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

November 28, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-Nov-28 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 28 November 2006 Mardi 28 novembre 2006

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EGG PRODUCERS

LANDFILL

ONTARIO FEDERATION OF SCHOOL

ATHLETIC ASSOCIATIONS

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

MARIJUANA GROW OPERATIONS

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 107

FRENCH-LANGUAGE POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION /

ÉDUCATION POSTSECONDAIRE

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

SAFE DRINKING WATER LEGISLATION

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

IMPAIRED DRIVERS

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

IMPAIRED DRIVERS

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

JUSTICE SYSTEM

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 107

ENERGY CONSERVATION

FOOD BANKS

MUNICIPAL PROPERTY

ASSESSMENT CORP.

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 107

EDUCATION

FOREST INDUSTRY

GO TRANSIT

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

MUNICIPAL AIRPORT FUNDING

INTERPRETER SERVICES FOR VICTIMS

OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITIONS

SCHOOL FACILITIES

NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT SUPPLEMENT

BORDER SECURITY

LONG-TERM CARE

NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT SUPPLEMENT

COMMUNITY MEDIATION

PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

LAND TITLES

NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT

SUPPLEMENT

LONG-TERM CARE

NATURAL RESOURCES

PROGRAM FUNDING

VISITOR

OPPOSITION DAY

JUSTICE SYSTEM

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

COAL-FIRED GENERATING STATIONS

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EGG PRODUCERS

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): It's shaping up to be supply management week here in the Ontario Legislature. I'm pleased to report that the Egg Farmers of Ontario were here this

morning for their annual breakfast. I had cheese, tomatoes and mushrooms in my omelette -- delicious.

There are 430 egg producers and pullet growers in Ontario, producing 200 million dozen eggs annually. Egg farmers operate within a system, as we know, called supply management. At a time when nearly all farm

commodities are in crisis, the supply-managed sectors continue to be the foundation of our rural economy. However, our egg farmers are worried about trade negotiations that might jeopardize supply management.

Last winter, John Tory and the entire Progressive Conservative caucus signed the FarmGate5 petition in support of supply management. Since then we've gained two new MPPs, both of whom have signed online.

We are dismayed with the internal divisions within the McGuinty caucus over supply management. Minister Smitherman and his 31 Liberal followers are still refusing to sign the FarmGate5 petition despite the

appeal, as recently as yesterday, from Lisa MacLeod, the member for Nepean-Carleton.

On behalf of John Tory and the entire PC caucus, we salute Ontario's egg producers and we urge George Smitherman and his fellow anti-farmers to support supply management.

LANDFILL

Mr. Peter Tabuns (Toronto-Danforth): On the heels of the Liberals passing their Clean Water Act, ministry approvals were given to the design and operation of site 41, a landfill that's to sit

atop an Ontario aquifer that holds some of the purest water on earth. The timing of these approvals, to put it mildly, rings of irony. It's also in keeping with how Liberals make decisions that contravene the precautionary principle, a measure

they refused to incorporate into the Clean Water Act.

The landfill, located northwest of Barrie near Wyevale, is set to open in the fall of 2007. Water from the aquifer was tested at the University of Heidelberg's internationally renowned clean lab, which is

capable of detecting even the slightest impurities in water. Results suggested that the groundwater underlying the proposed site for this landfill could be among the cleanest groundwater on earth. For example, lead levels were found to be below

those in Arctic ice cores dating back 5,000 years -- but perhaps not for long.

In addition to legislation around source water protection lacking requirements to follow the precautionary principle, this government has failed to follow through with its pledge to divert 60% of waste from

landfill. There is still time to act now on a variety of fronts, starting with passing legislation that disqualifies site 41 from being a landfill site on the basis of source water protection.

ONTARIO FEDERATION OF SCHOOL

ATHLETIC ASSOCIATIONS

Mr. Bill Mauro (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I am pleased to announce that OFSAA recently hosted their cross-country running championships in Thunder Bay. The event was a major success and included

over 1,500 registered runners with over 300 coaches, making it one of the largest one-day sporting events ever held in Thunder Bay.

As you are probably aware, OFSAA is an organization comprised of student athletes, teacher coaches, principals and sports administrators who are all committed to the philosophy of education through school sport.

Ontario students who participate in OFSAA championships can use the opportunity to deal with issues such as drug-free sport, equity, fair play and safe schools.

Over 170 volunteers came together to make these championships a success. I would like to specifically recognize the co-convenors, David Pineau and Roger Slomke; organizing committee members Don Grant, Clarke

Loney, Andrea North, Bryan Nunan, Rob Murphy, Alicyn Papich, Kip Sigsworth, Don Sutherland and Natasha Tracz; the contributing school boards who gave their teachers time off to participate in the events; and the local businesses and organizations

who made financial contributions. A special thank you to Thunder Bay Nordic Trails and specifically Kamview Nordic Centre, especially Peter Crooks and his gang.

Most importantly, I would like to recognize all the student athletes. Everyone's combined effort made this such an enjoyable event.

Once again, I would like to congratulate the city of Thunder Bay and OFSAA for all their hard work and recent success. Hopefully, we'll see many more OFSAA championships in Thunder Bay in the years to come.

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): Dalton McGuinty said he would not raise your taxes, and he proceeded to break that promise immediately upon having been elected. He was also

elected on a promise of transparency and openness in government. That's where we got the $6-million contract for the Liberal-friendly ad agency: an untendered, secret backroom deal to take a letter out of the OLGC lottery logo.

But today we find out that this government has now gone to the depths of not publishing the fact that the location of a caucus meeting would be moved, not publishing that in the Premier's agenda. Premier, caucus

business is behind closed doors, but the time and location of that meeting is for the public and the media to know. Christina Blizzard, the president of the press gallery, said that in all her time in Queen's Park it is unprecedented that a

government would move a caucus meeting without telling the press and giving them due notice of its time and location.

We find out that the Premier had election planning people coming to this caucus meeting. Were they the same experts who told him he could shut down the coal plants in 2007? If so, I'm suggesting you get some new

advice. But I'm going to ask the Premier a question on behalf of the people of the province of Ontario: Dalton McGuinty, what are you trying to hide now?

MARIJUANA GROW OPERATIONS

Mr. Mario Sergio (York West): I want to address the issue of the huge grow-op on Jane Street in my riding. Unfortunately, I was not advised of the meeting that took place this past weekend, but

let me say nonetheless that concrete action is needed to allay the concerns and fears surrounding the health risks associated with such operations. I believe that the best restitution we can make to all the occupants of this building is to give

them the peace of mind that indeed those steps will be taken, and provide them with the assurance that living in this building will be safe and will not be a threat to their health.

I call on the mayor and the local councillor to have each unit of this building inspected by the fire, health and building departments and charge the owner with all associated expenses in conducting such

inspections, and, further, to carry on as expeditiously as possible all the repairs and removal of mould and other chemical traces.

that living in their buildings is safe and provide them with peace of mind.

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 107

Mrs. Christine Elliott (Whitby-Ajax): Despite an all-party endorsement by the justice policy committee to hold hearings into the winter to accommodate the hundreds of groups waiting to be

consulted with respect to Bill 107, and despite commitments by the Attorney General to do the same, it seems nothing will stop this McGuinty government from quashing debate on this fundamental piece of legislation.

The irony of not consulting with people on what is certainly among the most vital and essential pieces of legislation we have to protect the people seems to be entirely lost on this government. As Keith Norton,

former chair of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, aptly put it, this decision is just "unconscionable."

This morning our leader, John Tory, joined with the member for Niagara Centre, Peter Kormos, and David Lepofsky, the disabilities act alliance's human rights representative on this bill, and Mr. Norton in a

non-partisan press conference to make a final effort to convince Premier McGuinty and his Attorney General to honour their government's promise to extend public hearings.

"This should not be about politics," said Mr. Tory.

"There was no trickery; this was decided upon by all three parties," said Mr. Kormos in reference to extending the hearings.

"The government has not heard everything. More importantly, they have not listened," said Mr. Lepofsky.

"I implore the government to try to find a way to get this back on track," said Mr. Norton.

We have repeatedly asked the Attorney General to come forward with his plans to fund the linchpin of the overhaul, the legal support centre. He has repeatedly refused to answer my question. I'm simply confounded

by this government's arrogant belief that it knows better -- knows better than a former chief commissioner, knows better than the current chief commissioner and knows better than the champions of vulnerable people across all --

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

FRENCH-LANGUAGE POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION /

ÉDUCATION POSTSECONDAIRE

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): I'm pleased to express my gratitude to Premier McGuinty and Minister Bentley for last week's investment of $29 million in francophone post-secondary

education.

This investment will provide more high-quality French-language programs, increase post-secondary opportunities for francophones, provide additional opportunities for French-as-a-second-language students to

pursue post-secondary education in French, and support financial aid for students studying in French.

I'm proud to tell this House that La Cité collégiale, in Ottawa, in receiving $7.3 million in 2006-07 through a partnership with the federal government to expand the range of the French-language

programs and services it provides.

The McGuinty government has also invested $4.7 million in 2006-07 to enhance the quality of French-language programming at Ontario's bilingual universities; and $15 million in 2006-07, rising to $55 million by

2009-10, in new programs to increase access to post-secondary education for francophones, aboriginal peoples, people with disabilities and first-generation students.

De la part de tous mes commettants, je voudrais remercier le premier ministre ainsi que le ministre de la Formation et des Collèges et Universités pour l'investissement dans l'avenir de la francophonie

ici en Ontario.

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): First, let me pass on greetings to the Egg Farmers of Ontario, who were kind enough to serve up a delicious breakfast this morning here at the

Legislature. They, and all Ontario farmers, continue to play an integral role in this province, and it was wonderful to have the opportunity to dialogue with them today.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the new president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Geri Kamenz. Geri will bring a strong voice to the federation, ensuring that issues in

agriculture receive due attention.

Geri has indicated that his approach will be on working with other farm organizations, consulting with farmers and being comprehensive in his search for solutions to agricultural issues. This is the right

approach, and this government will be happy to continue with the OFA to address the concerns of the farming sector.

I myself look forward to working with Geri, as the last time I had the opportunity to see him at work was as a student in my classes at Viscount Alexander Public School in Cornwall in my riding of

Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh. As any educator will tell you, it is always a treat to see a former student succeed. I have the privilege of also standing here as a proud MPP, looking at a former resident of my riding stepping forward to serve

his province.

I want to wish Geri the best in his new role, and I am confident he will do extremely well. I would also like to pass on words of thanks to former OFA president Ron Bonnett for his tireless efforts on behalf of

the agricultural community.

