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

February 23, 2005

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2005-Feb-23 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 23 February 2005 Mercredi 23 février 2005

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

CHINESE NEW YEAR

HEALTH CARE

ROTARY CLUBS

GREENBELT

MADDY HARPER

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

MEMBER FOR GLENGARRY-PRESCOTT-RUSSELL

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

SANDRA LANG

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO

HYDRO RATES

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

CHILD CARE

FOOD SAFETY

FOREST INDUSTRY

PROPERTY TAXATION

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING

PIKANGIKUM FIRST NATION

SCHOOL SAFETY

MUSKOKA WHARF PROJECT

HIGHWAY 406

COMMUNITY USE OF SCHOOLS

PETITIONS

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

ABORTION

CONTROL OF SMOKING

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SPOUSAL RELATIONSHIPS

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES UNIONS CONJUGALES

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): Last night in my riding of Durham, I had the occasion to attend an information meeting at the Scugog arena. It was a

meeting arranged by the Lanark Landowners' Association, along with other leaders in agriculture from my riding and, indeed, across Ontario.

Agriculture today in Ontario, and perhaps in Canada, is in crisis. The agricultural community was there in big numbers. It was the largest crowd that I have been

part of in my riding with respect to this issue for many, many years. There were speakers like Randy Hillier, John Vanderspank and Merle Bowes. On top of that, we had Joe Hickson, who spoke, and

Bill Hasiuk, who was moderator for the evening, and the Frews, Mr. Bert Werry, and many leaders -- Anna Bragg -- as well as others who are well known, not just in my riding but as leaders in

agriculture in Ontario.

The issue here is low commodity prices, rising costs of production and machinery and supplies, the rising Canadian dollar, besides the issues of BSE, source

water protection, nutrient management and the intimidation, almost, by the enforcement branch of the Ministry of the Environment.

Countless letters have been sent to the Premier and to the minister -- the minister is here today. Minister Peters simply has not responded, and some suggest

that he simply doesn't get it.

Agriculture is critical to the quality of life we've known and the quality of our families and the communities in Ontario. I ask the House to recognize the

importance of agriculture in Ontario.

CHINESE NEW YEAR

Mr. Tony C. Wong (Markham): On Wednesday, February 9, about half a million Chinese Ontarians celebrated the arrival of Chinese New Year. Each

year the Chinese New Year celebration falls on the date of the first new moon on the Chinese lunar calendar.

The Chinese New Year celebration lasts a total of 15 days, until Yuen Sui or Feast of the Lantern. In 2005 the celebration lasts until today, February 23. The

12-year cycle in the Chinese calendar recognizes each of a dozen animals, and 2005 is the Year of the Rooster. People born in the Year of the Rooster -- 1921, 1933, 1945, 1957, 1969, 1981, 1993 and

2005 -- are deep thinkers, capable and talented, but they are also known to be a bit eccentric, always think they are right, and usually are.

Like our own New Year's celebration on January 1, Chinese New Year is about reflecting on the past and looking forward to the future. It is also time to spend

time with one's family and honour one's ancestors and elders. The Chinese New Year's Eve gathering is among the most important family occasions of the year.

I know that many of you have been busy attending and taking

part in Chinese New Year celebrations in your own communities. In China, businesses, schools and

governments close for one week to allow citizens to celebrate the arrival of the new year. We don't have that in Ontario yet.

To all of my colleagues, Xin Nian Kwai Le -- Happy New Year.

HEALTH CARE

Mr. Cameron Jackson (Burlington): I want to share with the House just how badly the citizens of Halton region in Burlington have suffered under

the McGuinty Liberals with their mismanagement of Ontario's health care system because they have no plan to assist this province with its health care needs.

At 10 o'clock on Monday of this week, I was informed by one family -- this man's wife was scheduled for surgery at 10. It was cancelled at 10 to 10 on the basis

that there was not a single bed available in the hospital for once she came out of surgery. I have since learned there were five surgeries cancelled between last Friday and Monday.

At 11 o'clock, I got a phone call from a constituent of mine in Florida. Her husband had had a heart attack. The insurance company is prepared to pay all of his

health care needs in Florida and pay for an air ambulance. They can't get him out of Florida because they can't find a single bed in the Hamilton area.

By the end of the day, I received a call from an ODSP recipient in my riding. Her disposable income at the end of the month is $60. She needs a medication that

is available to the people in this province if they can come up with $175 a month to pay for their medication. We applied for a

section 8 from the Ministry of Health. We called this week and asked

them, and they told us that they are now just starting to receive applications from last November. That means there is a five-month wait for

section 8 applications for people in this province for

their medications.

This is mismanagement. There is no plan, there are no beds, and we can thank the Liberal government for that.

ROTARY CLUBS

Mr. Wayne Arthurs (Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge): I rise in the House today to commemorate the 100th anniversary of Rotary International. Rotary is a

worldwide organization of business and professional leaders that provides humanitarian service and promotes goodwill throughout the world, through clubs that are without political or religious

affiliations and are open to all cultures, races and creeds.

The Rotary Club of Chicago was formed on February 23, 1905. Today approximately 1.2 million Rotarians belong to more than 31,000 Rotary clubs in 166 countries.

During and after World War II, Rotarians became increasingly involved in promoting international understanding, and since 1945 have been actively involved with the United Nations. Rotary has made a

commitment to immunize all the world's children against polio, becoming the largest private sector contributor to the global polio eradication campaign and immunizing more than one billion children

worldwide.

The Rotary club motto, "Service Above Self," is demonstrated through projects that address issues such as children at risk, poverty and hunger, and literacy and

violence. As all members of the Legislature are aware, our Rotary community clubs support programs for youth, international exchanges for students, teachers and other professionals, and career

development.

Recently I had the opportunity to speak to the Rotary Club of Agincourt. I know my colleague and minister Gerry Phillips, Chair of Management Board of Cabinet,

salutes and attests to the vital role that the Rotary Club of Agincourt plays in serving the Scarborough-Agincourt riding, and the importance of individuals such as Ajit Deshmukh, director of club

services.

In my riding of Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge, local Rotary clubs led by Kerin Lloyd, Gordon Dyck and Tom Clarkson support projects such as Easter Seals of Durham,

United Way of Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge, and the Big Brothers of Ajax-Pickering, just to name a few.

I invite all members of provincial Parliament to join me in congratulating Rotary district governor Lars Henriksson and local Rotary clubs on their anniversary

and in offering them our greatest appreciation for all they have contributed to our communities.

GREENBELT

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): Greenbelt property owners and farmers in the greenbelt area will be very upset to hear that we anticipate third

reading of the greenbelt legislation tonight and a vote soon this week. Dalton McGuinty and John Gerretsen are saying on this, "Trust us; we're going to get it right," but trusting Dalton

McGuinty's Liberals is like standing next to Pinocchio and hoping you don't get poked in the eye.

There are so many questions left unanswered here. The minister claims to have a large consultation, but one wonders why they have not brought forward a corrected

map. We anticipate some 2,000 or so errors in that map.

Their own advisory committee called for a greenbelt agricultural support plan to help greenbelt farmers. Did they do it? No.

Their own greenbelt advisory committee called for an appellate tribunal to make sure there's a fair, transparent and science-based process. Did they do it?

No.

As well, we've asked for the science to be publicly displayed. Any good scientist puts his or her science out for public review, but did the McGuinty government

put out their science? No.

In fact, there is no science, beyond political science. There is no plan for greenbelt farmers. There is no plan for greenbelt municipalities. Trusting this

government to get it right is like trusting one of those Enron accountants.

We're going to vote against that "greenbotch" legislation.

MADDY HARPER

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I stand today in the Legislature to honour the contributions of a young student in East York: Maddy

Harper, a 17-year-old student at East York Collegiate in Beaches-East York. Her compassion for those less fortunate led her to do something that I think many teenagers would not do, and that is to

share her hair.

After deciding it was time for a change, she was determined to put her shorn blonde locks to good use by donating them to the Canadian Cancer Society, with the

hopes that they would be used to make wigs for children of cancer who have lost their own hair. Motivated by a desire to do something positive amidst all of the things that are happening in our

city, Maddy's act of kindness was about a year in the making and finally came to fruition when she found out exactly how to get involved with this worthy project. Not only did Maddy donate over 14

inches of her hair to the Canadian Cancer Society; she took it upon herself to create and distribute pledge packages to various people, raising over $1,300 in pledges for the program.

Like many of us who have dealt with the anxiety of making the transition from "long" to "gone," Maddy says that the usual uneasiness that comes from the change

was instead replaced by the warm feelings of following her convictions. She said, "It made me happy to know that someone could enjoy something that I've enjoyed for so long."

Like Maddy, the University of Toronto's Cuts for Cancer program is committed to making a difference in the lives of those touched by cancer. Last year, they

collected $20,000 for wigs and over $17,000 for the Canadian Cancer Society. The University of Toronto Cuts for Cancer is hosting their 2005 event on March 7, 2005. The hair is donated to Angel

Hair for Kids, and your support is needed. Follow Maddy's lead and show that you care with your hair.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

Mr. Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): Today is budget day in Ottawa. As Parliament Hill in Ottawa fills with the bright lights of media cameras, we

ask Ontario's federal MPs to remember the people of Ontario and how much they contribute to Canada's strength. Ontarians are proud Canadians. Ontario has always given its fair share to Canada, and

now we are asking for our fair share in return. We need to reduce the $23-billion gap between what Ontarians pay and what we get back from Ottawa. We need to keep more of Ontario's money here in

Ontario, invested in the things that will help us to create the wealth that we and our fellow Canadians rely on.

We aren't the only ones who are asking for fairness. The Ontario Hospital Association, the Ontario Medical Association, the Registered Nurses Association of

Ontario, the Ontario Long Term Care Association, the Ontario Home Care Association, the Ontario Community Support Association and the Ontario Association for Non-Profit Homes and Services for

Seniors all sent a letter to Prime Minister Martin yesterday which reads, "We fully endorse the unanimous resolution of the Ontario Legislature on February 21, 2005, calling on Ottawa to narrow the

$23-billion gap in net contributions from Ontarians to the federation."

There is a $23-billion gap between what Ontarians give to Ottawa and what they get back. Ontario deserves its fair share so that we can continue to invest in the

services and programs that Ontarians value most -- health care, education and transportation -- so we can create the wealth that we and our fellow Canadians rely on.

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mr. Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): As members of the House will know, last week we learned quite suddenly that all six doctors

presently practising at the Geraldton Medical Clinic are planning to terminate their services in less than three months' time. While this is obviously not the kind of news that one wants to hear, I

am certainly gratified by the response and follow-up that have taken place since the public notice of the doctors' decision a week ago today.

