased to rise today in the House with an important update on one of the most important pieces of legislation that's been passed by

this Legislature this season. Our "one person, one seat belt" Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Seat Belts), 2006, has been proclaimed into law and will save lives in Ontario in the coming months and years. Every driver and passenger must wear a seat

belt when travelling on Ontario roads, ending a dangerous practice that has gone on far too long.

It might surprise the members to know that motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death and injury for people aged three to 34 and that these deaths and injuries are preventable. We have a

responsibility to make Ontario's roads as safe as possible.

In 1976, Ontario was the first jurisdiction in North America to make wearing seat belts mandatory. This legislation will help ensure that this province continues to be a leader in road safety. Since seat belts

were made mandatory, the number of people killed and injured in collisions has steadily dropped. For every 1% increase in seat belt usage, five lives are saved.

I'm heartened by the most recent survey by Transport Canada that found that Ontario has the second-highest rate of seat belt use in urban areas in Canada at nearly 93%. That's above the national average of

91%. But we can and we must do more. This government will not rest until everyone who travels on Ontario's roads is as safe as they can be.

As this legislative session draws to a close, honourable members can be proud of the fact that they have helped make Ontario families safer this holiday season.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Responses?

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): In response to the transportation minister's statement today, the leader of the official opposition, John Tory, and the PC caucus supported the intent of Bill 148

and the principle of one seat belt per passenger, and we commend the government for taking that initiative. We are always willing to work with the Legislature to make Ontario's roads safer. Indeed, it was the PC government of Premier Bill Davis

that introduced seat belt laws in this province some 30 years ago, and Ontario was the first jurisdiction in North America to have done so.

We are, however, disappointed that when we made an attempt to improve this legislation, the government chose to ignore the official opposition. During clause-by-clause hearings, we proposed to improve the bill

by protecting owners of classic cars that are not currently equipped with seat belts, and also to eliminate the sweeping regulatory powers this bill bestows on the minister. That is a disturbing trend on the part of this government, and we believe

it is not in the public interest.

To quote Oxford Community Police Service Constable Bob McDonald, "It's a shame to see it takes a tragedy to get the ball rolling." He was of course referring to the fatal accident in Caledon that occurred on

Saturday, October 14, that finally brought the government to act on this important issue. That truly is a shame.

I want to take this opportunity to call on the Minister of Education. In the same way that they have taken the initiative with regard to seat belts, I am asking her to bring forward Bill 122, the seat belt

legislation, which as she knows would in fact save many lives in this province by implementing those measures. By deferring on that initiative, many lives will be lost. I would ask you, Minister, to please bring that bill forward. We would respect

you and support you for doing so.

BOTTLE RECYCLING

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I'm pleased to respond to the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal's further announcement with respect to the deposit-return system, returns to the Beer

Store, which has been granted the exclusive monopoly in Ontario for all deposits and returns. We look forward to more details from the minister. Certainly, we support initiatives to encourage recycling. The member knows that my colleague and

leader, John Tory, had campaigned on the concept of deposit-return as a candidate for mayor of Toronto.

Members will recall that back in January 2005, the then Environment Minister Dombrowsky said that she was exploring a deposit-return system through the LCBO, and the government was proceeding down that path.

We've seen Dalton McGuinty perform a flip-flop, I suspect on the spur of the moment, when quite frankly good work on the agencies committee by our members and the Environmental Commissioner put this issue onto the front burner.

The problem was that Dalton McGuinty suddenly announced that the Beer Store would have the exclusive right and then said to the minister, "Now go and negotiate." This is effectively like getting a barrel,

putting the government prone over the barrel and saying, "Now go and negotiate." So when the spokesman talks about a $15-million profit for the Beer Store system -- it looks like they're getting a 10-cent return; we don't know if that's on top of

or part of the $15 million -- we have to, as opposition members, watch closely to see what kind of sweetheart deal the government ended up giving to the Beer Store because of the awkward negotiating system the government found itself in.

I feel bad for the minister, because he was given his marching orders, I suspect without much consultation, and told to negotiate a deal once it had already been announced.

The minister knows that in other provinces there are private depot systems. There are options in other provinces to take them back to corner stores. The minister certainly knows as well that internationally

there are reverse vending machines, where you put the bottles back in the vending machine and receive money in return. But instead of investigating any of these options, which are well-known in other provinces, states and countries, the Premier,

for some reason, decided to have an exclusive monopoly contract with the Beer Store. We haven't heard either what the impact is going to be on the craft brewer industry, for example, nor the impact on consumers, many of whom would probably prefer

another option to the Beer Store, like they enjoy in other provinces or states.

Certainly I think it would be important for the opposition to inspect the very cozy relationship between the McGuinty government and the big brewers. Hopefully they act in the best interests of taxpayers. But

when you see the Premier making this type of announcement and forcing the government into a negotiating corner, you wonder if you have achieved the best results in the interests of the taxpayer or the interests of the environment. So I'll look to

see how this is imposed. The sticker system, as originally announced, has been dropped by the Premier. There will no longer be stickers put on the bottles, I guess, as part of the minister's announcement today.

SEAT BELTS

Mr. Peter Tabuns (Toronto-Danforth): I want to address first the comments made by the Minister of Transportation. I'm glad that all parties were able to work together to get this legislation

through. But I note that there was a key amendment that was suggested by the Ontario Safety League to increase the effectiveness of the legislation and was put forward by us. The suggestion was that fines for not complying with the act be extended

to drivers.

I'll quote Mr. Brian Patterson from the Ontario Safety League, who spoke to the bill in committee. "Although we see strength in this bill, we would propose the following amendments to ensure that the

responsibility remains with the driver of the vehicle for those occupying the vehicle. We believe that there should be consequences for the driver, regardless of the age of the occupants, if he or she chooses to operate a vehicle with unrestrained

passengers."

That amendment was supported by quite a few people who spoke before the committee. It had a lot of merit, and it's quite unfortunate that it was not passed, not adopted by the government. I see it as a missed

opportunity.

BOTTLE RECYCLING

Mr. Peter Tabuns (Toronto-Danforth): Speaking of lost opportunities takes me to the announcement by the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal. In 2003, the government in power, the Liberal

Party under Dalton McGuinty, promised 60% waste diversion in place within five years of being elected. They promised a ban on organic waste going to landfill. Frankly, if those two promises had been kept, we would have been opening a new

chapter

in environmental history here in Ontario. But they weren't carried through. In fact, they've been neglected, set aside. Those broken promises have substantial environmental consequences.

So we come to today's announcement. To call this an historic announcement leads one to the ugly sight of the word "historic" being tortured in public. This is not an historic announcement. When you look at the

written documents that were given out about this announcement, there's a statement in the compendium that says that this is "part of an overall waste ... strategy."

If you have been in this House when a waste strategy has been presented, I would appreciate it if you would rise and address us, because to my knowledge there is no waste strategy. What we have is a series of

ad hoc responses to a profound environmental problem.

That continues on in this sphere. We have a beer bottle return system in Ontario run by the Beer Store that's very effective. It's quite correct to say that it is noted around the world, because it results in

the return of something like 96% of bottles, reuse of those bottles, to a significant environmental benefit in terms of avoided dumping in landfill and in terms of reducing greenhouse gases. It is a very useful program. We didn't get this with

this announcement. What we have is a pale copy of that program and, strangely enough, a pale copy that runs through the Beer Store rather than the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, which is owned and controlled by this provincial government. It's

straightforward enough to meet with the management of that corporation, tell them the kind of program that's going to be implemented and have them carry it forward. They are people who are used to handling large volumes of products in glass.

You don't have to go to the Beer Store to do this work. In fact, the LCBO, according to the PIR website, is about a $3.6-billion-per-year enterprise, one of the largest buyers in the world. If any entity could

change the market in North America to require the provision of wine and liquor in standardized bottles that could be refilled and reused, it is this entity. So instead of actually doing something historic, making an impact on greenhouse gas

emissions, making an impact on waste diversion, what we get is the Beer Store made into a blue box for the LCBO.

When the government misses these very large, very important opportunities to protect the environment, to protect our pocketbooks in terms of what we spend on waste diversion, it fails profoundly.

