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

April 26, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-Apr-26 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 26 April 2006 Mercredi 26 avril 2006

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

DOORS OPEN GUELPH

LANDFILL

HALTON REGION EMPLOYEES

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

NORTHERN ECONOMY

STEVE STAVRO

NORTHERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

PROPERTY TAXATION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LE CODE

DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

PRESCRIPTION MONITORING ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LA SURVEILLANCE

PHARMACEUTIQUE

VISITOR

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEM /

SYSTÈME DES DROITS

DE LA PERSONNE

WOMEN IN SKILLED TRADES

HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEM

WOMEN IN SKILLED TRADES

HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEM

WOMEN IN SKILLED TRADES

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

NUCLEAR SAFETY

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

HEALTH CARE

SOFTWOOD LUMBER

PROPERTY TAXATION

LONG-TERM CARE

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

NORTHERN ONTARIO

HERITAGE FUND

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

FOREST INDUSTRY

KASHECHEWAN FIRST NATION

PETITIONS

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

COMMUNITY MEDIATION

LONG-TERM CARE

MACULAR DEGENERATION

COMMUNITY MEDIATION

LONG-TERM CARE

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

GASOLINE PRICES

BORDER SECURITY

LONG-TERM CARE

PUBLIC EDUCATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SECURITIES TRANSFER ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LE TRANSFERT

DES VALEURS MOBILIÈRES

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): When politics trump need, the people are always the ones left to pay the price. This is

becoming clearer every day here in Ontario.

When Dalton McGuinty was in opposition, he knew that his promise to shut down almost a quarter of the province's generational capacity was total nonsense. He

knew that, at a time when our supply was tenuous, shutting off the power to almost two million homes was not the responsible thing to do. He knew that he could not follow through with his

commitment. Experienced people in his caucus and industry leaders told him so.

He knew that any alternatives to coal-fired generation would be much costlier even than clean coal technology. He knew that natural gas plants were sitting idle

all over North America because they were too expensive to operate. He knew that power from wind would be very expensive, impossible to control and therefore unreliable. He knew that his energy

policy would place extreme financial hardship on the people of Ontario.

Do you know what? None of that ever mattered to Dalton McGuinty because he didn't care. He focused on one goal: to be Premier. The facts were never an issue if

they got in the way of his goal.

Well, people are now paying the price here in McGuinty's Ontario: $2,000 per family per year in new taxes and fees; skyrocketing property taxes; gas prices and

mortgage rates on the rise. Couple this with the certainty of still higher electricity prices, already up 55% under this regime, and Ontarians have come to the conclusion that in October 2007 it

will be time for Dalton McGuinty to pay the price.

DOORS OPEN GUELPH

Mrs. Liz Sandals (Guelph-Wellington): I was delighted to attend Doors Open Guelph, organized by the Guelph Arts Council and Heritage Guelph,

last Saturday, April 22. Doors Open Guelph is the first of 50 Doors Open Ontario events sponsored in part by the Ontario Heritage Trust. This initiative allows local residents and visitors to

explore the city's history and architectural heritage through public tours.

One of the sites I visited was the Guelph Railway Powerhouse and Car Shed, which now houses 44 affordable housing units. George Sleeman built the limestone

streetcar storage and repair shed and the powerhouse for his Guelph Railway Company in 1895. One streetcar line actually took workers from downtown out to his original brewery to work. After the

radial line closed in 1937, the building was used as bus storage barns for the Guelph Transportation Commission.

part of Guelph's affordable housing allocation, Guelph developers John and Tom Lammer have restored this historically significant stone building and given it new life as 44 affordable housing units

-- a win-win-win project: more housing, greater density, and we've saved a great old building.

LANDFILL

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): Last Saturday, the new member for Nepean-Carleton and I joined more than 300 concerned citizens of

Carp and nearby Stittsville to march in opposition to the expansion of the Carp landfill site.

First of all, I want to thank Marlene Labelle and Peta Seguin of Stittsville, who organized the event, and congratulate them on getting so many people out on a

cold, miserable Saturday morning. I also want to recognize the participation of Ottawa councillors Eli El-Chantiry, Janet Stavinga and Peggy Feltmate.

At the dump, Lisa MacLeod and I were presented with a petition calling on this Legislature to ensure that the minister require a wide environmental assessment on

this project. It goes on to say that the assessment must include examination of alternatives such as other landfill sites and incineration. The petition includes the signatures of about 10,000

concerned residents. That is on top of the many other petitions I have been receiving in my office, some of which were introduced in this Legislature by Lisa MacLeod, the member for

Nepean-Carleton, and me yesterday.

I call upon the McGuinty government to stop this dump. Listen to the people of Carp, Stittsville and west Ottawa. Find an alternative to expanding the Carp

landfill site.

HALTON REGION EMPLOYEES

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): It's a pleasure to rise in the House today to recognize the efforts of Halton Regional Police Chief Ean Algar

and Halton Regional Chair Joyce Savoline. They're both intending to retire, unfortunately, from public service this year.

Chief Algar and Chair Savoline have spent most of their careers working tirelessly to promote and contribute to the well-being of my community of Halton. Under

the guidance of these two individuals, Halton has flourished into a safe and desirable place to work, live and raise a family.