SAFE DRINKING WATER LEGISLATION

Mr. Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): I rise today to share details about a productive meeting in my riding yesterday addressing the Clean Water Act with special guest the

parliamentary assistant for the Minister of the Environment.

The Clean Water Act is significant, groundbreaking legislation which evolved from recommendations made by Justice O'Connor in the Walkerton inquiry. Yesterday's round table involved environmentalists,

conservation experts, municipal representatives, private sector members and key leaders from our agricultural community. It was an excellent opportunity to debunk many of the myths that surround the Clean Water Act.

The Clean Water Act is the first drinking water program of its kind in Ontario. If passed, it will make $7 million available in 2007-08 for early actions to protect drinking water: $5 million will support action

to protect land and water surrounding water wells and municipal intakes; and $2 million will support education and outreach related to source protection planning. The act requires consultation and collaboration with community partners to ensure

safe drinking water.

The Clean Water Act is an example of the tremendous effort and importance our government places on working with local members of communities to achieve the best results for all Ontarians. The act will bring

together the best minds in our community to protect our most valuable natural resource: our water.

I want to thank the parliamentary assistant.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 p.m. to

9:30 p.m. on Tuesday, November 28, 2006, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1349 to 1354.

The Speaker: Mr. Bradley has moved government notice of motion number 240. All those in favour will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Balkissoon, Bas

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Bradley, James J.

Brownell, Jim

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Colle, Mike

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Fonseca, Peter

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Mitchell, Carol

Orazietti, David

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

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

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Barrett, Toby

Bisson, Gilles

Chudleigh, Ted

DiNovo, Cheri

Elliott, Christine

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

Runciman, Robert W.

Tabuns, Peter

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tory, John

Yakabuski, John

The Deputy Clerk (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 44; the nays are 22.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Economic Development and Trade, minister responsible for women's issues): I've just returned from a very successful mission to the Alberta oil sands to

capitalize on opportunities for Ontario manufacturers.

What we said when we were there, quite frankly, was that Alberta is the fascination of the nation. The oil sands project has meant unprecedented economic growth in Alberta, creating a fierce demand for

everything from skilled labour to industrial supplies. Alberta needs their companies' thousands of workers to construct these facilities and added manufacturing capacity from across Canada.

We think that's where we come in. Opportunities for growth are opening up in a big way, and we'd like to be a part of that. There are more than $100 billion in long-term projects over the next 10 to 20 years,

and I want to ensure that Ontario manufacturers play a major role in meeting Alberta's capacity demands to keep projects on time and on budget. There was tremendous interest in this mission across Ontario and in fact, on short notice, 27

manufacturers joined me in Alberta.

I had excellent meetings with Alberta's economic development minister, Clint Dunford, and intergovernmental affairs minister Gary Mar. We talked about the Alberta oil sands project and how there are benefits

for all of Canada, including Ontario manufacturers.

Ontario has tremendous manufacturing capacity. What we looked at was our interests that could actually help Alberta in the area of innovation, automation and outsourcing. More than one million Ontarians work

in manufacturing here. Ontario manufacturers not only have the capacity but the skill and expertise to meet the needs of Alberta companies. The potential for partnerships is great for both Ontario and Alberta.

It's important that we establish new partnerships across the country and match Alberta companies with Ontario suppliers. That is what we started with on this mission. In fact, they named me the ambassador for

the Leduc-Nisku Economic Development Authority.

For years, governments and countries geared their alliances on a north-south axis, but that's what economies dictated then. Now, opportunities for partnership exist within the borders of our own country

between east and west. It's important that we find, as the minister there put it, a made-in-Canada solution. Our finance minister, Greg Sorbara, indicated in his recent fall economic statement that we should encourage interprovincial trade by

matching the industrial needs in Alberta with the industrial capacity in Ontario. We should also explore the merits of joining the Alberta-British Columbia trade agreement.

This is not simply about Ontario's interests or Alberta's interests; it's part of the process of nation-building and what we as partners can do to help each other to grow and prosper. My colleague the

Honourable Harinder Takhar, Minister of Small Business and Entrepreneurship in Ontario, worked as well to establish stronger partnerships between the regions across Canada when he visited Alberta and British Columbia about a month ago.

In the meantime, we're working closely with the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters and the Canada and Alberta governments. We're encouraging Ontario manufacturers to participate in the Canadian Manufacturers

and Exporters National Buyer/Seller Forum in Edmonton next March. It's an excellent opportunity for Ontario suppliers and Alberta companies to be matched in future phases of the Alberta oil sands project.

At the same time we're supporting our manufacturing sector through the advanced manufacturing investment strategy, which in this first phase alone created $187 million in investments and 600 jobs. New

investments will be announced shortly as we continue to encourage companies to invest in leading-edge technologies and processes.

We recognize that we must be proactive if we want prosperity in every region of the province. The higher Canadian dollar affects export sales. High energy costs have a significant impact on our small and

medium-sized businesses. Global competition is fierce, and it will continue. Our government is investing in programs to help Ontario manufacturers and all sectors across the province succeed. Our broad strategy as a government is to build on our

education and health care system, stable energy, and infrastructure. All of these efforts lay the groundwork for Ontario to attract new investment and expand its reach around the world.

Working together with our shared expertise, we can turn opportunities into realities like the Alberta oil sands project. Our government is hopeful that Ontario and its partners across Canada will prosper in

this new and exciting era.

Alberta's boom has created a challenge for Alberta companies to keep up. Ontario is up to the challenge and willing to help.

As a government, we're doing everything we can to seize the moment. We know that if we nurture those partnerships between Alberta companies and Ontario suppliers, it's good for Alberta, it's great for Ontario

and, in particular, it's great for Canada.

IMPAIRED DRIVERS

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield (Minister of Transportation): I rise in the House today to speak to an important agreement that will help raise public awareness about the terrible consequences of

impaired driving. The McGuinty government and Mothers Against Drunk Driving -- MADD -- have agreed to place roadside signs in memory of those who have lost their lives as a result of drunk drivers. MADD Canada will administer the memorial sign

program and will work with the Ministry of Transportation to install the signs at safe locations along provincial highways.

These memorial signs will remind people of the high cost of impaired driving -- the cost of someone's life. As Minister of Transportation I've worked closely with MADD Canada and other community groups such as

the Ontario Community Council on Impaired Driving and the Ontario Safety League. I have been repeatedly moved when I hear the testimonials of those who have lost loved ones due to impaired drivers.

The McGuinty government supports MADD Canada's efforts to stop drunk driving. Ontario has some of the toughest anti-drinking-and-driving laws in North America. We have stiff fines, licence suspensions,

mandatory alcohol education or treatment, and an ignition interlock program.

While I'm proud that Ontario has the safest roads in North America, drinking and driving is still a factor in about one quarter of all fatal collisions in Ontario. Approximately 16,000 people are convicted of

drinking and driving every year in Ontario. That's a rate of two an hour.

There is, however, some encouraging news. The number of fatal drinking and driving crashes is falling -- down 35% in the last 10 years. The latest statistics show that the number of fatalities involving an

impaired driver in Ontario fell by more than 11% in 2004 compared to the year before.

We need to get the anti-drunk-driving message out in every way we can. Drunk drivers will simply not be tolerated on Ontario roads. That's why we have the toughest drunk-driving laws and that's why the

McGuinty government is working with MADD Canada, community groups and law enforcement to raise public awareness.

These memorial signs will help us to do that. They will remind people to make the responsible choice. I know all honourable members will want to help us spread this message. The message is simple: Don't drink

and drive.

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

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr. Ted Chudleigh (Halton): Maybe the minister is sensing the reality faced by Ontario's manufacturing sector and that the 105,000 lost jobs represent more than just a "cycle," as she's been

quoted as saying. Yes, it is true, Minister: It's more than just a cycle. Since the beginning of last year, Ontario has lost more than 105,000 manufacturing jobs. This is a dismal record for any government to have.

Considering the rate at which Ontario's manufacturers are losing competitive ground, this government's lack of a comprehensive job strategy is really what we need to highlight in this House. The manufacturing

sector in Ontario is the second most taxed amongst its provincial counterparts. Ontario's tax on corporate capital trails only China worldwide.

What does this initiative do for northern Ontario, eastern Ontario? The forest sector is vanishing in northern Ontario, and communities such as Cornwall in the east have been devastated since the McGuinty

Liberals came to power.

The auto sector in this province may be alive and well, but the auto parts suppliers in Ontario are suffering terribly. Canada's auto parts sector, which operates almost entirely in Ontario, has lost 10,000

jobs since the start of 2005.

It is not just large industries that are struggling. Big industries might be able to struggle their way through another hit from the McGuinty government; small and medium-sized businesses cannot.

Not long ago, the Premier was quoted as saying that over 1,000 jobs lost at GM in Oshawa were a "small contraction." What a dismal record for a Premier. The member from Markham at the time, talking about

municipalities which were reeling from plant closures across this province and were asking the government to do something, referred to these municipalities as "crybabies." What a dismal record for a government to have. The member for

Guelph-Wellington, when announcing that 550 jobs were lost at Imperial Tobacco, talked about how their plan was working. What a dismal record for a government to have. Some 105,000 manufacturing jobs gone in Ontario: what a dismal record.

Other sector job growth is some of the lowest in Canada: a dismal record for any government. Growth rates: a dismal record. Innuendo, half-truths, stories and broken promises: a dismal record. Lost jobs,

"small contractions," "crybabies" and "Our plan is working": a dismal record. On October 4 of next year, Ontarians will judge you on your dismal record.

IMPAIRED DRIVERS

Mrs. Julia Munro (York North): I was very pleased to be able to join the minister yesterday at the signing of the memorandum of understanding. It's really a very exciting opportunity when you

look at having an idea and then being able to see it come to fruition. The original resolution, of course, was passed unanimously by this House. It called for government to work with MADD Canada and the Ministry of Transportation.

Roadside memorials have two purposes. First of all, it is obviously an opportunity for the family to have a permanent memorial to recognize the needless loss of a loved one. But it's also an opportunity to

provide a very important social message: "A real person died right here, needlessly, because of someone's irresponsible actions." All fatalities and injuries that are caused by drunk driving are needless, and we have a responsibility to find

effective avenues for this important social message. Roadside memorials simply add to that arsenal of opportunities to get that message out.

Our government has a proud record, one that increased fines for drunk driving, that introduced suspensions for people who had less than 0.8%, and as well, the introduction and passage of Garfield Dunlop's

private member's bill on ignition interlock. When you look at all of these things, it's certainly a very strong and determined message from this party on the extreme importance of getting out that message against drunk driving.