Immediately upon hearing the news, Health Minister George Smitherman spoke with me and Greenstone Mayor Michael Power to indicate that the full resources of his

ministry would be employed to resolve the situation and to maintain physician services at the clinic and Geraldton District Hospital.

Since that time, Mayor Power and I have had a number of conversations and meetings with senior ministry officials to explore some of the options to deal with

this on both a short- and long-term basis. This included a meeting that Mayor Power and I had with the minister yesterday, where he reaffirmed his commitment to help us meet this difficult

challenge.

Thanks also have to go out to various health care providers from all across the province who have come forward to offer their help. While we are still not in a

position to make any announcements regarding a firm resolution to this situation, it is reassuring to know that so many are prepared to help.

For my part, I continue to hope that at least some of the doctors in Geraldton may be prepared to show some flexibility related to their departure date. That

will certainly be one of the areas that I hope to directly explore when Mayor Power and I meet with the doctors and the hospital board next week.

Regardless, I want to assure all my constituents who are impacted by this decision that solving this problem is an absolute top priority for me, for our

government, as well as for Mayor Power and Greenstone council. Our focus shall remain firmly on seeing that doctors' services remain available in the Geraldton-Nakina-Longlac area.

MEMBER FOR GLENGARRY-PRESCOTT-RUSSELL

Mr. Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): I'm proud to speak to the House today about a great honour bestowed upon our friend and colleague Jean-Marc

Lalonde, the MPP for the remarkable riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. That honour is the Chevalier de la Légion d'honneur medal. This medal is awarded by the Order of the Legion of Honour,

years of outstanding public or military service.

This very prestigious medal was awarded to Jean-Marc Lalonde by the ambassador of France in Canada, M. Daniel Jouanneau, on January 20, 2005, in recognition

of his 34 years of public service in Canada and for his tireless work to make Ottawa and its surrounding municipalities a full-fledged bilingual community, complete with francophone schools and a

as Jean-Marc Lalonde.

Jean-Marc Lalonde is most deserving of this medal, not only for the outstanding work he does for the francophone communities at home but also for his hard work

in promoting Ontario in French-speaking countries. Most business from these countries, at this point, is done with the province of Quebec. Jean-Marc Lalonde is making sure that it is also good to

do business in Ontario in French. Fantastique, Jean-Marc Lalonde. Quel honneur fantastique et spectaculaire. Très bien, Jean-Marc Lalonde.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received the report on intended appointments, dated February

23, 2005, of the standing committee on government agencies. Pursuant to standing order 106(e)(9), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal): Mr. Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to put forward a motion without

notice regarding committees.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Do we have consent for this motion to be moved by the member? Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Caplan: I move that, notwithstanding the order of the House dated June 17, 2004, the standing committee on general government may meet

this week at the call of the Chair, and that standing order 74 be waived for the purposes of any such meeting.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

SANDRA LANG

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to do a tribute to Sandra

Lang.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon. Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children and Youth Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I rise

today on behalf of the government to pay tribute to Sandra Lang, undoubtedly one of the finest professionals and one of the finest people to serve the province of Ontario.

Sandy passed away this week after a battle with brain cancer. Sandy was the first deputy minister for the new Ministry of Children and Youth Services, helping

establish a ministry that would give children and youth the strongest voice in government that they ever had. This was the fourth ministry she served as deputy, the final brush strokes on a

masterpiece career. Even though the job of deputy minister of children's services didn't exist until after she retired, I know it was the job she dreamed about. So it wasn't hard to lure her back

from retirement to build an organization that would support every child in Ontario, and I am very glad she did.

When it came to advocating for the rights of children and youth, Sandy would not settle for no. In fact, transferring youth justice -- both phases -- to the new

children's ministry was a condition for her return. As everyone in this House knows, there are many battles to be waged in the course of developing new policies and shifting to new priorities.

Sandy repeatedly told me to keep my focus on the children and she'd take care of the rest.

Most deputy ministers toil in relative anonymity. They're well-known here at Queen's Park and among certain organized stakeholders, but few people in the

province know how much someone like Sandy has contributed to their lives. She simply got things done. We would often tease each other, in fact, on which one of us was the bold politician and which

was the cautious bureaucrat.

Serving in the highest levels of civil service under NDP, Conservative and Liberal governments, Sandy delivered and implemented complex and often controversial

policies. She engineered change. As Deputy Minister of Consumer and Business Services, Sandy led the process of modernizing the way government delivers services to the people and businesses of

Ontario; as Deputy Minister of Health, she initiated restructuring of the ministry into a more consumer-oriented organization; and as Deputy Minister of Community and Social Services, she oversaw

major reform in Ontario's welfare system.

Her greatest strength was that she embraced her team. She had a talent for surrounding herself with the best people, and as a skilled leader she was able to

get the most creativity and the best performance out of those people. There was a saying among senior officials in the government: "Hide your good people. Sandy Lang is in the building."

When we established the first ministry in Ontario dedicated to children and youth, Sandy knew we would need top people, and she left us with an outstanding

team. Those of us collectively entrusted with her legacy will work every day to bring that same commitment to excellence that Sandy embodied in her more than 25 years of public service.

Although she retired -- again -- in June, we called on her frequently for advice and planned to continue to look to her for her sage counsel. We will all miss

her professionally, and we will most certainly miss her as a friend. As much as she was a strong leader, she was a warm friend. She was a wonderfully engaging person to find yourself in a

conversation with. Her passion for golf and wine was legendary. She couldn't talk me into the former, but I was very lucky to taste her fine wines many times as we got initiatives through the

process.

Her passion spoke to her natural tendency to be with people -- talking, challenging, inspiring, but always welcoming.

We extend our warmest thoughts to Sandy's family: to her sisters and her nieces and nephews who were such an inspiration to her, and to her many family,

friends and colleagues whose lives she so enriched.

I am grateful for having worked for her -- with her. A Freudian slip, "for her"; you always felt you were working for her even when you were working with her,

and it was a pleasure. I learned from her at what I believe was her professional peak. It certainly was mine. I am honoured to stand and recognize her outstanding career and friendship.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leader of the Opposition): I want to offer a few comments with respect to Sandy Lang's life and passing. I will be

sharing my party's time with the member from Lanark-Carleton and, if time permits, the member from Erie-Lincoln.

I have had the good fortune to serve in the cabinets of three different Premiers, and through that worked closely with a number of deputy ministers, all of

them dedicated and competent people, but for me and many others, Sandy Lang stood out. She was the poster person for how a senior public servant should perform his or her job.

Sandy was not just an outstanding public servant; she was a wonderful, caring, fun-loving human being and, as the minister pointed out, one heck of a golfer.

She taught me more than a few lessons in humility on the golf course. I always said it was because she used the women's tees, but of course she was just flat-out better -- embarrassingly

better.

I remember, when I was appointed Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, meeting Sandy and thinking, "This isn't going to be the most comfortable

relationship" -- no doubt she had similar thoughts -- "this law-and-order Tory and this soft-spoken lady who specialized in the softer side of government," but somehow we grew on each other and

developed a friendship and respect for one another that lasted over the years.

Like so many others, I was devastated late last year when I was told that Sandy was terminally ill. Shortly after hearing that news, I said a few words about

her and her health challenges during a debate in the House, and the very next day Sandy called to thank me. She also gave me some encouraging news: that her tumour had been recently deemed operable

and that she now had at least a fighting chance to win this battle. But it wasn't to be. She did not win the battle, and that is a very difficult thing for all of us who cared so deeply for her to

accept. It's one of those situations where death seems so unfair.

Sandy had worked so hard, given so much, and now, with retirement in her grasp, her hopes, dreams and plans were taken away.

To Sandy's partner, her family and friends, I want to express my deep sadness on her passing and convey the condolences of the Progressive Conservative

caucus.

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): I just want to associate myself with the remarks of both my colleagues to date. As you know, Sandra

Lang served as my deputy at the Ministry of Consumer and Business Services. I think that the most noteworthy part of her character was the ability to have everyone work with her to achieve the

goal.

When I visited her wake on Monday afternoon, I was struck by the number of comments that I received from her friends, her nieces and her nephews about her

decision to go back and head up the new children's services ministry. That was out of her drive and her love particularly for children and her focus on children.

We have said a lot of good things about her abilities in her job, but I think the most memorable part of Sandy's character that will live with me forever is

that, in spite of very difficult tasks, it always seemed at the end of the day that it was fun to be with her, that there was no hostility left in the room and that everybody walked out feeling

good regardless of the result. In some ways, that is a small picture of her life: that although we were sitting around talking and commiserating about her on Monday afternoon, the people in the

room felt good about their relationship with Sandy and all she had done for our province, our children of our province and her many, many friends.

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I wanted to add my thoughts and comments, as did my colleagues, on Sandy Lang and her passing. I had the

pleasure of serving with Sandy Lang when I became the consumer and business services minister in the spring of 2002.

Members have talked about her dedication and passion for promoting Ontario wine. We saw her support for consumers in the province of Ontario. Among others, it

was a pleasure to serve with her, and an honour. I also had the honour of being there upon her retirement, and I remember the room: the justifiable pride that people had in the work she had done

here at Queen's Park, the sense of team she developed, the love for her that the people had who were gathered to see her off, and her excitement at the time ahead of her. Even in that short time,

she returned to her true passion, as my colleague said: the dedication to vulnerable children and to youth.

It's tragic that her time in retirement was far too short, but I can say: an exemplary individual, a model deputy minister, and those of us who worked with her

can just begin to understand how much she will be missed.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I, too, as a member of the New Democratic caucus, want to share our condolences with her family and

with, I would argue, the family of government that is responsible for doing all of the work that we decide to give them direction to when it comes to initiatives through this assembly and through

cabinet.

It has been said that this particular individual is a person who had a passion for her work but, more importantly, had a love of life, and was able to marry

those two things in a unique way. That says testimonies about her. We all know in this business that we, as politicians, and sometimes bureaucrats, take ourselves a little bit too seriously. I

think Sandy understood, to a certain degree, that you need to be able to balance those two things off, because after all, we are all here, no matter what party we are from or where in the civil

service we find ourselves, for but one person, and that is the people whom we serve in this great province of Ontario, the citizens of this province. That's something that I think she remembered

and brought with her all the way through her life.

I don't want to speak on the specifics of her time in the civil service. We understand as well as you, because she served as a deputy minister at the time we

were in government, and I would be repeating what was said. But what needs to be said is this: a person like Sandy works all her life to do the best she can, and the best we can, to make this place

-- this province of ours, and this earth -- a better place to live. You hope that you will be lucky enough in later life to enjoy your retirement, to enjoy the fruits of the labour of your life in

putting forward whatever you did in whatever capacity. The very sad thing is that a person like this can be taken down, like many other people in this province, by a terrible disease called

cancer.

