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

December 15, 2004

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2004-Dec-15 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 15 December 2004 Mercredi 15 décembre 2004

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LTD

DAVID HEARN

FOOD SAFETY

AEROSPACE INDUSTRY

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

UNITED WAY

EDUCATION

JOHN TORY

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOBACCO CONTROL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT

À LA RÉGLEMENTATION

DE L'USAGE DU TABAC

ELECTED OFFICIALS

IMMUNITY ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR L'IMMUNITÉ DES ÉLUS

MOTIONS

APPOINTMENT OF AUDITOR GENERAL

APPOINTMENT OF OMBUDSMAN /

NOMINATION DE L'OMBUDSMAN

APPOINTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 17

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ANTI-TOBACCO LEGISLATION

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

ANTI-TOBACCO LEGISLATION

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

ANTI-TOBACCO LEGISLATION

DEFERRED VOTES

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING PROGRAM

CANCELLATION ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 ANNULANT LE PROGRAMME

DE PERFECTIONNEMENT

PROFESSIONNEL

LIQUOR LICENCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES PERMIS D'ALCOOL

DON REVELL

ORAL QUESTIONS

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

ANTI-TOBACCO LEGISLATION

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

CONSUMER PROTECTION

SCHOOL SAFETY

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

GOVERNMENT CONTRACT

WATER QUALITY

DRINKING AND DRIVING

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

TOURISM

VISITORS

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

PER DIEM FUNDED AGENCIES

DISTRICT OF MUSKOKA

ONTARIO FILM AND

TELEVISION INDUSTRY

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT SUPPLEMENT

UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE FUNDING

HEALTH CARE

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

LESLIE M. FROST CENTRE

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

HOUSE SITTINGS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE CONSEIL EXÉCUTIF

HEALTH PROTECTION AND PROMOTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA PROTECTION

ET LA PROMOTION DE LA SANTÉ

FISCAL TRANSPARENCY

AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LA TRANSPARENCE

ET LA RESPONSABILITÉ FINANCIÈRES

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LTD

Mr John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I recently had the opportunity to visit the Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd facility in Chalk River

in my riding of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke. It was a truly fascinating experience which I would recommend to each and every member of this assembly.

This is where Canada's nuclear program was conceived, with the first sustained fission reaction outside the United States on September 5, 1945. Since that time,

AECL has been the world leader in nuclear technology. Its advanced Candu reactor is world-class, made in Canada, cost-effective and can be put in service over a relatively short period of time.

There is no question that AECL is poised and ready to meet the demand for electricity in Ontario's future.

As part of my tour, I stood atop the NRU reactor, which produces over 60% of the world's supply of medical and industrial isotopes.

I wish to thank Paul Fehrenbach, Donna Roach, Neil Mantifel and the over 1,800 employees of AECL Chalk River, who made my visit so informative and enjoyable.

I encourage Minister Duncan to keep AECL uppermost in his thoughts as he proceeds with the plan to deal with our energy needs.

I would like to take this moment to wish all members of this assembly, my constituents in Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke and all Ontarians a blessed and merry

Christmas and a happy, healthy new year.

DAVID HEARN

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): It is with extreme pride and pleasure that I rise today to congratulate the accomplishments of one of Brantford's own, in

my riding of Brant. As many golf enthusiasts will know, there will be a new Canadian on the PGA tour next year. Last week, Brantford's David Hearn qualified for the PGA tour with a 40-foot birdie

putt on the 18th hole.

The 18th hole is a 439-yarder with water down the left. In order to clinch a berth on the tour, Hearn had to put a putt through a tough spot on the 18th green to

finish seven under in a six-round tournament at the PGA's qualifying course in California. He drained the only birdie of his round for a five-over-par 77. Hearn earned his way into the qualifying

tournament with a total score of eight under for a 424.

Earning his PGA qualification card is the topping of an incredibly successful year for this 25-year-old. In January, he qualified for the Canadian tour and the

Asian tour. David went on to achieve two wins on the Great Lakes tour and four consecutive top-five finishes on the Canadian tour. He finished in the top 25 of the Samsung Canadian PGA

championship. He earned full playing privileges in the nationwide tour with a victory at the Alberta Classic. As the only Canadian qualifier, David Hearn will be joining the ranks of such great

Canadian golfers as Stephen Ames, Mike Weir, Ian Leggatt and Glen Hnatiuk on the PGA tour next year -- another notch in our bow.

Wayne Gretzky, Doug Jarvis -- you name it; we've got it all. It's all in the water.

FOOD SAFETY

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I rise today to draw attention to a real threat to food safety in this province. On December 31, the meat inspectors

of Ontario, who have been put back on the provincial payroll as members of the public service, will see their agreement with this government expire. As a result, they will have the right to strike

and in effect bring the processing of meat in provincial abattoirs to a halt.

That's why, after the public service strike in 1996, our government made sure Ontarians would no longer have food safety be subject to the whim of a union and

made provincial meat inspection contracted positions.

This government has not hired more inspectors --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Minister of Agriculture, would you allow the member to make his statement, please.

Mr Hardeman: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

This government has not hired more inspectors, but simply undone the move and once again subjected the inspection of Ontario meat to labour disruptions. This

certainly is not what beef farmers, already reeling from the effects of BSE, need. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Ontario Independent Meat Packers both expressed concern when the

Minister of Agriculture made a purely political move and brought meat inspection back under the OPS. They knew the dangers. They knew that this was not a move toward safer food in the province, but

a vain attempt to cover up the broken promise of not calling a full inquiry into the Aylmer scandal.

Now that the minister has opened up this can of worms, I hope he has a plan to ensure the safe inspection of meat during a strike. Because of his need to be seen

as doing something for food safety, the Minister of Agriculture has actually put food safety and the viability of our abattoirs in grave danger. Today I call on the minister to take responsibility

for the results of his actions and put in place a real plan to deal with this issue.

AEROSPACE INDUSTRY

Ms Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): There is a phantom in this chamber. He's the phantom Minister of Economic Development in a McGuinty Liberal

government that just doesn't have the right stuff. He and his Premier are blowing a chance to bring aerospace investment and jobs to Ontario. Unfortunately, the McGuinty Liberals have no plan to

fight for Bombardier to build its new C series jet assembly plant in Ontario. They've done a disappearing act. They're missing in action. They haven't shown up at the table to compete with

aggressive bidders like Quebec, Northern Ireland and several US states. They've thrown in the towel without ever setting foot in the ring.

The C series deal, worth $250 billion over the next 20 years, will create 2,500 direct Bombardier jobs and another 2,500 supplier jobs. The aerospace industry

now surpasses auto as the largest net contributor to Canada's balance of payments.

With no plan, no strategy and no will to do anything, the McGuinty Liberals are deliberately letting this big opportunity fly away. Quebec is offering incentives

like loan guarantees and export credits to keep key industries from moving elsewhere. Meanwhile, the Premier has a phantom on this file. We call on him to get in the game. Doing nothing guarantees

failure. Keep your election promise and invest in high-tech industries.

We have been asking questions for the past two weeks, and still no answers have arrived. Today, the Canadian Auto Workers from local 112 came to deliver 4,000

postcards to the government. They call for an Ontario strategy that will grow their industry. Like us, they want the McGuinty Liberals and his phantom minister to take real action and bring

Bombardier to Ontario.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Mr Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): Recently, I was pleased to be with my federal and municipal colleagues at a launch which will revolutionize

public transportation in the region of York, called VIVA. A special "thank you" goes to the Minister of Transportation, Harinder Takhar, and my two colleagues from the region of York, the

Honourable Greg Sorbara and Tony Wong, for their strong support of public transportation for the region of York.

The name VIVA is very symbolic, because it means "life" and fits perfectly with our new, innovative rapid transit system. The name VIVA captures the spirit of

the investment our government has made in the future of the region of York.

VIVA is about improving quality of life by reducing traffic congestion and pollution, improving our air quality and promoting pedestrian-friendly development.

The transit plan will cut travel times for commuters by 25% to 40% during the busiest times of the day. By 2006, it will take 7,000 cars off the roads every day.

Our government is committed to a greater Toronto transportation authority to provide an integral and seamless public transit system linking the entire GTA. But

it is time to do what we can to address gridlock now, and the region of York rapid transit plan is part of the solution. VIVA could be held up as a model when the transit authority is established

shortly. It will link the urban centres of Markham, Vaughan, Richmond Hill and Newmarket along four major corridors, including Highway 7 and Yonge Street. It will also link the region of York to

the TTC subway lines and to the Unionville, Finch and Langstaff GO Transit stations.

The government of Ontario is pleased to invest in VIVA, because it will help ease gridlock and promote public transit as a safe and convenient means of travel.

Improving transit is one of our priorities, because it helps build safe and strong communities and contributes to a higher quality of life. By making investments in public transportation, the

Ontario economy will perform better and our constituents will have a better quality of life.

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): The Premier and Minister Smitherman should be very concerned, as health stakeholders are, about the

secretive and government-directed approach they are taking to creating local health integration networks or LHINs. They are concerned about the lack of meaningful public debate. They recognize that

this government is attempting to centralize control of the health care system, which builds on Bill 8, which the government introduced prior to their plan to eliminate hospital boards and local

autonomy.

Thus far, your superficial, private consultations leave many unanswered questions, such as: What is the funding formula for the LHINs? What about accountability?

Who has given you the legislative authority to start advertising for chairs and director appointments to the LHINs? Will these be partisan Liberal political appointments, and how much will these

individuals get paid? Is this another layer of unnecessary bureaucracy? Will you eliminate the district health councils and, eventually, hospital boards? What happens to the children's health,

cardiac care and cancer care networks? Why have you created arbitrary geographic boundaries without considering hospital catchment areas and patient needs, the roles of agencies and the allocation

of municipal tax dollars? How can you develop networks without consulting with primary care physicians? Have you considered the labour impact of implementing these networks and issues such as pay

equity?

The list of questions is endless. I urge this government to, as one stakeholder says, stop the bullying and start real, meaningful public consultations.

UNITED WAY

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I rise today to inform members of this House about how employees of Carleton University proved that --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. Could I ask the members to keep their discussions down a bit, so I can hear.

Mr Patten: I rise to inform the members of this House about how employees at Carleton University proved that an unfaltering amount of dedication

and an innovative spirit are the essential qualities needed for a successful fundraiser.

Carleton University is situated in my riding of Ottawa Centre, and I'm proud to say that this educational institution has a strong reputation for its positive

contributions to the local community. For example, the university has participated in United Way campaigns for well over 20 years.