I was honoured to be a guest at the Halton Multicultural Council's annual banquet to honour the contributions made by both Chairman Savoline and Chief Algar to

the region of Halton as they retire from public office.

Chief Algar began his career as a police officer in 1968 and served throughout the region of Halton. He was appointed chief of police in 1999. Throughout his

career he received numerous awards, but I am especially proud of his commitment to eliminating and combatting racial discrimination and to promoting harmony within the community.

Chair Savoline became active in the Halton community first as a volunteer with community groups and committees and then elected as a local and regional

councillor in the same year as myself, 1982. Ms. Savoline was appointed as chair of the regional municipality of Halton in 1994 and 1997.

Today, I would like to publicly acknowledge and honour the incredible dedication and contribution of both Chief Algar and Chair Savoline to the wonderful

community of Halton.

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): Today I'm rising once again to bring to the attention of the McGuinty government the crisis facing

our agriculture community.

The agriculture community has organized campaigns and protests across Ontario to raise awareness of the crisis in the agriculture industry. One of their

organizers is Joe Hickson. Joe grows grain and oilseeds near Lindsay and has been a great advocate and organizer for the farming community. They've led campaigns to raise public awareness of their

needs and to put pressure on both the provincial and federal governments to act immediately to save the future of farming. I want to thank Joe for all his hard work.

Immediate help is needed for this essential industry. Without it, our future is uncertain. Our government needs to increase its financial investment in all of

agriculture and invest in Ontario's 60,000 farm families. The high quality of food that Ontario farmers provide is a basic necessity for life and more than worth our investment.

The Farmers Feed Cities group is a reminder that agriculture and the rural economy are important to all Ontario. Currently, the sector receives only 0.7% of the

entire provincial budget. They're asking for 1.4% of the provincial budget. So it was extremely devastating when the Liberal government cut $244 million from the agriculture budget.

Ontario farmers continue to be outraged that they are not just getting less, they're getting nothing, at a time when farmers are deciding whether they can afford

to plant their crop for another year. Farmers of all sorts are paying the price for this government's misguided policies. The sad truth is that under Dalton McGuinty, Ontario farmers and rural

communities are falling behind.

NORTHERN ECONOMY

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): More devastating news in northern Ontario: Yet another employer has basically announced a shutdown in

northeastern Ontario. In this particular case, in the community of Smooth Rock Falls, Tembec, the kraft mill operation, the only employer in town, has announced they're going to be idling their

plant as of July 31. It means the only employer in that community will be ceasing operations on July 31 and it has left that community completely devastated. Mayor Réjeanne Demeules and both

the unions -- the Canadian energy and paperworkers union and the Steelworkers -- that represent the people in the community are absolutely devastated.

We need this government to take action. We need to do what we've been calling on this government to do now for two years, which they seem to not want to do, and

that is, they have to become involved. They have to be at the table. They have to be working with the communities, working with the employers, working with the unions toward finding the solutions

necessary to restructure industry so these types of closures can be averted, and specifically for Smooth Rock Falls, to make sure it doesn't happen.

I want to put this in some perspective for people. Imagine in Sault Ste. Marie every employer shutting down. Imagine in Thunder Bay every employer shutting down.

Imagine in the city of Toronto every employer shutting down. I know that then the government would take action. Why are they not taking action for communities like Kenora, Smooth Rock Falls,

Opasatika and others, which are losing their only employer and driving people away from their communities and the lives they've enjoyed for many generations now? This government must take action.

Nothing short will be acceptable.

STEVE STAVRO

Mr. Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): I rise today to pay tribute to one of this city's, province's and country's foremost sports and business

entrepreneurs, Steve Stavro. At 78 years of age, Mr. Stavro passed away last Sunday.

Steve Stavro was a complex man of many passions. His family was an obvious one. The Stavro family was part of everything he did. The grocery business was

another. A dedicated philanthropist, Steve was awarded the Order of Canada for his work with charities. Last year he was inducted, as a Builder, into the Canadian Soccer Hall of Fame. The legendary

Knob Hill Stables became his contribution to thoroughbred racing in this country.

But clearly one of Steve Stavro's greatest passions was the Toronto Maple Leafs. Steve Stavro took over the Maple Leaf organization at a time when they had lost

respect for their rich heritage. One of the first things he did was bring back the retired numbers and hang them proudly from the Maple Leaf Gardens rafters. Under Stavro, the Leafs went from a

club known for ignoring its alumni to one that showed honour and respect for those who wore the blue and white.

Although Steve Stavro never achieved his ultimate goal of winning the Stanley Cup, the Leafs became a perennial contender once again. In short, he returned

dignity to the Toronto Maple Leafs.

On behalf of all members of this Legislature, on behalf of all Ontarians, I'd like to extend our condolences to his wife, Sally, and the entire Stavro family,

including his daughters Connie, Debbie, Stephanie and Elaine.

I had the privilege of getting to know Steve Stavro over the years. His contribution to the sporting world, the business world and the province as a whole was

significant. He'll be missed by us all.

NORTHERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

Mr. David Orazietti (Sault Ste. Marie): I'd like to take this opportunity to comment on some of the very recent successes in my riding of Sault

Ste. Marie, which have resulted from our government's renewed commitment to northern Ontario. In three important areas, namely, infrastructure, environment and long-term care, my community has seen

significant improvements.

Our crumbling infrastructure, which was completely neglected by past governments, is now being repaired and replaced through our $30-billion ReNew Ontario

program. In Sault Ste. Marie, just last week, we announced $1.5 million for road construction to complete a very important project that's long overdue, and earlier this month, we provided $14

million for additional road and bridge work.

Here's what our CAO had to say: "We are delighted with the news.... We are satisfied that the city has negotiated a fair arrangement with the province to improve

these roads...."

When it comes to the environment and the protection of our water, we're also making important policy changes that are accompanied by the necessary financial

resources to ensure we get the results we need for Ontarians. Over $800,000 has been provided to our city to develop proper source water protection plans, and just last week we announced an

additional $205,000 for the conservation authority so they could continue their very important work.

Our long-term-care bed capacity in northern Ontario suffered considerably as a result of poor planning by the last government. Many beds in our hospital were

regularly occupied by those who needed a long-term-care bed and did not have access to one. We've added 48 beds in our city, and last week we added 12 more to support our health needs.

Thanks to the commitment of this government, the issues we face in Sault Ste. Marie are finally getting the attention they deserve.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I rise in the House today to speak about this government's work in improving municipal property tax assessments.

We're moving forward in that regard, having received the Ombudsman's recommendations. It's no secret that we inherited a machine from the Tories that has some problems. Don't take my word for it:

The member from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke has as much as said that they made a mistake and, what's more, he conceded that the Tories have no plan.

It was the members opposite who put the current assessment in place when they were in power, and what they created certainly isn't perfect. We understand the

concerns of the average Ontarian and we're now here to make improvements.

In regard to the Ombudsman, 17 of the recommendations directed to MPAC are being done. There are five directed to the province; we have already said that we'll

work on three. We want to get the remainder of the recommendations done right, and that's why we're consulting with everyone involved.

With respect to the relationship between the province and municipalities, I remind you that this government has begun to upload costs borne by municipalities --

costs that were downloaded by members opposite. We're working towards a fairer cost sharing for land ambulance with our municipalities. We're also assuming a more equitable share of costs for

public health.

It's unbelievable for the Conservatives to be criticizing our government's plan when they said that they don't have a policy. They're now looking for a policy

but they won't have it until 2007. Well, we have a plan now.

Our government acknowledges that this is a big challenge. We have decided to tackle it in a meaningful and prudent fashion. The McGuinty government is committed

to progress for all Ontarians, and that's why we're working towards a property tax assessment system that is both fair and equitable for all.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LE CODE

DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

Mr. Bryant moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 107,

An Act to amend the Human Rights Code / Projet de loi 107, Loi modifiant le Code des droits de la personne.

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

Does the minister wish to make a brief statement?

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General): I'm going to defer my remarks to ministerial statements.

PRESCRIPTION MONITORING ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LA SURVEILLANCE

PHARMACEUTIQUE

Mr. Ramal moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 108,

An Act to monitor the prescribing of certain drugs / Projet de loi 108, Loi visant à surveiller la prescription de certains

médicaments.

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

The member may wish to make a brief statement.

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): Yesterday in the Toronto Star there was an

article about a prominent Toronto psychiatrist who has been found

guilty of professional misconduct for prescribing excessive amounts of narcotics for 23 patients. Over 14 months, this doctor prescribed for one patient more than 10,000 pills. The patient died of

an overdose.

Let me be clear: The vast majority of doctors and pharmacists prescribe --

The Speaker: Order. I need you just to provide an explanation of the bill. At this point we're not debating it.

Mr. Ramal: This bill will recommend proposing a monitor act to oversee the prescribing of narcotic drugs. Hopefully, when it comes back to

debate, I'll get support from the House.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): I would like to bring to the attention of the House a visitor, Gary Malkowski, the member for York East

in the 35th Parliament, who is in the Speaker's gallery. Welcome, Gary.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing

order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 26, 2006, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Mr. Bradley has moved government notice of motion number 114. 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 1351 to 1356.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Elliott, Christine

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Hardeman, Ernie

Hudak, Tim

Jeffrey, Linda

Klees, Frank

Kular, Kuldip

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

MacLeod, Lisa

Marsales, Judy

Martiniuk, Gerry

Matthews, Deborah

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Norm

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Orazietti, David

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Smith, Monique

Sorbara, Gregory S.

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yakabuski, John

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

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Horwath, Andrea

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

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.

VISITORS

Hon. Mike Colle (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: With us today we have the grandparents of our

page Vanessa Sidwell from the riding of Eglinton-Lawrence, Judy and Francis Purcell from the sensational city of Stratford Ontario. Also Vanessa's mom, Suzanne Sidwell, and Vanessa's brother,

Grahame, are here from Eglinton-Lawrence.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEM /

SYSTÈME DES DROITS

DE LA PERSONNE

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General): Today, on behalf of the McGuinty government, I'm introducing legislation to modernize Ontario's human

rights system. It's the first such change to our human rights system since its inception in 1962. This is a very proud moment for this government. We are proposing to make our human rights system

stronger, faster and more effective, to better serve the people of our province.