We've seen it in our families, we've seen it in our group of friends and we've seen it in our communities. How many people in this province and across the

world suffer from cancer? Some are lucky enough to be survivors, but from time to time, people are not lucky and succumb to this disease. It says to us, when we have a moment like this, to ask

ourselves, "What can we do as human beings, not only in government but within the medical sciences and others, in order to do all that can be done to find cures and treatments for a disease like

this, so that people like Sandy can keep contributing to life and enjoying life, rather than being in the situation we are now?"

To the family, we offer our condolences and we say thank you for the time she was with us. We'll miss her.

The Speaker: Those are wonderful tributes, and I hope we can share those with the family.

Mr. Bisson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want to recognize our good friends from the town of Moosonee who are here: the mayor and

council. I want to welcome them to the Assembly.

I know I was supposed to see you, Speaker, but I didn't get a chance.

The Speaker: Not only should you come and see me, but that's not a point of order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Premier. As he well knows, it's difficult to ask questions, given

what has preceded today, but it's our job to do that.

My question is with respect to something your energy minister announced earlier today, when he billed your new energy pricing scheme as good news for

job-creating industrial users of energy. As of April 1, however, industrial power users such as Ontario's auto industry will be paying 12% more for power than they did last year.

When you were energy critic, if you can remember back that far, you said: "Rising electricity rates are making it difficult for us to both attract new

businesses and keep our existing businesses here." Who are we to believe, Premier: your energy minister, who says a 12% increase in energy costs for job-creating industry is good news, or you? You

are on the record as saying just the opposite.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I know the Minister of Energy would like to speak to this.

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): The member opposite has taken certain things a little bit out of context,

and I'd like to put them into some context.

First of all, we didn't say "12%"; we said "between 8% and 12%," and that is compared to last year.

Interjection: And what happened last year?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: Yes, and what happened last year? Prices went down 19% last year, even though your party and members opposite argued that

under our plan, prices would skyrocket by 30% to 40%. Prices went down 19% last year. Relative to the price of electricity for large consumers when we took office, it's 1.9% higher -- lower than

the price of inflation. Finally, that price is for three years of transition to allow them to develop.

I was pleased when Dofasco and Inco, the largest members of AMPCO, endorsed our policy today, saying it was prudent, responsible and sustainable -- something

that your party has no experience with.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): I want to remind members that the Speaker is this way, if you could address the Speaker. I'm having

difficulty finding out to whom they are addressing questions and answers.

Mr. Runciman: Only a Liberal would suggest that an 8% to 12% increase is good news. If it is such good news, as the minister is suggesting

here, I repeat a question asked by the third party earlier this week: Why are you hiding this announcement on federal budget day? If you're so proud of this, if this is such wonderful, great news

for power consumers in the province, why is it being announced on federal budget day?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: First of all, we are standing in the Legislature. There are reporters there. There were about 40 reporters and cameras at my

press conference. So there's absolutely nothing secret about this. These are difficult issues, there's no doubt, but unlike the previous government, we're tackling them. Unlike the previous

government, in our first year of office we saw a 19% decrease in the wholesale price of electricity. Unlike the previous government, we are stemming a $100-million-a-month hemorrhage from OPG that

nearly bankrupted OPG. Unlike the previous government, we're not seeing cost overruns on nuclear reactors in the vicinity of 300% to 400%.

This government is taking prudent, responsible and sustainable decisions, decisions that have been endorsed by groups as diverse as Dofasco and Inco. We're

meeting the challenge head-on, cleaning up the unfortunate mess the leader's party left behind when they left office 14 months ago.

Mr. Runciman: We'll see how much page space these 40 reporters get. The reality is that this announcement is being made today, federal budget

day, because this is not good news for people in Ontario; is not good news for job-creating industry in Ontario.

Minister, you've made a reckless promise to close all coal-fired plants by 2007. According to the IMO, as of 6 a.m. this morning, Ontario was relying on coal

for 24% of our power production. There's not one shovel in the ground now to replace that energy. We know that border states are expanding their coal power production. Massive new plants are

planned for Ohio and Colorado alone. According to the Ministry of the Environment, 50% of Ontario's smog originates in the United States. Closing Ontario's coal-fired plants will leave a gaping

hole of 7,500 megawatts in our own energy production.

Minister, is it your plan to close our coal-fired plants and then replace the lost energy production by importing electricity from new coal-fired plants just

across the border -- and their smog too? Is that your plan?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: Again I have to respond and put all the facts on the table. Yes, this morning -- it's a cold day in February -- coal plants

would be firing at about 24%. On average last year, coal consumption was 18%, down from 25% when you left office.

No shovel has gone in the ground because, in spite of what they promised on Lakeview, nothing had been done when we came to office. However, I inform the House

that we are going to close Lakeview on

schedule in April as the first step in achieving our coal goal. Second, this party and this Premier understand that the costs associated with coal, the cost

to human lives as pointed out by the OMA; the cost to children in terms of asthma -- childhood asthma levels are at an epidemic proportion -- is unacceptable and something we have to address.

Finally, I was pleased to hear last month that the state of New York is now looking at closing some of its coal plants. I don't want to imitate Ohio or West Virginia. We need a sustainable, greener

policy that will keep the energy sector vibrant.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leader of the Opposition): Again I will be going to the Premier. Most Ontarians now know that your government has

difficulty setting priorities and spending scarce tax dollars in the right places. Given your recent crying-poor efforts with the federal government, can you tell us if you were aware, and do you

endorse, the two-week assignment of highly paid staff in the Ministry of the Attorney General to research the best way to create a Stanley Cup confiscation photo op for the wannabe Premier, your

Attorney General? Did you know about and endorse this effort?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Let me just say off the top that, no, I was not aware of this. But I

can tell you that we are working as hard as we can and in as cost-effective a manner as we can. Just to remind Ontarians: The cabinet has taken a 25% pay cut, all MPPs have had their salaries

frozen, and our most senior civil servants have also agreed to have their pay frozen. So I'm proud of the record that we've established so early on of working as hard as we can in a cost-effective

way for the people of Ontario.

Mr. Runciman: Speaker, I hope you noted that the Premier didn't comment on whether he endorsed the activities of the Attorney General. I'm

told, Premier, that the average salary of lawyers working for the Attorney General is $120,000 a year. The Attorney General's personal aggrandizement effort, in just this one case, cost who knows

how many thousands of taxpayers' dollars -- this, when you're going cap in hand to the federal government pleading for additional money and when your Attorney General is closing down Canada's first

and highly successful office for victims of crime. Your headline-obsessed Attorney General shows more interest in outlawing a breed of dog than outlawing the breed of violent criminals shooting up

Toronto's streets. Premier, when will you take control and bring this Attorney General to heel?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Let me take the opportunity to remind the member opposite about some of the things that we have managed to do thus far in

government. This Attorney General has created an elite gangs-and-gun-crime task force, made up of police and crown attorneys, to help combat crime, and it is working. He has appointed 29 judges and

hired 50 new crown attorneys. He has managed to convince us to do the right thing and invest an additional $1 million in funding for the OPP's child pornography unit. He has introduced legislation

on the mandatory reporting of gunshot wounds in hospitals.

Those are some of the things that our Attorney General has done, and I'm sure that he has a lengthy agenda of other things that he wishes to do. I'm sure that

the member opposite is going to want to support us as we work together to make the streets of Ontario safer for all Ontarians.

Mr. Runciman: He also just spent thousands of tax dollars behind the Premier's back, and apparently that's OK. Premier, you just don't get it.

Public safety is not about getting your Attorney General's mug on the front page of the Toronto Star, and it's not about positioning himself for your job. Public safety is not enhanced when your

Attorney General takes attorneys away from prosecuting violent criminals and orders them to research how he can confiscate the Stanley Cup. Public safety is not enhanced when your Attorney General

closes down the office for victims of crime. Public safety is not enhanced with your government's refusal to take on the federal government for tougher penalties for gun use.

Premier, the pattern is clear. Your Attorney General has proved himself more interested in promoting himself than in protecting Ontarians. Will you take steps

to enhance public safety by directing your Attorney General to make prosecuting criminals, not self-promotion, his top priority?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: The only conclusion I can draw is that the member opposite wasn't listening. This Attorney General has provided us with

more judges, more crown attorneys, an elite guns-and-gangs task force, more money for the OPP to crack down on child pornography, new legislation to deal with the mandatory reporting of gunshot

wounds, and the list goes on. That is the record of this Attorney General. I'm proud of the efforts he is making on behalf of this government, but still more proud of the efforts he's making on

behalf of all Ontarians to ensure that they can enjoy safe streets.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Premier, Ontario industries, businesses, workers and families are

counting on your government to come up with a plan for Ontario's hydroelectricity system.

Today, they thought they were going to hear that plan. What they heard instead was a one-year patch job, an indication that your government doesn't have a

plan. In fact, roadside hucksters offer better guarantees on used cars than your government is offering Ontarians in terms of a hydroelectricity policy.

Premier, instead of making it up on the back of an envelope one year at a time, will you tell Ontario workers, industries and families what your plan is for

Ontario's hydroelectricity system?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The Minister of Energy.

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): Our plan is to undo the mess that the NDP and Conservative governments left

in the hydroelectric system over the last 14 years.

Last year we introduced Bill 4. The member opposite voted against having a cap on the price of electricity, and then he voted against taking it off. That's no

plan. Then we brought in Bill 100. We sent Bill 100, I remind the member, out to public hearings across the province. We had more than 150 delegations make presentations, and it was endorsed by all

the large industry participants in the energy sector. That policy is starting to take hold.

Early last year, the member said, "Prices for electricity this year will go up 30% to 40%." They went down 19%. The member opposite wouldn't know a plan if he

saw it. It's no wonder he can't see our plan. Our plan is stable, reliable and predictable, with greener electricity for all Ontarians.