This year, the determination of 75 university employees, as well as the tireless efforts put forth by the employee campaign coordinator, Elizabeth DiSabato,

allowed the United Way campaign to exceed its financial participation goals. The campaign raised over $179,000, clearly exceeding its goal of $150,000, and participation rates skyrocketed from 32%

in 2003 to 53% this year.

Although these figures are impressive, the key accomplishment for the people at Carleton has been the innovative approach the university used to invigorate its

United Way campaign. Instead of simply asking for donations to help a good cause, the employees at Carleton University added a personal touch to the campaign by telling stories of how the United

Way made a difference in each of their lives.

I want to congratulate them all for their contribution to making Ottawa the great city that it is.

EDUCATION

Mr Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): I rise today to inform the House of the progress the McGuinty government has made in the

field of education. Yesterday, Minister Kennedy and Minister Kwinter announced that this government will be providing more than $9 million to help schools become more secure. The same announcement

also included funding for an anti-bullying telephone hotline.

As a retired educator after more 32 years in classrooms in Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh, I can't talk about this government and education without letting the

people of Ontario know that we have accomplished very much during the past year. We've hired 1,100 new teachers as a first step to reducing class sizes in early grades. As a result, more than 1,300

schools already have smaller classes. We've invested $100 million in new special education funding. With new accountability measures, we're ensuring that every dollar reaches a student who needs it

most.

We're also in the process of repealing teacher testing and working with teachers to put together an entirely new approach to professional development. We've

invested $31 million to strengthen rural schools in my rural riding. I'm delighted about that. We're also providing $2.1 billion in funding to support renewal work in Ontario schools.

Parents, teachers, trustees and, most importantly, our students are breathing a sigh of relief that there is finally a provincial government that has restored

peace and stability to our schools. Gone are the days of the politics of division. We are taking steps to make sure that our kids get the best possible education from the best teachers in the best

schools.

JOHN TORY

Mr Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East): As the session rounds to an end, I rise to talk about three months of John Tory disappointments.

It has taken Tory three months to decide to parachute into Ernie Eves's riding. It only took Eves 12 days to find a by-election seat.

After Tory called for a more co-operative environment, his caucus obstructed bills limiting government advertising, banning negative option billing, and

expanding the role of the Provincial Auditor.

Tory and his caucus were twice exposed for health care fearmongering. A hospital CEO complained of Conservative rumour and innuendo and a health economist said,

"I suspect they are playing with the numbers."

Just on Monday, in a bout of transparent hypocrisy, the PC caucus voted against fiscal transparency after Tory said he supported it. Newspapers have described

his caucus's performance as subdued and predictable.

According to the media, Jim Flaherty is mulling over the possibility of running for the federal Conservative Party, John Baird is interested in leaving Queen's

Park and Frank Klees is looking for opportunities in the private sector.

Tory has had trouble coming to grips with his caucus and setting a clear direction since his narrow leadership victory. Now he'll have to defend his support for

public money for private schools and American-style pay-your-way-to-the-front-of-the-line health care.

John Tory said he'd be giving us hell in the Legislature this week. With due respect, where the hell is John Tory?

VISITORS

Mr Kuldip Kular (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Among the present group of pages is Ellen Martin. She comes

from my riding of Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale. Her mother, Stephanie Martin, and a friend are visiting us here in the east gallery. I want to acknowledge them.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): That's not a point of order.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I have a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like the House to recognize my son-in-law, David Lohse, who is joining us and

visiting us from Adelaide, Australia. I tell you that David is a test pilot with the Royal Australian Air Force. He's here with my daughter Rebecca and our grandchildren Megan and Daniel for

Christmas.

The Speaker: Is it OK for me to call reports by committees now?

Interjection.

The Speaker: If the member for St Catharines were in his seat, I'd ask him to do that.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

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

15, 2004, from the standing committee on government agencies. Pursuant to standing order 106(e)9, the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOBACCO CONTROL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT

À LA RÉGLEMENTATION

DE L'USAGE DU TABAC

Mr Smitherman moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 164,

An Act to rename and amend the Tobacco Control Act, 1994, repeal the Smoking in the Workplace Act and make complementary amendments to other

Acts / Projet de loi 164, Loi visant à modifier le

titre et la teneur de la Loi de 1994 sur la réglementation de l'usage du tabac, à abroger la Loi limitant l'usage du tabac

dans les lieux de travail et à apporter des modifications complémentaires à d'autres lois.

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

Mr Smitherman?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I reserve my comments for ministerial statements.

ELECTED OFFICIALS

IMMUNITY ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004

SUR L'IMMUNITÉ DES ÉLUS

Mr Ouellette moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 165,

An Act to provide elected members of municipal councils and school boards with certain privileges, immunities and powers / Projet de loi 165,

Loi octroyant certains privilèges et pouvoirs et certaines immunités aux membres élus des conseils municipaux et des conseils scolaires.

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

Mr Ouellette?

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): The purpose of this bill is to extend to elected members of municipal councils and school boards those

privileges, immunities and powers presently enjoyed by the members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in order to provide an environment of freedom of speech within their elected chambers.

MOTIONS

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to move motions without notice respecting the

appointment of the Auditor General, the Ombudsman and the Environmental Commissioner.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Is there consent? Agreed.

APPOINTMENT OF AUDITOR GENERAL

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I move that an humble address be presented to the Lieutenant Governor in

Council as follows:

"To the Lieutenant Governor in Council:

"We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, request the appointment of Jim McCarter

That the address be engrossed and presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council by the Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Mr Duncan has moved that --

Interjection: Dispense.

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

APPOINTMENT OF OMBUDSMAN /

NOMINATION DE L'OMBUDSMAN

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I move that an humble address be presented to the Lieutenant Governor in

Council as follows:

"To the Lieutenant Governor in Council:

"We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, request the appointment of André

That the address be engrossed and presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council by the Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): The government House leader has moved that an humble address be --

Interjection: Dispense.

The Speaker: Dispense. Is there any debate?

M. John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): Je voudrais dire que M. Marin est un résident de la circonscription de Nepean-Carleton et on est

très fier d'appuyer sa bonne nomination.

The Speaker: Any further debate?

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

Hon Mr Duncan: There's one less candidate for the federal nomination in Ottawa West.

APPOINTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I move that an humble address be presented to the Lieutenant

Governor in Council as follows:

"To the Lieutenant Governor in Council:

"We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, request the extension of the

appointment of Gord Miller as the Environmental Commissioner for the province of Ontario to May 1, 2005, as provided in

section 49 of the Environmental Bill of Rights Act, SO 1993,

chapter 28, to

That the address be engrossed and presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council by the Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): The government House leader has moved that an humble address be presented --

Interjection: Dispense.

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

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 17

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to move a motion respecting Bill 17, An

Act to amend the Executive Council Act.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Do we have unanimous consent for the acceptance of Bill 17, as stated by the government House leader?

Agreed.

Hon Mr Duncan: I move that the December 2, 2004, order of the House referring Bill 17,

An Act to amend the Executive Council Act, to the

standing committee on the Legislative Assembly be discharged and that the bill be ordered for third reading.

The Speaker: The government House leader has moved --

Interjection: Dispense.

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

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): I ask that members recognize in the Speaker's gallery André Marin, the newly appointed Ombudsman for the

province of Ontario, and also the appointment of Mr Jim McCarter, who is sitting in the Speaker's gallery, as Auditor General for the province of Ontario.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ANTI-TOBACCO LEGISLATION

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Today I have the great privilege of tabling a piece of legislation to create

the Smoke-Free Ontario Act. This is an enormously proud moment for me and for our government. I say that not because the battle is won; it is not. In the battle against smoking and the deadly

effects of tobacco on smokers and non-smokers alike, we still have much to do and a very long way to go. But today represents a crucial turning point.

As you know, during the last election we made a commitment to make Ontarians the healthiest Canadians. We promised the people of Ontario a health care system

that does more than just treat illness. In other words, we promised a true health care system instead of a sick care system, and we promised the comprehensive anti-tobacco strategy that is crucial

in achieving these goals.

Actions speak louder than words. We are delivering on what we promised. Our strategy is built on three pillars: protection, prevention and cessation. Some

parts are already in place. My colleague the Minister of Finance has begun to increase taxes to bring the price of Ontario cigarettes closer to the national average. We've also unveiled stupid.ca,

a youth anti-smoking campaign aimed at young people and developed by young people. In the new year, we will be moving forward with a coordinated effort to help Ontarians stop smoking. But the most

important element of our anti-tobacco plan, the cornerstone of our strategy, is our commitment to make all workplaces and enclosed public spaces in Ontario 100% smoke-free.

Today I am introducing legislation to do just that. This bill creating the Smoke-Free Ontario Act would, if passed, protect all Ontarians from the deadly

effects of cigarette smoke, whether they are in their office, at a restaurant, in the laundry room of their apartment building, on the floor of a factory, in an underground parking garage or at a

shopping mall. In other words, unless Ontarians want to be exposed to cigarette smoke, they won't be. No worker in Ontario, no truck driver, no homecare worker, no blackjack dealer or bartender at

a Legion will be compelled to accept deadly second-hand smoke as a condition of their employment.

It is proposed that the bill would come into force on May 31, 2006, and would augment the existing patchwork of municipal bylaws with one province-wide law.

I'm proud to say that this is a law with no exceptions, no exemptions. As I've said before, it would apply to Legion halls, it would apply to private clubs, it would apply to bingo halls and to

casinos, and it would eliminate so-called designated smoking rooms. One hundred per cent smoke-free means 100% smoke-free, and that's what this legislation would do.

Let me take a moment to tell you what it does not do. It doesn't deal with smoking in the home. I look forward to the day when nobody smokes anywhere in

Ontario, but I'm someone who believes that the state has no place in the bedrooms or in the rec rooms of the nation. So we're saying to Ontarians, if you want to smoke at home, we're not going to

stop you. We would obviously encourage people with children to step outside to smoke, but we will not legislate on this point either.

We would also permit hotels to set aside a certain number of rooms for guests who smoke, and permit long-term-care homes to allow their residents to smoke in a

controlled setting. These are homes, as I've said many times, and we will treat them as such, but we will also ensure that employees are protected from the effects of second-hand smoke.

I also want to emphasize that there would be two instances in which we would regulate smoking in private homes. If you choose to operate a licensed in-home

daycare in your home, then you cannot smoke in your home when there are children present. A health care worker, when treating you in your home, has the right to freedom from second-hand smoke. In

both instances, we would have measures in place to protect employees who work in these areas.

