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

October 24, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-Oct-24 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 24 October 2006 Mardi 24 octobre 2006

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TOBACCO INDUSTRY

FOREST INDUSTRY

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF

CHIEFS OF POLICE

EID-UL-FITR

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

JONATHAN BROWN

SUPPLY MANAGEMENT

RURAL ONTARIO

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RED LEAVES RESORT

ASSOCIATION ACT, 2006

ELECTORAL SYSTEM

REFERENDUM ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LE RÉFÉRENDUM RELATIF AU SYSTÈME ÉLECTORAL

VISITORS

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ELECTORAL REFORM /

RÉFORME ÉLECTORALE

LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF

CHIEFS OF POLICE

ELECTORAL REFORM

LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF

CHIEFS OF POLICE

LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS

ELECTORAL REFORM

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

SEX OFFENDERS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING

WATER QUALITY

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

HOSPITAL SERVICES

EDUCATION FUNDING

RESPITE CARE

CONSUMER PROTECTION

SUPPLY MANAGEMENT

TRANSIT FUNDING

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

REGULATORY MODERNIZATION

WASTE MANAGEMENT

MEMBERS' COMMENTS

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

HEALTH PREMIUMS

LANDFILL

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

LONG-TERM CARE

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

HEALTH PREMIUMS

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

WATER QUALITY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LONG-TERM CARE HOMES ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LES FOYERS DE SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TOBACCO INDUSTRY

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I rise today to continue to raise awareness of the devastation occurring in tobacco farm country.

As I've made clear over the past several years, this government has helped escalate a decline in the farming of tobacco. The McGuinty government has waged war on tobacco farm families in the counties of Brant,

Oxford, Norfolk and Elgin through increased taxes and the smoke-free Ontario legislation. This has eliminated farms and resulted in lost jobs, not only for local labourers but for offshore workers as well, who spend their hard-earned dollars in

our small towns.

Our small towns and their respective businesses are suffering, and there's little sign of anyone lending a helping hand. Just yesterday, the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board was forced to send

out pink slips to all 150 workers at the Delhi auction exchange. This is horrible news for those 150 workers, who will have to find jobs in an area that's already plagued by high unemployment.

Tobacco growers are also confused: Is yesterday's announcement by the board an indication an exit plan is imminent? If the auction exchange is closing, will there be a 2007 growing season? Are Ontario's Minister

of Agriculture and Premier McGuinty working with their federal counterparts on a tobacco exit plan? There are too many unanswered questions.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr. Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): Despite relatively strong criticism of our government's response to the forestry crisis in northwestern Ontario from various quarters, I am

genuinely grateful for the time, attention and resources that have been forthcoming from the highest levels to find a positive resolution for the perfect storm that has gripped this vital industry for the past few years.

The financial incentives totalling $900 million that have been put in place over the last year are beginning to bear fruit as delivered wood costs have been lowered and applications to the forest prosperity fund

have grown. In addition, it is clear that Terrace Bay pulp would not be in operation today, nor would Buchanan Northern Hardwoods have avoided an indefinite shutdown, without the support and co-operation of our government.

Having said that, there is no question that there continues to be a deep fear, if not a sense of despair, amongst my constituents that suggests that unless our government provides additional assistance,

particularly with lower energy rates, there will be more mill closures with further job losses on top of the ones that have already occurred. Frankly, I cannot accept that ugly scenario and, while I am acutely conscious that global competition and

the high Canadian dollar are not areas over which the province has any control, I am equally conscious that we have the ability to provide assistance with the cost of energy.

So I stand before the House today, proud to be part of a government that recognizes the crisis, but also as a member extremely anxious to see us bring forward the further assistance this industry needs in order

for it to survive. Time is running out.

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF

CHIEFS OF POLICE

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm very pleased to rise today and welcome the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police to Queen's Park on their annual day at Queen's Park. I would

particularly like to congratulate Chief Terry McLaren of the city of Peterborough Police Services for a job well done.

Each year we see the chiefs here, and we listen to their concerns and the issues that they face. Usually, there are issues around financing and resources. I just finished a quick meeting with maybe 18 of the

police chiefs in Ontario and listened to a number of the concerns they have, many of them around court security, maybe some problems around CSOs, the possibility that they'd like to see a pawnbrokers act brought into effect. I can tell you that

our party will be working very closely with the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police as they try to implement a number of the recommendations they brought forward too.

I want to say today, on behalf of John Tory and our caucus: Welcome to Queen's Park. We're listening carefully to the concerns you have and we will work very hard over the next eight or 10 months, putting some

of the concerns you have into our platform so that when we form the next government we'll be able to handle your issues.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I would say to the Conservative member not to be so presumptuous about who is going to form the next government and not to make promises to the chiefs of

police because, quite frankly, this will be a three-way race. All of us in this assembly feel very strongly that the work that police officers do in our communities is very important, not only to the safety of our communities but also to the

social fabric that makes them up.

I want say up front that parts of the issues we have to deal with when it comes to policing are, at times, fairly straightforward -- we try to make them complex. The issue is, why do people break the law? People

break the law because sometimes they think they can get away with it. If you don't have the force of police out on the street -- people doing the patrols that need to be done, checking our downtowns, patrolling our highways and basically having

boots on the ground, as George Bush would have it and as Stephen Harper would say -- people are going to think they can get away with things.

It's incumbent upon us -- and I speak on behalf of our critic, Mr. Kormos, and our leader, Mr. Howard Hampton, within the New Democratic Party -- to support our police officers by putting your money where your

mouth is, as they would say, and ensuring that police officers, their chiefs and their municipalities have the resources necessary to be able to do the kind of work they've got to do in our communities.

Let's also recognize that policing has changed over the years. It's much more complex. The skills that police officers have to bring to the job of policing our communities aren't as straightforward as they used

to be, in the sense of just having somebody who's strong and who can basically handcuff somebody. You have to have people with varying skills. In that light, we need to be able to --

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

Members' statements? The member for Etobicoke North.

EID-UL-FITR

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North): Thank you, Speaker. To begin with, I'd like, with your permission, to recognize, salute and honour the celebration of diversity that this government, and

particularly this House, espouses. In that spirit, it's a privilege for me to rise today and recognize one of the great Islamic celebrations and, on behalf of all members of the Legislature, to extend to the Muslim community of Ontario, some

500,000 strong, felicitations at the end of Ramadan, the holy month of fasting, and the celebration of Eid.

This is a time of festivity, of overeating, of exchanging gifts, of good fellowship. I know my own young ones, Shamsa and little Shafiq, have really enjoyed this wonderful occasion of dressing up and exchanging

cultural knowledge with many of their peers. I think, as we go into the new year, that this is a time when all of us need to celebrate the types of things that join us together, that build stronger communities, that build stronger cultural

traditions so that we can go forward and build a better Ontario for us all.

Once again, on behalf of the Legislature of Ontario -- and as you can imagine, Speaker, it's a privilege for me particularly -- I offer greetings to the 500,000-strong Muslim Ontarians. Eid Mubarak.

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Today, I want to indicate the official opposition's continuing concerns regarding the ongoing illegal occupation of land in Caledonia and the McGuinty

government's failure to respect the rule of law. Mr. McGuinty's latest pronouncement that they're sending a $6-million bill to the federal government is simply another sad commentary on his inability or unwillingness to deal with a challenge that

is clearly a provincial responsibility.

Some months ago, McGuinty indicated that Caledonia was an accounting problem, not a land claim issue. But now, with no resolution in sight, he's attempting to fob off his responsibilities on another level of

government.

The administration of justice is a provincial responsibility. The McGuinty Liberals are now discovering that the application of different laws for different people is an expensive proposition. Blaming someone

else for your failures is not a winning formula, but it's a consistent theme for this McGuinty Liberal government.

Caledonia is an ongoing example of this government's failure to uphold the rule of law, and in so doing, has reduced respect for the application of laws in this province and seriously damaged the reputation of

the Ontario Provincial Police in the process.

JONATHAN BROWN

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): On Friday, October 13, Jonathan Brown, an Orléans native, returned home to be honoured with one of the most prestigious policing awards in Canada:

the Governor General's Medal of Bravery.

Jonathan Brown is an officer with the RCMP, and for his years of service he has already received the RCMP Commissioner's Commendation Award for Bravery and the Lieutenant Governor's Award.

Last Friday, he returned to Ottawa to receive the medal of bravery at Rideau Hall from none other than Michaëlle Jean, Governor General of Canada.

Jonathan Brown has been honoured with these medals for his heroic rescue of two BC residents who were trapped in a burning apartment building. On Christmas Eve 2004, Brown and his partner arrived at the scene

before fire crews could respond and fearlessly stormed into the burning building, awoke and carried out a sleeping woman and then tore back into the flames to find a man unconscious on the ground, overwhelmed by smoke.

Both residents were treated in hospital and both Brown and his partner spent Christmas Day in the emergency room.

This bravery is commendable but it is by no means rare. It is so important to remember just how dangerous the job of a police officer can be and to appreciate the men and women who risk their lives for our

safety.

The Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police is at Queen's Park today. I would like to encourage all my colleagues to attend their reception this evening to show our support.

Finally, I would like to congratulate Officer Jonathan Brown on the receipt of the Governor General's medal this past Friday. He is well deserving of this honour and an inspiration to all of us.

SUPPLY MANAGEMENT

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): Ontario farmers need a predictable and stable business environment, and that is why this government supports supply management. Supply management is a tool

that can and does address certain farm income issues. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture had this to say: It is an "absolute necessity to support and strengthen marketing structures like supply management ... and these systems continue to

provide profits for farmers operating within them, allowing them to plan a successful future."

That is because Ontarians deserve a healthy, safe and secure source of food -- food that has come through a proven system of tests and approvals. Marketing structures like supply management empower farmers and

create profitability. The government must maintain them, not undermine them, states the OFA.

This government understands that principle. We offer our continued support for Ontario's supply management market systems. Even Jim Flaherty, who sat with the members opposite, made a promise in the 2006 federal

election supporting supply management and preservation of assistance programs. But now the federal Conservatives are proposing shattering changes to the wheat marketing board in western Canada. I wonder if this bait-and-switch strategy is what the

Leader of the Opposition plans to do. Apparently Mr. Tory supports supply management, but with all these secret meetings, I wonder what his real intentions are.