Mr. Hampton: I think I know why the government tried to hide this announcement on Paul Martin's budget day. What became perfectly clear is

that everything the Premier and the Minister of Energy have been saying since Bill 100 and before was suddenly reversed today. When major power consumers came before you and before the committee

and said that the McGuinty hydroelectricity strategy was going to drive up industrial prices by 30% to 53%, you said no. But they've shown you that that is in fact going to happen, and what you did

today was slam on the brakes for a year. The question is -- and I know the Premier doesn't want to answer it -- where's the plan? Simply telling people that you're going to postpone something for a

year is not a plan. Where's the plan for Ontario's hydroelectricity system?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: Like I say, that member wouldn't recognize a plan if he saw one because of the mess they left hydro in. Again, I ask the

member opposite, is he happy or unhappy with what we've done today? I know that the plan we laid out in Bill 100 is being implemented today. I know that we have taken an honest, responsible

position with respect to pricing. Interestingly enough, the leader of the third party has been critical about us for doing this announcement in the House when the federal budget's sitting. Do you

know what happened on New Year's Eve --

Interjections.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): I want to hear that story.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. I would like to hear it too, if you would just direct your response to the Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the government Mr. Hampton was a member of announced price increases on New Year's Eve 1991, New Year's Eve 1992

and New Year's Eve 1993.

Finally, let me address this directly: The modest increases in prices that consumers have seen under this administration -- indeed, a 19% decrease last year --

pale in comparison to the 43% New Year's present that --

The Speaker: Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr. Hampton: I'd like to read what a certain Liberal energy critic said after one of those price increases. He said, "First of all, let's be

perfectly clear about Darlington. I am prepared to acknowledge that the impact Darlington is having on rates is something that is completely beyond your control." Who said that? Dalton McGuinty.

Dalton McGuinty said that.

Minister, this is about a plan. You know that there are five or six paper mills in northern Ontario that are being reviewed from the perspective of whether or

not companies are going to close them. You know that there are thousands of jobs here at risk. You know that the mining industry has come to you and said that there is a problem in terms of hydro

rates. All we're asking the McGuinty government is, what's the plan? If you think that saying, "We're going to postpone any plan for a year," is going to do anything, you're sadly mistaken. Tell

workers, tell industry, tell business: What's the McGuinty plan for our hydro system?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: That plan is outlined clearly in Bill 100 and implemented today. I'll remind the member that we also announced the

appointment of an industrial cogeneration facilitator to deal specifically with pulp and paper.

Let me ask this question: I wonder about Field Lumber, a sawmill that closed in 1991, 25 employees; Odorizzi Lumber, Golden Valley, 1991, 30 employees;

Abitibi-Price, Thunder Bay, 140 employees, 1992; Custom Sawmill, Hearst, 200 employees, 1992. The member opposite said that no mills closed; 14 mills closed under their watch.

This government is responding. This is what the member said at the time that Abitibi closed. Here's what Howard Hampton said: "My understanding is that about

112 jobs will go." We wouldn't take that approach. We've appointed someone today who's going to help us deal with that industry in a way that you didn't. Fourteen mills closed on your watch,

hundreds of employees lost their jobs, and we're working hard to avoid that.

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): A question for the Premier: We've heard about the one-year patch on hydroelectricity; I want to ask

the Premier about another patch job. The Premier would know that northern Ontario municipalities, rural Ontario municipalities, have been very critical of your government's failure to pay your

bills. Municipalities have to pick up your costs for land ambulance, rural policing, seniors' housing, social housing, child care and social assistance, and you haven't been covering your share of

the bills. You've been forcing hard-pressed municipalities to raise their property taxes by 10% or 11% because the McGuinty government won't pay its bills.

Premier, what are you going to do for these municipalities? Are you going to pay your bills, or are you going to offer them a one-year patch job as well?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): Yes, you are correct that we had some very

good meetings at the ROMA good roads conference at the Royal York these past three days. As a matter of fact, the Premier spoke to them today. It was extremely well-received.

I think the people of Ontario should know that we've set aside $200 million in order to reconcile the 2003 reconciliation with respect to the CRF funding. As

the Premier stated this morning, he is more than prepared to have our government and cabinet take a look at the other matters that they've brought up to see what, if anything, could be done about

that particular issue.

Mr. Hampton: The minister tried this answer down at the ROMA convention, and he was booed off the stage. They told the minister to get

lost.

You're talking about reconciliation; the only reconciliation you're talking about is for the year 2003. You still haven't dealt with the year 2004. If you were

a tenant in Ontario, they would've kicked you out for failure to pay your bills.

What's the plan of the McGuinty government? Are you going to pay your bills to municipalities, or are you going to force them to increase property taxes by 9%,

10% and 11%? What's the plan?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: It's quite obvious that the member doesn't understand the problem. The 2003 reconciliation --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. The member from Erie-Lincoln, come to order. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: What the member doesn't understand is that the reconciliation for the year 2003 would only be done at this time, once the

2004 numbers are known, in exactly the same way that any further reconciliation for 2004 would be done next year. That's the way it has always worked. If there's any criticism of the system at all,

it's that government down there that downloaded more services on local municipalities --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hampton: The minister says we don't understand. I understand the press release from the eastern Ontario municipalities, "Province Can't

Fast-Talk Its Way out of Bill" and the press release from AMO, "Plan to Replace the $650 Million Community Reinvestment Fund Appears to Leave Province's Bill Unpaid in 2004."

You've heard of deadbeat dads; this is a deadbeat government. You want municipalities to pay your bills. Social assistance, land ambulance, seniors' housing,

child care, all those things that the Premier goes around the province making speeches about -- you want the municipalities to pay your bill. You want to force them to increase their property taxes

by 10%, 11% and 12% to pay your bill.

Stop trying to be a deadbeat. Pay your bill. Tell the municipalities --

The Speaker: Order. As I've stated before, I'd like questions to be directed to the Speaker rather than having a talk across the hall.

Minister?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: First of all, this government is extremely proud of the very positive relationship that we've built up with our

municipalities across this province, something that that government over there tried to destroy for the last eight years -- and, quite frankly, were quite successful at it.

The commitment that was given by the Premier this morning was that we would once again take a look at these two years and that, if there are any outstanding

bills to be paid, they would be paid to the municipalities.

The Speaker: Final supplementary?

Interjections.

The Speaker: You had your final supplementary. Maybe I took those questions as being discussions across, because you weren't directing the

questions to the Speaker.

New question.

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): Back to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, who must have been at a totally different ROMA meeting

than I was at yesterday. It was the farthest thing from a love-in.

Following the comments by the member from Kenora-Rainy River, the minister indicated that $90 million of the $200 million is for 2003 reconciliation costs. The

remaining $110 million, Minister: Is that for 2004 reconciliation, or is it more, or is it less?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: The member is quite correct that the conference yesterday afternoon was quite successful. Ten of my cabinet colleagues

joined me there, and the answers they gave to the questions were extremely well-received.

There is a concern about the reconciliation, no question about it. He's quite correct, as well, that about $90 million is estimated to be the amount for the

2003 reconciliation and, quite frankly, nobody will know how much it is for the 2004 reconciliation until the numbers for last year actually come in. We'll take a look at it. That commitment has

been given. We want to make sure that this government will continue to enjoy the excellent relationship that we have with our partners in the municipal world.

The Speaker: Supplementary? The member from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): Clearly, if the minister feels that was a good reception yesterday, it only confirms what the

members of the Eastern Ontario Wardens' Caucus have been saying: that this government just doesn't seem to listen. Perhaps they just can't hear what is being said.

It did not go over very well at ROMA yesterday. What they've offered is a band-aid solution that will not address the needs of municipalities in this province.

They're missing a year. I would ask the minister now to admit that what they offered yesterday is a failure. It is a broken promise when they promised they would guarantee stable, long-term funding

to municipalities in their election platform.

Will they admit that that is a failure, that they have broken their promise, and commit to paying the bills to municipalities in this province and in my riding

of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke where Warden Bob Sweet has been so articulate in getting that message across to you? Pay them today.

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: As an indication of the tremendous relationship we've developed with AMO, this Legislature is going to endorse, hopefully

in the near future, the concept of permanent dialogue between AMO on the MOU. The other thing the member should understand is that right now there are great discrepancies with respect to the

reconciliation, and that is something that was totally and completely caused by the former government. The new system, which is fair to every municipality concerned -- we're working that out with

them and we're discussing it with AMO on an ongoing basis. I know that at the end of the day we will end up with a much fairer system, not only for the municipalities but for the people of

Ontario.

CHILD CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Minister, today could actually be a good

day for the child care community if your federal Liberal cousins decide to make the announcement on child care funding and also ensure that it's going to be a not-for-profit system across the

country. Not-for-profit child care, as you know, is affordable for families and provides better-quality care. I know you know this. I know you've seen the studies. I know the evidence is in and I'm

sure, being an on-top-of-things minister, you know that those studies indicate non-profit is best. Last Thursday I asked you particularly to commit that all new child care spaces in the province

will be not-for-profit regulated spaces that the families of Ontario can afford. You refused to give me those assurances last Thursday. Why?

Hon. Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children and Youth Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): I am looking forward to the

federal budget. It seems the federal government will actually honour their commitment for child care monies, and I look forward to working with Minister Dryden on Ontario's fair share.

With respect to the honourable member's question, we never said that we would only fund not-for-profit. We have found that quality indicators are more

important. We have agreed to this on a Canada-wide basis; all of the provinces agreed. Yes, one province in particular would have preferred not-for-profit, and they are free to do that in their

province. Quebec also funds for-profit and not-for-profit, a model that is much touted by your party and by others as being the leaders in the country. What is important here is that quality

indicators are in place, that a college of ECE, of educators, is in place to ensure that the training is appropriate for teaching our kids. That is what we are committing to, and I'm very proud of

our Best Start model, which will fulfill this end.

Ms. Horwath: It's interesting that the minister talks about quality when the studies I've referred to indicate the best quality is found in

the not-for-profit model. Nonetheless, New Democrats are not the only ones concerned about Ontario opening the child care system to big box, corporate daycare situations where they siphon off the

profits to go into shareholders' pockets. The Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care and the Ontario Federation of Labour are out on a joint project across the province right now. They're holding

hearings in community after community. They, too, are very troubled about the direction this government is going. Citizens across the province, in London, Dryden, Windsor, Thunder Bay, Waterloo,

St. Catharines, community after community, are going to be talking to them about this concern. These extensive consultations are happening because too many families right now are on waiting lists

for not-for-profit care.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Question.

Ms. Horwath: Will you reassure them, Minister, that today you will commit that all new child care spaces in the province of Ontario will be

not-for-profit, because that's what is best in quality and that's what prevents the money going into the pockets of the --

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon. Mrs. Bountrogianni: I agree with the honourable member that there are kids on waiting lists. Child care has been ignored for many years.

I will assure the honourable member that we will have quality, regulated spaces in place with our Best Start plan. I will also assure the member opposite that most of our spaces in phase one will

be wraparound child care spaces in junior kindergarten and senior kindergarten classrooms. At present, of all those who are in schools, 95% of them are not-for-profit. We don't anticipate this

trend to change. But as Minister Dryden has asked all of us to monitor this particular situation, we will do so.