I'd like to begin by acknowledging many people in the gallery today: the chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Barbara Hall; chair of the

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, Michael Gottheil; along with leaders, representatives and champions from community groups, the disability community and the legal community, including past human

rights commissioner Raj Anand. Welcome to all of you.

Right now, it can take four to five years for a human rights complaint to go through the full complaints process, from intake, to witness interviews, to

referral to the tribunal, to resolution. That's not acceptable to this government and it's not acceptable to the people of Ontario. The system is broken, and we in this Legislature have an

opportunity to fix it.

The Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2006, if passed, would strengthen Ontario's human rights commission. Complaints of discrimination would be filed directly

with an enhanced Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. It would improve access to justice for those who have faced discrimination and increase protection for the vulnerable. Under this legislation, the

human rights commission, headed by Barbara Hall, would become an even stronger champion of human rights. The newly enhanced commission would be a proactive body focused on public education,

promotion, research and analysis to prevent discrimination.

The commission would still have a critical role in the resolution of complaints. It would have the ability to intervene in or initiate complaints on systemic

issues affecting the public interest before the tribunal. In this way, the commission's time-honoured roles of identifying systemic issues and bringing those issues before the tribunal would not

only be maintained but enhanced.

A new anti-racism secretariat and a new disability rights secretariat would be established within the human rights commission to ensure that Ontario and the

Ontario Human Rights Commission entrench its long-standing commitment to addressing inequality in historically disadvantaged communities.

Ontarians with Disabilities Act. That directorate will be using an approach to ensure that, within a reasonable period of time, all Ontario service providers and employers comply with these

Rights Code system proposed today, he or she, with the support of the human rights legal support centre -- more on that in a moment -- would be able to seek justice directly by applying to the

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. This direct access to individual human rights remedies, firmly anchored by the legal support centre, is a major advance for people with disabilities and indeed

anybody suffering from discrimination.

Under the proposed reforms, a new complaints process would be created. Currently, fewer than 10% of complainants have an opportunity to have their case heard

by an independent adjudicator at the human rights tribunal. Under the proposed system, all applicants would have that opportunity. The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario would receive applications

directly and would be responsible for accepting, dismissing, mediating, resolving and adjudicating complaints of discrimination. In other words, we're proposing to shorten the pipeline from

complaint to resolution by putting people at the front of the line with direct access to the human rights tribunal. The tribunal would be provided with updated and enhanced statutory powers to

determine its own practices and procedures to resolve disputes fairly, quickly and effectively, and to provide for compensation for human rights violations.

Under the proposed legislation, the complaint would be filed with the tribunal. The tribunal would engage in a fact-gathering process to assist the parties to

resolve their dispute. The tribunal would assess evidence in an open and transparent process in which the parties would participate directly. The tribunal would have the capacity to ensure that all

relevant evidence is before it and would be able to compel parties to provide this information within set time limits. Claims would no longer take years and years to move forward.

Michael Gottheil, chair of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, will be charged with the task of developing the framework and the procedures for the tribunal.

During the development process he will be consulting with stakeholders and be part of the ministry's implementation advisory committee, composed of ministry, human rights commission and human

rights tribunal staff, along with all stakeholders.

For the past 40 years, since 1962, when this system was first introduced into this Legislature by Premier Robarts, there have been two pillars to our human

rights system: the commission and the tribunal. Today, with this bill, we would add a third pillar to the human rights system: full access to legal assistance. We would establish a new human rights

legal support centre to provide information, support, advice, assistance and legal representation for those who are seeking a remedy before the tribunal. This would be a vast improvement over the

current system that has been operating for some time.

All Ontarians are grateful to and proud of the hard-working, dedicated professionals who work within the human rights commission and the human rights tribunal

today. I want to pay tribute to all of them -- the experience and expertise that they have brought to our system and that they will bring to our system in the years to come. But they are working in

a system that has seen no changes or updates in more than 40 years. Currently, commission counsel do not act for complainants; they act as representatives of the public. That is the way the statute

has set out their role. A complainant only receives legal support in the current system if they retain their own lawyer at their own expense.

Under the proposed legislation, a streamlined and effective process at the tribunal would work with the parties to resolve disputes quickly and effectively.

Moreover --

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): He's a hair away from Harnicking.

Hon. Mr. Bryant: I think the justice critic for the third party will want to hear this, because he called for this before.

We would ensure that, regardless of levels of income, abilities, disabilities or personal circumstances, all Ontarians would be entitled to share in receiving

equal and effective protection of human rights, and all will receive that full legal representation.

L'Ontario fait preuve depuis longtemps de leadership dans la protection des droits de la personne.

Le système actuel date de 1962, lorsque l'Ontario a adopté le premier Code des droits de la personne au Canada. Nous montrons l'exemple dans le

soutien des droits de la personne, et nous entendons continuer.