CORRECTION OF RECORD

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): On a point of order, Speaker: I want to correct the record relating to my response to the Minister of Transportation earlier. In my response, I referred to Bill

122 as seat belt legislation. As she well knows, it's a street racing bill. I wanted to be sure that was corrected for the record.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Thank you.

VISITORS

Ms. Cheri DiNovo (Parkdale-High Park): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I just wanted to welcome to our galleries members of the Financial Advisors Association of Canada. Welcome.

INTERNATIONAL DAY

OF DISABLED PERSONS /

JOURNÉE INTERNATIONALE

DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, Deputy Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would ask for and I hope we do have unanimous consent for all

parties to speak for up to five minutes regarding the international day for the disabled.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Mr. Caplan as asked for unanimous consent for all parties to speak for up to five minutes on the international day for the disabled. Agreed? Agreed.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Yesterday marked the United Nations International Day of Disabled Persons.

Here in Ontario, we too recognize how important accessible information and communications are for people with disabilities. Access to information and communications opens up opportunities for everyone. People

with disabilities often find themselves at a distinct disadvantage when they are unable to access information, be it in print or electronic formats.

Last month, we began accepting applications for membership on a committee that will work to develop a new proposed provincial standard for accessible information and communications. This standards development

transportation.

Comme vous le savez, la loi prévoit l'élaboration de normes provinciales d'accessibilité qui auront une influence sur tous les aspects de notre vie en Ontario. Ceci nous rapprochera de notre

objectif de faire de l'Ontario une province véritablement accessible d'ici 2025.

Pour moi, cet engagement a aussi une résonance toute personnelle. Lorsque j'étais conseillère municipale à Ottawa, j'ai eu le privilège de siéger au comité consultatif sur

l'accessibilité de la ville. En tant que membre de ce comité, j'ai eu à régler des questions d'accessibilité qui se posaient à un niveau local très humain. J'ai pris connaissance des obstacles que rencontraient

chaque jour les personnes handicapées dans leur propre collectivité.

Le comité dont je faisais

partie s'est penché sur toutes sortes de problèmes locaux : comment améliorer l'accessibilité des postes d'essence libre-service; comment assurer que les

personnes handicapées puissent traverser les rues de façon sécuritaire; comment élargir les trottoirs, pour n'en citer que quelques-uns.

J'ai pu constater à maintes reprises qu'en apportant des petites améliorations dans le fonctionnement d'une collectivité, on contribuait à une meilleure qualité de vie pour les

personnes handicapées. Ces petites améliorations peuvent ouvrir la voie à des emplois, à une éducation et à l'établissement de liens sociaux.

Voyant ce qu'il était possible de faire, j'ai eu envie d'en faire plus. J'ai eu envie de mettre à profit les leçons apprises dans ma ville et de les appliquer à toute la province.

this House.

The report will give a more comprehensive overview of the progress our government has made this year. It will provide details on how we are working to reach out to different sectors across the province through

To me, an accessible Ontario is one where everyone has the opportunity to meet their full potential. By working together -- the government with the broader public sector, the business community and citizens of

all abilities -- we can become a stronger, more inclusive society. The legislation gives us the framework. Now it is up to all of us to make the real changes that we need to make.

Mrs. Christine Elliott (Whitby-Ajax): I'm pleased to rise today on behalf of the official opposition to recognize December 3 as the International Day of Disabled Persons.

I will say at the outset that we are fortunate to live in a great province that has been a vanguard with respect to promoting protections for some of our most vulnerable citizens. Under former Progressive

Conservative Premier John Robarts, Ontario became the first province to adopt a Human Rights Code,

an act which has become virtually tantamount to constitutional legislation.

Disabilities Act.

Later today, Bill 107,

An Act to amend the Human Rights Code, will be debated for third reading in this Legislature. Although I will not remark on its content at this time, I will say that, given the profound

importance of the Human Rights Code to protect and defend the rights of vulnerable people, I would encourage all members of this House, as well as those at home, to watch the debate and carefully consider the remarks of the members who will be

speaking.

and others to ensure that these technologies are developed in conjunction with open and inclusive policies and practices.

It is without question that information technologies present huge opportunities to better the lives of those living with disabilities, but I would be remiss if I did not underscore the importance of access in

this regard. Although there are strides being made to ensure that these technologies are indeed broadly accessible to vulnerable people, there remain substantial issues, such as an inability for adaptive programs to be developed at the rate that

technologies become available.

An example of this problem is illustrated by the fact that, according to the United Nations' website, many websites remain inaccessible for the blind. A recent study of the Financial Times Stock Exchange top

I would like to take this opportunity to report that in my riding of Whitby-Ajax, substantial plans are under way to build an international centre of excellence in the promotion and development of

challenges. The abilities centre will represent a paradigm shift, with its focus on promoting abilities rather than seeing disabilities. This will lead to enhanced dignity for the children, youth and adults who will be stakeholders in a facility

that welcomes and, indeed, hosts everyone. Social barriers will give way to inclusion because of the integral focus on developing abilities.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to rise today Speaker. I would ask all members to join me in reconizing the International Day of Disabled Persons.

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): Yesterday marked the United Nations International Day of Disabled Persons. Unfortunately for disabled persons in this province and in this country,

poverty and disability too often go hand in hand. The disabled make up about one out of every eight people in this province -- that is about 12% -- but they also make up about one of every five people who is required to get food from a food bank.

That is about 20%.

They are unemployed: Amongst the unemployed, disabled are amongst the highest group. When you register them against aboriginals or women or people of colour, the disabled are amongst the highest group of those

who find too often that they are unemployed. The good times have come to Ontario, and come and gone, but they were always at the periphery.

On matters such as ODSP, Ontarians with disabilities have got pitiful increases in the last three years and none before that for a number of years: 3% in the first year of this government, zero in the second

year, and 2%, which was held back until this month, a period of some eight months.

If you are disabled and if you have children, every month you see the clawback of the monies from the national child benefit taken away from you. The federal government gives the money and the provincial

government takes it away.

But you know, it's very sad to see what all governments have done for disabled people. You see, the federal government has axed the court challenges program, taking some $5 million out of the hands of the

disabled that had allowed them to challenge programs and policies which were contrary to their best interests. The province, not to be outdone even for a moment, has axed the many deputants, the 150 or so, who wanted to come forward to talk about

human rights under Bill 107. They took away their rights to make a statement of any kind. Those disabled and their representatives have found themselves again on the periphery.

Information Society in 2003, governments expressed their commitment to build a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented information society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge. Despite the

vision, many persons with disabilities remain unable to take full advantage of the Internet as most websites are inaccessible to the blind and visually impaired, heavily dependent on using the mouse, and training is often conducted in inaccessible

formats and venues. As persons with disabilities are amongst the most marginalized in society, many do not have access to information technologies at all. Even those with access to information technologies may not be able to utilize them

effectively, as available adaptive equipment cannot keep pace with innovation."

We need to improve those websites. We need to make them accessible to the visually impaired, to the blind and to all people with disabilities. Equality will come to this province and to this country when there

is equality in the workplace. Equality will come here when the disabled are able to obtain information that is necessary in this information society. Equality will come when wages and benefits are brought together so that the gap between Canadians

with and without disabilities is erased.

Some 10 years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada had a landmark ruling in which they ruled that sign language had to be made available to those Canadians who were deaf so that they would have equal services in

public institutions, in hospitals and in places where sign language was necessary for them to communicate.

I see my colleague and friend here in the Legislature sitting up there today, former member of provincial Parliament Gary Malkowski, the first deaf MPP elected to this province. But it is very sad that he is

having to watch the debate with the teletype because there is no interpreter for him in this Legislature. It's very sad that even after 10 years and the Supreme Court ruling, we still haven't got our act together.

IAN SCOTT

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, Deputy Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I believe we have unanimous consent for all parties to speak

for up to five minutes regarding a former member.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Mr. Caplan has asked for unanimous consent for all parties to speak for up to five minutes regarding a former member. Agreed? Agreed.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): It is an honour for me to rise today and say a few words about Ian Scott, to pay tribute to Ian Scott.