A second principle that guided us was to not dictate what people can do outdoors. There's been some talk about a nine-metre smoking ban around doorways. That's

not something that is in this bill, it's not something we ever had in early drafts of this bill, and it's not something we promised in our platform. It goes without saying, however, that the

existing nine-metre ban around hospital doorways would remain in place.

We are also not proposing to ban smoking on outdoor patios. But let me be clear: An outdoor patio must be a true outdoor patio. We will not have the bar and

restaurant workers of this province being forced to endanger their health in enclosed spaces filled with cigarette smoke. It's as simple as that. The days of restaurants and bars enclosing their

decks with canvas walls and roofs, masquerading them as patios when in reality they function as smoking rooms, are over.

One of the very few instances where we would prohibit smoking outdoors is for assigned seats at a sporting or entertainment event. As I said earlier, it is our

intention that unless Ontarians want to be exposed to cigarette smoke, they won't be, and that includes being stuck beside a smoker at a concert or a baseball game.

There's another component to this bill that deserves particular attention: our retail display ban. We've all walked into convenience stores and seen elaborate

countertop displays promoting smoking precisely at the eye level of young children. Does anyone really believe that it is somehow acceptable for cigarettes to be mixed in with Twizzlers and hockey

cards for the benefit of young potential consumers? We do not, and we are proposing to ban these countertop displays. Our bill would also ban all displays that permit customers to handle tobacco

products before they've been purchased.

We're also proposing to make it tougher for young people to buy cigarettes by requiring retailers to demand ID from anyone -- anyone -- who appears to be under

the age of 25. Finally, this legislation would limit the size of behind-the-counter displays of cigarettes to distinguish between a legitimate display and what is effectively a billboard.

This is a bill of which we can all be proud. We've consulted with Ontarians in drafting it. My parliamentary assistant, Peter Fonseca, has done a great job,

working closely with stakeholders to ensure that our common objectives were met in a fair and reasonable way.

I should also note that our efforts build on the important work done by others, including former Health Minister Ruth Grier, as well as federal colleagues,

particularly Diane Marleau and Allan Rock. I'm proud to be in that kind of company.

This is a fair and balanced piece of legislation, and it helps us toward an absolutely critical goal: healthier Ontarians. Because of that, we intend to be

very firm in implementing this new law. We would dedicate the resources necessary to enforce this new proposed legislation when it comes into effect.

I look forward to an opportunity to discuss this bill in greater detail. I look forward to the day when all of us in this chamber can say to the people of this

province that Ontario is now smoke-free. We're not there yet, but with the passage of this bill, Ontario would once again be a leader in the battle against tobacco.

Our anti-smoking strategy, taken as a whole, is the toughest, most comprehensive and far-reaching in North America. That is something we should all celebrate,

because tobacco is the number one killer in Ontario. It's the number one preventable cause of death, killing more people than AIDS, traffic accidents and alcohol combined. Tobacco kills more than

16,000 Ontarians every year. That's about 44 today, another 44 tomorrow, and on and on and on.

In addition to the human toll, tobacco also takes a horrible economic toll. Ontario spends more than $1.7 billion a year treating tobacco-related

illnesses.

Tobacco destroys lives. It rips families apart. It clogs our hospitals and damages our economy. This government will not stand idly by as this destruction

continues. We have an obligation to protect and preserve the health of Ontarians. So I invite all members of this House to look carefully at what's in this bill, to help us fine-tune any details,

and to join with us as we work to make Ontario the most smoke-free jurisdiction in North America.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

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

the people of Ontario know about some immediate changes that will help Ontario's most vulnerable citizens.

When we were elected, we promised that we would restore integrity to Ontario's social assistance system. We started by repealing the previous government's

lifetime ban for welfare fraud. We restored the nutritional allowance for pregnant women on social assistance, something that never should have been removed in the first place. We increased social

assistance rates for the first time in 11 years.

Our commitment to Ontario's most vulnerable people doesn't stop there. Today I'm proud to outline our government's plan to implement a series of changes aimed

at streamlining the social assistance system, improving accountability, treating people with dignity and fairness, and helping people move from working for welfare to working for a living.

Let me say upfront how proud I am of our parliamentary assistant in this ministry, Deb Matthews, who worked diligently to table a report on how we must work,

and have much more work to do, to streamline and enhance the system to make it much easier for people to transition back to work. Some of that will be found in today's announcement. Social

assistance recipients are real people and they want meaningful jobs. They want more for their children, they want to contribute to a brighter future for themselves, and they are willing to work to

make real improvements in their lives. It's time our welfare programs also work.

We can't tell people they should improve their lives and then put up barriers that prevent them from doing just that. We can't say we value skills and

education and then tell people to cash in their education savings for their children. We can't tell a young boy with a paper route whose family is on social assistance that he can't keep the money

he worked so hard to earn, or tell a young girl with an after-school job that she has to give all her earnings back if she tries to save them. We can't say that we want our children to learn how to

work hard, to know the value of learning a skill or pursuing higher education, and then tell them they can't save for college or university tuition.

For years, the rules for social assistance in this province have treated our most vulnerable citizens as less than equal citizens. They have perpetuated a

cycle of poverty this government is determined to break. We are taking immediate action to improve the way our welfare system works so we can start building that brighter future for some of this

province's neediest citizens.

Our plan will streamline and simplify the system so that we aren't doing unnecessary paperwork, creating cumbersome, ineffective rules and putting barriers in

the way when people are in a financial crisis. That's why we are simplifying the application process for recipients, by eliminating the intake screening units that were redundant and complicated

the system. Municipalities have asked us to assist them in decreasing their administrative costs for the delivery of welfare.

Our plan will improve accountability and sustainability so that the system is effective both today and in the future. That's why we are collecting social

assistance debt from sponsors who don't live up to their sponsorship obligations.

Our plan will help people find and keep meaningful employment so that they can leave welfare for good. That's why we're allowing Ontario Works recipients to

access drug benefits while they transition back to work.

Finally, our plan will treat people on social assistance with fairness and dignity, because everyone deserves to be treated with respect, no matter what

struggles they face.

Registered education savings plans will be exempt as assets, and contributions to and payments from RESPs will not be treated as income, so that social

assistance recipients can pay for their children's education.

Sponsored immigrants will no longer face the arbitrary $100 deduction from their social assistance payments simply because they have a sponsor who doesn't live

up to their obligation.

That's why we no longer require social assistance recipients to further destabilize their lives by placing a lien on their home in order to receive social

assistance. I have to say -- my own edit -- that we still could not find the cottages that the last government claimed people had on welfare, and the search party is still out.

Our Premier always says that the strength of Ontario lies in its people. Our current and future economic growth and quality of life are directly related to the

strengths, hard work and skills of our people. It's time we stopped asking people to work for welfare and started helping them work for a living. It's time we stopped focusing on paperwork and

started focusing on people. It's time to clean up the system --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Minister, just give me a moment to call to order the member from Nepean-Carleton.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. The minister would like to make her statement without any interruption or any heckling.

Minister.

Hon Ms Pupatello: Thank you, Speaker. Shall I start from the beginning?

The Speaker: If you can do it in five minutes.

Hon Ms Pupatello: Let me say that it's time we start to clean up the system, break down the old stereotypes, and start helping people find and

keep meaningful jobs. It's time to restore integrity to Ontario's social assistance people, and we will do just that.

ANTI-TOBACCO LEGISLATION

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Responses?

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leader of the Opposition): Let me say at the outset that the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party and our leader,

John Tory, are supportive of banning smoking in public places. However, we have some serious concerns with this legislation and the motivation behind it. This McGuinty government has demonstrated

time and time again that it subscribes to the classic Liberal, big-government-knows-best way of thinking, and today's bill raises more questions than it answers.

How will you enforce your ban? What about compensation for business owners who have spent anywhere from $15,000 to $300,000 to comply with local bylaws and

create separate ventilated smoking rooms? They say that it won't be until 2010 that they can recoup those investments. And what about actually helping people most addicted stop smoking? Nothing

referenced there.

Why are some casinos covered by this and others aren't? The government said there wouldn't be any exceptions to the legislation. What about Legion halls and

the veterans who defended this country? They're out of luck and out in the cold because of this legislation. You're also reaching right into people's homes with this bill, those who live in

veterans' homes, those who have some space set aside for business purposes.

You say you know best. How will you possibly enforce this? This bill is representative of a government that thinks it knows best. People already know; Dalton

McGuinty doesn't.

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): This government told farmers, told myself, that the promised $50 million in compensation would be

announced when smoke-free Ontario was announced. What happened? Here we are, and I've not heard one word today about compensation for farmers. There are farmers in the gallery who will tell you

that they're exhausted. They've worked all their lives. Their equity is being taken away. Some are losing the farm. That means they lose their house; they lose their home. Today's announcement is

the final nail in their coffin.

Today's announcement means a number of things beyond the loss of jobs. One that many fail to remember is crime. This legislation will translate into increased

smuggling, contraband, counterfeit cigarettes and an underground economy. These guys don't ask young people for ID. It will mean that many of the two million Ontarians who do choose to smoke will

be smoking a product that this government and Health Canada has very little knowledge about.

Cheap smokes from offshore countries like China, India and Brazil containing pesticides that are appropriately used in a tropical country will undoubtedly pose

more of a risk than the nitrosamine-free tobacco that our Ontario farmers grow. I ask, just how concerned is this government -- and have they thought it through -- with respect to the health of

smokers?

Tobacco farmers realize they're being taken out. Minister Smitherman himself has declared war on tobacco, and today does mark the beginning of the end for

them. With any war, there are casualties, there are reparations. I ask that you consult, speak to tobacco farmers. They're honest, good people. They just want to make ends meet for their families.

They want to pay off their debts. They want to move on. Yes, Minister, you have declared war. You have won; the farmers are beaten. Give them something dignified. I feel they deserve nothing

less.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): I've had an opportunity to just briefly look at the announcement made by the minister today on social

assistance reform. I do want to make a couple of points. The elimination of the intake screening units is going to put about 250 people out of work. A lot of them are in eastern Ontario. Again,

we've got an example of a Liberal government dismantling jobs in eastern Ontario and moving them to Toronto.