Let me be perfectly clear. This government is in support of Ontario's supply management system, and we know that our farm families need a predictable and stable business environment to be successful.

RURAL ONTARIO

Mr. John Milloy (Kitchener Centre): I stand today to applaud my rural caucus colleagues and the investment this government has made in rural Ontario. By working with legitimate, law-abiding

organizations, we've invested in rural Ontario farmers and farm families, including $51 million to keep good schools open; a $31-million fire grant focusing on smaller rural communities; BSE relief funding; $174 million to grain and oilseed

farmers; $50 million for tobacco farmers; $20 million in nutrient management assistance; the hiring of more full-time and part-time meat inspectors, and I could go on.

All Ontarians deserve to know what John Tory is up to, holding election planning meetings with the Ontario Landowners Association, headed up by none other than Randy Hillier.

Let me tell you about Mr. Hillier. When an OPP officer who was standing at the foot of the driveway asked the driver to stop, Mr. Hillier encouraged the driver to run into the officer and, according to the

Ottawa Citizen, he said, "Keep moving. Keep coming forward. Let's see how tough this guy really is." According to the Ottawa Sun, Mr. Hillier said, "If you're doing the right thing and you're breaking the law, the law is wrong."

The leader opposite has a secret scheme. He's making a deal with people who break the law, and I believe Ontarians deserve to know the truth. John Tory needs to come clean. We, on this side, know that rural

Ontarians are good, honest, law-abiding people. We are proud to be the voice of law-abiding rural Ontarians. All members of this caucus support the government's rural --

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RED LEAVES RESORT

ASSOCIATION ACT, 2006

Mr. Miller moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr30,

An Act respecting Red Leaves Resort Association.

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

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

ELECTORAL SYSTEM

REFERENDUM ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LE RÉFÉRENDUM RELATIF AU SYSTÈME ÉLECTORAL

Mrs. Bountrogianni moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 155,

An Act to provide for a referendum on Ontario's electoral system / Projet de loi 155, Loi prévoyant un référendum sur le système électoral de l'Ontario.

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

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1347 to 1352.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Balkissoon, Bas

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Chudleigh, Ted

Colle, Mike

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gravelle, Michael

Hardeman, Ernie

Hudak, Tim

Klees, Frank

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Martiniuk, Gerry

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McNeely, Phil

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Murdoch, Bill

O'Toole, John

Orazietti, David

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Runciman, Robert W.

Sandals, Liz

Scott, Laurie

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Gregory S.

Sterling, Norman W.

Takhar, Harinder S.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

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

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

DiNovo, Cheri

Horwath, Andrea

Kormos, Peter

Prue, Michael

Tabuns, Peter

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 61; the nays are 6.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

The minister may wish to make a brief statement.

Hon. Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): I'll wait for ministers' statements, Mr. Speaker.

VISITORS

Hon. Steve Peters (Minister of Labour): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I know that I did not speak to you in advance, so this may not necessarily be a point of order, but I'd like the House

to -- and the London colleagues would like to -- welcome the students from Regina Mundi who are here today. Enjoy your tour of Queen's Park.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): I move that, in addition to its regularly scheduled meeting times, the standing

committee on the Legislative Assembly be authorized to meet the morning of Thursday, October 26, 2006, for the purpose of conducting public hearings on Bill 52,

An Act to amend the Education Act respecting pupil learning to the age of 18 and

equivalent learning and to make complementary amendments to the Highway Traffic Act.

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ELECTORAL REFORM /

RÉFORME ÉLECTORALE

Hon. Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): I'm pleased to rise today to introduce the Electoral System Referendum Act,

The McGuinty government continues to be a leader in advancing an ambitious democratic renewal agenda. This government is committed to engaging more Ontarians in our electoral system. We are working to reduce

voter cynicism and increase voter turnout.

We have made a commitment to allow the citizens of Ontario to analyze our provincial electoral system and propose a change if they think one is required. We have delivered on that commitment.

On March 27, 2006, I announced the creation of the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. When it comes to shaping democracy, our government feels it is important to give a voice to the people, to the

Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform.

D'autres ressorts au Canada et dans le monde se sont penchés sur la question de la réforme électorale. Toutefois, c'est la première fois dans l'histoire de notre province que les citoyennes

et citoyens ont la possibilité de participer à un vaste débat ouvert sur le système électoral dont nous avons hérité et de choisir le système électoral qu'ils estiment servira au mieux les

intérêts de l'Ontario.

All Ontarians will have the opportunity to participate in one of the most important and exciting democratic renewal initiatives in our province's history.

There are 103 members on the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform -- one from each of Ontario's ridings. This process will empower the citizens of Ontario as never before. The assembly process is structured

to ensure that assembly members and Ontarians are as well-informed as possible.

The assembly members are currently involved in a learning phase that Ontarians can follow online at www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca. There will be a public hearings phase to listen to the views of other

Ontarians and, finally, a deliberation phase in which members will discuss and decide on their preferred electoral system.

On or before May 15, 2007, the assembly will announce their recommendation. If the assembly decides that there should be a change to our current electoral system, a referendum is needed to allow all voting

Ontarians the opportunity to participate in the final decision.

I rise in the House today to introduce this very important piece of legislation that would allow a referendum to take place if the citizens' assembly recommends a new electoral system. The adoption of a new

electoral system would represent a foundational change to Ontario's democracy. A decision of this magnitude deserves to have the support of a solid majority of Ontarians across the province. This bill outlines a legitimate process that will result

in a clear outcome for Ontarians. This is historic legislation.

A decision to change electoral systems should not be taken lightly. Therefore, to adopt the citizens' assembly recommendation, the legislation requires that at least 60% of all the valid referendum ballots

cast province-wide support the new system. As well, more than 50% of the valid referendum ballots cast in each of at least 64 electoral districts is required for the new system to be adopted. This decision threshold indicates the importance of the

work being done by the citizens' assembly. It will ensure that any change to the system is done thoughtfully and carefully and reflects the views of Ontarians.

This is democracy in action -- a democracy that belongs to the citizens of Ontario. I'm very proud to introduce this bill today, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of this House to join me in supporting

it.

LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS

Hon. George Smitherman (Deputy Premier, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): It is with very great pride that I rise in my place to tell my colleagues about the latest milestone in our

government's local health integration network initiative.

First, though, let me remind you that our government is determined to build a health system that's better able to respond to local needs, whether "local" means an inner-city neighbourhood in my Toronto riding

or a far northern reserve, and to provide integrated, high-quality services to meet those needs. Our entire plan for health care is built upon the principle that health care is best delivered close to home, and it makes every bit of sense that

local people are best able to determine their own community's health service needs and priorities.

Three years ago, we recognized that the status quo was failing the health system. The health care system was a giant machine. The parts weren't really running in sync and it was evolving in a haphazard

fashion. That is why LHINs are such an important part of the transformation of health care in Ontario. We conceived and implemented them as a method of changing health care in this province from an uncoordinated collection of services to a truly

integrated health care system. That's starting to happen now as the 14 LHINs get up and running across the province. And I'm proud to say that we can look forward to a real and tangible improvement in the way Ontarians access and use the health

services they need.

Local health integration networks are mandated to improve access to health services; that is, their goal is to make it easier for patients and their loved ones to find their way through an often complex health

care system. By devolving responsibility for the delivery of health care services to LHINs, we'll then be able to play a stronger role in concentrating our strategic directions and provincial priorities to improve the overall health system.

The 14 LHINs have made tremendous progress since the passage of the Local Health System Integration Act. Our government is proud of the work that they've done so far in transforming health care. The LHINs are

talking to their communities and they're making plans for local decision-making for health care delivery. So far, more than 40,000 Ontarians have provided input to this dialogue. That's a great start.

Since March of this year, the 14 LHINs have been hard at work developing their integrated health service plans, or IHSPs, to help direct local decision-making over the next several years. Many of these reports

are currently circulating in a draft version, inviting further input from the public and health service providers alike. And they're continuing to put qualified staff in place to take on the funding accountability and decision-making roles the

LHINs will assume on April 1 of next year.

Today, I'm pleased to inform Ontarians they've reached a significant milestone with the release of their annual reports, which I'm privileged to be tabling today. These reports outline the LHINs' achievements

to date.

Let me share with you just one example of a success. In the South West Local Health Integration Network, organizations involved in the wait times strategy have begun to reduce wait times and make system

improvements. To leverage these achievements, the South West LHIN formed the Hip and Knees Quality, Utilization and Access Steering Committee to identify actions, recommendations and plans that improve the coordination of care, define standards

for quality of care, improve access, and clearly define roles and responsibilities amongst organizations.

There are many other stories of how local agencies and health care providers are sharing best practices to improve access to care. I encourage my fellow MPPs to read these annual reports and learn about the

great work that's happening on the ground across Ontario.

This is indeed an exciting time for health care in Ontario. LHINs represent the first time in our history where government is committed to engaging Ontarians from every corner of the province in a discussion

about their health care and its future.

At the same time, we're working on ways to get more people involved in helping our government determine the overall direction we need to take when it comes to health care. This is our best bet when it comes to

ensuring the best possible quality of health care for Ontarians, now and down the road.

Accountability and transparency are the keys to making sure that Ontarians know what they're getting and to us knowing what they need by getting their help in defining local health care priorities. We've got

to ensure that health care dollars are going to meet the specific needs of Ontarians and the specific priorities of separate communities, be they north, south, east or west.

To that end, you need good people in those communities, on the ground, helping to manage the system in the best interests of Ontarians. LHINs are the key to moving forward on the delivery of health services

and the realization of our vision of keeping Ontarians healthier, improving access to doctors and nurses and reducing wait times.

In the long run, we're improving not only the care Ontarians receive but also the system that delivers that care itself -- a system with the structural strength to last. As the fledgling LHINs spread their

wings, Ontario's health system will never be the same again, and that's the best outcome of all.