I recall when I first met him, Speaker. It was the election of 1990 -- rather dark days for our party, you will recall. It was a challenging time, as I was knocking on doors, not getting a particularly warm

response, and just a short while before that I'd lost my own dad. So it was a difficult time. I was, to say the least, a little bit unsettled but putting on a brave face. I got word that our provincial Attorney General, one Ian Scott, was coming

to campaign with me. Now, that was a huge psychological boost. As a lawyer, I had heard about this Ian Scott guy, who was an advocate. As far as I was concerned, as a young lawyer and in my circles, this guy walked on water. As an aspiring

politician, I knew of his brilliant public policy initiatives. He was a very progressive thinker who seemed to be able to get things done. In short, I held him in awe. When I met him at my campaign office, he took a quick look at me and said, "So

you're the kid. Let's go campaigning."

What most impressed me about Ian Scott during our 45 minutes at Billings Bridge shopping centre in Ottawa South in the late summer of 1990 was not his legal skills; it was not his stature and accomplishments

as our Attorney General. What most impressed me was his warm and friendly and completely self-effacing approach to those he sought to serve. Sure, he had lots of steel and an unmatched ability to cut his opponents down to size, and he never, ever

backed away from a fight, but above all, Ian wanted to serve others. That's what impressed me that day. The great majority of people we met that day didn't even know who he was, but that didn't matter to Ian. What mattered was that they knew they

mattered. Ian taught me in short order that politics is not about you, the politician. It's not about your talents; it's not about your accomplishments. It's about the people you work for.

Ian Scott was one of this province's finest legal minds. As I said, as a lawyer, I held him in some real awe.

Il était l'un des leaders des plus progressifs et des plus motivés, et à un âge relativement jeune, son leadership m'est apparu comme un exemple à suivre. He was one of Ontario's most

progressive and principled leaders, and he inspired me.

Last but not least, he was a true orator and one of this chamber's most eloquent voices. When he spoke, it was said it could be like silk off a spool. Shakespeare once said that action is eloquence. Ian took

it a step further: He was eloquence in action.

Before entering politics, Ian made a name for himself as a constitutional lawyer, a man with an exceptional mind for detail, an ear for the nuance of language and a big place in his heart for the underdog, the

downtrodden, the disadvantaged. As Attorney General, he took action to ensure that everyone got fair treatment under the law. He saw to it that people in the public sector were paid equally. He enshrined in Ontario's Human Rights Code the

principle that no one can discriminate against another human being on the basis of sexual orientation. This was not a purely academic discussion for Ian. Ian himself demonstrated that while our sexual orientation is part of who we are, it has

nothing to do with our God-given talents and skills and how we choose to use them. Ian would have us understand that he was never a talented gay man; he was a man with tremendous talents, and he chose to put those to the service of others -- a man

who happened to be gay. And we honour Ian Scott by bringing this perspective to our work on behalf of all Ontarians, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Ian took an activist approach to the law. He abolished appointments as Queen's Counsel, introduced freedom-of-information legislation and introduced an independent, arm's-length panel to appoint judges.

When he left public life, Ian returned to practising law and teaching and mentoring a new generation of civic-minded young people. Even after a stroke made it difficult for him to speak and get around, he

still made his presence felt here in this Legislature by lending his support to a barrier-free Ontario for the disabled.

These are truly remarkable accomplishments, but Ian had something else, a quality that was even more impressive than his CV, a quality that led people on both sides of the House to admire him and earned him

the enduring, enthusiastic respect of his peers: courage -- the courage to stand up for what was right even when what was right wasn't popular, the courage to insist that in his work, his sexual orientation was just not relevant and the courage to

fight back from illness to continue being a contributing and productive member of society.

Ceux et celles d'entre nous qui l'avons bien connu ressentent fortement le poids de sa disparition. Those of us who had the privilege of knowing him well miss Ian very much, and we understand how important

Ian's family was to him. I know we all share his sister Martha's regret that she couldn't join us today, but we are honoured to have his brothers Brian and David and his sister Nancy with us here today, as well as his friends Genie Thomas and Neil

McCormick.

Speaker, you should know that David Scott is to the Ottawa legal community as Ian Scott was to the Toronto legal community. I once raised this issue with Ian. I said, "Ian, why is it that you came to Toronto

and your brother David stayed in Ottawa?" He said, "That's easy. Toronto had first pick."

I am pleased that family and friends are here today, and on behalf of all Ontarians we thank them for their support, their care and their love of our friend Ian Scott. You should know that your loss is

Ontario's loss too.

Mais, monsieur le Président, je pense -- non, je sais -- que l'Ontario est une société meilleure, plus juste et plus forte parce que Ian Scott en a fait partie. Ontario is a better, more just

and stronger society today because of Ian Scott: because of his eloquence, because of his action, and because of his courage. His career and his example are a reminder to all of us, each of us privileged to sit in this House as a representative of

our people, that what binds us together, our shared calling to serve the people of Ontario, is greater than the parties that separate us, and that we are not here to serve some abstract ideology; we are here to serve our people with every gift and

talent at our disposal: our hearts, our minds, our unfailing energies. It seems to me that was the benchmark set by one Ian Scott, and that is a standard to which each of us must strive.

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): I rise to join the Premier and Mr. Hampton in paying tribute to the late Ian Scott. On the day of his passing, I was quoted accurately as saying he

was a wonderful and courageous and funny and smart and dedicated man. That may seem unusual coming from someone in another political party, but I really liked this man. I really admired this man, even if I disagreed with him on issues from time to

time.

Much of that affection and admiration in my own case came from a long time before politics for both of us. As a young lawyer in 1980, I was junior to Bob Armstrong, now a justice on the Ontario Court of

Appeal, and we prosecuted doctors in front of the discipline committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons. The discipline committee consisted then, as I think it still does today, of doctors and lay people, not lawyers, and as a result

there was no judge who could deal with legal issues that arose during the course of those hearings. That job was given to Ian Scott. What an experience -- it really is similar to what the Premier had to say -- for a first-year lawyer like me to

watch him argue a point with legal counsel in front of that tribunal, but perhaps even more importantly, to watch him dispense advice and in effect rule on legal points. He was articulate, he was balanced and, even in those very difficult

circumstances, often in those cases that were complex and difficult for all concerned, he was witty. He went out of his way to teach me, as a young lawyer who was there, a brand new lawyer, to explain things to me and quite frankly to kid me about

my misguided political ways. I don't suppose I recognized until much later how lucky I was to have even had those brief exposures to Ian Scott as a teacher, as someone who taught me about the law.

In public office, he was a fighter for progressive change and played a role as such within his party, an important role which every political party needs, without exception, to push back against the inevitable

influences of the status quo. His many public policy legacies are prominently on display still to this day in the statutes of this province and have passed the test of time very well indeed. As a parliamentarian -- and I had the chance not just to

watch him on television but I was here during some of the early years, helping Larry Grossman and others, when he was in Parliament here -- he was, in my view, without peer in his generation. I watched some old question period tapes in preparing

to come here for the first time, and it was wisely suggested by a number of people on all sides that I should watch as much Ian Scott as I could, both asking and answering questions.

I thought the very best of many good obituaries about Ian Scott was written by Jim Byers in the Star. It included what I thought was a very short but incredibly accurate description of Ian Scott in the

Legislature, and I want to quote from it. He said, "In the Legislature, Scott was daily theatre, sometimes sighing slightly as he rose to answer questions, pitying his overmatched interlocutor, fingering his bifocals as a prop, habitually licking

his lips in preparation for the oratorical kill." And you know what? As I thought about it, I remembered all of those things: the licking of the lips, the fingering of the glasses and how he really did look like he was taking pity on someone he

was about to do in. It was an entirely accurate, very short description of Ian Scott here in this Legislature.

What was perhaps talked about the most in the articles written about him was his courage. He was a courageous lawyer. And he was a courageous lawyer in many different places; for example, arguing personally

Ontario's case on separate school funding in the Supreme Court of Canada. That was something he took a personal risk to do. He was, as I mentioned, a courageous legislator, and many evidences of that rest on the books of Ontario today. In his own

way and in his own time, as the Premier mentioned, he was courageous in how he handled his personal life within the context of what is sometimes a bit too public a public life, as we all know.