I note with interest that going after sponsorship welfare funds that are owed to the province is only going to be done on a go-forward basis. Meanwhile, the

Treasurer, this year, has written off $250 million worth of debts, which includes welfare payments from those same individuals. So the government, on the one hand, is saying one thing and doing

another.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I'm responding to the Minister of Community and Social Services. This morning when I heard about her

announcement and what was going to be said, we picked up the phone in our office and we phoned Deb Peliti -- you remember her; the Legislature gave her a standing ovation last week -- and I asked

her what she thought of this major announcement. She did not think very much of what was happening here today. She said that you are doing nothing for the 660,000 people in this province who rely

on social assistance. What you are doing has almost no benefit to her, her family or anyone she knows.

There is nothing in here about housing, and we have 75,000 families looking for housing in this city alone, and double that across the province. You are doing

nothing with the Tenant Protection Act that you promised within the first year of your mandate; we're into 15 months, and it's not to be seen. You're doing nothing about skills training. You're

doing nothing about ending the child clawback. You're doing nothing, absolutely nothing, for restoration of the 22% that the former government took away. In fact, there are 800 rules and

regulations governing welfare and social assistance; you are tinkering with five of them, and the five you are tinkering with do nothing to the majority of people.

There are 7,500 people, or slightly over 1% of those on social assistance, who are recent immigrants who have been sponsored; 1% are going to see some kind of

change in their lives. Nobody else is going to see anything that is of any value to them whatsoever.

Twenty years ago, the Parliament of Canada voted unanimously to end child poverty -- 20 years -- and what are we seeing? More children than ever in child

poverty. You could enact, and you should enact, the end of the clawback. You promised that in opposition, you promised that during the election, and that is the single greatest thing that your

government can do to end child poverty, and you are choosing not to do it.

When I talked to Deb Peliti again today, when my office talked to Deb Peliti, she said that you need to keep your promises. If you had kept your promise, if

she could keep the $227, she could maybe afford to have an RESP for her kids. She can't do that now, nor can most people on social assistance. She could afford to buy food in the store and not have

to go to the food banks. What you are doing is tinkering with the lives of 660,000 people. They must feel betrayed. I know that members on this side of the Legislature feel betrayed by what you are

doing here today.

ANTI-TOBACCO LEGISLATION

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): In 1994, I was proud to be part of a government that brought in the Tobacco Control Act and put Ontario at

the forefront of tobacco strategies, and in the last 10 years we clearly have lost that position. New Democrats want to see us at the forefront again, so we will be looking to this legislation to

see if it achieves that end. We will be proposing amendments where they are necessary. For example, in the proposed legislation it's not enough to ban smoking in an in-home regulated child care

setting. To allow a provider to smoke five minutes before the children show up is not going to increase positive air quality or increase their health and safety, so we'll be proposing amendments in

that regard.

The point I want to make as well is that the government's legislation was only part of a broader strategy against smoking that it announced in the election

campaign. Regrettably, the government has fallen far short of the financial commitments that it made with respect to that strategy. The government promised $31 million for a mass media campaign for

youth, $46 million for smoking cessation programs, $50 million for a community transition fund to get farmers to use the land for something else, and $12.5 million for the legislation. The total

commitment that the Liberals promised in the first year was $140 million. How much is the government actually allocating to its strategy this year? Some $31 million. It's not as if the government

didn't have the revenue, because with the two tax increases alone, the new revenue this year is about $140 million. So the government had the money to put in place the investments that it promised

during the election campaign. It's clear that the $50 million for farmers is not coming, so the government will leave them high and dry in terms of their livelihood. It's very clear that there has

not been an investment made in cessation programs. This government provides a free flu shot. Why are we not paying for people's Zyban or hypnotherapy or patches for those people who really want to

quit?

Finally, in terms of consultation, this government said they consulted with everyone. This government was asked by the Royal Canadian Legion to have

consultations before the proposed legislation. This government refused to do that. The government could at least have listened to the veterans who made Ontario and Canada what they are now.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): We have a deferred vote on the motion for third reading --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I think the member from Nepean-Carleton was trying to point out to us that the outgoing Ombudsman, Clare Lewis, is in the

Speaker's gallery. But he has just departed.

DEFERRED VOTES

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING PROGRAM

CANCELLATION ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 ANNULANT LE PROGRAMME

DE PERFECTIONNEMENT

PROFESSIONNEL

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 82,

An Act to amend the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 to cancel the Professional Learning

Program / Projet de loi 82, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1996 sur l'Ordre des enseignantes et des enseignants de l'Ontario en vue d'annuler le programme de perfectionnement professionnel.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Call in the members. There will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1425 to 1430.

The Speaker: All those in favour, please stand one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, Dave

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGuinty, Dalton

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Orazietti, David

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Gregory S.

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

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

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Hardeman, Ernie

Jackson, Cameron

Klees, Frank

Martiniuk, Gerry

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Scott, Laurie

Sterling, Norman W.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 67; the nays are 18.

The Speaker: The motion is carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

LIQUOR LICENCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES PERMIS D'ALCOOL

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 96,

An Act to amend the Liquor Licence Act / Projet de loi 96, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les permis

d'alcool.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1434 to 1439.

The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Kennedy, Gerard

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, Dave

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGuinty, Dalton

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Orazietti, David

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Scott, Laurie

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Gregory S.

Sterling, Norman W.

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yakabuski, John

Zimmer, David

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

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bisson, Gilles

Hampton, Howard

Hardeman, Ernie

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 66; the nays are 18.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill be now passed and entitled as in the motion.

DON REVELL

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe we have unanimous consent for each

party to speak for up to five minutes on the retirement of Don Revell.

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

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

acknowledge the tremendous contribution to the people of this province of Mr Don Revell. I should begin by recognizing an honoured guest in the gallery: Marg Revell, wife of Don Revell. Welcome,

Marg.

Don is retiring as chief legislative counsel for Ontario on February 17 of next year, after more than 27 years of distinguished service. The Ontario government

and this assembly are losing a truly exceptional legal mind and a dedicated public servant. Don has made contributions not only at the provincial level but also at the national and international

levels.

Don's many achievements include making gender-neutral language the norm for drafting in Ontario and the rest of Canada; leading the translation of Ontario law

into French; and contributing creatively to the drafting of legislation in a way that has transformed the way we look at things in our society in such diverse areas as pay equity, occupational

health and safety, and personal property security law.

If that weren't enough, Don has taken his skills and talents beyond Ontario's borders. He effectively exported our method of legislative translation to the

emerging democracies of Estonia and Latvia. Closer to home, he helped establish the legislative drafting and translation office in Nunavut, Canada's newest territory.

It's important to recognize that Don has been invited to take on these responsibilities because of his reputation as an innovator, a leader and a visionary.

Thanks to Don and his colleagues, we always get the legislation that we intended, largely because of Don's dedication to the craft of legal drafting. He has always provided what I would consider to

be a comfort zone. If a bill or regulation has the Revell seal of approval, we who are members of this assembly can be assured that it is right, and all is well.

In many cases his advice is sought in high-pressure, rush situations, and he has always come through. He also has always been able to recognize the urgent ones

from the non-urgent ones and shown patience with those who don't know the difference.

He was the first person to rethink the idea that Ontario's laws only needed to be revised and updated once every 10 years in a single, massive exercise. His

inspiration was the 1990 revision, which involved bringing fully bilingual statute law to Ontario, updating its language to eliminate legal Latinisms and introducing gender-neutral language into

our law.

That huge undertaking led Don to launch the e-Laws project, which essentially moved Ontario from updating its laws every 10 years to the potential for daily

revision, while at the same time providing unprecedented public access to up-to-date information at no charge. The e-Laws initiative has revolutionized the ability of our citizens to learn about

their laws and is a worthy legacy of a remarkable man.

Like any true leader, Don has been an educator and mentor to his staff members. As a result, although he will no longer be physically present after February,

I'm confident that his unseen hand will be guiding the achievements of the superb office of the legislative counsel for many years to come. The ministry lawyers have dis covered that when they took

a draft bill in to Don to be finalized, they were embarking upon a much more demanding intellectual voyage than they had expected. Don's standards and his actions have always been motivated by an

overriding concern for how the law would ultimately affect people in the real world.

Il s'est engagé à faire en sorte que les citoyens soient capables de lire et de comprendre les lois qui régissent leur vie. Il s'est aussi

Don has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to clear, accessible law and, most importantly, the rule of law. The counsel of whom I speak, Mr Revell, is

sitting at the leg counsel desk right now. I want to say to him directly that if legislative drafting be an art, we have at that desk a Shakespeare and a Scorsese all in one.

Today we celebrate a man, an office and the public service itself. To put it simply, his undertakings have had an effect upon the rights and well-being of his

fellow citizens. Don Revell has made a difference, and I can think of no greater success for a public service. Counsel, thank you, congratulations, et au revoir.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): My friend from St Catharines, Mr Bradley, says that both he and I arrived here about the same time

that Mr Revell did. Mr Revell told me earlier that he arrived here one month earlier than us. The only difference, Jim, is that he's leaving with a pension and we won't.

Interjections.

Mr Sterling: If you want to get the attention of the members of the Legislature, that's what you talk about.

I think a lot of people, and even legislators, don't perhaps appreciate the importance of legislative counsel, the some 57 people who work with Don at the

present time and the skill they bring to their job. It is a really, really unique skill. We have been fortunate in the province, first of all, from 1977 to 1987, when I was sitting in this place

and Don was working with legislative counsel and we had Arthur Stone, who had been here for some period of time and was recognized as a master in Canada with regard to his skill in drafting

legislation.

People should understand that when they put the final words on paper of our intent as legislators, those are the words that the courts interpret. Those are the

words that come in front of the Supreme Court of Canada and all the other courts, and those are the words that actually effect the law. So what they do and how they craft that language is extremely

important to Canadians, to Ontarians.

Their skill -- I'm talking about both Mr Stone and Mr Revell -- has been recognized right across Canada and across many countries. That is evidenced by the

fact that Mr Revell has been asked on many occasions for advice, for help with regard to developing countries, developing Legislatures, developing democracies. He and his group of people who have

worked with him have been extremely good with regard to helping those other fledgling democracies develop and create good law.

As the Attorney General pointed out, we have here his wife, Margaret. I also want to say thank you to the other members of his family: his daughter, Sara, and

his son, Jeffrey. They have two grandchildren: Tyler and Laura -- who is going to be two, I believe, on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day. I know they are extremely proud of their dad and grandfather.

I wish them all the best in the future.