FOOD SAFETY

Mr. Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Food safety is very important in my riding, and no less so

among livestock producers. They are proud of the high-quality meat that they produce. Minister, last week you made an announcement regarding the meat processing system in Ontario. How will these

changes improve meat safety in Ontario?

Hon. Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): For starters, we proclaimed the Food Safety and Quality Act. The previous government sat

on it for over two years and did not proclaim that legislation. We brought that forward. This new regulation is going to ensure that we have stronger, broader-reaching rules in this province. But

more importantly, our rules and regulations are going to be harmonized with the federal government, and processors are going to be licensed and more regularly inspected in this province.

In the report that we commissioned, Justice Haines made 113 recommendations for meat safety in Ontario. We are moving forward on Justice Haines's

recommendations. Justice Haines made it very clear: We have a good food safety system in this province but we have an opportunity to make it a world-class system. Food safety is a priority for this

government and we are going to move to that world-class system.

Mr. Hoy: There may be those who believe the new regulation will mean that small businesses that process meat in rural communities will go out

of business. What do you say to those who may fear that local butcher shops could close?

Hon. Mr. Peters: One of the things that we recognize as a government is that as you move forward with new regulations, there is an onus on

government to assist in the period of transition. We are working very closely with the Ontario independent meat processors to implement these new regulations on small-, medium- and large-sized

further meat processors and abattoirs in this province. We've also come to the table with money. We have $25 million that is available over the next three years to assist these small, medium and

large operations to meet these new standards.

As to the question of butchers, butchers traditionally receive their cuts of meat either from a further processor or an abattoir. Butchers will continue to be

inspected by public health units in this province.

The ultimate goal of what we're doing and moving forward here is consumer confidence. Consumer confidence is key. It is key to ensure that we have safe,

high-quality food in this province. That confidence in our meat system ultimately comes down to the level of the farmer, so the consumer knows that the farmers of Ontario do produce the

highest-quality, safest food.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. You will know that yesterday mayors from across

northeastern Ontario and other aldermen came to Queen's Park in order to speak out at a press conference about your decision to allow Tembec and Domtar to transfer wood from mills like Opasatika

into the community of Hearst. They are speaking in one voice. They're saying that they want you to stop the transfer of wood, that the wood should stay with the communities in order to give those

communities an opportunity to find somebody else who is prepared to operate a mill in their community, so they can keep those jobs for their people in the community where they belong.

My question is a simple one: Are you prepared to take the advice of the mayors of northeastern Ontario and reverse your decision and keep the wood in those

affected communities?

Hon. David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources): I'm afraid the member -- through lots of dialogue last week, through a late show and other

questions -- fails to accept the facts. The fact is, there was no decision. As I said to you, your minister in your government, Bud Wildman, set up a timber licence, under your new act, for Spruce

Falls. At that time, Spruce Falls delivered wood to the Opasatika mill and to the Kapuskasing mill. Now that the company has closed Opasatika, they are free to deliver their wood to their other

mill. I have no decision to make. It is not in my hands. It was a decision solely of the company.

Mr. Bisson: First of all, I disagree with you, and so does Bud Wildman and so do the people who drafted the act. On December 31 of this year,

you signed the authorization for those companies to transfer the wood.

The mayors and others across northeastern Ontario are hopping mad, so mad that Mayor J.C. Caron, who is a moderate in northeastern Ontario, came to Queen's

Park and said you should resign if you're not prepared to do it. My question to you is, if you're not going to do the right thing, will you at least do what J.C. has suggested and resign?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Again the member is confusing the two consolidations that happened at around the same time. When Domtar and Tembec switched

and consolidated their operations, as you know, in both Elk Lake and Kenogami, and also in the town of Chapleau, then required me to make a change of direction of the wood flow, and I did that. But

when it came to Opasatika, it's a completely different situation. It had nothing to do with me at all. It was a decision by the company, and I wish the member would understand that.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne (Don Valley West): My question is for the Minister of Finance. Minister, the accuracy and fairness of property

assessments are a major concern for many of my constituents, and for yours, I know. I get a lot of calls about the functioning of the Municipal Property Assessment Corp., or MPAC.

Under current value assessment, municipal taxes are a function of three things: property assessment, the classification of property, and the tax rates set by

the local government. The provincial government, as the overseer of property assessments, has an important role in the process. Minister, what steps have you taken to ensure that MPAC has every

opportunity to deliver fair and accurate assessments to my constituents and to ratepayers across the province?

Hon. Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I want to thank my friend from Don Valley West for the question. It's an important one because of

course MPAC, or the Municipal Property Assessment Corp., is the largest assessment jurisdiction in Canada. It's responsible for assessing some 4.3 million properties every year.

When we came to power, we heard serious concerns about the quality of the work done by MPAC. We've made a number of changes. One of the concerns we heard was

that there was not enough time between the delivery of the assessment and the finalization of the assessment, so individual property owners didn't have the time to appeal their assessment or to

otherwise evaluate whether or not it was fair. We changed the assessment cycle by adding six months to it, so that now assessments are done as of January 1, giving ratepayers some six additional

months to consider the validity of the assessment.

Ms. Wynne: I'm sure that those timeline improvements and the other work you've done will ensure a smoother process. I trust that you'll

continue to work with MPAC to ensure that that process is refined. But many of my constituents have a specific concern about the service they receive from MPAC when they believe that there's a

problem with their property assessment. In past years, they've had difficulty connecting with MPAC representatives to discuss their concerns and difficulty getting the information they need, and

they've found that the review and appeals process is very confusing.

Minister, will you update the House on the steps you've taken to improve customer service at MPAC, and will you commit to work to make the process simpler,

clearer and more customer-friendly for my constituents and for ratepayers across the province?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Actually, we're well on our way down that road. Early on, within months of taking office, we appointed seven new directors

to the board of MPAC to bring new energy to the leadership. But that really doesn't impact directly on customer service, and I know that my friend from Don Valley West is particularly interested in

customer service.

We extended the call centre hours. I wish I could say, "Call the number on the screen," but we don't have that quite yet. So longer call centre hours, and

we're simplifying the requests for reconsideration. If a property owner thinks the assessment is unfair, the process to get a reconsideration is much simpler. I should mention as well that we're

improving the on-line tracking and follow-up systems so we can hasten the reviews that are requested and give responses in a timely fashion.

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING

Mr. John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): I have a question for the Premier of Ontario. I know that he's someone who cares about Ottawa. I have a

bet with my friend Sterling here that he isn't going to pass the buck, that he's going to take this question himself.

Premier, the Ottawa-Carleton Catholic School Board is one of the best-run school boards in Ontario; it's perhaps one of the best-run school boards in the whole

country. They do a phenomenal job of educating children in Nepean-Carleton, and they do a phenomenal job of educating children in Ottawa South.

Premier, your government is proposing a 45% cut to the student transportation budget of this school board. I'd like you to stand in your place and join me,

join thousands of teachers and parents and students and the member for Lanark-Carleton, and say you will oppose this 45% cut that your own government is trial-ballooning. Will you join us,

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The Minister of Education would like to speak to this.

Hon. Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): The question raised by the member of course has to be taken advisedly, and I think the people

with children in schools in the Ottawa Catholic --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. Minister of Education.

Hon. Mr. Kennedy: What I have to say is that no matter how much remuneration was given for this question, which we all observed was too much,

it's fundamentally in error, the idea that somehow there is a cut being made to the Ottawa school board. In fact, we increased the funding to the Ottawa-Carleton Catholic School Board, as we did

with every single school board across the province.

Furthermore, what we have to say to the parents of the Ottawa school board is the same thing we say --

The Speaker: Order. Minister, I'm over on this side. Could you address your comments to me.

Hon. Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. The Ottawa-Carleton parents and the board itself know very well that what we are offering

is an assurance, for the first time, that we're going to have a fair funding system. Rather than hiding it away and springing it on people and have it happen in a way that would be haphazard, we so

much wanted to have the peace and stability that we put out a model there, one in which some of the Ottawa boards participated in developing. It has been out there for improvement, because unlike

some of the governments of the past, we freely admit that we can benefit from consulting the community. Further to that, I will be meeting shortly with the Ottawa Catholic school board --

The Speaker: Thank you. The member for Lanark-Carleton.

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): The minister is leaving the impression that he is giving more money for transportation to the

Ottawa-Carleton Catholic School Board. I know that last year the board received $21 million for transportation. Will the minister say to me today that he is giving $21 million-plus to the

Ottawa-Carleton Catholic School Board this year and that's his real answer, that he is giving them more than $21 million this year for transportation?

Hon. Mr. Kennedy: I'm sorry to find out that some of the perplexity in the opposition caucus is catching, because obviously they do not

understand. The Ottawa-Carleton school board received additional dollars this year, as did every school board in the province.

Mr. Baird: For transportation?

Hon. Mr. Kennedy: For transportation, exactly, and in fact their increases ranged from 2% to 12% everywhere, all across the province.

More constructive people, trustees from the Ottawa board, have been in to speak to Ottawa members and the Premier. I will be sitting down with the board and

with the parents, and we will be making sure that they understand well. There is a guarantee, one that could not be given under the previous governments, that there will be a fair and equitable

transportation system, and we will make sure that that applies equally to Ottawa-Carleton Catholic students being transported, as it does to students in any other board across the province.

PIKANGIKUM FIRST NATION

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Premier, under your government, the Ministry of Natural Resources and

the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines are busy working on a strategy to push mining and logging activity into the far north, north of the 51st parallel. For example, your government is

negotiating the Whitefeather Forest with the Pikangikum First Nation, north of Red Lake. You want the forestry industry to have access to valuable timber. The First Nation understands that. The

question that Pikangikum has for you is: Is your government prepared to pay for the eight kilometres of all-weather road so that people from the First Nation will be able to participate in the

forestry activity, to have jobs and to earn an income? If they don't have a road built, they are shut out. Will you help them pay for the eight kilometres of all-weather road so they can

participate too?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): To the Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon. David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources): As the member probably knows, I had the pleasure of visiting Pikangikum and seeing the

tremendous program we have with them, which we call the Northern Boreal Initiative. This is an initiative where we fund what we call capacity building with the First Nations up there. Pikangikum is

the leader of all the First Nations in Ontario in capacity building.

What's unique about this is that the elders are driving this land use planning, which is a precursor to economic development. What you see is the young people

on the reserve doing the computerized mapping, all the GIS mapping, as they start to move toward the land use planning that will lead to economic development. Part of that is deciding where roads

and access will be developed. Of course, with that will be the partnership with the federal government, which has prime responsibility for infrastructure such as roads and hydro lines, and of

course the Ontario government. We're pleased to always be there as a partner with them.