But the greatest courage of all came following his stroke, when he once again led by example, never giving up, never showing any wavering from that classic determination that he had. I noticed that the twinkle

never went out of his eye and that smile was never off his face when there was an occasion to smile, so that even if he couldn't speak the words, which was really one of his greatest gifts earlier on, he could convey a lot of messages with the few

words that he did speak and with that smile and with that twinkle in his eye.

Dans sa vie professionnelle, en public et en privé, la façon dont il a relevé les défis de la vie, Ian Scott a été un exemple. In his professional life, in his public life and in

his private life, in how he handled some of life's biggest challenges, Ian Scott was an example. Notwithstanding our partisan differences, we were friends. I'm very glad I had the chance to work with him. I'm only sorry I didn't get the chance to

serve here with him within the context that the Premier mentioned today. I'm very happy to have had this chance to stand here today to thank his family and to thank him for a life too short but very well lived.

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I am also pleased to be able to say a few words about the contribution of Ian Scott to this Legislature, to Ontario's legal system and to Ontario in

general. I first met Ian Scott under what might be called by him some embarrassing circumstances. This was shortly after the 1985 election. At the time, the New Democrats and the Liberals had written an accord, and the accord called for a number

of measures to be implemented in law in Ontario. Ian Scott had been sworn in as Attorney General, and he actually came to my part of the province to announce a new community legal clinic. I had been one of the people who had been part of the group

that had been struggling to get the legal clinic established for some time. When the announcement was over, Ian Scott came over and shook my hand and wanted to know what I did. I said, "I'm a lawyer. I practise here." He said, "Well, we're looking

for a candidate to run here in the next election." I wasn't sure what to say, so I didn't say anything, at which time he tried to interest me in running as the Liberal candidate. After this had carried on for a few minutes, I said, "Well, sorry to

inform you, Mr. Scott, but I'm running as the NDP candidate."

I paid for that from 1987 to 1990 when I was the NDP critic of Ian Scott, because there were a number of measures that Mr. Scott had before the Legislature, and of course part of your job is to ask questions

and, from time to time, to offer up a critique. So, as Mr. Tory has described, I got to experience the licking of the chops, the anticipation of the response that was designed to poke fun at the questioner. I must say, though, that I enjoyed every

bit of that work, I enjoyed those three years because it was a very interesting time in terms of things that were introduced, debates that happened and things that were passed in the legislation.

I want to give credit to Ian Scott. He introduced Ontario's first freedom of information act as part of the NDP-Liberal accord. But if we think about it today, it's hard to imagine now how 20 years ago it was

virtually impossible for members of the public to obtain even basic information about what their government was doing. Now we do freedom of information requests all the time, much to the embarrassment of the government.

He also introduced Ontario's first pay equity bill, again as part of the New Democrat and Liberal accord. It was a bold step towards equality in this province and it made a huge difference in the lives of

thousands of working women. Again, it's hard to imagine today how groundbreaking this was at the time. With much pain, he overhauled Ontario's family law system, and part of what we debated here between 1987 and 1990 was, again, some of the

changes that were not done easily and sometimes were done with much disagreement. And he amended Ontario's Human Rights Code to ensure that no citizen of Ontario could be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation.

One of the most interesting times for me, though, was immediately following the 1990 election. About three weeks after the election, I was in my office -- no cabinet had been selected -- and I was told that

Ian Scott wanted to talk to me on the phone. So I answered the phone and we exchanged pleasantries and he said, "I want to talk to you about some issues at the Attorney General." I said, "Oh, okay." He said, "Where do you want to meet?" I said,

"Well, I'll come over and meet you." So I went over to what was then going to be his MPP office, and first we talked about the election. I said, "When did you first think you were in trouble?" He said, "The very first day I went out and canvassed.

I tried to talk to somebody about the Constitution and they slammed the door on me. I realized then that the public of Ontario was going one way on the Constitution and the Peterson government was going another way and we were in big trouble."

But the second thing he wanted to talk about was -- he said, "I think you're going to be the next Attorney General, and I want to talk to you about some of the things that are going to fall on your plate. One

of them is the Askov decision, which I expect the Supreme Court of Canada will bring down about two or three weeks after you become Attorney General. I just want you to know that it was the Conservatives' gift to me and now it's my gift to you."

Some gift it was. Literally, we had about 15,000 criminal charges that were in danger of being thrown out of our courts virtually overnight. But he was very gracious about it and said, "Look, we have been underfunding our court system for many,

many years. I was not able to get all the financial support from my government. Now it's a crisis, and this will have to happen."

He was also very gracious about explaining to me where some of the other land mines lay in the ministry of the Attorney General and what he thought had to be done. I thanked him for that. I didn't thank him

after that when he became my critic as the Liberal spokesperson on Attorney General issues.

We have, indeed, lost someone who made a huge contribution to Ontario. As much as Ian Scott loved the debate and took no prisoners in the debate, at the end of the day for him it was very much about doing the

right thing for the people of Ontario. If we reflect on his record and reflect on all that he did here and before coming here, and the tremendous struggle that he put into life after leaving here, we would all agree we have lost a great Ontarian

and somebody who is worthy of all of our respect.

The Speaker: I will see that the Hansard of today is forwarded on to the family.

VISITORS

Hon. Mary Anne V. Chambers (Minister of Children and Youth Services): I know this is not a point of order, but I'd very much appreciate having the opportunity to introduce Nana and Ben Curtis

from the wonderful riding of Scarborough East. Their son Andrew is serving us well as a page in this session of the Legislature.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier. Earlier today I sent the Premier a letter advising him that I would be asking some questions today about the issue that

arose in the House last Thursday with respect to reports of gross mismanagement of money within children's aid societies.

The Minister of Children and Youth Services refused to answer questions that were asked of her at that time, stating that she could not comment on the auditor's report before it was released. Without in any

way asking for comments on the findings of the Auditor General, which of course we'll all see tomorrow, will the Premier please tell us on what specific date his government first had any information of any kind from any source which suggested

questionable spending of taxpayers' money by children's aid societies on things such as expensive cars, trips and gym memberships? What was the specific date on which his government first had information with respect to this kind of questionable

spending?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): I, again, appreciate the advance notice of the leader of the official opposition's interest in this issue. I do not doubt

for a moment his sincerity in obtaining some of the details in which he is so greatly interested. But I say this: Out of respect for both this Legislature and the Auditor General, what I can say is that after we received information from the

Auditor General -- we received a draft report -- I can tell you that the minister quickly began to get to work on this. She has met with representatives of the children's aid societies, and she has an announcement to make in this House tomorrow.

We think that's the appropriate place for her to make that announcement. We think we owe the Auditor General the courtesy of allowing him to present his formal report first thing tomorrow. We think that is the appropriate way in which we should

proceed in the circumstances.

Mr. Tory: We all want to, probably no people more so than the opposition, give the Auditor General the courtesy of presenting his report. But in your answer just now -- in the Premier's

answer, Mr. Speaker -- you implied that there was some date in the past before last Thursday, which is the day the media reports arose on this matter, on which the government knew about allegations of misspending on the part of children's aid

societies across the province, taxpayers' money that was meant to go to vulnerable children and families and in fact went to buy expensive cars, gym memberships and trips to the Caribbean.

We know that the minister received quarterly reports from the children's aid societies. We know, because the Premier just made allusion to it, that there was a draft report from the Auditor General. All we're

after, and it is not discourteous to the Legislature or to the Auditor General, is to know from you -- and you seem to have some idea of the date, I say to the Premier -- what was the date on which your government first knew of the information

with respect to allegations of misspending? What was that date? We want to know that, and I think we're entitled to know it. I would hope the Premier could answer that question.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: The case that the leader of the official opposition here, of course, is trying to build is that somehow we were negligent or irresponsible in failing to act on information

when we first received it, and I understand why it would be in his interest to try to put forward that case.