We have been really fortunate in this province to have had two masters. I mentioned Arthur Stone and then Don Revell. Don Revell picked up the ball in terms of

where Arthur Stone had been, but he met some new challenges. He went through a dramatic change in the Legislature in the legislative process.

As the Attorney General mentioned, up to 1990, each 10 years we used to revise the statutes into about 10 volumes of books. If someone wanted to establish what

the law of the day was, it was necessary to go through those books, find the statute, go out to the revisions that might have been made on a yearly basis, and then determine from the two sources

what in fact the law of the day was. We now have come down to the point, through the leadership of Mr Revell and his staff, where you can click on to e-Laws and establish what the law of the day is

by effectively pushing a couple of keys on the keyboard of your computer. So we've come a long way with regard to offering our citizens what is the law today that they must follow and go to.

Mr Bryant said that we were really fortunate to have a craftsman, an artist, in terms of drafting our laws in Ontario. I agree with those words. All I can say

to you, Don, is, not only have you been a good craftsman, but you have been one of the easiest people to get along with, in terms of when I served as a minister or a member of the Legislature, and

that office has always respected the confidence of each and every member of this Legislature over the past 27 years. I have never heard a leak come from that office with regard to whatever advice

any member of this Legislature wanted from legislative counsel. I respect the integrity of Mr Revell.

Thanks, Don; thanks, Margaret. You've done a great job for Ontario.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I'm very pleased to stand in this House this afternoon to pay tribute, on behalf of Howard Hampton and

the New Democratic Party, to someone who is a cornerstone of this Legislature, an individual whose name may not garner huge name recognition in the public sphere, but whose work is well-known and

regarded in this place.

Donald Revell has dedicated his entire career to this House through his service to the office of legislative counsel. After being called to the bar, he became

legislative counsel in 1977 -- he doesn't look that old; that's a good thing -- rising to assume the role of chief legislative counsel for Ontario in 1987. He has been the anonymous author, editor

and overseer for legislation that has shaped Ontario's public policy, political landscape and people's daily lives for over a quarter of a century -- or put another way, seven Premiers -- and he's

still standing.

This House has not been the exclusive benefactor of his expertise. His knowledge about law, legislation and leadership in this field, as has been pointed out

by others, has been sought by Parliaments spanning the nation and globe, including Nunavut, Nepal and Latvia. And even if you've never spoken to him directly, all members of this House have been

privy to his intelligence, talent and distinguished character through the legislation we read, debate and propose. We have come to know and depend upon his vast working knowledge of law and

statutes, his swift pen and his deep respect for parliamentary etiquette and traditions.

The office of the legislative counsel is renowned for giving equal treatment to all forms of legislation. It does not make a distinction between a private

member's bill or motion and legislation that has been proposed by the government. The staff apply rigorous analysis and legal tests to each project they undertake and never betray confidentiality,

and sometimes that's important. This is in large part due to the standards set by the Chief Counsel Revell. He is known for regarding private members' bills, resolutions and motions as critical to

pushing forward the public agenda and as potential future statutes. It could pass on its own or the government of the day could draw on it for its own proposed legislation. Therefore, the

legislation has to be clear, comprehensive and pass the test.

On that subject, as one small example, I know he has played an instrumental role in helping me and my office draw attention to issues of great concern to the

public; for example, the adoption disclosure amending legislation, which he's very familiar with, that I've tabled in this House five times. I know that this bill, like others, is reviewed by the

chief legislative counsel, and he has made sure that this bill, which has come close to passage in this House, is ready for the moment when it comes next, and when it does, I will invite him down

to witness the passage.

His departure will be felt by all of us. Chief Counsel Revell imparted to the entire Legislature, through his work and dealings with MPPs and their staff, his

institutional memory and impeccable regard for parliamentary tradition. All these traits lent to a distinguished record of service that we have benefited from on a daily basis. And while we will

continue to benefit from the strong team he has mentored and guided during his two decades here, his leadership and presence will be sorely missed. Leadership that leads by example is scarce to

find and even harder to replace.

On that note, Mr Speaker, I would ask, on this rare occasion, for unanimous consent for Mr Revell to come to the floor of the Legislature and to be properly

honoured and acknowledged by us.

The Speaker: Without even asking, it seems to be agreed.

Applause.

The Speaker: All he did was show his human side, that he can also break with tradition.

Hon Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent that routine proceedings have an additional 15 minutes put on them so

members can present petitions.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent for 15 more minutes to be added? Did I hear a no?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm going to put it one more time. Do we have unanimous consent for 15 more minutes to be added? Agreed.

ORAL QUESTIONS

DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Attorney General related to the recent massive breach of privacy

with the release by the Ministry of Finance to complete strangers of 27,000 names, addresses and social insurance numbers. It now appears that the actions of the Ministry of Finance could represent

a criminal offence under the federal Income Tax Act. Minister, could you advise the House if this issue is being pursued by your ministry, or have you referred it to federal authorities for their

consideration?

Hon Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): Speaker, I refer

this question to the Chair of Management Board.

Hon Gerry Phillips (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I'll just say again the steps we took: immediately taking all steps to notify

the 27,000 people, and, perhaps more importantly, having the Information and Privacy Commissioner immediately called and asking her to investigate this thoroughly. I expect that her report, which

we should expect, I think, shortly, will deal with all the privacy matters that I think the Legislature should be concerned with.

Mr Runciman: This is nothing short of amazing. I asked a question here with respect to a possible criminal breach of the law. I wasn't talking

about the privacy commissioner. I was asking a question of the Attorney General. This is his area of responsibility and he should be responding.

Minister, surely this is a credible concern that can't be ignored. It could be that the province or ministers of the crown violated federal law. Is the

minister or his spokesperson saying that they're leaving this issue for a private citizen to lodge a complaint under the Income Tax Act? Is that what you're saying?

Hon Mr Phillips: What I just said, and I repeat, is: We have an Information and Privacy Commissioner, an officer of the Legislature, who is

charged with responsibility for giving advice to the Legislature on matters like this. I think that was the appropriate individual, the appropriate body, to refer this matter to. She is looking

into the matter. She is, as she has indicated publicly, preparing a report. I think she will deal with the matter comprehensively for us. I think she will consider all matters.

Again, that's exactly why we have such an office. That's why the Legislature has set up such an office. That's why we will look forward to a report, and we

will take her recommendations fully into consideration.

Mr Runciman: I thought was exactly why we had an Attorney General, to deal with issues of possible criminal offence, not this sham and

stonewall effort by the Chair of Management Board. This is a question that should go to the Attorney General. He should have the gumption to stand on his feet and respond to it, and I'm going to

direct it to him.

The release of social insurance numbers by the Ministry of Finance could constitute a criminal offence. By refusing to deal with this, and by also refusing to

respond, is the minister telling the people of Ontario that he is satisfied that neither the province nor any minister of the crown has violated federal law? Is that what your silence is saying

here today?

Hon Mr Phillips: There's no silence. I am saying exactly what I think the people would expect, which is that it's a matter that we treat

seriously. As soon as we became aware of it, we informed all offices. We took immediate steps to notify the 27,000 people who were involved, and importantly, we asked the Information and Privacy

Commissioner to look at the entire matter and give us her best advice on how we deal with it. We are co-operating absolutely fully with her, disclosing everything to her and getting her best advice

on how we deal with it.

Again, from the public's point of view, I think it's a matter we treat seriously. We responded to it instantly. We are co-operating fully with the Information

and Privacy Commissioner, and we will take all her recommendations very seriously.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): New question.

Mr Runciman: From a public point of view, the public should be dismayed with your rote answers on this issue.

My next question is to the Premier. We know there has been a concerted effort to protect the Minister of Finance on this privacy breach. However, we now know

that this is potentially an even more serious matter: a violation of federal law, a criminal offence. Premier, will you advise us when you were informed that the release of 27,000 social insurance

numbers might constitute a criminal offence under the Income Tax Act of Canada?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm wondering if this question might not be better answered by the

ministry responsible for natural resources, given that there's a blatant attempt at fishing going on in the House today.

Let me say this to support what the Chair of Management Board has said: We did not take as our cue, we did not take as a precedent, the approach brought by the

member opposite and his government when it came to the Province of Ontario Savings Office, when they hid facts from the Information and Privacy Commissioner. We have co-operated with the

Information and Privacy Commissioner from the outset. We extended the courtesy to the opposition to bring this matter to their attention as soon as we reasonably could. We have made every possible

effort to contact those whose privacy may have been breached. We are intent on co-operating fully with the commissioner when her report is filed with this House. I don't think there's anything

further that we could do, given the circumstances as we found them.

Mr Runciman: From the Premier's response and the minister's response, I think what's going to have to happen here is that a private citizen is

going to have to file a complaint with federal authorities.

This is not a fishing expedition. I would ask you to check

section 237 of the Income Tax Act of Canada. It clearly speaks to this issue. You don't want to

speak to it; the act speaks to it. It raises very serious questions that you continue to refuse to answer in this House. We simply get political rhetoric. Premier, will you immediately instruct the

Attorney General to investigate this matter or to refer it to federal authorities for their review? Will you do that?

Hon Mr McGuinty: That may have been the approach brought by our predecessors, but it's not the approach we bring on this side of the House. We

don't direct our Attorney General to conduct investigations, we do not lend that kind of direction to our crown attorneys, and neither do we do that when it comes to our judges. We have a process

that is unfolding as it should. There is an Information and Privacy Commissioner who takes responsibility for these matters. We referred the matter to her. We look forward to co-operating with her

in any way possible, and we look forward to her report.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): Premier, you seem to fail to recognize that the release of these social insurance numbers to

complete strangers does constitute a possible criminal offence under the Income Tax Act. It leaves the door open for anyone to file a formal complaint against your Minister of Finance. In light of

this possibility, will you now do the right thing, refer this issue to the Attorney General, and also, at the same time, in light of the seriousness of this particular situation, will you require

your Minister of Finance to step aside while the investigation is being conducted?

Hon Mr McGuinty: So now we've gotten to the bottom of this. This is all about propping up some other specious argument against the Minister of

Finance, one more time. I think this may be the sixth separate occasion on which the members opposite have sought the resignation of this particular Minister of Finance.

We will comply with the process, as we should. We will not conceal information from the Information and Privacy Commissioner. We will co-operate in every

possible way.

To repeat the facts for the benefit of members opposite: When we found out about this matter, we moved as quickly as we could to notify those who might be

affected. As a courtesy, we advised members opposite of what had happened. We've also put the Information and Privacy Commissioner on notice. We've asked her to look into the matter. We've asked

her to bring her report back to us and to make recommendations. We look forward to co-operating with her as we move forward.