I'm very pleased that, through the minister, we were able to see this very important social message come out. I'm looking forward to the opportunities to actually see those roadside memorials on Ontario

highways.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Finally, the government has figured out that there's an economic benefit to supporting the natural resources industry. Finally, this government has

realized that if you were to do something to support the natural resources industry, it's not only businesses such as mining and forestry that could benefit but also southern Ontario, because they supply the services and means by which those

particular industries are able to flourish. The unfortunate

part is that the minister had to go to Alberta to figure that out.

I'm just saying, it's about time the government figured out that we have a very vibrant natural resources industry here in Ontario. We know that in northern Ontario there is the mining sector, if the minister

hasn't figured it out, and there's also the forestry sector. If she, along with her government, were to do things to support the forestry sector so that we don't see the decimation of the northern economy that we're seeing today, southern Ontario

and its manufacturing and service sectors would flourish.

I say to the government across the way, I guess the first step is admitting that you've got a problem, figuring out that maybe there's something you can do about it, and maybe then there is a hope, but it

didn't take Alberta to figure that out. You should have figured that out in your own backyard. I say to the government that it's about time you figured that out.

We know that across northern Ontario, the forest resource industry is in deep trouble. We know that because of a number of issues this government fails to recognize by way of policy to resolve the problem. If

you're sitting in Opasatika, in Hearst, Smooth Rock Falls, Kirkland Lake, Timmins, all the way across to Sault Ste. Marie, Bowater, Thunder Bay, Kenora, Ignace -- and the list goes on -- there are all kinds of forest-resource-based industries that

have either shut their doors completely or have reduced their workforces significantly as a result of this government's policy.

Now there is still hope because the government, through this minister, has admitted a second thing today. I thought it was wonderful and refreshing to hear from the government that, finally, they've admitted

the following: High energy costs have a significant impact on our small and medium-sized businesses. Well, hurray for the government. You finally figured out that electricity is related to the economic prosperity of Ontario. It is the first step

towards admitting that you have a problem and finding a solution. I applaud the government for finally figuring it out.

We will work with you to develop a 12-step program to figure out that you're able to do something to respond to the crisis in both the manufacturing sector and the resource sectors. I applaud the Minister of

Economic Development and Trade for finding the political fortitude to separate herself from her Premier and the Minister of Energy and to admit that -- I want to repeat -- high energy costs have a significant impact on our small and medium-sized

businesses.

Madame Pupatello, we want to say that we welcome this. You're finally becoming a champion for us on the benches on the opposite side and you will do something to move your Premier, your energy minister and

others to our side towards finding the solutions that are necessary to put northern Ontarians back to work.

I say to you, Minister, I wish you well on the road of converting the rest of the Liberal caucus because, I can tell you, it is a very long road. Finally, after three years, we have one Liberal member who

admits that their energy policies are costing jobs in Ontario. Bravo, Minister.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): We have with us today in the Speaker's gallery the Right Honourable George Reid, Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament. Please join me in welcoming

our guest.

ORAL QUESTIONS

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. As the Premier will be aware, the Progressive Conservative caucus and I have been, for some time, calling on his

government to provide detailed information about the justice system in order to ensure that Ontarians can get an accurate picture of exactly how well the system is functioning -- or not. It's an idea this government has resisted, preferring

instead to suggest that somehow this issue is somebody else's responsibility or that it's not important.

Now the federal government has acted, and proposed some new legislation last week. Media reports have supported our contention that the lack of evidence with respect to bail and other criminal matters as to

what's going on, how many different things are happening, is a problem.

My question is this: Why has the Premier repeatedly refused our calls to provide more truth and transparency in the justice system by simply reporting more of the facts and figures as to what actually goes on

in the courts to the public? Why would you refuse to do that?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): I want to refer the leader of the official opposition to the crown policy manual, which is available online. I know that

one of his concerns is what's happening at bail hearings for those accused who are charged with a gun-related offence. I would encourage him to look at this crown policy manual. As I say, it's available online. It says, "At all stages of the

prosecution, from bail to sentencing, the prosecution of firearms offences should be premised on providing the greatest protection to the community, not on considerations of expediency." So the very clear directive that has been set out to our

crown attorneys is that when it comes to dealing with prosecution of firearms offences, they should not be dealt away with -- to use the common parlance -- but rather the greatest possible priority should be given to protecting the community at

large. That is something that is in writing, something that has been issued to Ontario's crown attorneys.

Mr. Tory: That is very helpful, and I have been to the policy manual many times. In fact, each time you go back you keep hoping it gets better, but it doesn't. That wasn't the question,

though. The question was the results that come out of the application, or not, of that policy.

We hear anecdotal statistics from time to time about bail. For example, since you raised that, Prime Minister Harper said last week, quoting the Toronto police, that 40% of the 1,000 gun crimes committed in

Toronto this year so far were committed by someone or were alleged to have been committed by someone who is under some kind of court order; 70% of the accused in Toronto's 62 murders this year were subject to earlier court orders; 14 of the 32

people facing murder or manslaughter charges in Toronto this year were on bail in connection with another charge at the time of the alleged offence.

What we're looking for, instead of this kind of anecdotal evidence that the Toronto police happen to have handy, is province-wide statistics, including on how many times bail is granted when the crown opposes

it, for example.

My question is simple: Why would your government consistently and repeatedly oppose --

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): The question has been asked. Premier?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Again, I want to provide the leader of the official opposition with more information and more specifics with respect to firearms prosecutions. Here is information I do not

believe he has previously been aware of, because this is not available online, but it's part of the practice memorandum issued to counsel, criminal law division, in January of this year. It says:

"It bears repeating that the criminal misuse of firearms presents a serious challenge to a peaceful society. Given the potential for tragedy arising from such crimes, protection of the public must be crown

counsel's paramount consideration, particularly as it relates to issues of bail. In all cases involving firearms-related offences, crown counsel shall, absent exceptional circumstances, seek a detention order."

So what we have in place today in Ontario is a very explicit directive to our crown attorneys to seek detention in the case of a bail application. And furthermore, now we've worked with Prime Minister Harper

to ensure that we have in place a reverse onus provision. It seems to me that by any objective standard we're moving in the right direction.

Mr. Tory: I don't disagree that we're moving in the right direction. But I'm asking a different question, which is, with all those directives in place and all the rest of it, why can't we have

tracking and reporting to the public of the data that reflect the results of the process you just spoke about? I'm asking you, if it's okay to put cameras in the courtroom, as your Attorney General says he is going to do, then why isn't it okay to

keep track of the statistics as to what goes on inside that room? What we are asking for, and I'm asking the Premier again, is increased openness and transparency of the justice system. To begin tracking and reporting statistics on bail and on

sureties and on sentencing deals, I think, will allow for real scrutiny and for the public to understand what's going on. Why won't you support making these facts available to the public by tracking them first and then by reporting them? It's a

very simple question.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: If the leader of the official opposition has raised this specific request with Mr. Justice McMurtry, I would be surprised if Mr. Justice McMurtry agreed with this request.

He has faced this type of proposal in the past. He has been very clear in expressing his concerns about that. In the past, he challenged the former Tory government's decision to allow a private member's bill calling for the tracking of individual

judges' sentencing records to proceed to the legislative process. He said this was perceived as a rather heavy-handed and irresponsible attempt to intimidate judges in the sentencing process.

So I think what my honourable friend is asking, and he may not recognize this, leads us onto a slippery slope where we begin to actually count the number of times judges grant bail and do not, and we ask them

to either subliminally or directly take into account the political considerations of the day. Mr. Justice McMurtry says that's the wrong way to go, and I agree.

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 107

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. I asked only for aggregate statistics, not for judge-by-judge statistics, but in any event, my question for the

Premier is this. It has been a week now since the Premier dropped the guillotine on Bill 107, breaking the promises of his Attorney General to hold extensive hearings on the legislation; in fact, as the Attorney General put it, to hold hearings

for "however long it takes."

Today, together with the member for Niagara Centre, Keith Norton, former chair of the Human Rights Commission, and David Lepofsky, the human rights representative for the disability act alliance, we had a news

conference simply to indicate on behalf of the people whom the disability act alliance represents that there are hundreds of people who want, as promised and as advertised, to have their chance to have a say on this bill. We have proposed a

timeline to the government; I have proposed it to you. You allow the people to be heard; we will have this matter expeditiously brought to a vote on March 19, or the next day, if you wish. Why won't you agree to consider that proposal?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): I don't know whether or not the leader of the official opposition has secured the agreement of the NDP to this particular

proposal, but I'd be very surprised if he obtained their consent.

Our position has been very clear for quite some time now. We believe that there is something that seriously ails the human rights system in the province of Ontario. In fact, criticism has been levelled against

this system, which we inherited, for many, many years now. Complaints take too long to be heard. Five to 10 years, in some cases, for resolution is simply unacceptable.

We believe there has been a healthy debate. We've heard from many people. Legislation has been under discussion now for over 200 days. We've heard from over 80 separate presenters. The Attorney General in his

own capacity through his office has also met with more than 40 groups over the past six months. We've heard from many Ontarians, we have received their advice, and we're acting on their advice, even more recently -- well, tomorrow, in fact -- with

the introduction of still more amendments.

Mr. Tory: Well, "still more amendments" indicates in and of itself that the listening perhaps shouldn't be finished as yet. There's really no debate in the House on the need to fix the Human

Rights Commission. The listening is so that we maybe can understand from other than those privileged enough to be here how to fix it.

Keith Norton, David Lepofsky, Barbara Hall, June Callwood, the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations, John Rae of the Alliance for Blind Canadians, Marianne Park, Barbara Anello, the Jewish

Congress, Helen Henderson, the Toronto Star: These are some of the people who have said either that they want to be heard and/or that you are wrong to cut off this debate.

Keith Norton pointed out that this is legislation that is quasi-constitutional. That's how important and how fundamental it is in our system. So I would ask you: Why, when it is quasi-constitutional

legislation, why, when we've said it could be brought to a vote the first week back here on a timetable that, frankly, you can determine, will you not let these people be heard in the meantime, listen to what they might have to say, and then

proceed to pass what I'm sure would be better legislation? Why won't you agree?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: We are, in fact, listening. As the Attorney General indicated just a short time ago, the amendments that we plan to introduce tomorrow will reflect that.

commissioners. They're right, and that's reflected in the amendments we're introducing tomorrow.

We were asked by the Human Rights Commission to mandate that the commission report annually to Ontarians. The commission is right, and that's reflected in the amendments we're introducing tomorrow.

We've been asked by the Canadian Hearing Society, Local Agencies Serving Immigrants and the Ottawa

chapter of the Chinese Canadian National Council to provide for the ability to enter, examine records and

compel testimony and enforce compliance. Those groups are all right, and that, again, is reflected in the amendments that we are introducing tomorrow.