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF

CHIEFS OF POLICE

Hon. Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): I rise today to pay tribute to the members of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police as they join us for their

annual Queen's Park Day. I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge the presence of Chief Terry McLaren, president of the OACP, and all of the other chiefs and senior police officials who join us today in the members' galleries. Gentleman, would you

stand up and be recognized? This is an occasion to not only recognize the chiefs for the important leadership role they play but to thank them for their tireless contributions to law enforcement in Ontario. I'm also pleased to be welcoming Julian

Fantino back to the OACP as he takes the helm at the OPP as its new commissioner.

Today is a reminder of how important it is to provide the support that police chiefs need to do their jobs. Since October 2003, the McGuinty government's partnership with the OACP has resulted in achievements

of which we can all be proud: The crime rate declined by 4.5% in 2005 compared to the previous year, and Ontario had the lowest crime rate of all the provinces for the third year in a row.

Together we have ensured the success of the Safer Communities-1,000 Officers partnership program. Of the 1,000 officers, nearly 150 are assigned to organized crime investigations and another 109 are assigned

to guns and gang enforcement -- areas of particular concern to the OACP.

Our combined efforts, in particular with GTA police chiefs, to get criminals with guns off the streets have gone further. The $51-million anti-gun violence initiative announced by Premier Dalton McGuinty in

January 2006 is increasing the police services' ability to deal with organized crime.

Through this initiative, we provided $14 million to accelerate the implementation of the Safer Communities-1,000 Officers partnership program, and we earmarked $26 million for a new state-of-the-art operations

centre for Toronto's guns and gangs task force. The funding also included $5 million for the Toronto anti-violence intervention strategy, which resulted in the deployment of three teams of 18 officers in high-risk neighbourhoods. We will continue

to address ongoing concerns of Ontario's police chiefs.

The OACP's partnership with the McGuinty government also extends to other ministries. The OACP has worked closely with the Attorney General to make possible the introduction of Bill 14, the Access to Justice

Act. That bill, which was passed last week, aims to modernize the justice system, regulate paralegals, reform the justice of the peace appointment process and allow video testimony.

Our collaboration with the OACP is not limited to increasing enforcement and reforming the justice system; police chiefs and the McGuinty government also work together to support community-based crime

prevention programs. The McGuinty government will soon announce its new $792,000 safer and vital communities grant program. This program encourages communities, businesses and the police to work together to prevent crime in key areas, such as

youth crime, guns and gangs and protecting children from Internet luring and child pornography. Our government will continue to do its part to ensure that our partnership with the OACP continues to thrive and that Ontario is safer and more

prosperous as a result.

Today, I'm pleased to salute the hard-working people who make up the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police. Thank you for helping us to make Ontario a stronger and safer place in which to live, work and

play.

ELECTORAL REFORM

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): I am pleased today to see the Electoral System Referendum Act come into place, but perhaps not for the same reasons as other members of the assembly.

By putting the 60% approval rating on a new electoral system, it virtually renders the work of the citizens' assembly useless. This 60% threshold will not be reached in a referendum which will be held on October 4, 2007.

I want to explain exactly why our position is that way. It was explained in our dissenting opinion, of Mr. Miller and myself, in the select committee's report on electoral reform:

"With the present lack of trust by the public in their politicians, the temptation to seek change will be overwhelming. It will be difficult if not impossible for an objective assessment of the current system

to be carried out due to the cynicism and distrust that has arisen towards politicians and the political process.

"We believe it would be a mistake to assume that cynicism and distrust have as their principal cause a concern by the population about how their elected representatives are elected. We believe the cynicism and

distrust have a lot more to do with what the elected representatives actually do once elected and to some extent how well or how poorly the institution to which they are elected actually functions, as opposed to the method of election.

"Consequently we believe that, prior to examining the method by which we elect our members of provincial Parliament, we should show the leadership necessary to reform the Legislative Assembly itself and its

functioning in the public interest. These reforms should ensure a meaningful role for elected members and for the opposition parties, restore real accountability by the executive to the Legislature, regain real control by the Legislature as a

whole over taxpayers' money and generally implement measures to cause the Legislative Assembly to function in a businesslike, productive and responsive manner."

We go on to say, "Accordingly we believe that we are putting a great deal at risk by merely continuing down the unduly narrow path chosen by one political party during one election campaign and based on a

false premise, namely that this type of electoral reform will address the current levels of cynicism and distrust and improve the public's faith in the political process."

We go on, then, to say: "The government should focus its attention first and urgently on meaningful parliamentary reform. A citizens' assembly could be very objectively helpful in addressing this challenge,

and real, immediate and lasting benefits would result. With those benefits would come increased public confidence. The current exercise should be put aside" -- that is, the current objective of the citizens' assembly should be set aside -- "in

favour of this more sensible, more urgent alternative" to the way we run this institution.

Our position remains the same.

LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): I'd like to make a response to the statement regarding LHINs. I would say that the verdict is probably still out on the LHINs. I know there have

been many meetings, and although there has been some participation, I think the public input and public participation has been very disappointing. The public does not seem to be yet engaged in what's going on or even seem to be aware of it.

The minister did say one thing which I was pleased to hear: He made some sort of a comment about providing better care close to home. With that in mind, I want to draw to the minister's attention the reason

why this is such a significant comment. It was an approach that our government used. Certainly, if we take a look at what happened this morning -- the GTA/905 Strong Communities Coalition was here. They have pointed out that there is a huge

$1.5-billion annual funding gap. They're lacking $551.5 million in social services funding and $993.7 million in health care services. The gap results from a --

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

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF

CHIEFS OF POLICE

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): New Democrats join in welcoming Ontario's chiefs of police here to Queen's Park. We especially want to congratulate Ottawa's police chief, Vince Bevan, on

his upcoming retirement, and applaud him and thank him for many years of service to this province and communities in this province, service which began many years ago in Niagara region with the Niagara Regional Police Service.

I want to say very, very clearly to the government that cash-strapped small and mid-sized Ontario communities are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain even core policing services. Police have been

very effective with guns and gangs enforcement, but the reality is that the focus on Toronto has dispersed those guns and gangs throughout smaller communities outside of Toronto and metropolitan areas, and it's those smaller police services, the

smallest up to the mid-sized, that need additional funding from this government. Courtroom security means an incredible burden on those communities, and this government has to step up to the plate to ensure adequate financing when it comes to

courtroom security as well.

LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I rise in regard to the comments made by the Minister of Health regarding local health integration networks, otherwise known as LHINs.

I've got to say a couple of things. First of all, what is quite interesting is the approach that the LHINs are taking to some of the services in our communities. We know, for example, that community care

access centres, CCACs, are grossly underfunded, to the point that they're having to reduce services in communities like Hamilton and others across the province in order to deal with budget restrictions.

At the same time, these LHINs are basically taking away CCACs' decision-making, putting it further away from where the patients are. In our case in northeastern Ontario, the LHINs are going to be centrally

regionalized in Sudbury or North Bay, to the detriment of all of the other communities around. So I say to the government across the way, I don't know what you're celebrating, because all I know from where I sit is that it's not going to be good

for the people of our area.

ELECTORAL REFORM

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): In response to the minister of democratic renewal: I have to say that today is a very black day and that I'm very disappointed with what you have come

forward with. The select committee set up by this Legislature and all members of all parties of this Legislature travelled across Canada and elsewhere in the world and unanimously came to a decision that recommended that 50% plus one should be the

amount of people necessary to vote to change the electoral system. We did so because we were mandated to try to get more women, more aboriginals, more young people and more people of colour involved in the political process and eventually into

this House.

The reason why we came up with this was quite simple: It has been the Canadian tradition, until British Columbia, to have 50% plus one. Fifty per cent plus one of the people of Newfoundland voted in 1949 to

enter Canada; had they set it at 60%, it would have never happened. Fifty per cent plus one was set as the standard in Quebec to get out of Canada. I held my breath on that night and I'm glad they didn't get it, but it was democratic; it was 50%

plus one. Even in terms of the fluoride in the water, it was 50% plus one in Toronto and in all the other municipalities.

Here we have a government setting a standard that failed in British Columbia, that was cynical, that was discredited. It was widely reported in the press and known by almost every single political commentator

in that province that when British Columbia set the standard at 60%, they did so because they knew it could not be met and were counting on it not being met. They set it there because that's what was going to happen. In fact, when the people of

British Columbia voted 57% in favour, all the discredited Premier could do was turn around and say, "We're going to do it again because perhaps we did it wrong," and in fact, he did do it wrong.

You have set the standard beyond the traditions of this country. In fact, you have set the standard beyond the traditions of the entire world. The entire world understands that to change laws you need 50% plus

one. We in this party and I'm sure all people know that this has been designed to fail. The people who have been set up, the people who are meeting every weekend, must know at this point that whatever recommendation they made has been designed to

fail.

We want more women; we want aboriginals; we want young people; we want new Canadians. That's what is essential to happen here. It will not happen with your legislation. You should withdraw the 60% and come

back with the democratic tradition of 50% plus one.

VISITORS

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'd like to welcome Chief Derek McElveny from the services in Brantford, a long-time friend and a homegrown Brantfordian. Thank you

for being here.

Second, I'd like to say that this is United Nations Day, and we should all take pride in this House that the United Nations was given birth to by an idea from a Canadian. I want to thank us for having United

Nations Day.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Small Business and Entrepreneurship): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to recognize three individuals and welcome them to the Legislature:

Gurcharan Singh and Rajinder Singh from Brampton, and Rachpal Singh, who came all the way from India.

Mr. Kuldip Kular (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: With your kind permission I want to recognize the delegates from the region of Peel who are representing

here the Strong Communities Coalition. Their names are Shelly White, Edna Klaznek, John Huether and Jennifer Grass. I welcome them to Queen's Park.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SEX OFFENDERS

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): My question is for the Premier. Premier, yesterday convicted sex offender Malcolm Watson was told by a US judge that he had the option of serving his

sentence in the comfort of his Canadian home rather than a US jail. The official opposition thinks this is a mind-boggling, horrific decision and hopefully not a precedent for US courts treating Ontario as a haven for sex offenders.