ANTI-TOBACCO LEGISLATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Premier, today we saw your anti-smoking strategy and, once again, we

see more McGuinty broken promises.

A year and a half ago, during the election, you promised, "We will establish a community transition fund to help farmers move away from growing tobacco," and,

"We will help communities move to a sustainable economic base."

Today in the announcement, the much-promised community transition fund isn't there. Where is the money to help tobacco farmers move away from growing tobacco,

or is this yet again a McGuinty broken promise?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Let me just say how proud I am of this legislation and of the leadership

brought to this particular file by the Minister of Health.

In addition to distinguishing ourselves in North America as the leading auto producer in this continent, in addition to distinguishing ourselves as having the

most progressive public education system in North America, I can also say that by means of this legislation we will have the most progressive, the most comprehensive anti-smoking legislation

designed to protect the health of Ontarians in North America, and I am very, very proud of that.

Mr Hampton: Virtually everyone in Ontario wants to stop smoking. That's not the issue. The issue is about your promise to tobacco farmers,

your letter to tobacco farmers where you said there would be a community transition fund that would help them move away from growing tobacco.

Here's another quote, "We will use increased tobacco tax revenue to make smoking cessation medications available to all smokers." Nothing there.

Premier, where is your promised funding for stop-smoking medication so that those who are addicted to smoking can get some help quitting, or is this another

McGuinty broken promise?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Listen, I've got to have some sympathy for the member opposite. He is demonstrating a tremendous amount of impatience. He

wants more and more of our policies. He wants to embrace them all with open arms, and I look forward to delivering more in time.

This is the beginning of a comprehensive plan that addresses smoking in the province. I know he's anxious for our program which will provide assistance for

farmers, and I can tell him, that is coming.

I know he's anxious for our initiative that is specifically related to smoking cessation, and I can tell him again that that, too, is coming. I can tell him

that there is much more to come by way of this particular health policy and so many other health policies.

I appreciate his impatience. I appreciate the fact that he wants us to do more for the people of Ontario. I would begin by asking him whether or not he's going

to support this bill.

Mr Hampton: Premier, it's about what you say; it's about what you promised. What I want is for you to start keeping a promise for a

change.

What's passing strange here is this: You have no money to help farmers move away from growing tobacco, despite the fact that you promised that. You have no

funding for those people who are addicted to smoking so that they can access smoking-cessation medications. But you seem to have lots of money for your Liberal friends to design a flashy Web site

like stupid.ca.

So on the day when you have no money for smoking cessation medication and you have no money to help farmers move away from growing tobacco, can you tell us how

much money, how much of the public's money, you are giving to your personal image consultant for stupid.ca?

Hon Mr McGuinty: Only the NDP could take the most comprehensive, aggressive, progressive anti-smoking legislation in North America, which is

designed to specifically address 16,000 deaths every year --

Interjections.

Hon Mr McGuinty: -- they may think that's a laughing matter -- that cost our health care system $1.7 billion on an annual basis, and somehow

turn that into a bad-news story. Only the NDP could do that.

To repeat, we are not going to announce every single one of our policies today. We have, the last time I checked, until October 4, 2007. We look forward to

making further announcements specifically related to assistance for farmers and specifically related to cessation programs.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): To the Premier, I just want the Premier to keep his promises. Last week, you promised a big

announcement on social assistance reform before Christmas. People hoped that it would be an announcement that you're ending the clawback of the national child benefit. Instead, we got another

letdown. You call tinkering with five of the 800 social assistance regulations "a new vision" for social assistance. You call this tinkering "Restoring Integrity to [the] Welfare System."

Premier, why don't you do something about your own integrity and keep your promise to stop your clawback of the national child benefit?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): To the minister, Speaker.

Hon Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): I do have a question for the member

opposite. I want to know if he supports the changes that we introduced in the House today. I have to understand why, in the mid-1990s, you decided arbitrarily to take $100 from families who were

here as sponsored immigrants and ended up on welfare. You decided to just dock them $100 arbitrarily. I want to know, how could you do that to our most vulnerable people in the province?

For 10 years after that, the last government only made things worse by making it very inequitable, very difficult, with barriers to allowing people to move

back to work.

I have to tell you, to the member opposite, you should be as interested as we are to help people get a job, because that's what they want.

Mr Hampton: I want to read something for the Premier and his minister. This is a letter from Dalton McGuinty to June Callwood and Rabbi Arthur

Bielfeld, July 31, 2003. This is what it says: "My team and I oppose the Conservative government's practice of clawing back the national child benefit, a practice we will end during our first

mandate."

Premier, that is what you promised the poorest families in Ontario, the lowest-income families in Ontario. I want to know today why you're tinkering with five

of 800 social assistance regulations but you're not ending the clawback, the taking of $200 or $300 a month from the poorest people of Ontario, like you promised.

Hon Ms Pupatello: I know how difficult it is to accept that we're actually improving the system with today's announcement. Let me tell you

that the people I have met across Ontario, who said very loudly -- maybe not to you, because you don't want to listen to advocates. But our members of the Liberal caucus have heard repeatedly that

the last government that decided to knock out the RESPs from families, the few that there were that could actually collect funding for their kids to let them go to school -- that was the last

government that did that.

I expect the NDP to actually be proud of the fact that we're eliminating this in this announcement. There are several other areas, like raising the level of

assets for people who are on disability. We accept that that's what people need out there, and I would expect that the NDP would think that was a very positive move, but instead, despite it being

the holiday season, I guess they can't accept something that is good news for the people of Ontario.

Mr Hampton: Premier, you must remember "Honest Deb" Peliti. She was the woman who found $40,000 on the street and turned it in. Last week, you

were in such a hurry to get out there and have your picture taken beside her. She called today, and this is what she said --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. Last time I thought that the leader of the third party was asking the final supplementary --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'd like some order. The member for Eglinton-Lawrence and the Attorney General, I'd like to hear the leader of the third party

put his third and final supplementary.

Mr Hampton: Telling low-income families who barely have enough money to pay the rent and put food on the table that they're now free to invest

in a registered education savings plan completely lacks integrity. It's the equivalent of saying, "Let them eat cake."

Deb Peliti called us today, and this is what she said: "Eliminate the clawback" and her kids will be able to eat from a grocery store, not a food bank.

It's your promise, Premier. When are you going to stop taking $200 and $300 a month from the pockets of the poorest, lowest-income families in Ontario and end

the clawback like you promised?

Hon Ms Pupatello: It's unfortunate. When the NDP see that our government is doing good for people who are our most vulnerable, it hurts your

party. I'm sorry. That is not going to be a reason for us. We will continue to help the most vulnerable people in Ontario, despite the NDP.

Let me say for the wonderful woman we met last week in this House that her children, if they have a part-time job, will be able to keep that money now because

of this announcement. If those children have an RESP, they can keep that RESP and they don't have to cash it. And moreover, we have to be responsible in how we deliver a program.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I don't think the third party wants to hear the answer, because they've been heckling all through the answer.

New question.

Hon Joseph Cordiano (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): On a point of order, Speaker: I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome,

from the great state of Georgia, a very distinguished delegation --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'll wait until after question period, if you submit that to me, and I'll recognize the members from Georgia.

Interjections.

The Speaker: If you were concerned about the clock, all of us would have listened to each other when asking the question and answering it.

Could we proceed with question period by the opposition party putting a question.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington): My question is for the Premier. I want to raise an issue regarding a family in Burlington who have been on

social assistance for the last four years. They have five children. During this time, their mother has been a home schooler for all five of her children, and she does this in accordance with the

parents' deep religious convictions.

Last month, your government informed the family that unless they enrolled their children in a public school, the welfare support for their three children would

be cut off -- they're aged six, nine and 11. That was cut off for them last month.

Premier, will you stand in your place today and inform this House that you will eliminate this discriminatory policy against children on social assistance

whose parents choose home schooling?

Hon Ms Pupatello: Thank you for the question. We're certainly happy to look into it. I can tell you that policies in social assistance are

meant to help people; they are not meant to be punitive. While I know this member realizes that I cannot speak to a specific case, I'm very happy to take information from him so that we can look

into it.

Mr Jackson: I'm not hearing that the minister will eliminate this discriminatory practice. This is a ruling by your government. Your

government has cut the funding for these three children by $600. That is the amount dedicated to those three children. They're now only receiving $1,000 a month. The rent for their modest

three-bedroom condo --

The Speaker: Order. I'm getting a debate between the member from Nepean-Carleton and the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Could we

proceed with the question? The member for Burlington.

Mr Jackson: As I was saying, the family lives in a very modest three-bedroom condo. Their hydro bill for the last month is over $400. They are

unable to make that payment. Christmas is around the corner.

I ask you again, Premier, will you stand in your place and do as you did last week with social assistance recipient Deb Peliti and fully restore the social

assistance for these three children in time for Christmas?

Hon Ms Pupatello: As I said earlier, I'm very happy to look into a specific case and hope that the member opposite would have, at minimum,

called our offices to see if we could be of assistance. I find it galling that the last government dares to stand in the House today to talk to us about discriminatory policies in welfare. It is

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. We could just let the clock roll.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I have a question to the Premier. Across Ontario, loan sharks are flouting the law while your government

does nothing. Payday lenders are calling in all rollover loans as of January 1.

Rob Ferguson, here in the gallery, visually impaired, eking by on a disability pension, got caught in a payday lending debt spiral. He has already paid

hundreds of dollars in illegal interest charges on $1,100 in loans, and he's still into these guys for 1,350 bucks. He stands to lose his home, and there are thousands just like him.

You've got to act. Will you order these payday lenders to declare an interest amnesty that will allow borrowers to pay off their principal without interest

charges?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): To the Minister of Consumer and Business Services, Speaker.

Hon Jim Watson (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): I've had the pleasure of working with consumer ministers from across the country.

We, just last week, along with the Minister of Finance and the Attorney General, wrote to the federal justice minister. We want a national, coordinated approach to this particular issue, because

this is not something that is unique to Ontario. We very much look forward to receiving a reply from Minister Cotler in Ottawa. We take this problem extremely seriously.

Mr Kormos: Look, these lenders, these loan sharks, are breaking the law. They are violating the Criminal Code every day. One company, Cash

Advance Canada, charges $112 a month in interest fees on a $500 loan. That works out to more than $1,300 a year, or 268% in annual interest. I'm sorry to tell you this, but that's against the law.