Without getting into the details of the announcement for tomorrow, I would ask Ontarians to look at what we've done as a government. We have created the first-ever Ministry of Children and Youth Services. We

have passed legislation allowing, for the first time, the Auditor General to look at the books of the children's aid societies. In 1994, 1997, 1999, 2000 and 2002, the Auditor General looked at the child welfare program and protection services but

he couldn't get access to the children's aid societies. We have changed that so that he has access to those particular files. The minister has also recently introduced independent child advocate legislation so that never again will Ontario's child

advocates be muzzled by the government of the day.

I think our actions clearly demonstrate our commitment to Ontario's children, particularly those who are vulnerable and who are under the responsibility of the children's aid societies.

Mr. Tory: What we're seeking here is a date. I don't know how the Auditor General's report coming out tomorrow and an announcement the minister is going to make tomorrow, or any of the other

things you've talked about, many of which went on in the past, have anything to do with the Premier's giving a specific answer to a very specific question that I had the courtesy to supply to him in advance.

You're talking all around the fact -- the Premier is, Mr. Speaker -- that there is a date you could name on which people in your government knew of these allegations of misspending. It's not about who set up a

ministry and it's not about who allowed the Auditor General in to look at these books; it is about the day on which you were informed of allegations of misspending of taxpayers' money meant for vulnerable children. All I'm asking you to do is to

have the courtesy -- when we talk about courtesy -- to tell this Legislature: What was that date? When did your government know about these allegations, and ideally from whom? But let's just start with the date: When did you know, and why won't

you tell us?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: The leader of the official opposition is focused on a particular date. We're focused on getting results for Ontario's children. That's the difference.

There are five important things that I would speak to in terms of demonstrating our resolve to support and lend assistance to Ontario's vulnerable kids. Again, we've created the first-ever Ministry of Children

and Youth Services. We've passed through legislation allowing the Auditor General to look at the books of the children's aid societies. We've passed Bill 210, legislation to create an independent appeals process for children's aid society

complaints to the Child and Family Services Review Board. Fourthly, we've introduced independent child advocate legislation, and we hope we get the support of the opposition parties in that regard. And finally, tomorrow in this House, the Minister

of Children and Youth Services will make an announcement fully responding to the concerns raised by my friend today and, more importantly, the concerns raised by the Auditor General.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): New question.

Mr. Tory: My question is to the Premier, on the same subject.

I would point out to him that the first minister responsible for children in Ontario was Margaret Marland, appointed by a Progressive Conservative government.

I would make the case that, in refusing to name a date, what you're really calling into question is whether you're serious about doing all of these things for real that you talked about, because this speaks to

the question of money being misspent that was meant for the vulnerable children. It's being misspent, and you won't even answer with the date on which you first found out it was being misspent or if there were any allegations brought to your

attention.

I gave you advance notice of a second question, and you have suggested that there was some date which you won't share with us for reasons best known to you. Let's try the second question, which is: On that

date, which you won't share with us, what specifically was done by your government, by the minister, by you or your office? At that time, what specific steps were taken? What meetings were convened? What instructions were given to stop this kind

of misspending on cars, trips and gym memberships of money that was meant for the children of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: A few things: First of all, I beg to differ in terms of the categorization of Margaret Marland's responsibilities. That was a secretariat. There was no line item in the

budget devoted to that, no staff, no real effort made to address that issue. I think it's important to keep that in mind.

Secondly, I think it's appropriate that we allow the Auditor General to present his report in the first instance. What I can tell the leader of the official opposition is that, upon receiving the information,

the Minister of Children and Youth Services began immediately to put together a plan. She met with representatives of the children's aid society. She's going to make that plan public tomorrow.

I think we owe that, as a modicum of courtesy to the Auditor General, to allow him to present his report and for us to formally respond to that report once he has done so.

Mr. Tory: I find it fascinating that you can get up and respond directly to the comment about Margaret Marland but you can't answer a direct question which I provided you with advance notice

on, and now a second direct question. And I want to repeat it. It's fine for you to say that somebody's coming here tomorrow to say something about all this. You have now suggested, first of all, that there was a date on which your government knew

about these allegations of misspending. All I'm trying to get at now is: If you could give us the date, that would be great. But secondly, what we want to know is: On that date, whenever it was -- and especially if it was a long time ago, but

whenever it was -- was there action taken at that time, not an action plan that's been cobbled together because of a bad day in the House last week or because the Auditor General or a media outlet got on to you about it? When the government first

knew about cars and trips and gym memberships being purchased with money that was meant for kids, what did you do about it at that time on that day to say no to that kind of misspending of taxpayers' money? That is the question. That is a question

that families out there want to know about. It's a question --

The Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I disagree entirely with the leader of the official opposition. I don't think families want to know anything about the internal process and the machinations of government; I

think they want to know specifically what we're going to do in response to the information which we made available by changing the law in Ontario so that the Auditor General, for the very first time, has access to the children's aid society books.

The only reason that he's able to come up with this information and to present these facts is because we invited him to do so. He was never permitted to do so in the past under the Conservative or NDP governments. We've changed the law in Ontario

so that the Auditor General has access to that information.

We want to put in place a higher standard. Tomorrow we'll be announcing what we're going to do in terms of putting in place that higher standard. We deplore the kinds of events that were brought to the light

of day because of the Auditor General's new authority, and we'll be acting on that directly tomorrow.

Mr. Tory: We'll all look forward to that, but at the end of the day it still leaves the question as to why you won't share with us -- this could have been going on for months; it could have

been going on for years. It may well be that the government first learned of this long before the Auditor General had the power to look into this. That's the part that you won't tell us. The Minister of Children and Youth Services said last week

that we should all relax about this. She said she had nothing to hide. If that's so, why are you hiding the date on which you had this information made available to you for the first time, and why won't you tell us, as of that date -- not

tomorrow. It's fine to bring in an action plan after the Auditor General reports. What we want to know is, when did you first know about this? And by the way, I think people out there are very interested in knowing if, for months and months and

months, their money was being spent on cars and trips and gym memberships. They're very interested in knowing: When did you know, and at that time, what did you do to put a stop to it?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I think that one of the things Ontario families want to know is, where was the indignation, where was the expressed concern, in 1994, 1997, 1999, 2000 and 2002 when the

Auditor General looked at the child welfare programs in Ontario and their protection services but he couldn't get access to the children's aid society files? He couldn't because they wouldn't let him get access to that information. We've changed

the law in Ontario. We've invited the Auditor General to come in. We said, "Please tell us exactly what has been going on there for years and years and years. Bring that information to the light of day. Bring that to us so that we can make that

public. Let us develop a plan, let us act on that." That is exactly what has happened, and that's what's going to happen tomorrow in this House.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Premier, last week the people of Ontario learned that more than $1 billion of children's aid funding is being spent

with little oversight by the McGuinty government, and that some of that money was being spent on luxury cars and on exotic trips instead of helping Ontario's most vulnerable children.

My question is about one of the children who fell through the cracks. Jeffrey Baldwin died because the children's aid society failed to check the criminal records of his grandparents, who were convicted child

abusers. My question is this: Has the McGuinty government done anything to follow up on that tragedy? What have you done to ensure that all foster parents in Ontario have a criminal records check conducted on them before they receive children in

their care?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: To the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Mary Anne V. Chambers (Minister of Children and Youth Services): First I'd like to suggest that this is a case that is currently in the appeals process. The leader of the third party

would probably know that the coroner has also expressed an interest in conducting an investigation here. It is very important that we allow that process to go forward.

In terms of the types of things that we are doing to protect children, the Premier has mentioned several. One that I will add, which is one that we added in February of this year, was the deployment and

implementation of new regulations that are intended specifically in cases of kinship care, where societies are required to do background checks on every single adult in a prospective home, regardless of where that adult has lived currently or in

the past.

Mr. Hampton: One day the minister says she doesn't want to comment on the auditor's report, and then she says she doesn't want to comment on criminal record checks. I'm not asking you about

Jeffrey Baldwin; I'm asking you, are we seeing criminal record checks now in the aftermath of that unfortunate event? We know that in fact you're not conducting criminal record checks in all cases. We know that. We know that placement decisions

have gone undocumented, that agreements between foster parents and children's aid societies were lost or unsigned, that visits by children's aid society resource workers never happened when they should have, and that some foster parents didn't

receive necessary training. This is still going on under the McGuinty government.