When your Attorney General was asked about this in a scrum today, he fobbed it off onto the federal government and the police. He didn't indicate he would contact the New York State Attorney General's office

to ask for an appeal or to ensure that this decision doesn't become a precedent. He didn't suggest any action the province could take. Premier, is this an indication that you do not see any appropriate action your government can take to deal with

this situation?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): I'm delighted to take the question. I think the member opposite will know that I myself had an opportunity to speak to this

as well this morning in a scrum, and I made it clear that it is certainly not a precedent that we're prepared to accept. I think we are of one mind in that regard.

I think the honourable member will also recognize that principal responsibility for dealing with an international issue like this lies with the federal government. We are more than pleased to lend our support

to any actions that the federal government might take, and of course we're very much concerned with any particular jurisdiction south of the border that might want to use Ontario as a dumping ground for convicted felons. That's not something we're

prepared to accept, it's not something we're prepared to tolerate, and of course we'll work hand in hand with the federal government to ensure that is not something that in fact takes place.

Mr. Runciman: The Premier cannot accept or tolerate, but no specific actions. The good folks living in the Niagara-St. Catharines area, given past history, are very upset about this situation.

My colleague Mr. Hudak's office has been inundated with calls. He has written the Attorney General. They're going to have a convicted sex offender living within their midst, and all you can say is, "It's somebody else's problem."

Premier, under the Community Safety Act, police chiefs can identify sex offenders in their communities and their locations. Are you prepared to encourage this to happen, and if not, why not?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: We are prepared to explore any particular initiatives -- and I appreciate the advice just offered by my colleague -- understanding that ultimately it is the federal

government that assumes responsibility for who comes into this country and who does not. We are prepared to take a look at this particular option; we're prepared to talk to our chiefs of police, some of whom have the benefit of being present here

today; but most importantly, we will work hand in hand with the federal government to ensure that these kinds of individuals are not admitted to our country in the first instance.

Mr. Runciman: It's a common theme: dither, deflect, deny. It's always someone else's fault or responsibility.

Premier, there's another option for you to consider if you're serious about dealing with this, and that is an amendment to the sex offender registry to cover a person who is a resident of Ontario but who

committed an offence outside this jurisdiction. The official opposition is prepared to move on this quickly and provide some level of protection from sex offenders who commit crimes outside our borders. Will you agree to work with us on this?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I'm mindful of the constructive nature of the proposal just put forward by my colleague, but I remain very optimistic that it will not come to this. I am confident that if

we work together with the federal government, we will ensure that these kinds of individuals are not admitted to the country in the first instance. There has been a proposal that has been put forward -- a suggestion by a member of the judiciary

south of the border -- that would see a particular individual, a convicted felon, have the option of spending some time here in a part of Canada. That is something we are not prepared to accept. Rather than contemplate the possibility, as my

friend implicitly suggests, what I think we should do is work with the federal government, ensure that if an individual is here, he is sent out, and that the federal government take steps to ensure in a proactive way that this does not happen

again in the future.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): My question is to the Minister of Finance. The budget that was released on March 23, 2006, contained, of course, interim expenditures for that fiscal year. The

public accounts were released five months later, which showed the final expenses for 2005-06. The minister is probably aware that there's a major discrepancy between those two sets of numbers when it comes to health care funding. Health and

long-term-care expenses were $1.4 billion less than had been estimated only a few months before. Hospital expenses were also off by some $755 million. The minister knows these numbers are extraordinarily off target. Will the minister please

explain to the assembly what caused these $1.4-billion and $755-million gaps?

Hon. Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance, Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I appreciate the question from my friend from Erie-Lincoln. I think he would want to acknowledge as well that

when you look at the overall expenditures for 2005-06, our revenues were up somewhat and our expenses were down by about 1.5%. When you add all of that up, that provided the first surplus in the province of Ontario for quite some time. It was a

modest surplus, but it was a surplus nonetheless.

I'm sure as well, when he's talking about health care expenses, that he would want to acknowledge, because I think he's had a briefing on this, that part of the difference there was the fact that in 2005-06,

we were consolidating for the first time the budgets of all the hospitals in the province and were able to manage a reduction in expenditures when you add them all up. I think that's, frankly, good news.

Mr. Hudak: I say to the minister again that these are major gaps in his own numbers. Here's what the minister said in public accounts when comparing the forecasts: "Health care spending was

$528 million lower than forecast, primarily due to the ... consolidation of the hospitals sector." That would leave Ontario taxpayers with the impression that consolidation of the hospital sector lowered expenses. In fact, that would be a false

conclusion. It's just the opposite. Hospital expenditures after consolidation were actually up by $755 million. The reality is that the rest of the health and long-term-care budget was over $1.4 billion less than promised.

Will the minister please explain the $1.4-billion hole in the health care budget and tell the assembly why he has offered no explanation for this gap in the public accounts?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I must confess I'm having a little bit of difficulty understanding where my friend from Erie-Lincoln is coming from. I know that, were his party in government, what they

would be doing is removing $2.5 billion out of the health care budget. What he has been advocating by doing that is closing hospitals, reducing the quality of home care and reducing the quality of long-term care.

Since we have come to government, we have increased expenditures for hospitals by 4% this year, by 4.7% the year before and by 4.3% the year before that. We are also charged with the responsibility, I want to

tell my friend from Erie-Lincoln, of managing with great discipline and prudence every single penny we spend, and we will continue to do that on behalf of the taxpayers of this province.

Mr. Hudak: It's hard to believe that the books are fully transparent when you see gaps of some $1.4 billion on the non-hospital spending and a $755-million misstatement on the hospital

statement.

This is particularly concerning in a highly sensitive area like health care, as the minister would agree. The minister's claim in public accounts, I would say to him with all due respect, does not meet with

the facts, and thus far the Ministry of Finance has failed to disclose what actually happened with that $1.4-billion misstatement in the health and long-term-care spending.

The minister knows that these kinds of obligations for full disclosure immediately are standard in the OSC, for the SEC, for GAAP or PSAB accounting rules.

So I ask the minister again, has the minister violated his own standards that they regulate through the OSC? Has he broken his promise to the hard-working taxpayers in the province of Ontario? And most

importantly, when will the minister actually come forward in the assembly and tell us what really happened with health care spending the last fiscal year?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: This is magnificently strange, coming from a member of the Progressive Conservative Party. I want to tell him very clearly that in 2005-06 we were able to manage our

expenditures in health care so that when the final numbers were in, we saved about $1.4 billion on a $35-billion-plus budget. That's good management.

He talks about transparency. In 2003, the Progressive Conservative government presented a budget which they said would be balanced. Five months later, when we took power, there was a $5.5-billion hole. As a

result of that, this assembly passed the Fiscal Transparency and Accountability Act so that that kind of behaviour could never happen again in the province of Ontario.

COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): To the Premier: During the last election, you promised to make colorectal cancer screening publicly available to all adults over the age of 50. On

February 28, April 11 and October 16, your health minister repeated this commitment here in the Legislature.

My question is this, Premier: Where is the public colorectal cancer screening program, covered by OHIP, that you promised?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): I know that the Minister of Health can speak to this in more detail, but let me just say this at the outset. We have,

together with Ontarians, particularly those who devote themselves to working day in and day out in our health care sector, made some significant progress, whether it's in terms of the number of doctors who are practising in Ontario, the number of

nurses who have been hired on, the number of patients who have found access to Ontario physicians, the number of home care opportunities we've created, and the like. And of course we've got wait times down.

We have one quarter left in this mandate. I know that the leader of the NDP waits eagerly for us to deliver on yet another commitment, and we look very much forward to doing so ourselves as well.

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

Before it's asked, I might just remind members that questions should be placed through the Speaker. That means that when you're placing the question, you always refer to other members in the third person.

The leader of the third party.

Mr. Hampton: Well, Premier, we still don't have a publicly funded colorectal cancer screening program, but if people have thick wallets and can afford to pay $495, they can go to the Cleveland

Clinic Canada here in Toronto. It's an American-style, profit-driven private health care corporation now operating right here in Toronto. It's exactly the kind of pay-your-way-to-the-front-of-the-line health care you promised to keep out of

Ontario.

My question: Is it acceptable to the McGuinty government that patients with thick wallets can purchase colorectal cancer screening from a profit-driven American health corporation here in Toronto while other

Ontario patients who do not have thick wallets do without?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I'll refer this to the Minister of Health.

Hon. George Smitherman (Deputy Premier, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The honourable member has sought to somewhat confuse two issues. Most certainly, we seek to be the first

jurisdiction in Canada that moves forward with a universal colorectal screening program -- I've been candid with the honourable member, as I was with the critic from his party when she asked the question just about a week or so ago.

The delay at present has been my desire to ensure that the model that comes forward appropriately uses our primary health care providers, be they community health centres, doctors or nurse practitioners, to be

directly involved in encouraging a high degree of testing. Other models that have evolved in Europe have not experienced as high a degree of participation as we would prefer, obviously given the opportunities to help people save lives by detecting

any growing cancer early.

We're working to get it right, and I can tell honourable members that we'll be coming forward very, very quickly with such a program.

Mr. Hampton: The Minister of Health says that the McGuinty government is "working to get it right." Meanwhile, a profit-driven American health care corporation puts out brochures like this,

saying that if you've got a thick wallet in Dalton McGuinty's Ontario, you can get colorectal screening and a lot more. You can get state-of-the-art diagnostics, offered by some of the best medical experts; you can get timely follow-up and

individualized treatment solutions; and you can get seamless referral service for care in Cleveland. This looks a lot like two-tier medicine, but I know that the people of Ontario believe in medicare.

My question for the Premier is this: Why does the McGuinty government allow profit-driven, private American health care corporations to turn back the health care clock to the day when wealthy individuals can

pay their way to the front of the line while people who are not wealthy do without the health care service?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: The honourable member stands in his place today and talks about how much the people of Ontario love medicare. But when the vote came down in this Legislature, that

honourable member didn't have the wherewithal to stand in his place and support the Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act. Now the honourable member seeks to pretend there has never been a circumstance in Ontario when a service that is not

insured, not presently part of OHIP, hasn't been available in an offer from other providers. This is what the honourable member seeks to pretend his way through in the Legislature today. We know that's not the case.