It's contrary to the Criminal Code.

It's the provincial Attorney General and minister of public safety who are responsible for enforcing the law in this province. The industry says they are

cleaning up their act by calling in these rollover loans, but their solution is worse than the cure.

Why don't you send them a real message? Tell them to declare an interest amnesty or, quite frankly, get the Attorney General to start prosecuting these

criminals and throwing them in jail where they belong. Why aren't you busting these loan sharks?

Hon Mr Watson: It's a little rich to hear the NDP talking about protecting consumers, because it was that party in particular that was

stalling and dragging its feet on Bill 70, a piece of consumer protection legislation. Bill 70, for the first time in the province's history, requires all these payday loan operators to have full

and open disclosure, and your party was voting and dragging their feet on the whole matter.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Watson: Obviously I've hit a raw nerve, because finally the people of Ontario are seeing the true face of the NDP: They have no concern

or regard for consumers in this province. Our government does.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): New question, the member for Northumberland.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'm just waiting for the House leader to stop heckling.

The member for Northumberland.

SCHOOL SAFETY

Mr Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland): My question is to the Minister of Education. Today's students are the heart of the future. School used to be

a place where youth could learn, have fun and feel safe. Parents didn't have to worry about sending their children to school. But now it seems that every time we turn on the news or pick up a

paper, we are learning of more senseless violence taking place in our schools, even in my riding. What is our government doing to make schools safe for our children?

Hon Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): The Ministry of Education is sponsoring a school safety action team of experts from across the

province. I emphasize the word "action." Very shortly, we will be bringing in very concrete measures. It is headed up by someone who is very respected in the education community and very well

versed; that is, the MPP for Guelph-Wellington, the former head of the school boards' association. It is what I think the people of Ontario both expect and have come to expect from this government,

which is two ministries working together. So the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Community Safety will be working with us at the Ministry of Education to make sure -- and I think

everyone in this House wants us to be sure -- that everything is being been done when it come to anti-bullying, when it come to precautions against intruders in elementary schools, when it comes to

making sure that some of the incomplete work of previous governments is actually causing a greater level of protection for our students.

This is taking place now. It will conduct many of its activities in January, February and March. Our schools will be better off and our students will be safer

as a result.

Mr Rinaldi: I'm sure the parents in Northumberland and Quinte West will be pleased to hear that this government takes our kids' safety at

school seriously.

Minister, can you be a bit more specific about when we're going to get a report from the action team and when we're going to be implementing these

recommendations?

Hon Mr Kennedy: What I want to emphasize for the House is that this is a budgeted set of actions; $9 million is going to be used to enhance

what boards and schools are already doing. They agree that we only get to start the learning and educating of students when we take care of their safety in all different ways.

There will be school safety audits starting in January. There will be access to a provincial hotline for bullying in the early part of the year. There will be

anti-bullying programs at every school in the province as part of the first couple of months of work of the action team.

There are aspects that will deserve study and will involve the education community, reference groups on the Safe Schools Act and on the Robins report, which

made a number of recommendations, unfortunately a few years ago, on cases of sexual abuse. Those are part of a comprehensive approach, but much of it will affect positively the well-being of

students early in 2005.

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question is to the Minister of Education. On November 29, you sent a four-page letter to all the boards and

directors of every school board in this province. Through that letter, you not only interfered with the collective bargaining process but you've effectively taken on the responsibility of

bargaining for all collective agreements in the province. In your letter, you state clearly that you intend to clarify to school boards spending decisions in this school year and beyond.

In that letter, the minister made reference to the fact that the government will guarantee funding for four-year contracts. Minister, at the time you signed

this letter, were you aware that the Education Act specifically prescribes only three-year contracts, that there is nothing in provincial legislation anywhere that allows for anything but a

three-year contract? Were you aware of the act at the time you signed this letter?

Hon Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): As I followed the member opposite as he wandered through his question, I gathered he was talking

about collective bargaining and how he wants to support free collective bargaining in this province. However, he was a member and part of a previous government that supported Bill 160, which

reached into every collective bargaining agreement in this province after it had been arrived at, as did the social contract.

What we are doing is helping create a climate for peace and stability. We believe it has already taken hold in our education system. It needs not to be taken

for granted. It needs active support. The teachers and the support workers want to be there for students.

The former Conservative government lost 24 million days for our students over the last eight years. We have given notice that we will be changing the terms in

the legislation. I'll offer the member a briefing so he can stay informed of these things. We've put together a number of very constructive proposals that will enhance the local bargaining table

and maintain peace and stability, which is the least --

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

Mr Klees: I will consider the source of that arrogance, and I will attempt to make it very clear to the Minister of Education what I was

asking him.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I would just caution all of you about your words. Please keep your language parliamentary here.

Mr Klees: Speaker, "parliamentary" would be when the minister answers my question.

I am simply saying to this minister that the law of this province calls for three-year contracts. The reading of this letter to every board in the province

makes it very clear that he is instructing the boards to attempt to negotiate four-year contracts. That is breaking the law. What is worse, and we will discuss this further, is that he presumes in

his letter to the boards that the legislation he will at some point bring forward will be passed. I suggest to the minister that if that isn't contempt of the Legislature, I don't know what is. He

may have a majority, but he cannot presume, with every board and every director of education, that that legislation will be passed. I ask the minister, do you respect the Legislature of this

province or don't you?

Hon Mr Kennedy: I'm sorry I wasn't at the Magna plant to see where you were sitting as you were respecting the Legislature.

It is passing strange that in the collection we have in the opposition, someone hasn't told the critic that every single year his government was in office they

set a guideline for salaries. But here's the difference: They never paid for it. That is the NSF former Conservative government over there, who never backed up multi-year funding. We're doing that.

We're putting something behind peace and stability. We're providing guidelines for local bargaining. Local bargaining will determine the final salaries. We have guidelines, incentives to help that

happen.

It's a form of modern management that the people across don't understand. We're helping our boards come up with good results. We're motivating the people who

can deliver good education in this province. We're showing respect, and we're going to make it work.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACT

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question to the Minister of --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. Members who are not even in their seats at the front here are heckling. I'd like to hear the member

from Nickel Belt.

Ms Martel: I have a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Last week, your ministry stopped accepting bids for a contract

for a new computer system at the Family Responsibility Office. No doubt this contract will be of significant value. This is the list of companies that have expressed interest in this new computer

system, and we note with interest that at the top of the list is none other than Accenture. Andersen Consulting -- Accenture -- is the same company that came under so much criticism in numerous

Provincial Auditor's reports about their bungling of the social assistance and ODSP computer system. Minister, can you guarantee that under no circumstance will Accenture get the FRO computer

contract?

Hon Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): I'd like to tell the member

opposite that actually the RFP process closed several weeks ago. We are currently doing a review of everything that was submitted. We have not yet gone back to all the companies to inform them who

that successful bidder has been.

What I will tell this member opposite is that we, in this government, have to be fair. We cannot suggest to people that they cannot apply on a request for

proposals. We, however, will give this member this guarantee: The company that will get this bid will be able to do this work, and it will be the best of all those that have been submitted.

Ms Martel: Minister, have you ever changed your tune. You see, in his most recent auditor's report, the Provincial Auditor said this about the

ODSP computer system designed by Accenture: fails to meet internal controls, fails to meet ministry needs, fails to meet recipients' needs, and causes unexplained errors and omissions. In previous

reports, the Provincial Auditor has said that Accenture was paid $66 million over the cap for the computer project, was paid for work it did not do, and had staff who were regularly paid more than

comparable ministry staff doing the same work.

In opposition, Minister, you had so much to say about Andersen Consulting and Accenture. You called on the previous government to end the boondoggle. Well,

Minister, the ball is now in your court. Will you confirm today, will you guarantee today, that Accenture will not get the computer contract of the FRO?

Hon Ms Pupatello: The NDP, I know, has not been government for some time. However, if this member opposite is thinking for a minute that I'm

going to interfere with a process that went through a fairness commissioner to make sure our RFP process was absolutely pristine, no, I am not tampering with that process. I have a lot more

integrity apparently than that member opposite.

WATER QUALITY

Mrs Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Minister, I need to tell you how big an issue water

quality is in my riding. Ever since the tragic events of Walkerton, people across my riding shudder at the thought that Walkerton could happen again. My constituents, along with all Ontarians,

deserve the best water quality in the world. Water quality is not something to be taken lightly. There are many things we can go without in this world, but water quality is not one of them.

Yesterday, you announced that the McGuinty government is taking a new, science-based, comprehensive approach to protecting drinking water resources. Minister,

how will your announcement help ensure that my constituents don't become victims of poor water quality?

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): It is indeed an important question. I'm happy to report to the members of this Legislature

that our Premier and this government is committed to ensuring that when someone turns on the tap in Ontario, the water is safe to drink.

Yesterday I was able to announce that the two technical committees that were formed over a year ago presented reports to me. There are over 250 recommendations

from the technical experts committee as well as from the implementation committee. Their recommendations are now posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights registry. We will receive comments from

the public on those recommendations. The recommendations and the comments will inform our government as we go forward.

I also want to add that the work of this committee -- some of the experts we collected for this work were some of the best science experts in the world, so we

believe we have the very best foundation upon which we will now bring forward legislation.

Mrs Mitchell: Minister, water quality is a very serious issue, and I'm glad to see that this government is serious about cleaning up Ontario's

water bodies and our drinking water. But good water quality goes beyond knowing how much water we are taking; it takes leadership that will look at water from source to tap.

Minister, what are we doing to ensure that the water that comes out of our taps is being closely monitored to keep it free of harmful contaminants?

Hon Mrs Dombrowsky: I'm really happy to have this opportunity to talk about the many initiatives that our government has underway to protect

water, water quality and water quantity in Ontario. We are committed to O'Connor's recommendations. I'm proud to announce that so far we have been able to implement 24 of O'Connor's

recommendations. We have hired 33 more water inspectors. We have increased the standards for water inspectors in the province. We have introduced the toughest training regime for water inspectors.

We have created the clean water centre. We have established the Advisory Council on Drinking Water Quality and Testing Standards. We are going to be introducing source water protection legislation,

the first of its kind in North America.

We know that we have an opportunity here to be a beacon of light for people around the world in terms of how to protect water from source to tap.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. MADD Canada, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, recently produced a

report that found that most drivers convicted of impaired driving were simply "dropping out of the system" by deciding not to complete any of the required steps to get their driver's licence

reactivated. In fact, of 16,500 people convicted of impaired driving each year, only 2,000, or 12%, complete the necessary steps to get their licence back. That means there's a soaring number of

convicted impaired drivers driving on our roads right now without insurance or a driver's licence.