Historically, Ontario has led the way in protecting human rights. The human rights system that was set up in 1962, in fact, was leading Canada at the time. But

a human rights system that's more than four decades old is no longer serving the public in a way that meets the realities of our diverse multicultural society.

As soon as our government took office and as soon as I became responsible for the human rights system in the government, I heard calls for change. They had

been coming for some time.

Last spring the ministry met with individuals and organizations in the fields of human rights and administrative justice to learn as much as possible about

what is working well and what could be improved. Participants were universal in their call for change and in their desire to see the human rights system strengthened. They specifically noted the

delays in the processing of discrimination complaints. Five years to remedy an injustice is unacceptable. We were told again and again that reforms were long overdue. We listened, and today we're

taking action.

This legislation is the culmination of perhaps more study and consultation than ever before in the history of this Legislature. The former NDP government

commissioned an excellent task force to review the human rights system. The Cornish report has been sitting on the shelf since 1992, and matters have only gotten worse; they have not gotten better.

The prescriptions and the problems have gotten worse; they have not gotten better.

The need for reform has increased over the years. We owe the author of that report, which inspired these proposals, Mary Cornish, a great public debt. I know

the key recommendations in her report are really the inspiration for these reforms. We would like to acknowledge that work, and acknowledge the great report and task force she put forward that we

are seeking to implement today. Thank you, Ms. Cornish.

It was the same story in 2001, when the La Forest report by former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Gérard La Forest came down. Again nothing changed.

Reviews, reports and consultations over the past several years have been strongly urged. The United Nations Human Rights Committee expressed again and again

that these recommendations had to be acted upon. The Human Rights Committee of the United Nations recommended that "human rights legislation should be amended at federal, provincial and territorial

levels and its legal system enhanced, so that all victims of discrimination have full and effective access to a competent tribunal and to an effective remedy." That was in 1999, and still nothing

happened.

I am proud and pleased that we finally have legislation before this House right now that heeds the call for reform that has been in place throughout the entire

political careers of every MPP in this House today. With this introduction of the bill, we are seeking to advance the debate. We need to continue to have public debate and consultation. That must

continue. We will continue to meet with those in the human rights community to get their input as the bill progresses through the Legislature, and I look forward to province-wide public hearings on

this bill to take place as soon as possible.

Our proposed legislation for reform is a great opportunity. I say to all people who have been involved in this debate, "I thank you." We will shorten the

pipeline by putting people at the front of the line. We're resolved to act. The opportunity for change is finally here.

I urge all members of this assembly to join me in seizing this opportunity to finally improve and modernize our human rights system.

WOMEN IN SKILLED TRADES

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Education, minister responsible for women's issues): As minister responsible for women's issues, I rise

today to reaffirm our government's commitment to promoting economic independence for women in Ontario.

Building strong communities depends on giving women the opportunity to secure sustainable and rewarding jobs in high-growth sectors. It's only when all members

of our society participate fully in all aspects of the cultural, social and economic life in this province that we can call ourselves a truly democratic and just society.

Through the Ontario Women's Directorate, the government has a number of innovative programs designed to give women the opportunity to achieve this full

participation. I am pleased today to announce a $1.5-million investment in one of these programs.

It may be a little out of order, but I brought you the WIST construction hat, which we happily donned today at this program, the women in skilled trades

program. I was going to wear the safety glasses as well, which was a requirement on the site; I think the safety glasses may actually be in order.

In any event, providing pre-apprenticeship training for low-income women who are unemployed or underemployed: This investment means up to 145 women will

receive instruction in fields such as carpentry, welding, electrical work, building construction and facilities maintenance.

This morning I had the pleasure to visit one of the colleges that receives funding through the program, Conestoga College in Guelph. Congratulations to the

Guelph campus. I saw first-hand the practical skills that women enrolled in this program have gained. But I saw something more important as well. First of all, I saw a young woman who works as a

carpenter and does a tremendous job. She had just received her first thank-you letter from homeowners for her renovation job in their home.

Our government believes all women should share this sense of confidence and determination. These women I met this morning are acting as wonderful young women,

strong mentors for our young girls. As we have said repeatedly, our job is to build strong young girls, and with today's $1.5-million investment in these non-traditional programs, we are achieving

just that.

We want to see women thrive, even in fields once thought of as solely the domain of men. What would my dad, a carpenter, have said at this morning's

announcement, to see those tremendous women doing tremendous work? They even left a little bit of work for me to do with a hammer and a nail, although I must say they made it easy. They put the

nail in halfway, so I didn't really even need to hold it, just to finish hammering it in. I thought they might have left me a little bit more of a challenge today.

But here's our goal: to see more women working at construction sites; to see more women as police officers and leaders; to see women sitting at the head of

corporate boardrooms.

Too often the focus is on one aspect, the tragic incidents we unfortunately need to face every day, but our government, with a comprehensive $68-million

domestic violence action plan, is determined to make a difference in the lives of women, and every day we are seeing tremendous examples of this.