But it doesn't separate the clear point, which is that we are going to be the first jurisdiction in Canada to move forward with a colorectal screening program that has the potential to advantage many

Ontarians. That's why we're working so hard to ensure that the program design is bang on to deliver the best result for the investment of public dollars.

WATER QUALITY

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Meanwhile, people see two-tier medicine breaking out across Ontario.

To the Premier: Yesterday, when I spoke up for the people of Pikangikum -- Ontario citizens being denied safe drinking water -- your minister defended your inaction by blaming the victim, by blaming First

Nation communities for unsafe drinking water because, he says, they never asked your government for help.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Order. I need to be able to hear the member place his question.

The leader of the third party.

Mr. Hampton: Grand Chief Stan Beardy, of Nishnawbe Aski Nation, says that nothing could be further from the truth. He has written to you, and he says, "Contrary ... to David Ramsay's comments

in response to NDP leader Howard Hampton ... NAN has been at the fore in addressing safe drinking water concerns by lobbying both treaty partners -- Ontario and Canada."

My question is this: Why isn't the McGuinty government being straight with the people of Ontario about tainted water in First Nation communities?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): To the minister responsible for aboriginal affairs.

Hon. David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources, minister responsible for aboriginal affairs): I wish the leader of the third party had been straight in the House in interpreting a letter

that he brought forward to the House yesterday. I have a copy of the letter now. It only arrived at the health minister's desk yesterday afternoon, after question period. In following up the letter, I called the deputy chief and spoke to him about

an hour ago. The request from the chief of Pikangikum is not for us to intervene directly in the situation but to act as an advocate on his behalf and call a meeting with the representatives from Ottawa to hold their feet to the fire.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Minister of Northern Development.

Mr. Hampton: I guess I have to quote not only from Grand Chief Stan Beardy's letter but from the chief's letter: "Please consider this to be a formal request for your involvement in the

situation facing Pikangikum First Nation, with the type and extent of this involvement to be discussed primarily with us, and secondarily with the federal departments of Indian Affairs and Health Canada, and then only in our presence." So he's

saying he wants your primary attention to this, and then secondarily he wants a discussion with Ottawa. But don't say that they didn't write to you.

The question is even more interesting than that, because yesterday this minister told reporters he was unaware of the Ontario government's historic role in bringing safe drinking water into the homes of First

Nations. I already asked you that question last November when I pointed out that Ontario had invested over $118 million to help bring safe drinking water. Why is the McGuinty government now denying that historic fact --

The Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I'm very glad that the member directly quoted the letter. That's going to save me the time doing that. As I think the members of this House now realize, what the chief has

asked us to do is to become their advocate on their behalf to the federal government to live up to their responsibility. I committed to the chief that I would do that, and that letter is being drafted as we speak. I will sign that after question

period. That letter will go off to Jim Prentice and to the Minister of Health. We have already talked about having a meeting up in Thunder Bay to deal with this situation.

Again, I think the leader of the third party owes this House an apology to make it clear that this First Nation wants us to help them make sure Ottawa lives up to its responsibility.

Mr. Hampton: I produced two letters -- one from the Grand Chief of Nishnawbe Aski Nation asking the McGuinty government for help; one from Pikangikum First Nation's chief -- and the McGuinty

government says that this is somehow not true.

The only problem I have with the truth is that the minister said yesterday he had an imminent meeting set with his federal counterpart. We called his federal counterpart, who says there has been no meeting

scheduled between this minister of the McGuinty government and federal officials. What we see here is once again the McGuinty government seeking to blame someone else, seeking to play political football with the issue of safe drinking water for

First Nations. I simply say to the Premier, what's it going to take for the McGuinty government to assume responsibility --

The Speaker: Minister?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The Honourable Jim Prentice has agreed to a meeting, and our staffs are working to set up a time for that meeting. The plan now is to have a meeting over the phone to set the

agenda, and next week to have a face-to-face. But this is the type of thing that the member wants to argue about.

What's important here is the quality of water in our First Nations right across northern Ontario. That's what is important and that's what we're working on. That's why the chiefs have asked us to be an

advocate for them and not to let the federal government off on this responsibility. It is their responsibility, and we have a record of letters that we have written and meetings where we've had dialogue with the minister. The federal government

very well knows the position of the Ontario government: that it's a federal responsibility to provide clean, safe drinking water to First Nations across this province.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): My question is to the Premier. Today, the Strong Communities Coalition had a press conference here, and they presented clear evidence, based on an

audit done by PricewaterhouseCoopers, that provincial funding for health and social services in the GTA/905 has not kept pace with a rapidly growing number of residents in those communities. In fact, when we take a look at per capita funding for

these services, the total gap is $1.5 billion and growing.

These people do need timely and local access to human services. I know there have been discussions with your government, and I know you've indicated to these people that you understand. My question to you

today: Will you demonstrate your commitment by beginning to address this growing population funding gap in your Economic Outlook and Fiscal Review this fall?

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

Hon. Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance, Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): To my friend, I just say that we're going to be presenting the fall economic statement in a couple of days in

this Legislature.

I had an opportunity to review the materials prepared by the Strong Communities Coalition, and I commend them for their work. I think one of the things they indicate clearly, and it's one of the things this

government acknowledges, is that the regions of York, Peel, Durham and Halton are growing very rapidly. We've been making very significant investments in those communities, not only in strengthening the business components of that community but in

the things that the strong coalition group advocated: the social and health services in that community. So we're working with the group. I know that my colleagues representing those areas are making strong representations in that regard, and we're

going to do what we can to continue the strength of all of the 905 area.

Mrs. Witmer: I say again to the minister: Certainly there is a growing problem. Our government recognized the need for these people to have services close to home. As you know, we built new

cardiac centres, new cancer centres, and we also expanded MRIs.

These people are actually paying one quarter of the total revenue that your government is collecting through the health tax, and yet the funding gap has grown dramatically since 2003. So I would ask you again,

are you prepared to start to address this inequity in your fall funding statement? And are you also prepared, as we move forward -- I would ask you to seriously consider this, Minister -- to revise the way that you provide funding, and to do so on

a population-based growth and characteristics model?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I'm surprised at the way in which my friend has characterized what they did in this growing area during the time that she was in government. I just want to point out that we

are building two new community health centres in the 905 -- one in Vaughan and one in Bramalea. We're developing four new cancer centres, two new cardiac surgery programs and five new regional dialysis units. That's not to talk about the hundreds

of millions of dollars that we're investing in transit, which is really a foundation for the entire community.

I am not trying to suggest that my friend did nothing during her time as health minister. I just want to wonder out loud, because I think the people wonder how you would meet those commitments, given your

party's program of cutting $2.5 billion out of health care. It's the 905 that would suffer under that kind of policy.

Mrs. Witmer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Our party has never, ever --

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

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Lanark-Carleton will withdraw that statement.

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): I'll withdraw that it's a lie.

The Speaker: Could we just withdraw?

Mr. Sterling: I'll withdraw.

The Speaker: Thank you.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Health. Grand River Hospital's emergency room nearly closed on October 1. Since then, Kitchener-Waterloo residents

have been very worried that it may yet close, and they've been very worried about the understaffing.

You promised weeks ago that Mr. Tom Closson would become the regional provincial investigator as well as the supervisor for Grand River Hospital's emergency room situation. But we have learned that instead of

going to Grand River and meeting with the emergency room doctors and nurses, Mr. Closson has been on an unrelated trip to England. Minister, how much are you paying Mr. Closson, and exactly when is he going to show up at Grand River and start

doing the job you promised he was going to do weeks ago?

Hon. George Smitherman (Deputy Premier, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Firstly, Tom Closson has been in the Kitchener-Waterloo community. He brings to his work a foundation of

knowledge, which sets him, I think most people would agree, ahead of the pack. He is, to the best of my knowledge, the best we have in terms of public health administrators. Frankly, the circumstances in Kitchener-Waterloo, in our opinion, dictate

that we put the very best people on the file.

It's not the only thing we've done, obviously. St. Joseph's hospital here in Toronto has been tremendously helpful, and the doctors and other front-line health care providers in Kitchener-Waterloo have been

doing a fantastic job. Good progress is occurring there. We recognize that there's more work to do to give the people in that community all of the confidence that they need, but our dedication to this is not appropriately called into question by

the honourable member.

There is more work to do to stabilize the circumstances at all of Ontario's emergency rooms. That's work that is currently under way and will be directly aided by the expertise of Tom Closson working more

particularly in the Kitchener-Waterloo community.

Mr. Hampton: Not only is Mr. Closson missing in action, but you told reporters last week that your province-wide emergency room strategy would be released early this week. Now you're telling

us that it may be in seven days, perhaps 10 days. Meanwhile, emergency rooms are in crisis across the province, from Kitchener-Waterloo to Sault Ste. Marie. Wait times for treatments in emergency rooms are shamefully long, and wait times for the

McGuinty government to keep their promises are even longer.

My question is this: Where's the emergency room report you promised? Where's the action to fix the emergency room crisis gripping more and more Ontario hospitals?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: There's no evidence to the last part. I did not say that the report would be released early this week. He made that up.

It's interesting, isn't it, that in the last week or two when he was on his feet, he talked always about the Manitoba model? Today, we had an inquiry from the Minister of Health's office in Manitoba: "Do you

have any ideas that we might draw upon here in Ontario to address the challenges that we're currently experiencing with emergency room coverage?"

The honourable member's credibility on this issue was already weak enough, given that he sat on his hands and kept quiet while the doctor shortage was being created. He's the daddy-o of the doctor shortage in

Ontario, and now he's bringing even more disinformation to the subject at hand.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): My question is to the Minister of Education. We all know the importance of a well-funded public education system. When you look at the Tory record on

education, quite frankly, it's horrific. They lost teachers, encouraged parents to send their children to private schools, neglected our school infrastructure, and left many students learning in unhealthy environments. In stark contrast, in the

three short years that we've been in government, we've reached peace and stability in our schools, we've increased the graduation rate, lowered primary class sizes, and seen improved literacy and numeracy scores. This could not have been

accomplished without a significant change to the education funding formula. The system was broken, and we're fixing it.