We are listening to Ontarians, we are taking into account their good advice, and we're acting on that advice.

Mr. Tory: And the only problem that I'm pointing out to you is that there are a lot of other groups who, I think you would agree, are groups worthy of respect that may themselves have some

more ideas that could make this bill even better, and you refuse to listen to them. Not only that; you make appointments to hear them, advertise hearings that they can participate in and then shut that down in mid-process.

One of the bigger issues that we have going forward is whether or not people will be able to have access to the legal representation they will now need, as they don't under the current arrangement, to go in

front of the tribunal. The member for Willowdale said on August 8, "the Attorney General has publicly committed ... to provide full legal support." The member for London North Centre said that the minister had said people will get the legal

representation they need. The minister had given that assurance. We have no details. The only person asked to run it, legal aid, are themselves broke, and they've said they won't run it. There's been no budget amount set out, no real idea that

anybody has.

I want to know if you, Mr. Premier, are prepared to tell the people of Ontario right here and now that people will have the full legal representation they're entitled to, that every single person will have

access to a lawyer they need in front of this tribunal under your new regime.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Again, this is not a new issue that is being raised before me or certainly before the Attorney General and the committee that considered this. We have listened to and heard

from countless numbers, either through the committee process itself or through the Attorney General's office in its usual workings.

The leader of the official opposition is very much focused on the process of this place. We are much more focused now, after devoting so much time and effort and energy to working as hard as we can to get the

bill right, on the process that takes place and which traps so many people as they try to work their way through our Ontario human rights system. So the leader of the official opposition may continue to focus on this process; we're going to focus

on the needs of people who need to avail themselves of Ontario's human rights system. There's been something troubling with that legislation for a long time. Those people out there can no longer wait, and we intend to move forward on their

behalf.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is to the Premier. Premier, across Ontario people are worried about paying their hydro bills, keeping the lights on, polluted air, climate

change and losing their jobs. This morning at the Toronto Board of Trade, I described how we could best address these challenges: by making energy efficiency the cornerstone of Ontario's energy future. I proposed some realistic and achievable

solutions that would make a real difference -- a real difference now -- like strengthening the building code by immediately legislating EnerGuide 80 standards to cut energy waste and help people save money on their hydro bills.

Premier, can you tell us why the McGuinty government, in your fourth year of government, hasn't implemented these energy efficiency improvements already?

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy): I would remind the member opposite that Ontario is ranked right up with California as the best energy efficiency jurisdiction in North America. I

remind him that the Canadian Energy Efficiency Alliance just recently upgraded Ontario's performance to B+ from D, which it was before we took office. We acknowledge that there is more to be done. We're in the process of doing that. We set up a

conservation bureau. We've added 54 appliances under the Energy Efficiency Act. There is more to do, and we're committed to doing it. I look forward to working with the member to ensure that we continue to lead the way not only in Canada but

indeed in North America and around the world.

Mr. Hampton: The McGuinty government has a good public relations campaign on energy efficiency, but in fact not much is happening. A strong commitment to energy efficiency would keep hydro

rates down, boost the economy, sustain good-paying manufacturing jobs and save Ontarians billions of dollars on their hydro bills. It is the key to a brighter energy, economic and environmental future for Ontario.

This morning, I also proposed a province-wide energy retrofit strategy that would provide low-interest loans to make homes, businesses and industries more energy-efficient. Energy retrofit strategies are a

success story in Manitoba and Quebec and California. Can you tell us, when is the McGuinty government going to get in the game?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: The member may have missed it, but we have already amended the building code to provide for among the most energy-efficient standards anywhere. We brought in the energy

conservation act, which that member voted against; he voted against it. We've re-implemented a number of energy conservation programs, which that member cancelled when he was part of government. We have now gone province-wide with a number of

programs that we piloted. There is more work to be done.

Had this work begun 10 or 12 years ago, we wouldn't be rushing to catch up. But we are catching up, and, according to independent analysts, including the Canadian Energy Efficiency Alliance and the Suzuki

Foundation, not only are we catching up but we're leading.

The member opposite talks about programs that are, in fact, worthy of consideration, as are a number of other ideas, and we will continue to look at those types of programs to ensure that Ontario --

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

Mr. Hampton: No strengthening of the building code until 2012, when environmental experts say it should have happened already, and no effective energy retrofit strategy: That is why this is a

public relations campaign but not much is happening.

If we compare Ontario to California, that jurisdiction saved 4,000 megawatts from peak electricity use by improving the building code. They saved 2,000 more megawatts from peak use by simply having tougher

standards for appliances. In fact, they have held their electricity use per capita at a steady rate while it has increased by 20% elsewhere in the United States.

If you won't strengthen the building code, if you are not interested in an energy retrofit program, will you at least toughen up the standards for appliances and bring in Energy Star standards for all new

appliances sold in the province today?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: Let me set the record straight, because there were some factual inaccuracies in what the member just said. First of all, residential energy standards by the end of this year:

Changes to the building code's energy efficiency standards will increase home energy efficiency over the current code by more than 21%. We will have the highest energy-efficiency standards in Canada, 13% higher than has ever existed in Ontario.

Homes built in 2007 will be required to have higher insulation levels: Ceilings are being increased by 29%, walls by 12% and foundation walls by 50%. It goes on and on. This government has led the way on energy efficiency and energy conservation.

Do you know what else he said in his speech this morning? He said we should keep the coal plants up north open and close the ones down south. He wants it both ways. He says on one hand -- that member doesn't understand energy. He doesn't --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

FOOD BANKS

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): The wordage from the Minister of Energy proves my case. This is a government that has lots to say about energy efficiency but energy usage is in fact

going up. While other jurisdictions are implementing meaningful programs, Ontario under the McGuinty government just talks.

Premier, my question is: Why is Ontario's rate of food bank use the highest in Canada?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): Let me just take the opportunity, first of all, to thank the Ontario Association of Food Banks for the good work they do

and for the support they lend to their membership, which are food banks working on the ground. Let me thank all of those people who work and who volunteer at food banks throughout the province.

It's not all good news and I'm not going to pretend it is, but I think it is important to recognize when there is at least a little bit of good news. The number of Ontarians served by food banks declined by

2.4% this year over last year, but there are still close to 2.5% of Ontarians who access a food bank. That's 2.5% too many.

We will continue to keep working with our food banks, with our partners in the private sector, and of course we will assume greater leadership as a government on a go-forward basis when it comes to helping to

address the issues which lead to Ontarians' having to avail themselves of a food bank.

Mr. Hampton: Premier, you constantly tell people that Ontario is a wealthy province, but the fact is that far more people are forced to use food banks in Ontario than in the three other large

provinces -- Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia -- combined. Over 330,000 people are forced to use food banks in the province, and 17% of food bank users in Ontario work, but they don't make enough income; 40% are kids; and almost 20% are the

disabled.

Premier, you tell people across Ontario that things are getting better. Why are so many poor Ontario children forced to use food banks under the McGuinty government?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Again, I like to think that we're making some progress, and the fact that food bank usage is down this year by 2.4%, at a time when we're experiencing more modest economic

growth, I think speaks well of some of the policies that we've put in place.

We're spending $10.3 billion annually now for family and social services. That's 13 cents of every dollar. By way of comparison, we spend about 15 cents on the dollar for our schools. We've increased the

minimum wage now three times. We have, through combined efforts, effectively given a single parent on social assistance with two children $1,620 more every year. That's a 15.7% increase.

We've also made some changes to the Ontario Works and Ontario disability support programs that enable them, for example, to keep drug benefits while they transition back to work. So we are making some steps in

the right direction, and we look forward to doing more.

Mr. Hampton: Premier, the usage of food banks has increased by almost 20% in Ontario over the last five years. Not only that; 25% of the food banks in Ontario reported in the last year that

their ability to meet the needs of those they serve has declined in the last year. So you may say, "Oh, there are fewer people using food banks this year," but the food banks say that they can't meet the demand. They don't have the food there to

address all of the people who have the need.

There's a really disturbing part with respect to kids. Your government claws back from the lowest-income children in this province $250 million a year of federal money that is supposed to go to those kids to

help their parents put food on the table and put clothing on their backs. It works out to $1,500 per child per year. Premier, when will you end the clawback so that some of the kids might not be forced to use a food bank?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: My colleague from the NDP will know that we ended the clawback on a go-forward basis in 2004. He will also know, in keeping with the report which he is quoting from today,

that the number of Ontarians served by a food bank has in fact declined this past year.

He'll also, I'm sure, want to make reference to the passage on page 17 of the same report, issued today. I quote from that: "We have seen some changes, as our provincial government is beginning to respond to

the issues that we have ignored for almost a generation. There are a growing number of vocal advocates within government, more detailed studies and reviews, and incremental changes to our income support systems."

The fact is that usage has come down, even though somewhat modestly. This acknowledges that we are moving in the right direction, and I acknowledge myself that there is more to be done.

MUNICIPAL PROPERTY

ASSESSMENT CORP.

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I have a question to the Minister of Finance. On June 26 of this year, MPAC chair Debbie Zimmerman sent you a letter where MPAC is seeking a minimum of an 11%

increase in their budget, or $16 million, despite the fact that there is an assessment freeze until 2009. The minister knows, as part of that spending spree, that MPAC proposes hiring an additional 225 staff, taking place during an assessment

freeze in the province of Ontario. Clearly, Minister, another sign of Dalton McGuinty waste -- hiring more people to do less work. Please tell me and justify: How can Dalton McGuinty's Ontario continue to waste this kind of money? Surely you're

going to step in and say no to the increase in budget and the hiring of 225 staff during this assessment freeze.

Hon. Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance, Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I appreciate the question from my friend from Erie-Lincoln. It gives me an opportunity to once again remind

him and people who pay attention to the Municipal Property Assessment Corp. that that corporation is an arm's-length corporation, that it has an independent board, that its budget is set and approved by that board, and that the funds that pay for

the work of MPAC come collectively from municipalities across Ontario.

Certainly it's in our collective interest to make sure that MPAC is run very, very efficiently. We take that into consideration as we make our appointees to the board and in our reviews of how the property

assessment system is working. Obviously, efficiency is one of our number one priorities.

Mr. Hudak: Indeed, a very strange answer from the minister who has given directions to MPAC on a regular basis already. The chair is a former Liberal federal candidate; the vice-chair is your

own parliamentary assistant. So, Minister, don't tell us about this arm's-length relationship.

You know full well that Mayor Bradley of Sarnia wrote to you indicating that, "Given the recent announcement of a property tax assessment freeze for the next two years and given the fact that Ontario

municipalities will be paying $300 million to operate MPAC in that time period, I am requesting a rebate to Ontario communities to compensate us for the fact we are receiving no services of any significance from MPAC during the" assessment

"freeze."