My question is to the Premier. After the tragic death of Jeffrey Baldwin, why didn't the McGuinty government take action to make sure that proper procedures for recruiting, approving, training and monitoring

foster parents were followed up and documented?

Hon. Mrs. Chambers: Again, I cannot comment on anything related to the case that the leader of the third party is referring to. If I could comment, I would correct some of what he just said,

but I cannot comment on that case.

I can also tell you that there was no common information system for children's aid societies whereby they could do this kind of work in the past. This is something that we inherited and are working really hard

to address: a single information system that will allow individual children's aid societies to inquire on cases in other children's aid societies with specific time frames.

In addition to that, Bill 210, which the Premier made reference to, includes a new, independent, neutral third-party complaints process whereby a wide range of complaints can be brought forward --

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. Hampton: Again, I'm not asking about Jeffrey Baldwin; I'm asking about what the McGuinty government has done as a follow-up from that unfortunate incident. Jeffrey Baldwin died a few years

ago. You've had a lot of time to get the proper procedures in place. But we know that there has been a lack of oversight, and this has resulted in kids waiting too long for help from children's aid societies, in some cases with more tragic

consequences.

One child, whose aunt and school principal called the children's aid society, waited 19 days to see a caseworker. Meanwhile, that child was physically beaten again and again. Another child waited five months,

and a third child had moved out of the jurisdiction by the time front-line CAS workers got to the child.

Premier, don't you agree that children's aid societies should investigate, assess and document all referrals promptly?

Hon. Mrs. Chambers: Even though the leader of the third party suggests he's not asking about a specific case, he continues to cite examples of or make references to that case. He will not --

he will not -- have me fall for that.

I want you to know that every single tragic event is indeed more than tragic. We are firmly committed to the idea that a child in need of protection is supposed to be better off because the child protection

system in this province has been involved in their life. Every single one of those situations is tragic. Having said that, although I believe child protection service workers -- I also want to recognize that this is a very, very difficult line of

work. I kind of suggest that they do God's work, but I know they're not well loved. But the almost 300,000 kids who are served by our children's aid societies every year appreciate that --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

Mr. Hampton: Again to the Premier: Your government has had several warnings about problems and challenges at children's aid societies. The unfortunate death of Jeffrey Baldwin was just one of

too many.

Then we have heard from the Ombudsman, who for over a year now has come before your government and said, "There are serious problems here. I want to have independent investigative oversight authority of

children's aid societies so we can get to the bottom of some of the problems."

Your government has had several warnings from people who have credibility. What I'm seeing here today, and what we saw last Thursday, is the McGuinty government trying to hide behind reports. I want to know,

why hasn't the McGuinty government already taken action to protect these vulnerable children? Why have you allowed needed government funding to be used in ways that haven't protected vulnerable children?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: The leader of the NDP said that we're making efforts to hide behind reports, I gather to hide information or hide activities of some kind or another. The fact is that we

brought more transparency than any government ever before to child protection services in Ontario.

Again, the first thing we did was establish a Ministry of Children and Youth Services. We passed a new law allowing the Auditor General to get access to children's aid societies' books -- the first time ever.

We've passed legislation to create an independent appeals process for children's aid society complaints to the Child and Family Services Review Board. We have introduced just recently independent child advocate legislation. Never again will

Ontario's child advocate be muzzled by the government of the day. Tomorrow, the minister responsible for children and youth services will be disclosing yet more steps in our plan to strengthen child protection services in the province of

Ontario.

Obviously, I strongly disagree with the leader of the NDP's perspective that somehow we are hiding things from Ontarians.

Mr. Hampton: Let me ask the Premier this question, then. The Ombudsman, who has excellent credibility in terms of doing the investigative work, who has a staff of people who have the

expertise, has been asking your government not once but repeatedly over the last year for the authority to conduct investigative oversight of children's aid societies. Your government has voted against motions to do that. You have denied the need

for that when we've asked here in the Legislature. Yet there has been warning after warning that there are some serious problems at children's aid societies and that children are being put at risk, and unfortunately some children are dying.

You claim that you've taken action. Can you tell us why you've denied the Ombudsman the authority to do this kind of investigative work when some of these issues could have been headed off over the last

year?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: The leader of the NDP is apparently unsatisfied with the fact that we've created Ontario's first-ever Ministry of Children and Youth Services, something he himself would not

do when they were in government. He said he's not satisfied with the fact that we've allowed the Auditor General to look at the books of children's aid societies, something that he himself would not do in government. He said he's not happy with

the fact that we've introduced legislation that will create an independent child advocate, something that he himself would not do in government.

I wonder how many legislative officers -- something tells me that if we put in the Ombudsman, he would say that still was not enough. He'd dream up some other individual.

We think we're on the right path. We think we've brought unprecedented levels of transparency. We think we've taken unprecedented steps to improve the quality of protection that we're providing for Ontario

children. Tomorrow in this House, the Minister of Children and Youth Services will be disclosing still more steps in our ongoing plan to protect children in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Hampton: You may think it's a brilliant political strategy to try to blame an event which may or may not have happened 15 years ago for the fact that children are still at risk today, but

let me tell you, Premier, to people out there who see children at risk, children's aid society front-line workers who see children at risk and don't see the resources necessary to address that, they take no comfort in your answer.

The reality is that in your fourth year of government you've had several warnings from several different agencies, from the courts, from the Ombudsman of Ontario, saying that there are very serious problems

with a number of children's aid societies across the province. Here we are in your fourth year of government, and you have still not taken effective action.

When is the McGuinty government going to stop hiding behind reports and start taking the action that's necessary; for example, give the Ombudsman the authority he has requested to do the independent

investigative and oversight work that our children's aid societies so obviously need?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: We're not going to do that. We have a different approach. We think it's intelligent and we think it's responsible. We have created a Ministry of Children and Youth Services.

We've passed new legislation allowing the Auditor General to conduct these kinds of investigations. We've introduced yet still more legislation, a new bill just recently that will create an independent child advocate.

The leader of the NDP raised the notion that somehow there may be an issue of resources connected with the children's aid societies. That's not my sense of what little information we have received from the

Auditor General so far.

I do want to remind the leader of the NDP that, in government, they cut children's aid society funding. I just want to make sure Ontarians understand where this government and this particular minister are

coming from when it comes to supporting quality improvements in the services we provide to Ontario children in need.

Again, tomorrow in this House the Minister of Children and Youth Services will be making an important announcement about more steps we'll be taking in response to the Auditor General's report.

BOTTLE RECYCLING

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): This question is for the Premier. It's been nearly three months since the government hastily brought out a bottle-return program, announced on a

Sunday in September when the Premier was taking his beer bottles back. At the time, we raised concerns here in this House about the fact that the details weren't thought out, another example of the willingness of the McGuinty Liberals to say

anything on a topic.

Specifically, I asked the Premier about the 237 million wine and spirit bottles that would be sold between the date of the announcement and the effective date for the program which had been announced, and I

asked him what he was going to do if people started saving their bottles for return in February. He said, " ... he should not begin to save up his bottles," referring to me. "What I can say is that bottles that will be covered by this new return

policy will be specially marked. They will be specially identified."

Now we read in the Globe and Mail this past weekend that there is no such plan to mark these bottles, so my question is this: What plan is in place to cover the tens of millions of dollars in uncollected

deposits that people will be expecting back when they go into the Beer Stores after February 1? What is the cost to the taxpayers of this oversight, of your not having any plan or any answer as to what you're going to do about this?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): The Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal.

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, Deputy Government House Leader): I thank the member for the question, because this is an historic moment of leadership in this

province, to finally introduce a deposit-return system, something that both previous governments refused to do.

In an earlier response to the statement, the member opposite asked, how are the craft brewers going to feel about this particular contract? I'd like to read a quote from John Hay, president of the Ontario

Craft Brewers: "The Ontario Craft Brewers are impressed with the level of transparency and accountability built into the government's contract with the Beer Store. It sets a great precedent. The government has worked very hard to negotiate a fair

contract with its service supplier -- a contract that supports our shared commitment to supporting environmental protection in Ontario."