This is a horrible situation -- so horrible, in fact, that you tried to suppress MADD Canada's report. It's a major safety issue. Why haven't you done anything

about it since this has come to your attention --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. Member from Simcoe-Grey, would you like to couch your words in a different way that is not

unparliamentary?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member from Don Valley East, could you come to order, please.

Interjections

The Speaker: And also the House leader for the government.

Mr Wilson: MADD Canada tells me that the minister -- his office, the ministry -- tried to prevent the release of their report, and they're

quite mad about it, Mr Speaker, I might want to tell you.

Minister, what are you doing to stop this horrible situation? Will you respond to MADD Canada's concerns within 30 days, as they've requested?

Hon Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): Driving impaired is not acceptable, and we take that very seriously. This is the first

time I ever heard that we are holding up the report, but I will check into that and then report back to the House.

Mr Wilson: How could you not know about such a significant report that shows that of 16,500 convicted impaired drivers, 2,000 of those, or

12%, bother going through steps like the ignition interlock or the remedial program that they're all required to go through? How could you not know that, as Minister of Transportation? That's a

shame. You tried to suppress the report. The report is out. MADD Canada has briefed your staff. Mothers Against Drunk Driving are rather frustrated about this --

The Speaker: Order. I'm going to disallow that question instead of naming you. I warned you already about that language.

Mr Wilson: What did I do wrong now?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I would ask all members to just come to order. I know that we must be a little bit edgy today, but the fact is that I'd

like us to conduct ourselves in a good parliamentary way. As well, I'd like to have a good session in here. I'd like the co-operation of all members. I'm finding it extremely difficult over the

last couple of weeks to do so. If you want to question my judgment, you may do so, but I will tell you that we know what procedure we can take in that matter.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The word "suppression" --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I will again ask you all that we conduct ourselves in a good manner.

Mr Baird: Shame, shame, shame, shame. Let's walk out. This is a disgrace. This is an absolute disgrace.

Some honourable members left the chamber.

The Speaker: One second. Those members who want to leave the chamber, that's fine.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Could I please prevail on you to call a five-minute recess, preserve the

balance on the clock, to avoid a most regrettable incident today that could have long-term repercussions? Speaker, I believe the matter can be resolved. It's a very regrettable situation when

you've got a whole caucus, the opposition caucus, walking out; great concern. We only have one more day here tomorrow before the break until February.A five-minute recess and perhaps some

reflection might serve everybody well.

The Speaker: Order. On the request of the member from Niagara Centre, we'll take a five-minute recess.

The House recessed from 1552 to 1610.

The Speaker: Let me start by saying that it would be most helpful to me as Speaker if all members are cognizant of the decorum of this place

in respect of both their actions and their words. Question period in this place is often somewhat raucous, and given the nature of some of the subject matter, that, to an extent, is to be expected.

It is this very nature of question period, though, that causes some difficulty for the Speaker in terms of being able to maintain an appropriate level of decorum. That is, nevertheless, my goal and

my motivation.

Having said that, I have reconsidered my earlier decision with respect to language used by the member for Simcoe-Grey and I am prepared now to hear his

supplementary.

Just before that, though, I would ask the agreement of the House to allow us to proceed through to the end of question period and petitions, notwithstanding

the clock. Agreed? Agreed.

The member for Simcoe-Grey.

Mr Wilson: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for your ruling.

Minister, as I was saying, there are 16,500 people convicted of impaired driving each year, and 12%, or 2,000 of them, bother going through the system at all

to get back their licences. What are you doing about that? Are you prepared to get back to MADD Canada within 30 days about their concerns and the report they have provided to you?

Finally, will you start asking your ministry to co-operate with police services, like they do in Alberta, where the pictures, names and addresses of people who

are driving with suspended licences are given to police so they can carry them around in their cruisers and get these people off the road? We don't do that in Ontario. Or will you at least do what

Manitoba does, which is impound the cars of these people so they can't drive around without a valid driver's licence?

Hon Mr Takhar: Let me first of all say that MADD had a report issued on May 19, 2004. That report was presented to us. We acknowledged that

report. It is their report. They are free to release it whenever they want. If they have not released it, it's not because of us.

Let me give you some information about what has been done. About 4,717 lifetime suspensions have been issued in Ontario; 84,328 drivers have been notified of

requirements to complete their remedial measures; 27,919 people have lost the privilege to drive for 90 days. I am not sure whether they drive or not. Our information is that what we are supposed

to do is make sure the people don't drive when they're drinking.

We have extensive measures in place. There's a 90-day driver's licence suspension, a mandatory back-on-track remedial measures program, a vehicle impoundment

program and an ignition interlock program already in existence.

We will continue to work with MADD. We met with MADD in December, along with the Minister of Community Safety, and we will continue to work with them.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Your Premier, prior to the last election, pledged to

the people of Kawartha Lakes, "A Liberal government will ensure a binding referendum is held to allow local citizens to determine whether to dismantle the amalgamated city." As you are aware, the

people voted 13 months ago to de-amalgamate. They voted to democratize and get back to the kind of municipal structure they knew was going to work best for them. You and your government, though,

have refused to accede to the democratic will. However, even though you weren't going to agree with the vote, you have stated in this Legislature that you were prepared to look at alternative

proposals if they were brought forward. Three weeks ago, the people of Kawartha Lakes came forward with an alternative proposal, and to date you have done nothing.

My question to you is, will you keep your word to honour the wishes of the people of the city of Kawartha Lakes or do you again choose to fail them?

Hon John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): I thank the member for his question. We

believe in local government on this side of the House, and we believe that the way a municipality reacts to the will of its own people is through its council. We have said over and over again that

if the council of a municipality comes forward with a better method in which services can be delivered to the people of that municipality, we are always prepared to look at new, alternative ways in

which services can be delivered. We will do that for the city of Kawartha Lakes or indeed any other municipal council that comes forward with that kind of resolution. I have not seen a resolution

from the city of Kawartha Lakes, but if it comes forward, we will certainly give it due consideration.

Mr Prue: With the greatest of due respect, this was sent to your office, and I got a carbon copy three weeks ago. The group of citizens put

forward an alternative proposal, taking into account the problems that you stated to this Legislature you have with four of the municipalities that existed before. This has been vetted by the city

of Kawartha Lakes. It went into, and was unanimously approved by, the committee that was set up by that municipal council. It then went before the council of the city of Kawartha Lakes, who sent it

by majority recommendation directly to your office. You must have had a chance to read it by now; surely your bureaucrats must have told you something; but nothing has been done. I'm wondering what

the people of Kawartha Lakes have to do to get their municipality back.

Will you keep Dalton McGuinty's promise, will you keep your own promise, will you keep your own commitment; or do you choose to end this session with another

broken promise and your government's integrity, to that city, in tatters?

Hon Mr Gerretsen: The question was so convoluted that I'm not sure whether he actually said that the council for the city of Kawartha Lakes

has passed a resolution endorsing a particular position, or whether or not a group of people in Kawartha Lakes are of that opinion.

All I can tell you is that as far as I'm aware, as of today we have not received a copy of the resolution that was passed by Kawartha Lakes. It could be the

Christmas postage time. It takes a lot longer for mail to be delivered.

I can give the member this assurance: Once we get a resolution from the duly elected council for the city of Kawartha Lakes, we will take it under every

consideration, and we will want to make sure that the people of Kawartha Lakes get the best service delivery possible of municipal services.

TOURISM

Mr Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): My question is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. As you know, more than a year ago

our province's tourism industry was dealt a severe blow as a result of the SARS outbreak. What initiatives have been undertaken by your ministry to help our province's tourism sector rebound from

this unfortunate setback, and what impact have these initiatives had on the overall health of our province's tourism sector?

Hon James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): It's an excellent question, because everyone recognizes that the SARS crisis was a

substantial blow to Ontario. As a result, we have been moving forward the tourism revitalization program, which was lauded at a press conference last week by the Greater Toronto Hotel Association

and Tourism Toronto as being very successful in turning around tourism in this province. Since July 2003, more than $42 million has been allocated for 70 projects in Toronto alone.

Mr Berardinetti: Thank you for that. I know your ministry has taken some key initiatives and you've taken some very strong steps toward trying

to deal with this problem. What has been the overall impact of these initiatives on the health of our province's tourism sector?

Hon Mr Bradley: The impact has been very significant in turning around tourism in the province. The member would know, for instance, that we

funded such things as the Toronto Jazz Festival, several theatre packages, and the Tennis Masters tournament. We had some packages with the Blue Jays. We funded Caribana. We helped to fund the

Toronto International Film Festival and the Royal Winter Fair. The list goes on.

The result is that we're seeing a turnaround in tourism in Ontario. It has not been equal around the province, but we have seen some substantial changes and

movement upward as a result of a combination, everybody working together. We have been prepared, as a government, to be a partner with others in the province, and as a result we're seeing some good

things happening for Ontario.

VISITORS

Hon Joseph Cordiano (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just want to acknowledge the presence of

a delegation from Georgia that was visiting us here today. There was the commissioner for the Georgia department of economic development, Craig Lesser; the deputy commissioner from the department

of economic development, Carlos Martel; and the Canadian Consul General in Atlanta, Malcolm McKechnie. I'd like to say thank you to them for visiting us and acknowledge that they were here

today.

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE

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

"Whereas the Liberal government has announced in their budget that they are delisting key ... services such as routine eye exams, chiropractic and

physiotherapy services;

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

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

I have signed this also.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have some petitions that read:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the rising rate of sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination in the workplace is a troubling concern;

"Whereas harassment victims suffer unnecessary economic, psychological and physical threats when their cases are brought forward for investigation;

"Whereas the untimely death of Theresa Vince, who was harassed and murdered by her manager over seven years ago, unfortunately serves as evidence of the need

for better worker protection from harassment;

"Whereas Bill 126 amends the Occupational Health and Safety Act to define harassment as a charge under the act;

"Whereas Bill 126 requires employers to put an immediate stop to the source of harassment and commence an independent investigation in real time; and

"Whereas Bill 126 protects victims from potential economic hardship, providing employees the right to alternate work arrangements and granting adequate

compensation for any absences related to the harassment;

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

"Immediately call Bill 126, the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Act (Harassment), for second reading, third reading and final vote."

Since it is my bill they're referring to and I support this cause, I will affix my signature