Mayor Bradley asked for a rebate; instead, Dalton McGuinty and Greg Sorbara are increasing the rates by some $16 million, meaning that MPAC's costs will have skyrocketed by some $29 million, or 20%, under your

regime.

Tell me, Minister, that you're going to make a call and put a stop to this. How could you justify, during an assessment freeze, the hiring of 225 more staff --

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

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I'll tell my friend where I'm going to start. What I'm going to try and stop is his attacks on people like the chair of the MPAC board, Debbie Zimmerman, former regional

chair of the region from where my friend from Erie-Lincoln comes, a very well-known and very well-respected leader in that community and a great chair of the board. He also mentions Mike Bradley, also a former Liberal candidate, if my memory

serves me well.

What we're going to concentrate on is making MPAC a much more efficient organization. We will do that by changes in regulation and ultimately, perhaps, legislation. That's why we put in place the two-year

freeze on assessments and that's why we're undergoing a thorough review of how that organization works on behalf of the taxpayers of this province.

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 107

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): A question to the Premier: Premier, today former Ontario human rights commissioner Keith Norton joined the chorus of outrage about your cancellation of

public hearings into Bill 107. Government members of that committee voted unanimously to conduct hearings through to when the House rises on December 14 and then commence those hearings once again in January so that those people could be heard.

You and your government promised those people an opportunity to participate in those hearings. Why are you breaking your promise to them?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): I know that the member opposite is going to want to recollect and put on the record the fact that he promised that he would

do everything that he possibly could to prevent passage of this bill -- to filibuster. I do not question his sincerity, his devotion, his commitment or his perseverance when it comes to preventing passage of this bill, but on behalf of the

thousands and thousands of Ontarians who had to suffer under a terribly-less-than-adequate human rights system, we feel a sense of responsibility to move forward, and that is exactly what we will do.

Mr. Kormos: That, sir, is hooey, and you know it. You know full well that if you wanted to time-allocate third reading debate, you could have time-allocated third reading debate; you didn't

have to slam the door in the faces of scores of people who you promised -- your promise -- would have an opportunity to appear in front of that committee.

Keith Norton says you're wrong. Your current commissioner, Barbara Hall, says you're wrong. June Callwood, whose endorsement you relied upon when she was agreeing with you, says you're wrong. Why are you

breaking a promise to people who relied upon your advertising, which indicated a December 15 cut-off date to sign up to make submissions? What are you talking about? You spent over $100,000 of taxpayers' money on ads promising a December 15

cut-off date. Why are you breaking your promise to those people?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Sometimes it seems that the NDP caucus is the only place on the planet where heat travels faster than light. Sometimes it seems like that.

I always appreciate my colleague's passion. But I can say that we feel we have devoted a considerable amount of time, a reasonable amount of time and effort and energy, to listening to all of those who have

something to offer, who have good advice, good counsel, solid recommendations. Earlier today I referenced the AODA, the African Legal Clinic and OPSEU. I have referenced the Human Rights Commission, I have referenced the Canadian Hearing Society,

Local Agencies Serving Immigrants and the Ottawa

chapter of the Chinese Canadian National Council. Also, we've heard from the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada and the Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office. All those people we have recently heard

from once again, and their advice has now been incorporated into amendments to be tabled.

EDUCATION

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, my question is about learning to 18 and making sure kids stay in a learning program so they have the tools

they need to build a better future and a career. If passed, this legislation will make Ontario students keep learning to 18 or graduation through creative incentives that realize their individual strengths and potential.

The McGuinty government is committed to increasing the graduation rate. We have seen an increase in the graduation rate from 68%, when we came into office, to 71% last year. That translates into 6,000 more

people finishing high school and improving their future prospects. When you look at the reverse statistic, Ontario has a dropout rate of 29%; that's 10 to 20 points behind the rest of the country. That's not acceptable, and this government has

moved to correct that situation. We have to demand that standard, that as a minimum our students in Ontario must achieve a high school diploma.

Minister, can you tell this House what we're doing to transform our high school students through Bill 52?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne (Minister of Education): Indeed it is not acceptable to have 30% of our students not graduating from high school, so we are expanding the program possibilities for our

students so that more students will graduate. In fact, we're doing nothing less than shifting the culture in our secondary schools. What we're doing is expanding co-op credits through increased partnerships so that students can graduate, counting

up to two credits towards their diploma, two co-op mandatory credits. We're allowing students to bundle their courses into a high-skills major so that when they go out into the workplace, they have a certification that says they have acquired

certain skills in their high school years. We're allowing students to earn credits towards a diploma through college and apprenticeship and university courses, so we're allowing students who might not otherwise go on to post-secondary to have a

Catholic board, this year students can benefit from a pilot in dual credit that has been developed with Sir Sandford Fleming, and it's a great step forward.

Mr. Leal: Besides keeping kids in school and increasing their graduation success rate, I understand that the learning to 18 legislation is designed to assist in the transition from secondary

school to post-secondary education. As a member who represents a riding with both an outstanding community college and a university, I know how important a post-secondary education is to a student's success. But in addition, every individual who

goes on to complete a degree or diploma or the training needed to become an apprentice contributes to the economic success of our communities and the province. That's why it's crucial that we open new pathways to creating opportunities for

students who might otherwise be discouraged to learn outside the traditional learning environments. By doing so, we inspire them to continue in their studies or encourage them to return if they have left school early.

Minister, how will the learning to 18 strategy connect with students with new and relevant learning experiences that build on their interests and strengths and help them not only to complete their high school

but afterwards? How can we continue along this path to success for people learning to age 18?

Hon. Ms. Wynne: The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Christopher Bentley (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): The member from Peterborough is absolutely right: 80% of the new jobs we create require some form of post-secondary

education, whether it's college, university or enhanced skills training. What we're going to do is build on the foundation of what is already working. We need to be creative, but we need to maintain the integrity of the credit process. So, for

example, we're going to build on the success of the Ontario youth apprenticeship program, which engages 21,000 students every single year and gives them a taste of an apprenticeship and a high school credit at the same time. We're going to build

on the success of the pilot projects we have out right now in the school/college-to-work initiative. In fact, 2,500 students this year are going to be engaged, through 100 pilot projects of 72 boards, in getting both a high school and a college

credit. We're going to build on the strengths of what's working by working with our educational partners.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I have a question for the Premier. Premier, I know that both you and the Minister of Natural Resources agree that you've cured all that ails the forestry

sector. In fact, your minister is on the record as saying that the forest sector in Ontario got off virtually scot-free as far as the impact of the US housing slump. I can tell you that I'm sure the industry doesn't see it that way.

Your minister said something else at the recent energy announcement in Thunder Bay that got my attention. He said that the government had now acted on all the recommendations of the Council on Forest Sector

Competitiveness that he had appointed as the minister. Well, Premier, I would like to remind you about the first recommendation of that Council on Forest Sector Competitiveness: "The council recommends that the Ontario government establish an

independent position of chief forester for Ontario, reporting to the Minister of Natural Resources." Premier, when did you appoint the chief forester?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): I'm delighted to take the question. I know that the minister is on his way from BC, where he was attending a

conference.

The member opposite will know that we have worked long and hard now with our forestry sector. He will also know that the challenges being experienced by Ontario's forestry sector are not dissimilar to those

being experienced by forestry sectors in Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and BC -- indeed in much of North America. He will also know what we've done in terms of specific substantive supports for forestry, whether we're talking about our $150

million over three years through the forest sector prosperity fund to leverage new capital investments, the $75 million annually which we have now uploaded for the construction and maintenance costs of primary and secondary forest access roads,

the one-time refund for stumpage fees of $70 million, or the $350 million in loan guarantees. He will also know that the recent announcement we made only came after we sat down with forestry sector representatives and worked with them in a

co-operative and collaborative way to give them exactly what they told us they needed at this point in time.

Mr. Miller: Yes, and the number one recommendation they made was to ask for the position of a chief forester. And there is no chief forester.

Last week, I received an e-mail from an operator in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, the day after you made your energy announcement in Thunder Bay, regarding another sawmill shutting down. He writes:

"Another one bites the dust for our supply chain. The Timmins mill equates to about 10% of our total sawdust volume.

"Are you (both) aware of the growing list of indefinite mill closures in the sawmill industry? If not, please let me know and I will gladly supply a list of indefinite closures that are affecting us."

Premier, do you really believe there's nothing more you can do to assist the forestry sector? What about many of the other recommendations -- some 26 -- that were made by the Minister's Council on Forest

Sector Competitiveness?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I have a number of supportive quotes, as you might imagine, from folks in the forestry sector, but I'll just make reference to one. This is from Tembec:

"With limited resources available, they" -- the government -- "appear to have shot with a rifle....

"You need to judge the rebate proposal in conjunction with other initiatives that have been undertaken by the province on the energy file....

"You put all those things together and they will be very helpful....

"You stabilize that segment of the industry and you then create a situation where the sawmills have a more secure market in which to sell their chips."

I know that the member opposite does not pretend that anybody in this House could possibly wave a magic wand and absolutely guarantee that no mill would ever shut down, that no forestry sector worker would

ever lose their job. But I can proudly say that we have worked with the forestry sector, we will continue to work with the forestry sector, and we will do our share as a government, in an unprecedented way, to help strengthen Ontario's forestry

sector and forestry workers.

GO TRANSIT

Mr. Peter Tabuns (Toronto-Danforth): My question is for the Premier. Premier, as I'm sure you know, the reality of transit funding in this province is that the majority of operating and

capital costs are being carried by cash-strapped municipalities. The Toronto Star has called for the province to step in and fund the expansion costs for GO Transit. Will you take action, Mr. Premier? Will you eliminate this one aspect of

provincial downloading, go to the municipalities and tell them that the province is going to take back the cost of GO Transit expansion?

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

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield (Minister of Transportation): I thank the member for the question. We know that this is an important issue for the municipalities, and we are currently going through

the process of extending the existing municipal GO Transit development charge bylaws to ensure that the municipalities can indeed continue to collect the development charges. We have put a record investment in GO of $850 million this year. We

recognize that public transit -- GO Transit -- is an integral part of transportation strategies in this province, and we have made the commitment, for the first time in many years, towards that transit. So not only are we working with the

municipalities to enable them to continue to use the development charges to deal with GO Transit, but we are making our own record investment in GO Transit, something that hasn't been done in this province for many years.

Mr. Tabuns: Well, the simple reality is that there are long waits for vehicles, and when buses and trains come, they're packed. People know the system is operating at or over capacity, and yet

this government is not acting to help cash-strapped municipalities. It is not taking on its shoulders the burden of fully funding GO Transit. It continues to talk about something in the future.