So to the women I met in Guelph today, and to the women who are working all over different campuses that we announced today, I say a very hearty

congratulations. We are extremely pleased that the women-in-skilled-trades program is off and running and seeing success year after year. I want to tell you as well that the success rates of jobs

once they finish this training is exceptional. Congratulations to all the new carpenters, welders, electrical -- you go, girl.

HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEM

Mrs. Christine Elliott (Whitby-Ajax): I'm pleased to stand in the House today to speak for my colleagues in the PC caucus and to relay to you

some of the concerns we have regarding the human rights reform legislation introduced today by the Attorney General.

We are certainly in agreement that the current state of the Ontario Human Rights Commission needs to be addressed. The inefficiencies that exist in the system

must no doubt be remedied to provide a more effective forum in which Ontarians can freely be heard. However, the solution tabled today by the McGuinty government once again proves that this

government is not keeping its promises and is not listening to Ontarians.

It should be obvious that shifting the volume of complainants from the commission directly down the line to the tribunal does not really solve the problem of

the backlogs that the commission is currently dealing with. Not only is there no alleviation of weight from the overall system, the new proposed changes will compromise and marginalize the rights

of complainants.

Complainants who find themselves without means to pursue legal representation -- legal representation that is now accessible through the commission -- will

either be forced to drop their concerns because they cannot afford to voice them or will be forced to get in line at the less-accountable legal clinic that will not have the commission's statutory

public investigation powers the minister is proposing as part of his solution.

Furthermore, it's unclear how this clinic would even operate efficiently. It simply will not be able to represent 2,400 complainants at hearings every year

unless it gets massive new funding. The justice sector budget is flatlined every year under Liberal planning to at least 2008-09. Where is the money that's going to guarantee equal treatment of all

complainants? The current commission is an agency that is accountable to the Legislature through the Attorney General. Why are you suggesting that this more veiled approach is the answer?

your proposed legislation is insufficient to address the needs of the human rights complainants, but believes that it will worsen the situation. This is an organization with which the McGuinty

government has now broken faith.

When this group was established in 2005, they did not push for a new and independent enforcement agency because they expected the commission to play that role.

In fact, the Premier told them that a separate body would not be required. Furthermore, the Attorney General committed to giving this organization 48 hours' notice before the introduction of any

bill regarding human rights into the Legislature, but they have only received 24 hours' notice.

It seems that the McGuinty government's trend of broken promises continues. You have again demonstrated that you are not committed to listening to Ontarians,

as interested parties firmly believe that you did not consult with them adequately before the introduction of this legislation. These are organizations that represent millions of Ontarians,

organizations like the MS society, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, the Canadian Hearing Society, Community Living Ontario, and the HIV and AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario.

We hope that, given the concerns we have addressed, the minister will at least keep one promise and have transparent, accessible and open consultations

regarding this legislation with all interested parties.

WOMEN IN SKILLED TRADES

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): I'm pleased to respond on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus regarding the announcement

today. I'm very pleased, although it was not acknowledged by the minister, that this is a program that was started by my colleague the Honourable Dianne Cunningham when she was minister responsible

for women's issues. In fact, the program was started in 1999 with $5.8 million in funding, and I think it's important that it was the first program of its kind in Canada.

We had two goals in mind: We wanted to help more women to become skilled tradespeople and we wanted to address the key skills shortages in the labour market.

It was very important for us to put this program in place to create economic opportunities for women. That was a key priority that we had at that time, because we know that the skilled trades

represent stable, well-paying careers for women. Yet until we introduced that program, there were very few women who were employed in the skilled trades.

So I compliment my colleague Dianne Cunningham and our government for having the foresight. I'm glad that this government is moving forward and building on our

initiative.

HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEM

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): In response to the Attorney General, I can say to him and this House that New Democrats simply don't buy

it, nor do a whole lot of people out there across Ontario who are angry and frustrated today because they have been left out. These are the very people who rely upon the human rights commission and

use it every day. You ignored them. You slammed the door in their faces when they wanted to be consulted and part of the process.

Who are these people? They're groups like the Urban Alliance on Race Relations; Canada's Association for the Fifty Plus; the MS society; the League for Human

Rights of B'nai Brith Canada; Disabled Women's Network Ontario; Chinese Canadian National Council, Toronto chapter; National Anti-Racism Council of Canada; African-Canadian, South Asian, and Metro

You ignored them; you treated them with disdain and disregard. They're concerned about your privatization of the services of what will be left of the human

rights tribunal because, you see, the commission isn't being strengthened; you're gutting it, you're abandoning it and you're destroying it.

These folks, just like New Democrats, are concerned that you're following the same path as British Columbia, which introduced legislative reforms just like

yours some three years back, and now is suffering under a gigantic, even huger backlog. They're concerned, like New Democrats are concerned, about giving powers of investigation to the same

tribunal that will decide whether those claims have merit. What about conflict of interest? It's so fundamental, Attorney General, that it should have been at the forefront of your mind. These

folks, as are we, are concerned about the lack of firm legislative timelines that guarantee that complaints are heard and remedied in a reasonable time.

Attorney General, you should have stood up today and announced a clear plan for more funding, resources and staffing at the commission and the tribunal. You

should have stood up today and announced that the commission and tribunal will be made truly independent bodies, free from your direct supervision. You should have stood up today and announced that

the human rights commissioner will be an officer of this assembly and not a partisan political appointment by you and your government, who has no accountability to this chamber.