Mr. Hampton: So far, Minister, your government isn't there. The reality is, this is a First Nation that has worked co-operatively with your

government. They are not opposed to mining development; they're not opposed to forestry development. In fact, they want to participate. They want to know that their people are going to have some of

the jobs, that their people are going to be able to work. But they won't be able to do that if an all-weather road isn't built for eight kilometres into the community. Mining can happen, logging

can happen and they will be shut out.

I ask you again: Is your government prepared to pay for the eight kilometres of all-weather road which will be necessary if the people of Pikangikum are going

to be able to participate in the forestry development and the mining development that your government wants to see happen? Are you going to help pay for it or not?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I would say to the member that once this government sees a proposal from the First Nation, we will be prepared to work in

partnership with the First Nation in trying to find a way to make this happen. I will work with my colleague Rick Bartolucci, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, and my colleague the

Attorney General, who is in charge of aboriginal affairs in this province, in that continued partnership we have to make sure we see economic development north of 51.

SCHOOL SAFETY

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North): My question is for the Minister of Education. It seems that hardly a week goes by without a story about

the Safe Schools Act. This Tory legislation was intended to keep our kids safe, but in classrooms around Ontario this legislation hurts many whom it was supposed to protect.

Many critics believe that the Safe Schools Act unfairly punishes children with special needs. Children with special needs are among the most vulnerable in our

society. They must be treated fairly, which was not the case under the previous government. If the Safe Schools Act is targeting kids with special needs, it should be changed.

Would you be able to inform this House what is being done to ensure that the Safe Schools Act treats these and other children fairly?

Hon. Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): We certainly accept the responsibility of finishing the job that simply wasn't finished by the

previous government. The Safe Schools Act is a piece of legislation, but what really matters is the safety of schools and the safety of the students and staff within them, which I think everybody

would agree is a precondition to learning. You can't have success until you are able to assure parents that that exists.

In pursuit of that, we have appointed a safe schools action team, and they have been active since December. Today there was a conference of about 500 people

from around the province working on various elements of safe schools. The Safe Schools Act itself, we announced today, will have a reference group drawn from all across the province so that we make

sure that safety is not a slogan, not a piece of legislation, but that we know how it's working in practice. That includes what the Human Rights Commissioner has asked us to take into account,

which is the unintended effects it may be having on certain parts of the school population as well as some allegations that have been made that certain student groups are being singled out. Those

are all things that any responsible provincial government needs to take into account, and we will be doing that through the safe schools action team's work.

Mr. Qaadri: I know that the parents in my own riding of Etobicoke North will particularly be looking forward to hearing the action team's

findings. When will the action team report to the government, and when will you implement those recommendations?

Hon. Mr. Kennedy: We are working on a plan right now that includes actions to make sure that we have, for example, intruder devices in our

elementary schools that are not adequately protected and that we have anti-bullying programs in every school. Immediately after that, we are going to be holding public consultations on the Safe

Schools Act. I would expect a report from the safe schools action team on the Safe Schools Act portion sometime around the fall of this year.

MUSKOKA WHARF PROJECT

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): My question is for the Premier. The town of Gravenhurst feels like it's being shafted by your

government. It says that the current government has been less than honourable. Five million dollars was committed by the Ontario government to their major economic development project, the Muskoka

wharf project. Now your government has cut the funding in half.

Premier, this is not for somebody else; this is for you. Do you remember discussing this issue with the mayor of Gravenhurst, John Klinck? Do you remember

that?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): In response to the member: He will know full well that he received

documentation. He attended a meeting that we arranged with the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp. staff. The requests for reapplication were explained to him. They were confirmed in writing. The

member knows full well why that application was re-evaluated. The other funding partners decreased the amount of funding they gave to that project as well.

Mr. Miller: The town of Gravenhurst feels like it is being shafted, and it is being shafted. Premier, I'd like you to answer this question.

I'd like to quote from the Gravenhurst Banner this past week.

"In attempting to address the issue, Klinck spoke to Premier Dalton McGuinty at Queen's Park and left with a personal assurance from McGuinty that he would

look into the issue. `I'm sitting, waiting to see what he does,' Klinck said. `I will be terribly disappointed if I don't hear back from him quickly.'"

Premier, you spoke with the mayor over a month ago. There's a comic in last week's newspaper showing the mayor with a long beard, waiting for your call. Can

you tell me how you're going to assist the town of Gravenhurst, and when will you give the mayor your response? At least you can give him the courtesy of a response.

Hon. Mr. Bartolucci: The member will further know that when we removed the designation from Muskoka with regard to being in northern Ontario,

there were financial opportunities that helped with the transition. So we are meeting our responsibilities.

It is very, very interesting, because the member talks about the Gravenhurst issue as one issue in isolation. The reality is that he is very, very upset with

the designation of northern Ontario as we defined it in our last budget.

Mr. Cameron Jackson (Burlington): The Premier lied to the mayor.

Hon. Mr. Bartolucci: But his own leader, John Tory, visiting Muskoka, said, "It would be wrong for me to" --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. The member for Burlington --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. I don't need a debate. I ask you to withdraw your comment.

Mr. Jackson: I did not lie to the mayor. I withdraw.

The Speaker: When I ask for a withdrawal in the House, I just need one word in that respect. I want you to stand up and let me hear it.

Mr. Jackson: I withdraw. That's two words.

Hon. Mr. Bartolucci: In conclusion to the answer, I have to quote from John Tory, when he visited Muskoka and said, "It would be wrong for me

to sit here and say that I am going to bring it back." John Tory believes that Muskoka belongs in central Ontario. He agrees with us with regard to the designation of northern Ontario.

HIGHWAY 406

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): To the Minister of Transportation: The four-laning and extension of the southern part of Highway 406 is

critical to planning and development in Niagara region. When is that work going to proceed?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): The design work is almost complete for the widening of Highway 406 in Thorold from

Beaverdams Road to Port Robinson Road. This work includes about five or six kilometres of widening to four lanes. We are moving ahead with it, because the design work is already complete.

Mr. Kormos: Minister, we know the planning has been well underway and is substantially complete. You know that four-laning the southern part

of 406 and extending it down to Highway 3 is critical to move development up onto the clay belt, away from tender fruit land. Can you tell the folks in Niagara what time frame the ministry will be

operating under to get this important work completed?

Hon. Mr. Takhar: As I said before, we realize the importance of this project to our province. The design work is complete, and the ministry is

working on this project. We will move ahead as soon and as quickly as possible.

COMMUNITY USE OF SCHOOLS

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): My question is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. There was an announcement of a

community-use-of-schools agreement with the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. Can you tell the members of the Legislature here today about this important agreement?

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): The member will recall that the Premier identified a problem that existed in our

schools as a result of the previous government's changing the funding formula. School boards were forced to charge very high prices for the use of their schools to non-profit groups and had to

confine the number of hours. So the Premier instructed the Minister of Education and me to come up with a program, called community use of schools, where $20 million was flowed through the Ministry

of Education to school boards so they would have an opportunity to make significant changes by drastically reducing the cost of the use of those public schools, already paid for by the people of

this province, and expanding the number of hours available in places such as Scarborough and Ottawa, and right across the province.

This program has been highly successful, and very much appreciated by the communities in which we reside. My good friend Frank Klees, I know, is in favour of

this as well. But the --

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Thank you. That brings us to the end of question period.

PETITIONS

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): "Whereas the elimination of OHIP coverage will mean that many of the 1.2 million patients who use

chiropractic will no longer be able to access the health care they need;

"Whereas those with reduced ability to pay -- including seniors, low-income families and the working poor -- will be forced to seek care in already

overburdened family physician offices and emergency departments;

"Whereas the elimination of OHIP coverage is expected to save $93 million in expenditures on chiropractic treatment, at a cost to government of over $200

million in other health care costs; and

"Whereas there was no consultation with the public on the decision to delist chiropractic services;

"We, the undersigned," some 2,000, "petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reverse the decision announced in the May 18, 2004, provincial budget and

maintain OHIP coverage for chiropractic services, in the best interests of the public, patients, the health care system," the residents of Lanark county, "government and the province."

I've signed that, Mr. Speaker.

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): It's my pleasure to introduce a petition on behalf of my riding of Durham.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Liberal government has announced that they are delisting key health services such as routine eye exams, chiropractic and physiotherapy services;

and

"Whereas abandoning support for these services will place greater demands on other health care sectors such as physicians, emergency wards and after-hours

clinics; and

"Whereas no Ontario citizen should be denied access to necessary medical care because of a lack of funds;

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

"To reverse the delisting of eye exams, chiropractic and physiotherapy services and restore" -- at once -- "the funding for these important and necessary

health services."

I'm pleased to present this petition to Michael from Stoney Creek, formerly Brad Clark's riding.

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

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

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

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

of the Ontario Historical Society; and

"Whereas the town of New Tecumseth, under the leadership of Mayor Mike MacEachern and former mayor Larry Keogh, has been unsuccessful in reaching an agreement

with the Ontario Historical Society to use part of the land to educate the public about the historical significance of the work of Sir Frederick Banting;

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

"That the Minister of Culture and the Liberal government step in to ensure that the Banting homestead is kept in good repair and preserved for generations to

come."

I agree with this petition, Mr. Speaker.

ABORTION

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I'm pleased to present a petition from hundreds of good citizens of Cambridge, addressed to the Legislative

Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas 68% of Ontarians do not support the funding of abortion on demand in our province; and

"Whereas 30 million health dollars are spent annually on abortion on demand; and

"Whereas the Ontario health system is overburdened and unnecessary spending must be cut; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury, or illness, and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has the exclusive jurisdiction to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is in fact hazardous to women's health; and

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 39,544 abortions in 2000;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop provincial funding of abortion on demand in Ontario."

I'm pleased to sign this petition, as required by the standing orders.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I'm pleased to present a petition sent to me by Paula Kaye Enterprises -- the Windjammer, in Port Colborne,

Ontario. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas 20% of the adult population, or 1.8 million adults in Ontario, continue to smoke, and

"Whereas hospitality concepts like bars, pubs, taverns, nightclubs, Legions, bingo halls, racetracks and casinos are businesses with a high percentage of

patrons who smoke; and

"Whereas more than 700 businesses in Ontario have invested tens of thousands of dollars each to construct a designated smoking room to comply with municipal

bylaws;

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

"Permit properly ventilated and separate designated smoking rooms and hospitality establishments that regulate and control employee and customer exposure to

second-hand smoke."