Will the government, will this minister commit to returning to the funding formula in place before 1995: 50% of operating costs and 75% of capital costs for transit covered by the province? Will you do

that?

Hon. Mrs. Cansfield: I thank the member for the question. Undoubtedly, he has had a wee bit of a reality check, when in fact nothing has been invested in GO Transit for many years. In fact,

some folks downloaded and then uploaded it. We've made a $1.3-billion investment in GO Transit this year. That transit funding across the province has been record investment in transit.

There is no question we need to do more, but we also had to deal with the fact that nothing had been done for many, many years. So now we are back to reinvesting in public transportation as an integral part of

a transportation strategy right across this province: $5.4 billion in roads and bridges; $1.3 billion in GO Transit, enabling municipalities to continue to deal with their development charges. We're moving forward where you stood still.

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

Mr. David Orazietti (Sault Ste. Marie): My question is for the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal. As many of my constituents and most Ontarians know, infrastructure plays a very

important role in our economy, our health, our transportation and in maintaining our high quality of life. My constituents understand how important it is to have safe drinking water and well-maintained highways and bridges. They also understand

very well that a lack of leadership, vision and overall neglect in these areas can have devastating effects in Ontario.

The former Conservative government closed 28 hospitals and the NDP closed 150 schools while in office, and both previous governments had no plan to replace our decaying infrastructure.

Minister, I want to commend you for your leadership in this area and ask you to elaborate on the investments the McGuinty government is making to ensure that we improve our infrastructure for all

Ontarians.

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, Deputy Government House Leader): I want to thank the member from Sault Ste. Marie for the question, because he is indeed correct:

When we came into office in October 2003, we quickly realized that a plan was needed for critical infrastructure in this province. So we worked really hard with our stakeholders, our partners and our government ministries to develop an

infrastructure investment plan that would keep Ontario competitive and maintain our high standard of living.

We developed ReNew Ontario, a five-year, $30-billion infrastructure investment plan that acknowledges the importance of looking to the future. We're moving forward with over 100 health care projects right

across this province to modernize, expand and upgrade health care facilities. As of August 2006, over 3,000 school projects are under way to repair our deteriorating schools. We're making massive investments in transit: $1.4 billion over five

years to municipal transit initiatives, and an additional $838 million for transit in major cities in Ontario --

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

The member for Sault Ste. Marie.

Mr. Orazietti: It's obvious the opposition members know they've been missing in action on this file, but I'm pleased to hear more about the infrastructure investments that are being made in

transit, highways, health and schools.

Residents in Sault Ste. Marie have benefited a great deal from our government's commitment to reinvest, including 90% capital funding for our new hospital, more than $18 million for school improvements, $15

million for the Borealis tourism development and over $5 million for a border infrastructure link.

Minister, I also know that many communities do not have transit and do not receive gas tax funding, yet they also require infrastructure investments for roads and bridges and to ensure they have safe, clean

drinking water. What can you tell us about our plan to address the infrastructure deficits that exist in small, rural communities, which can't afford but which need new, large infrastructure investments?

Hon. Mr. Caplan: I couldn't agree more with the member from Sault Ste. Marie that Tories and New Democrats abandoned small-town and rural Ontario. They downloaded onto them. That's why our

government has a program specifically designed to help smaller communities deal with their infrastructure investment needs.

In 2005-06 alone, to help with water and waste water projects, we invested approximately $260 million in municipal systems. In 2006-07, a further $127 million is planned. We've leveraged over $1.3 billion

through OSIFA financing for 130 municipalities. But along with water and waste water, my colleague the Minister of Northern Development and Mines often reminds me of the northern Ontario highway strategy, which ensures that we have safe and

accessible northern communities -- half a billion dollars earmarked for northern infrastructure alone. Through COMRIF, smaller municipalities are receiving $900 million in --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question?

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): My question is for the Minister of Health. British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick all give or are poised to give

their patients access to PET scans. In Ontario, only a few hundred patients have access to PET scans -- that is, if they meet the restrictive criteria for clinical trials which have been going on for almost five years. In London, because doctors

cannot find enough people to meet these restrictive criteria for trials, they are filling the PET slots with lab animals.

I say to you today, Minister: When will you finally provide Ontarians with the time frame for completion of these clinical trials and a date when they can expect access to their PET scans?

Hon. George Smitherman (Deputy Premier, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): It's interesting that the honourable member, who in her tenure as Minister of Health was prepared to leave the

people of Barrie waiting one year for an MRI, would now stand and talk about the next generation of diagnostics. It must be the reality that we've placed 78% more access to MRIs in our province that allows the honourable member to pass over what

she didn't do and get on to the adoption of new technologies.

We believe that PET scans do offer an opportunity to enhance care in very specific circumstances and we're working along trials that have been adopted and adapted from other communities, including Australia

and places in the United States, to ensure that PET scans are used in a fashion that offers the best clinical opportunity, considering, of course, that at $2,500 per scan, unlimited access would be very, very impossible to meet. We'll continue to

work and receive advice from clinicians who will guide us in the appropriate approach for the adoption of further access to PET scans in the context of our cancer services.

Mrs. Witmer: This minister continues to twist the facts. Our record is a proud one on MRI scans; we expanded it to all corners of the province. But I say to you, you continue to make excuses.

These machines --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Order. The Minister of Economic Development and Trade will consider herself warned for the last time.

Member for Kitchener-Waterloo.

Mrs. Witmer: This minister has now diddled and allowed for almost five years of clinical trials on PET scans without allowing patients in this province access. Meanwhile, people go to the

United States, they go to private clinics, they pay if they can afford it. The ministry sends people to the United States. Last year, your ministry paid over $600,000. I have an e-mail here from Janet Franks of Barrie --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I need to be able to hear the member for Kitchener-Waterloo. That means that we must be quiet when she asks her question. So the next government member that I hear will be gone.

Member from Kitchener-Waterloo.

Mrs. Witmer: Our PET machines are sitting idle while patients are forced to travel to the United States and to private clinics. Either they pay out of their pocket or, in many instances, the

Ministry of Health is now paying the United States for PET scans. In fact, last year they paid over $600,000 so that people could travel to the US, while we have machines sitting idle.

I have an e-mail here from Janet Franks of Barrie, whose oncologist requested a PET scan so it could eliminate the need for a difficult bone biopsy or provide an early diagnosis of cancer before it spreads.

She has applied to the clinical trials, but guess what? She's been turned down so far because she doesn't fit the restrictive criteria. She writes to you: "I will not be waiting for the Ontario government to catch up with the rest of Canada's

health care. The government encourages us to live a healthy lifestyle and promotes early detection but fails to keep its commitment."

What do you say to Mrs. Franks and others who desperately need a PET scan?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: Firstly, what I say to Mrs. Franks and others, particularly reflecting the fact that the honourable member mentions someone who comes from Barrie, Ontario, is that you

continue to stand in your place. That honourable member talks about diddling for five years when, for two of those years, she was the responsible party. That honourable member helped to develop the criteria that she now stands here and

criticizes.

The reality for people in Ontario is that through the actions of our government, access to diagnostic services has been enhanced dramatically. She might have gone to a few announcements, she might have even

gone to a ribbon-cutting or two, but the circumstances that she left behind were that MRIs were locked down tight after eight hours of service a day. Now people across the province of Ontario, through a 78% increase in access to diagnostic

services like MRI, are enjoying access to a service that answers their questions. We will adopt appropriate utilization for PET scan, on the basis of the advice that is on offer to us from the very clinicians that you --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

MUNICIPAL AIRPORT FUNDING

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): My question is to the Premier. Premier, you'll know that many municipalities across Ontario are having great difficulty to fund the costs of operating

their local airports. Since 1998, you will know that things have gotten a lot worse since the province decided to eliminate much of the funding that was used to support those local airports. Communities like Moosonee, Kapuskasing, Earlton, Wawa,

Chapleau and many other communities across the north and south are struggling to keep their airports open. For many of these communities, airports are vital to their economic success.

Premier, the communities of Chapleau, Manitouwadge and White River have formed a task force asking your government for financial help to keep those airports open. Are you prepared to help them financially to

make sure that those airports stay open?

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

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield (Minister of Transportation): I thank the member for the question. Currently, this government does operate 29 remote airports; we do supply the services for 29 remote

airports in northern Ontario. We do not supply the services for the municipal airports, and that is currently not within our budget. I will be meeting with the municipalities in the next while and we'll be looking at what the options are, but

currently there is no provincial funding to assist those small airports.

Mr. Bisson: That comes as a lot of bad news because, first of all, we recognize that the province of Ontario plays a key role to maintain 29 airports across ridings like Howard Hampton's and

mine in those remote communities, and we accept that, but many other communities that I've listed, Kapuskasing to Wawa to Manitouwadge, across the north and the south are having great difficulty to keep those airports open. If they're not able to

keep them open, it means economic activity in those communities can come to a halt. How do you attract investment in those communities if business people are not able to get to the communities to transact what is necessary to make a local economy

work?

You have to find it within your means. It's something that the province used to do in the past, and it's something that you can turn around. I ask you again, are you prepared to reverse what you've just told

me now and help those communities to keep those airports open?

Hon. Mrs. Cansfield: The funding was actually terminated in 1997-98 for the small airports, and currently it is not within our budget provisions to support these small airports. We support 29

remote airports, which we fund 100%, which is different than any other province in this country. We undertake to do the 29 and fund them 100%. We are not in a position at this time to support the municipal airports.

INTERPRETER SERVICES FOR VICTIMS

OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Mr. Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Minister, last week you announced the investment of $2.1 million in language interpreter

services for women who are victims of domestic violence. Can you explain how this service for newcomer women works and who is eligible? For instance, is the service available to women in Peel region who face language barriers in dealing with

domestic violence?

Hon. Mike Colle (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): This is a very important service that the member from Mississauga East has pointed out, because throughout this province there are

This language interpreter service that my ministry does in conjunction with the Attorney General and the Women's Directorate offers 24-hour service, seven days a week, for any woman who is a victim of domestic

violence. It's available free of charge right across the province, 24/7, by expert, trained language interpreters. It is available in every community very quickly.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Supplementary? The member for Thornhill.

it -- and who need assistance to navigate through our system.

Minister, can you please tell us more about language services for women who are victims of domestic violence? I also know of one employment pilot project that was announced last week. Could you please share

with us more details about the program and how it will assist abused women in the town of Markham, in the city of Vaughan and in the region of York?

Hon. Mr. Colle: Again, the fastest growth of newcomer settlement is actually no longer happening in the city of Toronto. It is happening now in York region and Peel region. So non-profit

agencies right across Ontario are linked to the language interpreter services.