I tell you that New Democrats are very clear in terms of what we'll be monitoring over the course of examining and analyzing this legislation, and yes, you're

darned right there are going to be public hearings. There are going to be extensive public hearings. There aren't going to be 10- and 15-minute time slots where you can wave people out of the

committee room after giving them short shrift. There'd better be meaningful hearings with full consultation, full discussion, and this bill better not come back to the House after second reading in

committee until that committee process is thorough and complete.

I say to you that you'd better ensure that there's adequate funding for all aspects of the tribunal and a healthy commission. Don't you understand, Attorney

General? That commission resolves 48% of all complaints through mediation alone. That's incredibly low-cost, efficient and effective. That's the very same commission that you're shutting down.

You're forcing people into what you call direct access. I have no doubt that you and your private lawyer friends think this is a good plan, but I tell you, people affected by discrimination, whose

lives are impacted by discrimination on a daily basis, know that it's wrong-headed and ineffective. Quite frankly, it's a process that's going to deny them access to a tribunal and access to any

justice or fairness.

The public prosecution of complaints is essential; it's critical. I tell you that your privatization of the prosecution of complaints is going to leave huge

numbers of people out of the tribunal system and you're going to deny them any justice, any access, any remedies. Your barriers to participation in the process are aggravated by your barriers that

you're creating to participation in human rights processes at the tribunal. I say to you, Attorney General, you shouldn't be proud today; you should be ashamed. We're going to be on top of this

one, following it all the way.

WOMEN IN SKILLED TRADES

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): I'm pleased to respond to the minister responsible for women's issues and this helpful but really quite

small and inadequate announcement that adds up to about 21 cents per woman in the province of Ontario. I'm quite surprised, because the minister is taking time in this important part of the agenda

to announce such a disappointing announcement. It's really not got anything to do with the issues that women care about in the bigger scheme of things. I have to tell you that although she claims

that this government believes that all women share a sense of confidence, in reality, they've ignored the very issues that women need to be taken care of if they're going to have confidence in any

kind of system. I'm talking about a child care plan in this province that this government refuses to fund -- a $300-million promise gone. What happened to Ontario's pride in providing child care?

Those women who are taking these non-traditional trades are going to need child care if they're going to succeed in the workplace. What about affordable housing? Sixty-three units just does not cut

it for women who need affordable housing for them and their families, for their children. That does not inspire confidence.

What else doesn't inspire confidence is your willingness to talk about a domestic violence plan, but not to fund it. Less than a third is simply inadequate.

What about the national child benefit? Taking money from the poorest women --

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): My question is for the Acting Premier. Acting Premier, despite the fact that your government

claims to be reducing wait times, I would tell you the increasing number of letters that I'm receiving indicates your failure to keep that promise. Your Premier and your health minister claim that

the wait time website -- and you're advertising it right now -- is helping Ontarians. They tout the number of hits on the website as a record of that success. But the letters are telling me

differently.

I have a letter here from a constituent whose mother has been told she will have to wait 10 weeks for uterine cancer surgery that her doctor recommended be

done in four weeks. She writes: "We need financial support for operating room staff and surgical times. Referring to websites that give information about hospital wait times does nothing to

actually help people access surgical times."

Acting Premier, when are you going to help people like this woman's mother, who needs surgery now?

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Finance, Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): Everything our government does is about people just like

that woman. We would be the first to acknowledge that there is much to be done on this file, but we are proud too that, for the first time, we can actually track these things. Rather than suggest

that the website and the information we're collecting is a waste of time and rather than refer simply to individual cases, which are compelling in and of themselves, we need to make sure we have a

complete understanding, using numbers generated by an independent organization, to confirm whether in fact the policies that we're putting into place are working. We acknowledge that there continue

to be challenges for individuals and families like this, and this government is about dealing with the challenges and problems those families face, because those families are our families.

Mrs. Witmer: The government keeps saying that they're the first ones to do it. I think they need to be honest and they need to acknowledge the

fact that it was our party, our government, that built a province-wide computerized Cardiac Care Network that was able to reduce the wait times for surgery by half since 1996. So it was not the

first time.

But I would just say to you that your website and your press releases are really cold comfort to Howard Poulter of Inglewood. He was diagnosed with a double

groin hernia in December 2005. This is not a condition that you consider to be one of your five priorities. He was scheduled for surgery on February 28. On February 24 it was cancelled -- not

enough staff. On March 16 he was given March 28 as a date. On March 24 it was cancelled, again due to staff shortages. Three dates, three cancellations: What good is your website to Mr. Poulter,

who still has no date after five months of waiting?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: Again I say to the member opposite that cases like Mr. Poulter's which she has cited trouble this government, and that's

precisely why we're making the investments we're making. That's why we're concerned about your promise to cut $2.5 billion out of health care. That's why this information being collected and

analyzed is so important, because individuals like the ones she has cited and individuals like so many of us see in our constituency offices and have seen year in and year out -- I don't imagine

the member opposite, whom I've always thought to be a thoughtful and constructive participant in these discussions, would suggest for a minute that we shouldn't be collecting this information, that

we shouldn't be analyzing it and that we shouldn't be using it to determine if the actions we're taking and the money we're spending are addressing the problems. There are many people, too many

people, who wait too long. We need to understand that and use this information properly --

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

Mrs. Witmer: First of all, to the acting Premier, it was our government that started collecting data through the Cardiac Care Network. We

support this, and we think it's important. And by the way, we have never said we are going to take any money out of health care. We believe very, very strongly -- in fact, our government has an

outstanding record when it comes to health care reform. But I would say to you, people today are paying more, $2.5 billion more, for health care and they are getting less.