My signature, as well, is on the petition.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): I'm very pleased to have a number of petitions to present on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Durham.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

jobs, and this is weakening volunteer fire departments in Ontario" and throughout my riding of Durham;

"Whereas Waterloo-Wellington MPP Ted Arnott has introduced Bill 52" -- which I support -- "the Volunteer Firefighters Employment Protection Act, that would

uphold the right to volunteer and solve this problem concerning public safety in Ontario;

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

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

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

I am pleased to sign this in support of the firefighters in my riding, and present it to Kristine from the riding of Niagara Falls. I'm sure she, as a page,

will enjoy presenting this to the table.

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

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

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

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

of the inaction of the Ontario Historical Society; and

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

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

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

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

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

I want to thank the Curiosity Shoppe for circulating that petition. I look forward to speaking tomorrow at the St. John's United Church Alliston men's club

about this topic to save the Banting homestead.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SPOUSAL RELATIONSHIPS

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES UNIONS CONJUGALES

Mr. Bryant moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 171,

An Act to amend various statutes in respect of spousal relationships / Projet de loi 171, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne les

unions conjugales.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Mr. Bryant.

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): I'm sharing my

time with the member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale, the member for Don Valley West and the member for Willowdale.

I very proudly rise to speak in support of this bill. This bill breathes equality into dozens of statutes where discrimination lay dormant, but I want to be

clear what this bill isn't and what this bill is. If this bill were somehow a vote on same-sex marriage, I would very proudly vote yes -- I would vote yes to same-sex marriage -- but that is not

what this bill is about. The bill is primarily concerned with bringing our statutes in line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The bill seeks to update our statutes to reflect a new reality

in Ontario. In a sense, as NDP leader Howard Hampton said yesterday, it is a housekeeping bill. It is. It is born out of a judicial decision, yes. I say to this House, it is also the right thing to

do.

In June 2003 the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a Divisional Court ruling that the federal common law definition of marriage, which excluded same-sex couples,

was contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Because of the Halpern ruling, same-sex marriage is legal in Ontario and has been legal for nearly two years, and provincial statutes ought to

reflect that.

Further, the Supreme Court of Canada recently, in an advisory opinion, a federal reference, confirmed that the proposed federal bill that is before Parliament

right now affirming same-sex marriage is constitutional. "Extending the definition of marriage to same-sex couples is consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms," said the Supreme Court of

Canada.

The court also held that the charter guarantee of religious freedoms affirms that religious officials have the freedom to perform or not perform marriages in a

manner that's consistent with their religious doctrine. The court also affirmed the freedom of religious officials to use sacred places for the celebration of marriages in a manner consistent with

their religious doctrine. The court added that provincial human rights codes must be interpreted in a manner that upholds and is consistent with religious freedom under the charter.

Any Attorney General of any government of any party stripe has a constitutional and a statutory duty to ensure that the statutes and regulations of the day are

consistent with the charter and other constitutional documents and doctrine. The proposed legislation, if passed, would fulfill this duty. But I also want to be clear that this government is

viewing this bill as not simply fulfilling a duty resulting from a court decision. While this is, in large part, a housekeeping matter for this government, we're doing it because we believe it to

be the right thing to do. We're committed to ensuring that all couples are treated with the same respect and dignity as all. We are committed to ensuring that all couples are treated the same, no

matter where they come from, no matter the language they speak, no matter their ethnicity and no matter their sexual orientation. By amending the definition of "spouse" in these statutes, our

government is helping to ensure that Ontario laws do not discriminate against same-sex couples, including those who choose to marry.

A responsible government must always seek to align its statutes and regulations with the Constitution and with the evolving constitutional jurisprudence that

arises. We are seeking to do that with this bill.

Now it is for the Legislature to debate and vote upon this bill. I urge all members of this House to support it. I am proud of this bill, and I believe it is

the right thing to do.

The Speaker: I know you're sharing the time with three other members. The member for Don Valley West.

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne (Don Valley West): I want to acknowledge what the Attorney General has said about our government's position on this

bill. I feel it's important for me to speak to this bill. In my maiden speech in December of last year -- I guess a year ago last December -- I talked about my responsibility as a lesbian in this

House to the young lesbians, the young gay men, the young people struggling with their sexual orientation outside of this place, and so I take it as a serious responsibility to speak to that issue.

Although I didn't come to this House as a gay activist and that is not how I got here, I take it seriously as my responsibility to speak to issues that affect all people struggling with their

sexual orientation in the province.

Although I understand and certainly acknowledge that this is a housekeeping bill to a large extent, I think we need to talk about some of the underlying

issues, and that's what I'd like to do today.

So I rise today to speak in support of Bill 171, the Spousal Relationships Statute Law Amendment Act. As I said, on the surface, this bill is about updating

and clarifying Ontario's marriage statutes, and, as the Attorney General has said, it updates 73 of Ontario's statutes to reflect what has been the legal reality in Ontario since the June 2002

ruling in the Halpern case that both opposite- and same-sex couples may legally marry in Ontario. That is a significant reality that we're acknowledging by putting this legislation forward. It

clarifies something that has always been the case in Ontario, that faith leaders need not perform marriages to which they object on religious grounds and that faith organizations need not make

their facilities available for marriages of which they do not approve. That's the legal framework that we're supporting.

It is technically both logical and necessary for our Legislature to align our statutes with the decision of the courts, and it's right for us to give a clear

indication to faith leaders that it's their right to decide which marriages they will perform or allow to be performed on their premises.

But as I said earlier, I really do believe this debate has much broader significance than either of these imperatives suggests. I have to say, as I've watched

the federal debate unfold, when I began to read the ink that's being poured out on this debate federally, my initial position was, "What is the big fuss?" I have been in both a heterosexual

marriage and I'm in a committed homosexual lesbian relationship. To me, the tired old institution of marriage was something that we probably should be polishing up. Originally, the debate was not

one that I wanted to particularly engage in, but I have to say that as the debate has continued and as it has escalated and as the issue of human rights has become clearer, as we listen to people

talk about rights being taken away or people being marginalized, it has become clearer and clearer to me that it's important and necessary that all of us who believe that this is a human rights

issue and that it's the right thing to do to extend the right to marry to same-sex couples speak up on that.

I believe this debate has that broader significance, and I want to talk about some of those issues today. The last 40 years in Canada have seen tremendous

progress for lesbians and gays and their rights. From Pierre Elliott Trudeau's 1967 statement that there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation and his accompanying omnibus bill, to

Ontario's landmark rulings of 1999 and 2003 in M. v. H. and the Halpern case, to the federal government's current legislation to fully legalize same-sex marriage, there has been much progress on

the legal front. It's not just on the legal front, because the social progress goes hand in hand with the legal progress. The expansion of Pride festivals in Toronto, the dramatically increased

visibility of lesbians and gays in popular culture, including our own politicians in the Legislature and in city councils across the country, have raised the issue and have made a dramatic increase

in the openness and acceptance of lesbians and gays -- in some parts of this province and this country.

This legislation does not extend new rights that did not previously exist, and we all understand that. Yet with the very fact of this open debate, this

Legislature is playing an important role, I believe, in moving this discussion of gay marriage out of the closet and into the public. In voting for this legislation, we will affirm that in our

eyes, individuals in same-sex couples have and deserve the same rights and responsibilities as those in opposite-sex couples. I think that's a critical piece of this debate. We're talking about

rights and responsibilities.

For many lesbian and gay Ontarians, meaningful equality is not yet a reality. I put it to this House that meaningful equality for the

lesbian/gay/bi-gendered/transsexual community must mean full equality before the law -- that's what we're talking about today -- equal benefit of the law and equal social opportunity and

responsibility with other members of society. So this is a narrowly legal issue that we're discussing today, but it's part of that much broader social issue.

In my opinion, the broader significance of this debate lies in its role in promoting the honourable and necessary aim of meaningful equality for all members of

the LGBT community. At the heart of this debate is the goal of eradicating the hatred and discrimination that are the products of homophobia, especially in our schools and among our children.

Let me share some research findings with you.

In 1989, Paul Gibson, in a study for the US Department of Health and Human Services, found that gay and lesbian youth are two to three times more likely to

commit suicide than other youths, and that 30% of all completed youth suicides are related to the issue of sexual identity.

In 1990, Joyce Hunter, in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, found that among the youths she studied, half of all the youths who had been assaulted

reported that the assault was gay-related. In that same study, Hunter found that 41% of the assaulted girls and 34% of the assaulted boys had attempted suicide.

In 2001, a Canadian study by Otis, Ryan, Bourgon and Girard found that among gay youth receiving supportive services, 75% had seriously considered suicide in

the past month, 44% had made at least one serious attempt at suicide, and 22% had made two or more serious attempts at suicide in the past month.

At the heart of this debate is the goal of making all our communities safe for these children who feel so reviled and so alone that they're driven to try to

take their lives. When I read about an incident in the paper -- a bullying incident that ends in a fatality, or a teen suicide -- these are the statistics that come to my mind. I ask myself, what

was at the root of that bullying? What was that child suffering that he or she felt the world was such an unsafe place? I think that's a question that doesn't get asked often enough. I believe it

is at the heart of why this is the right thing to do.

So homophobia is not an abstract idea. It is the fear that drives children into the closet and keeps them there as adults. It is the fear that silences family

members and forces adult children to lie about their living arrangements for decades to their parents.

My partner and I run a fundraiser three times a year. It's called MAD for Dancing. It's between 200 and 400 women from around the province who come to Toronto

for a dance. For many of these women, it is the only large lesbian gathering that they go to throughout the year. It starts at 7:30 and ends at 12:30, because we're middle-aged lesbians. We raise

$14,000 to $16,000 a year for the Lesbian Gay Bi Youth Line and the Triangle program. The interesting thing about this group of women is that many of them are closeted everywhere else in their

lives. They're closeted at Christmas when they go home to their families; they're closeted at the school where they teach; they're closeted at the hospital where they work. But they come to the MAD

dance and they can be who they are. They can hold the hand of the person they live with.

That kind of closeted life is something that I think we need to try to eradicate. My hope is that every little step that we make in the Legislatures and the

Parliaments of this country takes us closer to that goal. It's a great dance, however. That closeted lifestyle, those living arrangements -- those are the things that are at the root of the pain

that a lot of lesbian and gay people feel.

Homophobia can be a loud and violent fact, or it can be subtle and whispering. It's the teasing that can stop a talented young male figure skater from pursuing

a dream. It's the force that creates and reinforces stereotypes. It's the norm that can convince a beautiful, vibrant, healthy young girl that she's ugly because she doesn't want to wear makeup.

It's the fear that forces teenagers struggling with their own sexual orientation to be the most abusive to others, because they're trying to cover for themselves. It's the fear that forces a little

boy to turn to his mom one day and to tell her that he isn't going to wear bright colours any more, even though his whole little life he's loved those bright colours. He's figured out that that's

not OK. Homophobia is the fear that forces those things.