So in answer to the member's question, there are the appropriate transparency and accountability provisions as evidenced by support from John Hay of the Ontario Craft Brewers. If the public wishes to see it,

of course the contract is --

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Thank you. Supplementary.

Mr. Tory: Only the McGuinty Liberals could turn a historic moment of leadership into a historic moment of incompetence. It's going to be incompetence. That is because they think the taxpayers'

money is just monopoly money; it's just play money and doesn't really matter.

The Globe and Mail said on the weekend: "Indeed, there is nothing in the plan to stop them.... The government abandoned plans to institute a sticker system that would identify only those bottles purchased

after Feb. 5 as too costly.

"It is now considering passing a regulation that would prohibit returns of bottles purchased before Feb. 5 but a spokeswoman acknowledged it would be difficult to enforce."

This could cost the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars due to people hoarding bottles. Indeed, the Brewers Retail is about to go out and advertise, saying to people, "Collect up your bottles and save them

up and take them in." These are bottles on which people have paid no deposit, but they'll be able to collect one back. It's taxpayers' money. How could you possibly enter into a scheme where you have no answer as to what is going to happen with

these tens and tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money that could be paid out to people who bring in bottles on which they have paid no deposit? How could you be that incompetent?

Hon. Mr. Caplan: It gets better because, in fact, Doug Reycraft of the Association of Municipalities says that the LCBO deposit return makes good environmental and economical sense for

Ontario's municipalities. The only one who seems opposed to a deposit-return system is the member opposite. One day he was in favour, now he's opposed.

But it gets better: Former Conservative member, now Niagara regional chair, Peter Partington: "Ontario municipalities have been asking the province for decades to implement a deposit-return program on beverage

containers. This announcement is welcome news and will assist us in meeting our waste diversion goal."

Municipalities, alcohol beverage stakeholders and environmentalists know the leadership that Premier McGuinty has shown and know the lack of leadership that exists on that side of the House.

HIGH-SPEED TRAIN ROUTE

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Weston is a vibrant community in the city of Toronto, but today the community of Weston is at risk. The McGuinty

government is about to rubber-stamp the terms of reference for an environmental assessment process that could result in the community of Weston being cut in two by a private high-speed train route.

Premier, Weston residents were promised a full and meaningful environmental assessment of the socioeconomic and environmental impacts of alternative routes. Before any environmental assessment can go forward,

your government has to set the terms of reference. My question: Will the McGuinty government listen to the Weston residents and reject the narrow terms of reference that are before your government today?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): To the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield (Minister of Transportation): I thank the member for the question. The province is committed to hearing from all sides with regard to this particular issue. In fact,

I've met with the Weston folks myself. The terms of reference will be for a full environmental assessment. I believe that there are a significant number of alternatives that will be addressed in a full environmental assessment and that there are

options that are available that are out there and which will come to light in terms of a full environmental assessment. So we are committed to hearing from a wide range and a full variety of folks on an environmental assessment that will look at

all forms of options and alternatives in terms of looking at a broader transit strategy.

Mr. Hampton: I still didn't hear an answer to my question. What we know now is that the terms of reference before the McGuinty government are rather narrow. The people of Weston do not want to

see their main street chopped in half and shut down. They don't want to see 144 trains blasting through their community at 75 kilometres an hour every day. The Environmental Assessment Act requires a thorough examination of alternatives, yet the

terms of reference before the McGuinty government now barely look at alternative routes.

My question is very specific. Are you going to ensure that the narrow terms of reference that are before you now are rejected? Are you going to ensure that there is meaningful consideration of alternative

routes from a socio-economic perspective and an environmental perspective? Yes or no?

Hon. Mrs. Cansfield: The member simply doesn't understand the word "full." "Full" means that it looks at the entire impact on the community. Also, obviously the member hasn't been listening

throughout the last few months when we've speaking about the whole concept of sustainable transportation, where we're now talking about inter-modal transportation, about broader strategies of transportation, that we're not looking at just one

specific but at a broad context with respect to how we deal with transportation in this province, which includes public transportation, rail transportation, marine transportation and land transportation. So when we say "a full environmental

assessment," of course it includes everything. Again, I just say to the member, what part of "full" does he not understand?

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

Mr. Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Our diversity is one of our most valuable assets. It's an asset that previous governments

had virtually ignored. The McGuinty government has demonstrated that newcomers are essential to Ontario's future growth.

Ontario received more than 50% of newcomers to Canada, and over 60% of adult newcomers to Ontario have at least some post-secondary education. Each year, 18% of working immigrants who enter Ontario hope to

find work in a regulated profession or trade.

Peel region welcomed 74,000 of these immigrants in the period of 2003-05. Many of these newcomers chose to settle in my riding of Mississauga East. The McGuinty government has invested a total of over $320,000

in Mississauga East agencies, such as the Dixie Bloor Neighbourhood Centre and the Maximilian Kolbe Foundation, to assist these newcomers in the area of integration.

Minister, my question is, can you explain how the new ESL and FSL initiatives are so important to the success of our newcomers?

Hon. Mike Colle (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): I thank the member from Mississauga East for the question. The major change is that the non-credit ESL for adults has been brought

language barriers.

Mr. Fonseca: Along with those investments that you listed, this year you introduced Bill 124, the Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act. I understand that it's gone through second reading

this fall and is currently going through committee process. The proposed legislation includes a new access centre for internationally trained individuals, the first of its kind, and is designed to help newcomers navigate through the registration

system.

Minister, for those in my riding of Mississauga East who are internationally trained, being able to access this information readily is important when seeking opportunity to practise in their profession or

trade. Could you tell us what this proposed access centre will do to break down those barriers?

Hon. Mr. Colle: This centre -- an access, research and resource centre for the internationally trained -- would be a mentorship centre, providing mentorship networks and also internship

networks all across the province, while at the same time helping newcomers through professional staff within the government giving support to people trying to access this complex system of professional accreditation. The resources will be there,

the proper counselling and supports will be there, and also the promotion of internships, mentorships, and the linking of foreign-trained professionals with our 80 partners across the province that help newcomers. So the access centre is a

critical component of Bill 124.

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): I want to ask the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities about apprenticeships and specifically about electrical trade apprenticeships. Minister, I want

you to look to the gallery above you. Sitting there are a number of young Ontarians who all want to become electricians. Each of these Ontarians has brought with them today their prospective employer, an electrical contractor who is interested in

hiring them as electrical trade apprentices but can't because of the regulations governing journeyman-apprenticeship ratios. Minister, will you draft new regulations that will ensure that these young people can get an apprenticeship position in

their chosen field?

Hon. Christopher Bentley (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): To ensure that there are more positions in the trades, we have the apprenticeship training tax credit, which

enhances the incentive for employers to take on apprentices; we've invested in in-class placements to ensure that, once they get their place, they will be able to carry through; we have invested in additional programs to ensure that those who need

to can get from high school to employers; and we've set up an apprenticeship action table to work with businesses, contractors, labour unions and educators to find the issues, such as ratios, which might be holding apprentices back, but to ensure

that those who are taken on are taken on where it's safe, where they're going to get the type of apprenticeship experience they need to pass, to become journeypersons. At the end of the day, it's all about ensuring that we have the right supply of

skilled journeypersons for the businesses and labour in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Wilson: Safety is a red herring that people use because they don't want to change the ratios. Nine other provinces and territories have accepted a one-to-one ratio --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Order.

The member for Simcoe-Grey.

Mr. Wilson: Nine other provinces and territories, including BC and Alberta, have accepted a one-to-one ratio between journeyman and electrical apprentice. You are simply in the pockets of the

union, Minister. You will not change the ratios. What could be safer -- use your brain -- than one electrician and one electrical apprentice? What could be safer? And yet you use that excuse, and the excuse has been used for years.

You have lost manufacturing jobs to the tune of 113,000 in the last 18 months in this province. You've got young people sitting above you today, with their prospective employers. If you would only make a small

regulatory change, they could get on with their lives and get a good job in the electrical field.