Can the minister tell the House what the McGuinty government has done to ensure that our changes to the funding formula will reach each and every student?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne (Minister of Education): Thank you to the member for Scarborough Centre for his question. I do appreciate the opportunity to talk about this issue, because I know that

it's a hot one in the province at this moment.

Since we were elected, we have been fixing a broken funding formula that we inherited from the previous government. We've provided funding for 7,000 more teachers. We have provided, just in Toronto alone,

1,185 teachers for the Catholic board and the public board. In the member's riding, there are 40 capital projects that are ongoing because of money we've invested in the system.

Not only have we put more money in the system; we've also fixed the funding formula in the sense that we've created new categories. The school foundation grant provides money for principals and secretaries for

small schools. That was completely overlooked in the drafting of the funding formula when the previous government presented it.

I've been working with the school boards, and I look forward to continuing to do so.

Mr. Duguid: Although I represent an urban constituency, I know our rural and northern caucus members are seeing the results of the changed funding formula as well. One of the recommendations

we've heard from stakeholders is that they'd like to see the release of the grants for student needs earlier to help them plan for the 2007-08 school year. Other stakeholders have mentioned they want an independent review of the funding

formula.

We know the funding formula is a work in progress and that the minister is working on changes for next year. Can the minister tell this House what her next steps are with respect to the funding formula, and

can she commit to when the grants for student needs will be announced?

Hon. Ms. Wynne: I've already committed to boards and to the partners in education to have the funding information to them by early spring. I know they need that funding information to get

their planning going. A letter is going out today from my office to all boards, trustee associations and education partners, including CUPE, to ask for their input on the funding formula.

Every year, we've talked to our partners to lead up to the budget and the GSN announcements. This year, I'm being very intentional about asking that question of our education partners. I'm looking for common

ground; I'm looking for themes and local pressures. I can't speculate on the amount of money, but what I can tell you is that there's been a call for a massive teardown and rebuild of the funding formula. I'm not willing to do that, because we

can't afford to lose that time. We could call a review now and have an answer in 18 months. We need to know now what the pressures are, and I've asked the boards to provide that to me.

RESPITE CARE

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): To the Minister of Health: Minister, yesterday I brought to your attention the plight of Rosa and Carlos Tavares. I explained to you yesterday that in moving from

Mississauga to Richmond Hill, Mr. Tavares's respite care was cut off.

I'd like to ask you today what steps you've taken to ensure that Mr. Tavares's care is reinstated, and perhaps you could also explain why, under your watch as Minister of Health, health care in this province

is so inconsistent from one region to another.

Hon. George Smitherman (Deputy Premier, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Firstly, I'll say to the honourable member that I believe that information may have been passed on to his office

even while we've been here. I don't have a particular update for him, but I believe that information has been relayed from my staff to his.

I think on the matter, though, of equitable access to services, the honourable member's on to something. If he wants to lay all of that responsibility at our feet, that's okay, but the reality is that the

health care system, as it has evolved over decades, has not necessarily been able to create an equitable output. The reality is that one of the most powerful elements of local health integration networks, by creating a consistent boundary and by

measuring information on a consistent basis within it, actually gives us the evidence we need to be able to address inequity.

I agree with the honourable member that there's dramatic work that needs to be done on this. The community of Ottawa, just as one example, when we came to office seemed to have been forgotten about in a

variety of ways, and especially with MRIs. So LHINs are actually going to be helpful to us in delivering a more equitable result, which we all agree must be a principle and a feature of a public health care system.

Mr. Klees: I'm going to assume, then, that the minister will ensure that Mr. Tavares's care will be reinstated.

With regard to his mention of Ottawa, the March of Dimes confirmed with me, for example, that just recently a university student from Ottawa had their funding that was being received in Ottawa transferred to

York region, so it's not impossible to have funding transferred from one region to another.

My question to the minister is: If it is possible to have funding follow the client, why in the case of Mr. Tavares did that not happen, and will he ensure that that care will in fact be reinstated to Mr.

Tavares without any further delay?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: When you speak of the March of Dimes, I believe you're speaking of a program that is an individualized funding program. That would lend itself more easily to the kind of

cross-local health integration network or regional basis that the honourable member speaks about. We'll look at the matter. I can't give him any further information. As I said, that's been passed along to his office.

But at the heart of it, we released annual reports of local health integration networks today. If we look at those reports and at the mechanism there, we're starting to create more of the comparative capacity

to make adjustments on funding allocation that address the inequities that we're speaking about. I realize that this is question period and it's all rhetoric and politics -- or largely -- but I do believe that this initiative is one of those

pieces of the puzzle that is necessary to produce a more equitable result, which is a principle of the public health care system that we very much agree with.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): To the Premier: Last week, your government talked about the dangers of online gambling websites when it introduced legislation that it said would ban

advertising of those websites. Currently there's a banner advertisement for the World Poker Tour website featuring online gambling on the Fallsview Casino home page, on their website. Premier, how is it that the government on the one hand can talk

about the dangers of online gambling, the need to ban the advertising of it, yet at your very own casino you're advertising online gaming?

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

Hon. Gerry Phillips (Minister of Government Services): By way of background for the public, what we've run into is our business community saying to us, "We're operating by all the rules and

we've got some competitors here that are operating illegal gaming sites on the Internet." So what we said was, "We're going to amend our Consumer Protection Act to prohibit people from advertising illegal Internet gaming sites" -- very simple.

Now, once the bill is passed, a matter like the member is talking about will be dealt with. I'm not going to determine in advance whether that is legal, illegal. That's up to a court to decide. What we want to

do is make sure that we have legislation that will ensure that illegal Internet gaming sites are not advertised. Then, of course, we'll deal with the matter.

Mr. Kormos: Last week you said there was a need to protect vulnerable consumers, including underage youth, by prohibiting advertising for illegal Internet gaming websites, knowing that you

couldn't prohibit the activity. You talked about vulnerable consumers. You talked about underage people gambling. Your casino not only promotes online gambling on its website but, when I called their further information number at 1:10 p.m. today,

your Fallsview Casino told me to type in "ultimate bet" or "paradise poker" to play along on the Internet with the World Poker Tour website at Fallsview Casino.

How is it that you can talk a big game about protecting consumers but when it comes to your own casino, all you're doing is bluffing?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: Again I say to the public, what we are proposing in our legislation is that, if passed, it will ban the advertising of illegal Internet gaming. We then deal with the bill

and we let the courts decide. So I just say to all of us, let's not get ahead of ourselves here. I'm not going to prejudge and make the decision that is a court's decision. Let's pass the legislation that will ban advertising of illegal Internet

gaming sites and then let the courts decide that.

SUPPLY MANAGEMENT

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. As you know, the supply management sector of our agriculture industry has proven

itself an effective way of ensuring that farmers earn stable, profitable income. For years, Farmgate5 has proven its ability to provide the high-quality products consumers demand at a fair price for both farmers and consumers. I regularly meet

with local farm representatives in my riding, including the Perth County Federation of Agriculture. During these meetings, my local farm leadership regularly repeat the call for both the provincial and federal levels of government to continue

defending the interests of my farmers dependent on supply management. Minister, can you please tell this House today what our government is doing to protect the interests of supply-managed producers?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I thank the honourable member for the question. He does listen carefully to the issues in rural Ontario and the issues

of agriculture. Members of the opposition laugh at that. I think the agriculture community is very concerned that they don't ask any agriculture questions; they're not prepared to advocate for their industry, as our members are.

Last week, the Chicken Farmers of Ontario were here in the Legislature, and the one point they wanted all of us to hear and wanted our commitment on was that our government would continue to demonstrate our

support of supply management. I went to the WTO trade talks in Hong Kong to support them in that initiative. That has been demonstrated very clearly by our government. They're very concerned that the federal government, however, has brought

forward their plan to disband the Canadian Wheat Board, and the supply management folks are worried that they will be next on the federal government chopping block. We can say in this House that our government is absolutely --

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

Mr. Wilkinson: It's reassuring to hear that our government is strongly defending the interests of supply-managed farmers. What troubles me is that the official opposition seems to be aligning

with the group that has publicly and repeatedly opposed supply management. According to one of the Ontario Landowners Association discussion papers, this organization wants our supply-managed sectors to become "optional." There is no such thing as

optional supply management. This is very troubling to Ontario's poultry and dairy farmers and to the rural communities that depend on them. Supply management is what enables the poultry and dairy farmers in my riding to succeed.

The leader of the official opposition obviously is quite comfortable sitting down and talking with the group that wants to dismantle supply management. Minister, can you reassure the supply-managed farmers in

my riding that our government will protect their livelihoods?

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): That's a good question.

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: It's a very good question. I think it is very troubling that the Leader of the Opposition would make a deal with a group, with Randy Hillier -- a group that is actually

promoting that it thinks supply management should be optional. There's no such thing as an optional supply management system.

I'm going to quote the member from Leeds-Grenville, who last week said, " ... the Ontario Landowners Association, on a broader scale -- the derision emanating from the Liberal benches, suggesting that these

people are something to be afraid of.... offends ... the Progressive Conservative Party." Well, I say that what offends the people of Ontario are threats of violence and intimidation. People who employ these tactics are now making deals with John

Tory and his caucus. These are the people who would put supply management at risk.

Our government is committed to protecting supply management. We are on the side of supply management, John Tory is making deals with Randy Hillier --

The Speaker: Thank you.

TRANSIT FUNDING

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Premier. Yesterday I was reading the Globe and Mail and was quite impressed by the very welcome and ambitious ad talking about improvements

that GO Transit intends to make, not just at Union Station but across the system on which they provide the service. It included longer trains, larger platforms and an additional 400 passenger trains per day. You would know that one 10-car train

takes 1,400 cars of off our gridlocked highways and they make our environment cleaner.

When you announced, in your last budget, over $1 billion, there was very little money for the region of Durham; as was commented on by Roger Anderson, very little money east of Toronto.