I was so impressed last week when I went to the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic, where they demonstrated the dedication the staff have in helping women in this very critical time of trauma.

Just to remind all of the members here, if you could please let your communities know that this service is available from Kenora to Cornwall at no charge. It's confidential, by expert service providers in all

our communities. Please avail them of that service.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Pursuant to standing order 37(a), the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given

by the Minister of Energy, considering the minister's testimony to the standing committee on estimates. This matter will be debated today at 6 p.m.

Pursuant to standing order 37(a), the member for Simcoe North has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services

concerning written questions on the order paper. This matter will be debated at 6 p.m. today.

PETITIONS

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Ms. Lisa MacLeod (Nepean-Carleton): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario from the people in Nepean-Carleton.

"Whereas Longfields and Davidson Heights in south Nepean are some of the fastest-growing communities in Ottawa and Ontario; and

"Whereas the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board has voted to authorize the final design phases for a grade 7 to 12 school to serve the Longfields and Davidson Heights communities; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has lifted a three-year moratorium on school closings in order to make way for new educational facilities;

"We, residents of Nepean-Carleton, petition the Parliament of Ontario to ensure that the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board continues with plans to build a new grade 7 to 12 school no later than autumn of

2008 to serve the Longfields and Davidson Heights communities."

I support this petition wholeheartedly. I affix my signature and present it to page Mariam.

NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT SUPPLEMENT

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I have here a petition from the Canadian Federation of University Women from Northumberland, Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the national child benefit supplement was created to reduce the depth of poverty across Canada for low-income families earning less than $35,000;

"Whereas the government of Ontario claws back the supplement from families receiving income from Ontario Works or the Ontario disability support plan;

"Whereas Premier McGuinty decried the discriminatory nature of the NCBS clawback and vowed to end this practice in his first mandate;

"Whereas the government of Ontario has failed to end the clawback for those families on OW or ODSP;

"We, the undersigned from CFUW Ontario Council, petition the Legislative Assembly to end the clawback of the national child benefit supplement."

I am in agreement and would send this down with page Simon.

BORDER SECURITY

Mr. Bill Mauro (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I have a petition from the Inter-Cultural Neighbourhood Social Services group in Mississauga on preserving cross-border travel. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the United States government, through the western hemisphere travel initiative, is proposing that US citizens will require a passport or single-purpose travel card to cross the Canada-US border;

and

"Whereas a passport or single-purpose travel card would be an added expense, and the inconvenience of having to apply for and carry a new document would be a barrier for many Canadian and US cross-border

travellers; and

"Whereas the George Bush government proposal could mean the loss of as many as 3.5 million US visitors to Ontario, and place in peril as many as 7,000 jobs in the Ontario tourism industry by 2008, many of

which are valuable entry jobs for youth and new Canadians; and

"Whereas many of the US states bordering Canada have expressed similar concerns regarding the punitive economic impact of this plan, and both states and provinces along the US-Canada border recognize that the

importance of the safe and efficient movement of people across that border is vital to the economies of both countries;

"Be it therefore resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario support the establishment of a bi-national group to establish an alternative to the proposed US border requirements, and inform Prime Minister

Harper that his decision not to advocate on behalf of Ontarians is ill-advised and contrary to the responsibilities of elected representatives in Canada."

I support this and will sign my name to it.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the proposed Long-Term Care Homes Act is extremely lengthy and complex and requires full and extensive parliamentary and public debate and committee hearings throughout the province; and

"Whereas the rigid ... and detailed framework proposed is excessive and will stifle innovation and flexibility in the long-term-care sector; and

"Whereas the additional burden, red tape and punitive measures imposed by the proposed legislation will aggravate and exacerbate the chronic underfunding of the sector to the detriment of residents of the

homes; and

"Whereas the proposed legislation will have serious implications for the viability of the for-profit, and not-for-profit, charitable and municipal long-term-care sectors;

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

"We demand that the McGuinty government withdraw the proposed act, or remove the offending sections, and fulfill its commitment by a substantial increase in funding on a multi-year basis in the order of the

promised $6,000 per resident, per year."

I've also signed this.

NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT SUPPLEMENT

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I have another petition, this time from the Canadian Federation of University Women, Barrie and district. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the national child benefit supplement was created to reduce the depth of poverty across Canada for low-income families earning less than $35,000;

"Whereas the government of Ontario claws back the supplement from families receiving income from Ontario Works or the Ontario disability support plan;

"Whereas Premier McGuinty decried the discriminatory nature of the NCBS clawback and vowed to end this practice in his first mandate;

"Whereas the government of Ontario has failed to end the clawback for those families on OW or ODSP;

"We, the undersigned from CFUW Ontario Council, petition the Legislative Assembly to end the clawback of the national child benefit supplement."

I would send this down with page Philip and would sign it in agreement.

COMMUNITY MEDIATION

Mr. Bruce Crozier (Essex): Thanks to the clients of Inter-Cultural Neighbourhood Social Services in Mississauga for this petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly with regard to support for

community mediation.

"Whereas many types of civil disputes may be resolved through community mediation delivered by trained mediators, who are volunteers who work with the parties in the dispute; and

"Whereas Inter-Cultural Neighbourhood Social Services established the Peel Community Mediation Service in 1999 with support from the government of Ontario through the Trillium Foundation, the Rotary Club of

Mississauga West and the United Way of Peel, and has proven the viability and success of community mediation; and

"Whereas the city of Mississauga and the town of Caledon have endorsed the Peel Community Mediation Service, and law enforcement bodies refer many cases to the Peel Community Mediation Service as an

alternative to a court dispute; and

"Whereas court facilities and court time are both scarce and expensive, the cost of community mediation is very small and the extra expense incurred for lack of community mediation in Peel region would be much

greater than the small annual cost of funding community mediation;

"Be it therefore resolved that the government of Ontario, through the Ministry of the Attorney General, support and fund the ongoing service delivery of the Peel Community Mediation Service through

Inter-Cultural Neighbourhood Social Services."

I'll send this with Sarah.

PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I've received more petitions from the people of Port Sydney to do with the Mary Lake dam. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the dam at Mary Lake has historically provided a pedestrian walkway for use by the community and visitors since the dam's construction; and

"Whereas the walkway provides a vital link and a tourist attraction for the community of Port Sydney; and

"Whereas restricting access to the walkway would result in pedestrian use of the roadway, where motor vehicle traffic poses a danger to pedestrians; and

"Whereas closure of the pedestrian walkway across the dam is inconsistent with other provincial government programs, including Ontario's action plan for healthy eating and active living and the Trails for Life

program, both of which promote active lifestyles; and

"Whereas all ministries should strive to encourage and support healthy lifestyles;

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

"That the Ministry of Natural Resources continue to permit the use of the pedestrian walkway over Mary Lake dam indefinitely."

I support this petition.

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

Mrs. Liz Sandals (Guelph-Wellington): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Ontario enjoys the continuing benefit of the contributions of men and women who choose to leave their country of origin in order to settle in Canada, raise their families, educate their children and

pursue their livelihoods and careers; and

"Whereas newcomers to Canada who choose to settle in Ontario find frequent, arbitrary and unnecessary obstacles that prevent skilled tradespeople, professional and managerial talent from practising the

professions, trades and occupations for which they have been trained in their country of origin; and

"Whereas action by Ontario's trades and professions could remove many such barriers, but Ontario's trades and professions have failed to recognize that such structural barriers exist, much less to take action

to remove them, and to provide fair, timely, transparent and cost-effective access to trades and professions for new Canadians trained outside Canada;

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

"That the Ontario Legislative Assembly urge the members of all parties to swiftly pass Bill 124, the Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act, 2006, and to require Ontario's regulated professions and trades to

review and modify their procedures and qualification requirements to swiftly meet the needs of Ontario's employers, Ontario's newcomers and their own membership, all of whom desperately need the very skills new Canadians bring working for their

organizations, for their trades and professions, and for their families."

I'd like to thank the participants in the program for internationally trained veterinarians in Guelph, supported by --

The Speaker: Thank you. You've read the petition.

LAND TITLES

Mr. Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to present a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas, in the current environment of an escalating problem of title theft and mortgage fraud, property protections for homeowners are warranted and real measures are necessary to address real estate fraud;

and

"Whereas MPP Joe Tascona's Restore the Deed Act, Bill 136, has passed second reading in the Legislature and has been referred to the standing committee on general government; and

"Whereas, among others, the Restore the Deed Act has four primary benefits:

" -- Reduce the harm by ensuring that the person who is the rightful owner of the property keeps the property. The innocent buyer or the innocent lender must seek compensation from the land titles assurance

fund, as is New Brunswick law;

" -- Prevent the fraud by restricting access to registration of documents to licensed real estate professionals who carry liability insurance, by requiring notification statements and the freezing of the

registration, as is Saskatchewan law, and by establishing a system of `no dealings' where landowners can mark their title, which can only be removed by them using a personal identification number prior to the property being transferred or

mortgaged;

" -- Access to the land titles assurance fund be reformed as a `fund of first resort' and be operated by an arm's-length board of directors appointed by the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, composed of a broad

representation of consumer, real estate industry and law enforcement groups;

" -- Victims of fraud prior to the enactment of the Restore the Deed Act will be eligible to apply for compensation under the reformed land titles assurance fraud fund; and

"Whereas the McGuinty government's proposed legislation will not get the job done;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to enact the measures to protect homeowners from having their homes stolen, as contained in MPP Joe Tascona's Restore the Deed Act."

I support the petition and sign it.

NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT

SUPPLEMENT

Mr. Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): I have a petition from the Canadian Federation of University of Women which reads:

"Whereas the national child benefit supplement was created to reduce the depth of poverty across Canada for low-income families earning less than $35,000;

"Whereas the government of Ontario claws back the supplement from families receiving income from Ontario Works or the Ontario disability support plan;

"Whereas Premier McGuinty decried the discriminatory nature of the NCBS clawback and vowed to end this practice in his first mandate;

"Whereas the government of Ontario has" to date "failed to end the clawback for those families on OW or ODSP;

"We, the undersigned from CFUW Ontario Council, petition the Legislative Assembly to end the clawback of the national child benefit supplement."

I'll share that with Daniel. It's been signed.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have petition signed by a great many people in Ontario. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the proposed Long-Term Care Homes Act is extremely lengthy and complex and requires full and extensive parliamentary and public debate and committee hearings throughout the province; and

"Whereas the rigid, pervasive and detailed framework proposed is excessive and will stifle innovation and flexibility in the long-term-care sector; and

"Whereas the additional burden, red tape and punitive measures imposed by the proposed legislation will aggravate and exacerbate the chronic underfunding of the sector, to the detriment of residents of the

homes; and

"Whereas the proposed legislation will have serious implications for the viability of the for-profit and not-for-profit, charitable and municipal long-term-care sectors;

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

"We demand that the McGuinty government withdraw the proposed act, or remove the offending sections, and fulfill its commitment by a substantial increase in funding on a multi-year basis in the order of the

promised $6,000 per resident, per year."