Hon. Mr. Bentley: Eight and a half years you sat in the Legislature, and in eight and a half years you did nothing: didn't invest in the programs, didn't invest in the placements, didn't

invest in the apprenticeship training tax credit. Where was the passion and the fire and the energy then? It was absent. In fact, he would know that the ratio is one-to-one, two-to-one, and it only does not vary at the one-to-one above five.

But I will say very directly to him and to those who want to be apprentices that health and safety is never an irrelevant issue. Some 300,000 people were injured in the province of Ontario when we became the

government. They cut health and safety inspectors. We restored them. We're reducing the injuries. We want you to get a job but we want you to stay alive. That's our commitment now, today, and always in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is for the Premier. I'm asking the Premier this question because it involves many ministries.

very barriers. Ontario now seeks ways to engage citizens, with their government and their communities, in electoral change. Barriers to access to democratic and electoral processes are still continuing to face persons with disabilities, those

candidates, volunteers and electors during provincial and municipal elections.

Elections Act and the Municipal Elections Act to ensure equal access for candidates, volunteers and electors to be allowed to participate fully and, most importantly, to ensure that ballots are available in accessible formats?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): As you know, this House has adopted unanimously the Ontarians with

Disabilities Act in May 2005. Since then, we have been working very hard. We are developing standards to ensure that all Ontario will be fully accessible by 2025. When I say that, 2025 is the end, not the beginning. So my ministry is working very

hard and very closely with the employer community, with the municipalities, with all sectors in developing standards to ensure that Ontario will be fully accessible.

We already have two standards that have been developed, and we are working on the third standard. We are choosing the members of this committee, and we will move forward soon on the third one.

Mr. Prue: Madam Minister, between now and 2025 there will be at least four more municipal elections and five provincial elections. My question has to do with the electoral process and how the

disabled get involved. In the spirit of this International Day of Disabled Persons, will you make a commitment to introduce and pass a government bill to include regulations on funding guidelines in the Elections Act and the Municipal Elections

Act for access and accommodation provisions for persons with disabilities who are candidates, volunteers and electors, and will you do that prior to the upcoming provincial election so that they can be full participants in that election?

Hon. Mrs. Meilleur: I want to repeat what I've already said. We are working very closely with the business community, with the public and private sectors to ensure that Ontario will be fully

accessible by 2025. We're not going to amend the legislation right now. We have to work with all our partners in the community to develop these standards, and so far it has been working very well and we have everybody on board. We will continue to

prepare for a fully accessible Ontario by 2025.

BOTTLE RECYCLING

Mr. Bas Balkissoon (Scarborough-Rouge River): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Minister, my constituents are thrilled to hear that our government will be implementing a

deposit-return system for LCBO containers beginning in February 2005. I'm proud to be part of a government that is offering Ontarians more opportunity to do their

part in protecting the environment and in strengthening recycling in this province.

Ontarians and municipalities have been asking for a deposit-return system for years, yet the previous Conservative and NDP governments decided to ignore Ontarians and turn their backs on an initiative that will keep our province clean and

green.

Minister, please tell the obviously confused members of the Conservative and NDP caucuses about this great environmental initiative.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten (Minister of the Environment): I want to thank the member for the question. I want to say to his community of Scarborough-Rouge River to all Ontarians thank you for

embracing this exciting new initiative in Ontario. Ontarians right across the province are telling me that they are anxiously awaiting February 2007. And why are they awaiting and why are they anxious to see this deposit-return program come into

place? They are so anxious because deposit-return will help protect the environment and will build a better sustainable future for all of us.

Unlike the members opposite, who chose to ignore the call of municipalities and environmentalists alike who wanted to ensure that our bottles were diverted from landfill, because that is the goal of this

program -- in fact, the Leader of the Opposition continues to be against such a program. This is about finding ways to reduce waste. It's one of the most important issues facing our municipalities. We're pleased to be working with AMO and others

to deliver, on February 1, 2007, an opportunity to better --

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Balkissoon: Minister, when the Premier announced our deposit-return program back in September, he said that our program has the potential to divert 80 million bottles a year from landfill

-- wow; 80 million bottles. Clearly, a deposit-return system is the right thing to do for the environment. Obviously, the members of the Conservative and NDP caucuses have turned their backs on yet another good environmental initiative.

Even though my constituents love the blue box and recognize the blue box's great success at diverting recyclables from landfill, the reason many of my constituents have wanted to see a deposit-return system is

because they believe it will divert even more containers from landfills, especially when they see that many of the bottles they put into the blue box often break. Minister, how will a deposit-return system for LCBO containers improve waste

diversion in Ontario?

Hon. Ms. Broten: You're quite right that this will divert some 80 million bottles from landfill. You only need to go to one of our sorting facilities for recyclables to see what happens when

the glass bottles we put into our blue box program are broken. This diversion program will ensure that our blue box is freed up to put other products in so that we can continue to divert waste, and that our beverage containers are used to their

highest and best use in end uses like glass bottles or fibreglass insulation. It is a call to action across Ontario so that Ontarians know that when they're making the effort and diverting that waste, it will not end up back in landfill. We will

build on the success of the blue box. We will divert 80 million bottles from landfill, and that will ensure a cleaner, greener future for generations to come.

OBSTETRICAL CARE

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. What are you doing to address the upcoming closure of the maternity ward and birthing unit at

Stevenson Memorial Hospital in Alliston?

Hon. George Smitherman (Deputy Premier, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): We're working vigorously across all quarters to enhance access to health care services in the province of

Ontario. We think that it's crucial that all of these services, including those mentioned by the honourable member, be provided in a fashion that appropriately balances out the capabilities of doing them in all local communities and the necessity

of ensuring that they're done on a platform that offers the maximum safety for all involved. So I want to say that this is a matter that continues to receive the appropriate attention, and I look forward to the honourable member's

supplementary.

Mr. Wilson: Last Wednesday, over 500 citizens gathered in Alliston to express their outrage that their local birthing unit will be shut down and there was no public consultation. Apparently,

your ministry is in cahoots with the hospital board. You have provided $1.5 million to convert the maternity ward to a women's wellness centre, with no birthing unit and without consulting the community or me.

Minister, the message from the public meeting is clear: Women in my community want to give birth in Alliston. By closing the local maternity ward, women will be forced to travel 45 minutes to Southlake

hospital in Newmarket to give birth. Why don't you spend the $1.5 million on finding new obstetricians for Stevenson Memorial Hospital so that women in my community can give birth in Alliston?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: Speaking of daddies, this is awfully rich coming from the honourable member who, more than any other person in this Legislature, caused doctor shortages. It was under his

auspices --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: Oh, the truth is striking the honourable member a little too close to his core. Perhaps it is that the honourable member is offended that people --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Order. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: What we really saw in the honourable member's question was a level of sadness on his part associated with the fact that the local hospital board chooses not to see him as

relevant. But that's not my decision; that's a decision that was agreed upon locally. I recommend to the honourable member that he seek to be more actively engaged in the lifeblood of the Alliston community.

In the meantime, we think it's important that obstetrical services be provided on a platform which, at the heart of it, is safe. It is not practical to provide this in every quarter. All of the evidence, all

the clinical data, is so clear that it is necessary to provide these services on a platform where there is volume. And we've worked hard to enhance midwifery services in the Alliston community as one --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): To the Premier: When the McGuinty government presented your scheme to privatize Ontario's human rights, some of Ontario's most vulnerable citizens

objected. They objected to your scheme to force them to pay out of pocket to defend their human rights. Most importantly, your government had not bothered to talk to them about your scheme. Then you promised to hold broad public hearings, broad

public consultation. You promised to listen. But now you're going to cancel the public hearings and you're going to deny democracy.

Premier, how do you justify cancelling what you promised and denying the most fundamental democratic right to citizens of this province: the right to be heard on important human rights legislation?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): To the Attorney General.

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General): In fact, the government did listen and benefited from actually years and years of consultation -- task force, commission and more -- and of course a

tremendous amount of debate in this Legislature. Very importantly as well, the input was received in the hearings that took place across the province. So we received recommendations from a nu