Premier, will you assure the House that your government is committed to providing Durham region and the eastern GTA the same level of service you've planned for other communities?

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

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, Deputy Government House Leader): I'm delighted with the question, because I have had conversations with Mr. Anderson, the chair of

Durham region. They have recently uploaded transit into Durham region, and we are very eager to work with them as they're able to develop a transit plan for Durham.

But the member mentioned GO Transit. We celebrate the billionth rider. In fact, we have fully funded the 10-year GO capital plan in association -- a strategic infrastructure investment -- with our federal

partners. Since 2003-04, the province has committed approximately $1.6 billion to GO Transit, including -- I hope the member will listen -- $830 million this year. These are historic investments in a regional transit system that are long overdue,

which I would note that this member and his government had previously downloaded onto municipalities.

Mr. O'Toole: To this government and this minister in particular, and I would hope that the Premier would also be listening: What Roger Anderson actually said about your funding for transit in

the last budget was that you're spending a lot of money west of Yonge Street and very little east of Yonge Street. I believe that remains the record today.

When I listen to the reports on gridlock in our infrastructure, our devastated infrastructure, you really have no plan. I see that your promises are up, but your delivery on these promises is down. You

promised to raise the issue of transit within Durham region, and you've actually done nothing about it. In fact, gridlock is worsening day by day. I would ask you once again to commit today to look at improving services of GO Transit to the east

of Toronto. Will you promise that today to the constituents of the region of Durham?

Hon. Mr. Caplan: I still haven't heard an apology from the member opposite for downloading transit onto Durham. It was this government making the investment, I'm sure the member would want to

acknowledge, in the Lakeshore east corridor, a third track added between the Don River and Scarborough station to allow more service between Toronto and Durham region and increase rail service on the Stouffville corridor. The budget amount for

engineering construction is $62 million. GO Transit is currently undertaking the environmental assessment for the project, and it will be completed in 2009.

But there are other investments in the region of Durham that I'm sure the member would want to acknowledge: Highway 401, $61 million for highway widening from Harwood Road to Salem Road; Highway 401, $6.4

million to resurface from Stevenson Road to Salem Road; Highway 7A, $8.4 million; Highway 7 --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Caplan: My colleague asks, "How come Durham gets so much from this government?" It's because this government --

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

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY OFFICE

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. The FRO mistakenly issued my constituent Brandi Thorne a manual cheque for her September

support payment and then deposited the same amount into her bank account, so she went and ripped up the cheque. The FRO is now withholding her October payment as security in case the cheque is actually cashed, but this was after the FRO told Ms.

Thorne to complete the lost-cheque form, have it notarized and return it to them, which is everything she did. In fact, she took an unpaid day off work to get the form sworn as an affidavit. But now the FRO says that her funds are going to stay

frozen for up to another 30 days anyway, just to make sure that the cheque isn't cashed.

My question is twofold, Minister: Why haven't you fixed the FRO computer problems that lead to these kinds of situations, and will you intervene personally to unlock the FRO's deep-freeze and ensure that

Brandi Thorne gets access to the money she needs?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Yes, there was some difficulty early in September

with the computer system at the Family Responsibility Office. We were very quick in responding and providing cheques to those in need. Unfortunately, after that, some received two cheques. We are trying to correct the situation, and we have

communicated with the individuals involved and tried to solve the problem.

If the member from the third party has a problem, I cannot discuss it; she knows perfectly that I cannot discuss any particular case in this House. But I'll be willing and glad to sit down and try to

understand and work out a solution.

Ms. Horwath: Minister, the FRO told my constituent to provide a sworn oath, and then they bumped her to the back of the red-tape lineup while withholding her support payments. Listen to what

Ms. Thorne says -- this is in her own words: "Between now and November 1, I have daycare to pay for, my fifth mortgage payment on my very first house, car and house insurance and two cheques for school photos, all of which will bounce and cost me

more money."

Minister, many women have been hit with bank penalties, late payment fees and interest charges because of your FRO boondoggle. Along with fixing Ms. Thorne's specific issues, will the McGuinty government agree

to reimburse all FRO clients for their extra costs resulting from your inability to get their support payments to them on time, just like you were trying to get when you were in opposition?

Hon. Mrs. Meilleur: I say to the member of the third party that the FRO is a good process and helps a lot of individuals, especially women, to get the benefits they should get from the payers.

I will also say that we were very quick in responding to the problems we experienced because of an old system that we're in the process of replacing.

I will offer this: Why don't you call my office and we will work to help this lady to solve her problem? If some of them have experienced extra fees, we will look at each individual case and support and help

them through this difficult time.

REGULATORY MODERNIZATION

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): Today I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Tomorrow you will introduce second reading of Bill 69, the Regulatory Modernization Act. This

legislation, if passed, will reform the way regulatory ministries deal with the province's business community.

I understand that it's the intention of the legislation to strengthen the tools that our inspectors need to do their jobs more effectively. It also gives Ontario's businesses the support they deserve to more

efficiently meet their own responsibilities. Currently, we have 13 regulatory ministries, whose mandate is to inspect, investigate and enforce under various statutes. All 13 are part of this legislation, which your ministry's inspections,

investigations and enforcement secretariat is leading. Ontarians agree that this co-operation is impressive.

Minister, please tell this House how this legislation will affect Ontario and its businesses.

Hon. Steve Peters (Minister of Labour): I'd like to thank the member for Oakville for his hard work, dedication and commitment to the public service here in the province. We recognize that

improved communication means less duplication. The RMA, if passed, will allow ministries to work together more effectively. It will improve their ability to interact with the business community, because improved communication means less

duplication, and less duplication means fewer headaches for our businesses here in the province.

We're committed to changing our approach. By changing that approach, we can use compliance information more effectively, we can target our enforcement efforts where they count and we can reduce duplication in

compliance activities. It just makes sense.

This bill is part of a wider strategy, as we move forward, that includes performance-based strategies to recognize companies with exceptional records and target enforcement efforts --

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

Mr. Flynn: Thank you, Minister. That's great news.

I understand that your inspections, investigations and enforcement secretariat is simultaneously pilot-testing a small business compliance improvement project in the auto body sector, with association support.

The secretariat is working in co-operation with the Ministry of Small Business and Entrepreneurship and the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade. As I understand it, the pilot project is designed to help small businesses better understand

their unique compliance challenges. It has also involved them in developing tools that assist them to meet their compliance requirements.

We know that small businesses already face enough challenges and that as a government we should nurture their growth. Could you please inform this House on the status of this very innovative project?

Hon. Mr. Peters: I will refer that question to the Minister of Small Business and Entrepreneurship.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Small Business and Entrepreneurship): I also want to thank the member from Oakville for asking this question. We are actually very, very proud of this

initiative, and I want to thank the Minister of Labour for really taking a strong leadership role on this initiative.

For the last several months, we have been consulting with this sector. We wanted to know from them what key issues were really facing this sector so that we could address them. Based on the input that we

received -- they told us they wanted to make sure that the information was readily available to them and that it was on one site. That is why we have created this one-stop shopping where they can actually go and look for the information for

compliance. From our point of view, this initiative has been very, very successful, and we look forward to working with the Minister of Labour on the --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister. New question? The member for Oshawa.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know this is a question that is of strong concern to you as well as your constituents. It's a question to the Minister of Northern

Development and Mines. The dump sites at Vixen Lake, Garden Lake and Ranger Lake have all been closed now. What's taking place as a result of this is that all these individuals and unorganized townships are now taking all their garbage into the

municipalities that are organized, which is putting pressure on the organized townships. So what we're seeing here is a reorganization and a reassessment taking place in all these unorganized townships. Are those reassessments a result of the

pressure being put on those organized townships from your closing of those unorganized dump sites?

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Minister of Northern Development and Mines? Minister of the Environment?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten (Minister of the Environment): I'll let the member opposite know that obviously the responsibility to manage waste is that of the municipalities.

In the north, there are very different challenges. The Ministry of the Environment works very closely with all of our communities in the north to assist those communities and make sure that they have the tools

they need to be able to manage their waste in those communities. We have wonderful and responsible and dedicated people, men and women, who work in the Ministry of the Environment, and they are available to assist with those communities, and are

already doing so on an ongoing basis.

MEMBERS' COMMENTS

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'd like to refer you to standing order 23(

h) and (i). There was an exchange earlier during question period in a

set-up question to the Minister of Agriculture from the member for Perth-Middlesex. I would indicate to you, Mr. Speaker, with the comments made that the member and the minister were making allegations against another member of this assembly,

which is purely a breach of the standing orders, as well as imputing false or unavowed motives with reference to comments made by the Minister of Agriculture. Again, I think that clearly breaches the standing orders.

Untruths emanating from that side of the House are becoming common practice, and we're not going to stand for it anymore, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to rule on this, please.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Thank you. I think it would be appropriate to caution all members to be very, very careful that they aren't seen to be imputing motives to other members.

Just to be helpful to the Speaker, if, in fact, there is an allegation of such behaviour, it's more helpful if that gets raised at the time rather than subsequent to it. It just makes it very difficult for the Speaker.

I didn't hear it at the time. Therefore, I'm not going to rule in favour of your point of order. But I would again caution all members to be very careful about their language. I would also like to caution the

member for Leeds-Grenville in his use of the last suggestion that he made about untruths being commonplace in here.

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: As a member here who feels that his privileges have been hampered, quite frankly, pursuant to

section 23(

h) and (

i) of the

standing orders, as someone who was involved in a meeting that was referred to by the member for Perth-Middlesex and, as well, the exchange between the member for Perth-Middlesex and the Minister of Agriculture and Food, I am very concerned that

the Minister of Agriculture, in her response to the question that was put by the member for Perth-Middlesex, made the specific comment that, in fact, a deal had been entered into by the leader of the official opposition. As someone who was party

to those discussions, I take great offence. It does, in fact, impute false or unavowed motives.