I affix my signature as I agree with the petition.

NATURAL RESOURCES

PROGRAM FUNDING

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources plays a vital role in the protection and management of the natural resources that belong to all Ontarians; and

"Whereas MNR's budget for 2006-07 is 24% less, in real terms, than it was in 1992-93; and

"Whereas vital programs relating to fish and wildlife, provincial parks, forestry, and other MNR activities continue to be cut back; and

"Whereas the aesthetic, economic, educational, environmental, recreational, and social value of our national resources far exceeds the cost of protecting and managing them;

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

"That funding of the Ministry of Natural Resources be increased to a level that will enable it to stop cutting existing programs and provide full funding to all existing programs as well as any new programs

that may be required to ensure the effective protection and management of Ontario's natural resources."

I agree with the petitioners. I've affixed my signature to this.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): I want to bring members' attention to the west members' gallery, where we have a former member visiting us: Wayne Wettlaufer from Kitchener Centre in the

37th Parliament.

OPPOSITION DAY

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): I move that, in the opinion of this House, an alarming number of murders and other violent crimes are alleged to be committed by people who were out

on bail for crimes previously alleged to be committed;

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should adopt a policy to direct crown attorneys to oppose the making of all orders for bail for violent crimes;

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should seek a review of all orders granting bail for charges involving violent crimes;

That, in the opinion of this House, the issue of crimes alleged to be committed by people already out on bail is of increasing concern to the people of Ontario;

That, in the opinion of this House, the lack of statistics relating to bail orders and court proceedings prevents the public from obtaining an accurate picture of the functioning of the justice system; and

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should begin providing more detailed information about the justice system in order to ensure Ontarians have an accurate picture of whether the justice system

is functioning well and in the best interests of public safety.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Mr. Tory has moved opposition day number 4. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Tory: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to --

Applause.

Mr. Tory: You know there's trouble afoot when members of the McGuinty Liberal government applaud you when you stand up. I should check my chair to see if it's booby-trapped.

I would like to direct most of my comments today to the question of the keeping of statistics and the shedding of some light on the workings of our justice system. I've spoken quite a few times before in this

House on the issue of the directions given to crown attorneys with respect to opposing bail applications by those who are charged with crimes involving violence or guns and with respect to the crown equally consistently asking for a review of bail

orders that are granted to people like that.

I understand the fact that those bail orders are made by judges. I think what we want the people doing who are representing us in court, representing the people of Ontario, is to take a consistent position.

The Premier today read me some of the provisions from the crown policy manual, which is giving direction to the crown attorneys as to what they should do. Some of that wording is moving in the right direction, but I think it is not yet firm enough

in saying that in all instances where people are charged with crimes involving guns and in all instances where people in that circumstance are in fact given bail, those applications should be opposed, and when they're given bail, it should be

reviewed, or at least the crown should ask for a review, so that we can send the message on behalf of the public and on behalf of the people of Ontario. In fact, I would say that if that crown manual means anything on behalf of the government's

policy intent in putting that into the manual, that's what we want them to do, that there are going to be -- maybe not "no ifs, ands or buts," but very few ifs, ands or buts in an extraordinary case. That's not what we're seeing, especially when

you review some of the statistics I went over, in question period today, where you have a huge number of those charged with the murders that have taken place thus far this year in Toronto, people who were the subject of previous court orders or

who were already out on bail when they were charged with the subsequent offence.

There's a serious problem here, and to me the problem isn't about those people -- that's a problem; the problem isn't about their victims entirely -- that's a terrible problem and a terrible tragedy for those

families; the problem is about confidence in the justice system. There is nothing more important in our society than -- I've talked in here before about respect for the rule of law. This is tied up in the same thing. If you have disrespect for the

place in which the laws are made -- which can happen when we behave in a manner here, for example, that's uncivilized -- if you have disrespect for the laws that are passed by this place, regardless of the behaviour that goes on when they're being

passed, or if you have a justice system that is perceived by people to be operating in a manner that is completely inconsistent with their understanding of what should be done and how matters should be dealt with -- recognizing that people aren't

lawyers, but they certainly do have a great degree of inherent common sense about how things should be dealt with, and that does not include people who are charged with very serious crimes walking the streets hours later, then found to be charged

with another serious crime, and then found after that in many cases to be violating the conditions of their bail with seemingly no consequences.

When we have the Attorney General himself calling for tougher bail rules -- and I will concede that although they did it well after us -- months, almost years after we did -- the Premier and the minister have

there from the beginning. So there is some progress being made. But Mr. Bryant correctly says that confidence in the justice system plummets when someone accused of a gun crime is back out on the streets the next day. If there is no confidence in

the justice system, then there is no confidence in our laws, there is no confidence in the people who make the laws, and I think that is generally bad for the system we believe in so strongly.

We have Chief Faulkner in London saying, "We have seen this in other cases where individuals have multiple (instances) of failing to comply with conditions and they are still released back into the public." He

said that this was even a bigger issue than one of the particular criminal incidents that took place in his city.

We saw a huge murder bust that took place this year, where a whole bunch of people were arrested. The story in the Toronto Star on August 8, 2006, starts out by saying that of the 32 people charged, 21 were

already under some kind of a court order before they were charged with this subsequent offence. I understand that they're innocent until proven guilty of the subsequent offence. But the fact is, they were charged with a subsequent offence when

they were already the subject of a prior court order: 11 on bail, nine already banned from having a firearm, eight on probation.

When this kind of thing happens, I would argue that it dramatically undermines confidence in the justice system. We have the deputy police chief of Toronto, Tony Warr, saying that the number of people who

repeatedly disrespect the law but get bail concerns him.

"`One was on three separate firearms prohibition orders, another was on two separate orders,' he said, looking at the statistics.

"`They've already proven ... they don't respect the court by disrespecting their order not to possess firearms and being caught again with firearms. I think once a person puts themselves in this position, the

court shouldn't have any hesitation of keeping them in custody.'"

I agree with Deputy Police Chief Tony Warr. He's right about that. That's what the public thinks about this too.

What are we asking for here? We are asking for statistics to be kept and reported to the public on the number of individuals granted or denied bail. The Premier frankly tried to take this off in the direction

of a red herring this afternoon when he said that what I and the Progressive Conservative Party were looking for through this motion was some kind of individual tracking system for individual judges. Not at all. I'd just like to see the aggregate

numbers across the province of Ontario in all courts on the number of people granted bail and the number of people denied bail. I find it very interesting that we have no trouble keeping track and reporting, as we do every year, on the number of

hours the courts operate, but we can't keep track and don't keep track of the number of instances in which bail is granted or in which bail is denied.

The second thing we're asking for: How about the number of people who are alleged to have committed additional crimes while out on bail? I would think that would be a good figure to know in the context of

whether or not the bail system is operating properly and whether or not there really is a gross disrespect being shown, at the very least by people who are out on bail.

They tell us at the Ministry of the Attorney General that they don't keep track of that. The government says they won't keep track of that and they don't want to keep track of that, and yet we get a quarterly

report each year from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs on the number of pigs that are on farms across Ontario. So we think that's an important piece of information to keep track of and report to the public, but the number of

people who are alleged to have committed additional crimes while out on bail is not important.

The Ministry of the Attorney General tells us they do not keep track, and the Premier tells us he will not keep track, of the number of sureties actually collected when people violate bail. When their

relatives or their friends put up the money and say they will behave themselves and show up for court, how much of that money do we actually collect when people violate their bail conditions? We don't know. They don't keep track, they won't keep

track and they won't tell us, yet, they can tell us the number of calls to the "bear wise" hotline and, out of that total number of calls, the number of people who spoke to a live operator. This is information deemed vital to the public interest

in the province of Ontario, and yet when our party asks, "Could we possibly keep track of the number of sureties that are actually collected on?" that information is deemed too dangerous or too hard to collect or I don't know what. We never really

get an excuse other than, "We just don't do it." And it goes on.

The last thing, but not least, we talk about in this motion is: Could we have statistics and figures on the number of people who get these sentencing deals? I'll call them, somewhat provocatively, sweetheart

sentencing deals, because some of them are. We want to know how many people get the double- and triple-time credit for the time served in custody before their sentencing. We are told that they don't track that information. They don't keep track of

it, they can't keep track of it, they won't keep track of it, they're not interested, and yet we can get a report any time we want on how many eggs are laid by poultry on farms across Ontario annually. I'm sure that's a very good piece of

information to know. It's important to the good people who came and fed us breakfast here in the Legislature this morning. But why is that deemed okay to report on -- to collect and to make public -- and the information we're asking for, in the

interests of developing confidence in the justice system, is not?

I'll conclude my brief remarks so that other colleagues on all sides of the House can speak. I'll quote the Attorney General again. He said on August 24, 2006, in explaining his decision to allow cameras in

certain very limited instances to be brought into the courts, "I think that our justice system is ready for its close-up." Well, I agree with him. Not only is the court system ready for a close-up, I would argue the court system needs a close-up,

and it needs a close-up so that people will know what's going on, so that they can keep an eye on it. At the end of the day, these courts are the custodians of the laws we pass in this place, the laws we pass on behalf of the people. They are the

custodians of the right to enforce those laws, hand out sentences and approve or not approve deals that are made.

I want to just address this one last point. It seems interesting that the Attorney General says it's okay to have some cameras in a few courts, but it's not okay to keep track of the facts of what goes on in

there. I suppose that if the cameras were in there, we could sit and watch TV and add it all up, but why should we have to do that? They're adding up the eggs, they're adding up the bears, they're adding up the phone calls to the bear hotline,

they're adding up the pigs and they're adding up all of these other things. There are thousands of people around government buildings adding stuff up and putting out reports they deem in the public interest, but somehow this information is not in

the public interest.

I think it is high time we got on top of this and we said that we're going to open the justice system up, we're going to let some light in on this so that people can see what is going on. I think what it will

do is increase confidence in the justice system. It will increase confidence. It's not going to interfere with anybody's right to make decisions.

The last point I want to make is that somehow today the Premier talked about how this was going to put a chill on judges. Let's just mention the fact that the number of people alleged to have committed a crime

out on bail is a fact that is not about what judges do; it's about what people do who are out on bail. It has nothing to do with judges. The number of sureties actually collected when people violate their bail: That has