Coming-out stories: Any of you who have spent time in the lesbian-gay community know that coming-out stories are a staple of that social interaction. They are

stories of liberation, disappointment, relief, anger and pain, depending on individual circumstance.

In 1995, my partner, Jane, and I published our story in a book of stories edited by Katherine Arnup called Lesbian Parenting: Living with Pride and Prejudice.

Here's how I started my story:

"For the first 37 years of my life I lived with all the privilege of a white, middle-class heterosexual woman. In 1991 I fell in love, changed my life and

began to live in a committed relationship with another woman. I learned the meaning of heterosexual privilege in the losing of it."

I really believe that part of the reason that I feel as strongly as I do about this and am able to speak about it the way I am is that, having lived with all

that privilege, I understood what it meant to be on the other side, where the privilege was denied. For me, homophobia was in the eyes of neighbourhood friends who thought I should take my three

children out of the community school and move to a more diverse neighbourhood so I wouldn't have to deal with living in the north Toronto neighbourhood that I lived in. My response was, "Why on

earth would I do that? My guess is that there are a few other lesbians and gays living in this area, so I'm just going to stay here" -- which we did.

I'm not naive enough to believe that one debate or one piece of legislation can change the engrained notions of society; I know that's not the case. But if we

can protect the right of our children to be who they are, then they will change those notions, and I believe that's already happening. It's up to us to change the laws so that the next generation

can change the attitudes. We all deal with internalized homophobia. Every straight person and every gay person has internalized the norms of society. My hope is that our children will be able to

change those attitudes.

Federally, this country is debating this fundamental human rights issue. Here in Ontario, we're choosing to align our statutes with the court decision on that

human rights issue because, as the Attorney General has said, it's the right thing to do. It is a thing that will make communities in every corner of this province safer for all our children.

Because we are doing this, no matter where children in this province live, no matter where adults live their closeted lives anywhere in this province, they will know that their government has said,

"This is a safe place for you to be." That's an important thing for them to hear.

I'm proud to speak in favour of this bill. I'm proud to be part of a government that is supporting this human rights issue. I will be voting in favour.

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): It's with great pleasure as well that I have a chance to rise in this chamber

today to take

part in the debate on second reading of Bill 171, the Spousal Relationships Statute Law Amendment Act, and I think it's fair to say that I do so with a great deal of pride.

I want to compliment my colleague, my sister, Kathleen Wynne on her speech.

I'm one of those people who has been lucky enough to have an opportunity to attend Legislatures, even before I was an elected member, and to see history in the

making, history that affected me in a very personal way.

As a young kid interested in politics, I had the chance to be in the Senate gallery of the House of Commons when Pierre Trudeau spoke on the Canadian

Constitution.

I had a chance to be in that members' gallery on a very special day, when this Legislature, I believe in 1986, debated an amendment put forward by Evelyn

Gigantes and supported by the Liberal government of the day, with a few members of the Conservative Party joining in and lending their support: Bill 7, an amendment to the Ontario Human Rights Code

that read in sexual orientation as a prohibited means of discrimination.

I had the opportunity, in my maiden speech in this Legislature, from a spot back there in the corner, not so far from where the member from Cambridge sits now,

to make a speech on a bill brought in by then Attorney General Jim Flaherty, Bill 5, which, not dissimilar to the bill before us today, brought Ontario statutes into accordance with the laws of the

land. I was proud that our Legislature that day chose to vote unanimously in favour of that. I said that it was setting a new seat at the table for the gay and lesbian community.

I'm tremendously honoured to have a chance today to participate in a debate on a matter brought forward by my colleague the Attorney General, and I want to say

to him, for his thoughtful and forceful contribution to this debate, that I'm honoured to be part of the government.

I want to say that I'm honoured as well to have a chance to speak in front of my preacher. Now, I must be careful in acknowledging that Brent Hawkes is my

preacher, because if attendance were taken there as it is here, there would be some concern about how one can make a claim that someone is their preacher when they don't go in person quite as often

as they might to hear the tremendous oratory, the passion and the tremendous wisdom that Brent Hawkes brings in his role as pastor of the Metropolitan Community Church. That church on Simpson

Avenue, in the riding of Toronto-Danforth, home to the member opposite, has a reputation, I think it's fair to say, as a place where a progressive, inspirational congregation does what it needs to

do to make the kinds of advances, the human rights advances, that the gay and lesbian community has been much in need of over a period of time. This courageous band, a very small group of people in

the grand scheme of things, has demonstrated that you can, in a certain sense, fight city hall, that you can make the progress that's necessary for a society to evolve.

I think that is the essence of the greatness of Canada. That in this land, with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we have made a home for people from all over

the world where we celebrate diversity and recognize it as our greatest strength is, I think, a credit to the fabric of our country.

I just want to say that I'm honoured to be here today and to have a chance to speak in the presence of Brent Hawkes, who stands out as one of the most

exemplary leaders I think our country has ever known.

This bill is of tremendous importance, of course, to thousands of people across this province. It's also of considerable importance to me, a point that I think

has been made by now. As a gay man, obviously I'm very proud of a bill specifically designed to remove the last hurdle in provincial law to equality for gays and lesbians. That word, "equality," is

one that I rely upon a lot. It is the human rights issue that is at the heart of this debate. It's based on a fairly simple principle. It is that principle on which I operate on a daily basis: that

my sexual orientation ought never to be a ground to suggest in any way that I'm unequal to any other member of this House or to any other citizen of our country. That is the principle that is found

at the heart of our Canadian Constitution, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I'm proud of a bill that is designed to enable us, as a province, to do the right thing.

Make no mistake: That is exactly the point here. If passed, this bill will make amendments to some 70 Ontario statutes that at present are inconsistent with

court decisions informed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that give same-sex couples the right to marry. These are statutes that are inconsistent with the law.

It has been legal for almost two years for same-sex couples to marry in Ontario. This is something that gives me tremendous pride in my province and in my

country. More than 1,000 gay couples have been married in that time, happily and proudly joining the millions of other couples in this country who have come together in love and asked nothing more

than society's blessing of that union. In this province, we do bless that union, regardless of the sexual orientation of the people who are involved. If I may say it again, that is something that

gives me tremendous pride in our province and in our country. I'd also have to say that I know of no marriage anywhere that has been weakened or damaged as a result of the marriage of any same-sex

couple that has occurred.

Bill 171 would do nothing more than make easier that which has already been made legal. It would simply, if passed, secure ground that has already been won and

that will never again be ceded. The term "spouse" would be expanded to legally include same-sex couples who are married or live together in conjugal relationships outside of marriage. In other

words, same-sex couples would henceforth be treated with the same respect and dignity accorded to opposite- sex couples.

If anybody really has a problem with that, I have to ask myself what that problem could possibly be. How, in our land, can equality be a problem?

I know there are those here who fear that religious officials might somehow be forced to perform marriages that are inconsistent with their religious beliefs.

I wish I could find the words to permanently dispel this fear, because it is groundless. The fact is that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- the same charter that gives same-sex couples the

right to marry -- gives religious officials the right to perform only those marriages that they wish to perform. The Supreme Court is very clear in their opinion on this. Religious officials cannot

be forced to overrun their beliefs. The same charter that protects us protects them.

But over and above the legal protection that exists in this regard, there is another protection that I believe in many ways runs even deeper. The gay community

has nothing but the deepest respect for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is a document that has allowed us to take our place in society, proudly and without fear. The last thing in the world

we would ever dream of doing is deprive another group of the rights and freedoms that it enjoys under a charter that we hold so very dear. How could anyone believe we would then turn around and

hypocritically abuse it? We would not.

Gays and lesbians in this province want nothing more than to enjoy the respect and dignity that comes with being equal under the law. They want nothing more

than to enjoy the respect and dignity that comes with being equal in the eyes of their fellow citizens. We have already won the first battle, and the second battle is being won as we speak. The

bill we are debating in this House today is really a recognition of both those things. I'm very proud to stand behind it and recommend that other members do so as well.

Mr. David Zimmer (Willowdale): Mr. Speaker, I may be sharing my time with the member from Perth-Middlesex.

It's my pleasure to rise today to speak in support of the proposed spousal definition legislation introduced by the Attorney General yesterday afternoon. This

bill illustrates the McGuinty government's steadfast commitment to ensuring that same-sex couples in Ontario are treated with the same respect and dignity as opposite sex couples.

More than 70 provincial statutes will be amended with the passage of this bill, redefining "spouse" and removing such terms as "same-sex partner," "husband,"

"wife," "widower" and "widow." These terms will be replaced with a gender-neutral definition of "spouse." Under this legislation, the term "spouse" will serve to define all couples in these and all

future statutes.

Some people may question why this government is now deciding to take such action. The reason is quite simple: The Attorney General has introduced this bill

because it is the right thing to do; it is the necessary thing to do. The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in June 2003 that the current definition of marriage -- that is, being exclusively between a

man and a woman -- was unconstitutional. That's the law of the province since June 2003.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in December 2004, at the request of the federal government, rendered its opinion that same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and

that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the freedom of religious officials to perform marriages and use their sacred places in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Surely the ruling of the Ontario Court of Appeal and the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada offer a clear, reasoned and rational signal for the need for

change in Ontario to bring our laws into compliance. Since the first of these rulings by the courts almost two years ago, the reality is that more than 1,000 same-sex marriages have taken place in

Ontario. Yet the provincial statutes applying to these couples remain out of date, out of sync and, more importantly, they remain unconstitutional. Logically, then, we must amend these statutes to

reflect the current status of the law. All Ontarians, no matter who they are, must have the comfort of knowing that, without question, they are fully recognized and fully protected by the laws of

Ontario.

Some people may take issue with this initiative and, indeed, with the whole idea of same-sex marriage. They are entitled to their opinion -- that is what a

free and democratic society is all about -- so long as those opinions do not come at the expense of others.

Those who would politicize this issue do so for just that: to politicize it. But that is not the issue before the House today. We are being asked simply to

formalize in our statutes in the Ontario statute books what the highest courts of the province and the highest court of the land have said should be the case -- indeed, what is the case.

I think we can all appreciate that same-sex marriage is not some abstract, conceptual notion to be debated upon ideological lines. The issue is purely and

simply a matter of rights, the fundamental rights impacting everyday lives of very real people: all of us, straight and gay -- people we know and work beside every day, our straight friends, our

gay friends, straight members of our family, gay members of our family. That is why the passage of this legislation is so significant.

I want to take a minute now and just answer for the record a few of the questions that have been posed about the effect of this legislation. In no particular