I would appeal to you, Speaker, that you would review the Hansard, seeing as you perhaps don't recall specifically what the Minister of Agriculture responded. But there is clear evidence -- there were reports

in today's press, very clear statements by the --

The Speaker: I've heard enough. The Speaker, as you know, has no opportunity to understand what members may assert to being a fact or not. I only know what is said in this place at the time.

So I have no ability to do that, nor does any Speaker in any jurisdiction that I'm aware of. It's now time for petitions.

Mr. Klees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: With respect, Speaker, that's why I'm asking you as a Speaker of this House to review the facts. I would ask you --

The Speaker: The Speaker does not review the facts. The Speaker reviews what was said at the time. That's what I do as Speaker.

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The opposition has raised a number of points of order

in regard to matters that have come before the House on things that are stated in the House. I have to say that fingers can't be pointed in one direction only. It reminds me of one of my favourite biblical quotations: "Let him who is without sin

cast the first stone." None of us in this House -- and I will be one of those who will say that. I will not cast a stone at the others while they cast stones back and forth. But I think if you're going to review Hansard --

The Speaker: I have ruled. It's time for petitions. The member for Durham.

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the time here in the Legislature to be used for petitions from the riding of Durham.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas long-term-care funding levels are too low to enable homes to provide the care and services our aging seniors and parents who are residents of long-term-care homes need, with the respect and dignity

that they deserve; and

"Whereas, even with recent funding increases and a dedicated staff who do more than their best, there is still not enough time available to provide the care residents need. For example, 10 minutes, and

sometimes less, is simply not enough time to assist a resident to get up, dressed, to the bathroom and then to the dining room for breakfast; and

"Whereas those unacceptable care and service levels are now at risk of declining;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, who are members of family councils, residents' councils and/or supporters of long-term care in Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to increase operating

funding to long-term-care homes by $306.6 million, which will allow the hiring of more staff to provide an additional 20 minutes of care per resident per day over the next two years (2006 and 2007)."

In respect to the order before the House today for debating Bill 140 on long-term care, I am pleased to support this and endorse the theme on behalf of the riding of Durham and present it to Paul.

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned residents of the city of Vaughan, petition the Legislature of the province of Ontario to establish a public inquiry into the city of Vaughan, based on the proposed terms of reference which

are on the opposite side of this page, which were proposed to the council of the city of Vaughan for adoption on May 8, 2006, but which such council refused to adopt."

For greater clarity, they are seeking -- on the back of the page -- that

section 100 of the Municipal Act be invoked by the minister and that an inquiry be held into alleged wrongdoings by the municipal

council of that city.

I affix my signature thereto.

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): Every day now it seems I get a petition on Bill 124.

"Petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly

"Access to Trades and Professions in Ontario

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

pursue their livelihoods and careers; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with this petition and will affix my signature to it.

HEALTH PREMIUMS

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): "We Call on the Government of Ontario to Eliminate the Health Tax

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas, according to the Department of National Defence, there are over 30,000 serving military personnel who call Ontario home; and

"Whereas, according to the most recent census data, there are more than 1.6 million senior citizens over the age of 65 living in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario plans on eliminating this illegitimate tax for all Ontarians after it forms government in 2007; and

"Whereas, as an interim measure, the illegitimate health tax should be removed from those who protect Canada and those who have built Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, call on the government of Ontario to immediately eliminate the illegitimate health tax, beginning with serving military personnel and senior citizens."

It's signed by many people, and I affix my signature to it.

LANDFILL

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I have a petition here addressed to the Parliament of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the Oneida Nation of the Thames people located near Southwold, Ontario, have been opposed to the Green Lane landfill operations for a number of years and have questioned the premise for landfill

expansion at Green Lane; and

"Whereas the Oneida Nation of the Thames people and the public have learned through media reports as of September 20, 2006, that the city of Toronto had voted to purchase the landfill in order to address its

waste issues; and

"Whereas the First Nations' interests in the operation of this site were referred to Ontario's environmental assessment process, which is a proponent-driven process and did not satisfactorily address First

Nations' concerns and interests; and

"Whereas First Nations feel that their interests in the Green Lane landfill expansion and operations have not been dealt with adequately by the provincial crown based on recent case law in the Haida Nation,

Taku River, Mikisew and Platinex cases;

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

"That the provincial crown adequately consult First Nations in a manner that is consistent with the Haida Nation, Taku River, Mikisew and Platinex cases regarding previous and proposed operations of the Green

Lane landfill."

I've signed that petition.

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Mr. Kuldip Kular (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): This petition is to the Ontario Legislative Assembly.

"Access to Trades and Professions in Ontario

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

pursue their livelihoods and careers; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with the petitioners and put my signature on it as well.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I have a petition to do with forestry work for Hydro One Networks Inc., and it reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Hydro One Networks Inc. provides hydro to many communities in the region of Parry Sound-Muskoka; and

"Whereas there have recently been several lengthy power outages in this region affecting both private residences, schools and businesses; and

"Whereas rural customers pay among the highest distribution and delivery charges for electricity;

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

"That the Minister of Energy and the Ontario Energy Board require Hydro One Networks Inc. to make improvements in line maintenance and forestry management in the region of Parry Sound-Muskoka to ensure

reliable energy for its customers."

I support this petition and affix my signature to it.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms. Cheri DiNovo (Parkdale-High Park): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas, in June 2003, Dalton McGuinty said Ontario Liberals are committed to ensuring that nursing home residents receive more personal care each day and will reinstate minimum standards, and inspectors will

be required to audit the staff-to-resident ratios; and

"Whereas Health and Long-Term Care Minister George Smitherman, in October 2004, said that the Ontario government will not set a specified number of care hours nursing home residents are to receive each day;

and....

"Whereas studies have indicated nursing home residents should receive at least 4.1 hours of nursing care per day; and

"Whereas a coroner's jury in April 2005 recommended the Ontario government establish a minimum number of care hours nursing home residents must receive each day;

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

"That the government of Ontario immediately enact a minimum standard of 3.5 hours of nursing care for each nursing home resident per day."

I am pleased to affix my signature to this.

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Mr. Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): I also have a petition in support of Bill 124, sent to me by some of the 50,000 clients of Intercultural Neighbourhood Social Services. I'll

read the petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

pursue their livelihoods and careers; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm in support of this. I'm very happy to sign it.

HEALTH PREMIUMS

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas, according to the Department of National Defence, there are over 30,000 serving military personnel calling Ontario home; and

"Whereas, according to the most recent census data, there are more than 1.6 million senior citizens over the age of 65 living in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario plans on eliminating this illegitimate tax for all Ontarians after it forms the government; and

"Whereas, as an interim measure, the illegitimate health tax should be removed from those who protect Canada and those who have built Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, call on the government of Ontario to immediately eliminate the illegitimate health tax, beginning with serving military personnel and senior citizens."

I affix my signature in full support.

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I have a petition today: "In Support of Skilled Immigrants -- Bill 124

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the McGuinty government is committed to establishing measures that will break down barriers for Ontario newcomers; and

"Whereas these measures will ensure that the 34 regulatory professions in Ontario have admissions and application practices that are fair, clear and open; and

"Whereas these measures will include the establishment of a fairness commissioner and an access centre for internationally trained individuals; and

"Whereas, through providing a fair and equitable system, newcomers will be able to apply their global experience, which will not only be beneficial to their long-term career goals but also to the Ontario

economy as a whole;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That all members of the House support the Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act, 2006, Bill 124, and work to ensure its prompt passage in the Ontario Legislature."

I agree with this petition and will affix my signature to it.

WATER QUALITY

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I have a petition. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas every Ontarian wants the best water quality possible; and

"Whereas the goal of clean water can be achieved effectively through amendments to existing legislation; and

"Whereas the McGuinty Liberals are determined to hammer through the flawed legislation known as the Clean Water Act; and

"Whereas the McGuinty Liberals have failed to put in place adequate, stable, long-term funding into the bill; and

"Whereas the McGuinty Liberals have failed to effectively address the numerous problems in the bill; and

"Whereas rural Ontario stands to suffer significantly under this poorly-thought-out policy;

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

"To not pass Bill 43 (the Clean Water Act) until proper funding and amendments are in place."

I affix my name in support.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LONG-TERM CARE HOMES ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LES FOYERS DE SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉE

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 23, 2006, on the motion for second reading of Bill 140,

An Act respecting long-term care homes / Projet de loi 140, Loi concernant les foyers de soins de longue

durée.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): When we last debated this item in this House, the member for Brant had the floor, so I'll return to the member for Brant.

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): I appreciate the opportunity to complete my comments. I want to do a short recap. I hope I spoke with some passion about the need for all of us to set aside the

shackles of the common point that seems to get made in this place from time to time that it's all about politics. The point I was making was not to cast aspersions on any member in this place or any party in this place, because collectively what

has been happening over the decades is that there have been progressive and important steps taken towards improving the lives of those who are at end of life and those who need to be finding themselves, through no fault of their own, in a shelter,

in a home, and in this case -- Bill 140 -- we're talking specifically in long-term-care facilities.

I also spent a little bit of time -- well, actually quite a bit of my time -- praising the front-line staff, as my witness of seeing it happen, as having loved ones in long-term-care homes, and also to

understand the trials and tribulations those staff go through and the passion and love they present to our loved ones. So I want to compliment them one more time.

I do want to make a couple of quick points to indicate two things, importantly: that progressive parties over the years have seen this as a coming need. So successive parties, successive governments, have

taken steps -- some slow, some fast, some aggressive, some passive. Each of those governments in the past, when I did my research, have worked towards improving our ability to deliver long-term-care homes in the way that we want our relatives to

receive, and indeed all of the citizens of Ontario. So my kudos to all of those at the government levels who have progressively moved forward.

I believe our government is attempting to do that and I believe our government will not solve all the problems with Bill 140. I do not believe Bill 140 will cause problems and I do believe that there are some

important points to be made.

If this bill is passed, we will entrench in legislation a residents' bill of rights, which already exists, but we did point out that there are other issues within this bill that we believe will improve. One

third of the issues coming up are complaints using the bill of rights, so I think it's important to entrench this in a single piece of legislation. We will promote and want zero tolerance of abuse and neglect of long-term-care home residents. We

will provide whistle-blower protection for