I've got an example here of Glen Mullen. His daughter was injured in December. She was told she'd have to wait six months, to the end of August, to see an

orthopaedic surgeon. She's also waiting to see a physiotherapist for treatment that the daughter desperately needs. Mr. Mullen says these wait times are completely unacceptable and that our health

care system fails to address basic health care needs. What is your website, that you like to tout and your Premier likes --

The Speaker: Thank you. Response?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: That member should get into the future and not the past. Your record was abysmal. You closed hospitals, fired nurses, did not

address the physician shortage. If that member and her party don't want to collect this kind of information, they're making a mistake, the same kind of mistake they made when they were in

government, and that's the main reason they're over there today.

Now, let me read another quote from someone who I know is very familiar to the member, and that is the hospital CEO in the member's riding: Dennis Egan,

president and CEO of the Grand River Hospital. "The challenge with these areas is that in the past, the hospital hasn't collected or maintained information on waiting times in these areas. We are

working with surgeons in the region to build a system that will work to increase capacity for these surgeries at Grand River Hospital, therefore reducing wait times."

We are undoing the damage you did. We reject your $2.5-billion planned cut to health care and we'll stand up for people --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, you've set out on a journey that will be a rather rough

road, in the formation of the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority. It's not going to be a smooth ride, from all assessments. The Toronto Star

article today by Ian Urquhart pretty well summed

it up. He said it's given the power, under

section 6, to promote, facilitate, coordinate -- all these soft, fuzzy words -- but at the same time it's lacking any real thrust in terms of funding. In

fact, it's really a dysfunctional board, as you've set it up here. It says that the TTC will have the money but the GTTA will be responsible for recommendations on how to spend it. Glen Grunwald,

who I think has given you some good advice, is saying that he's concerned about the lack of fiscal tools and financial responsibilities in this legislation.

Minister, the question is quite simple. Simply tell the people of Ontario who is going to pay and when and how much for this new superboard, the GTTA.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): Let me say I was very proud to introduce the legislation for the Greater Toronto

Transportation Authority in this House.

This is the situation and this is the legacy the previous government left. We have 5.5 million people who are living in the greater Toronto area and Hamilton.

Our highways are at full capacity and there is congestion everywhere on the roads. In the next 20 to 25 years, we are expecting two million more cars on the roads. The travel times will double, so

we need to move on this. We need to do something concrete, which the previous government didn't do. We need to come up with an integrated, seamless transit system and we need an organization that

can actually deliver it. So we are creating the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority, which will be responsible for the integration of a seamless transit system in this province.

Mr. O'Toole: Minister, the Premier responded to one of the questions yesterday that he was seized with the issue. It appears that this is

another example where you're seized with inaction. You've made nine commitments publicly, you've had lots of photo ops, you've memorized pretty well the script that the ministry wrote for you, but

you really don't have a plan, and that's ostensibly what this issue is about.

The GTTA, including Gord Perks, as well as Glen Grunwald -- all of the leaders in this issue -- realize that you've given them absolutely no power. In fact, if

you look at the major sections of the bill, whether it's on the governance issue or with respect to the budget, you know yourself that you have not given them any authority. That's the real issue.

You really made a lot of vacant promises again today and when you made the announcement. There's nothing in this bill to satisfy the needs, to resolve the issue you've addressed. What are you going

to do to give this board real operating authority, or do you simply lack a plan to move forward?

Hon. Mr. Takhar: Actually, the member for Durham is repeating exactly what their government did. Let me just read a couple of comments from

other people about the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority, and I will start with the chair of Durham region: "I look forward to working with the minister as the legislation goes through the

House. The coordination of transit systems across the regions and cities is an important part of smart growth."

Let me tell you what the mayor of Hamilton said: "For Hamilton, the need for a GTTA is paramount for the efficient movement of people and goods. Managing our

transportation needs requires planning and collaboration within a fiscally responsible and environmentally sustainable framework. The formation of the GTTA will move us in the right direction."

Let me tell you what the chair of York region said: "I welcome today's announcement of the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority. York region looks forward

to working with all partners of the GTTA -- "

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

Mr. O'Toole: Minister, it sounded like what Ian Urquhart said this morning, that your vehicle has simply run out of the gas. In fact, if you

look at it structurally, it's dysfunctional. You've structured the governance body in such a way that none of the regions have any authority. Toronto has four votes, and your ministry actually has

the two key positions and the key votes. In fact, you are the minister who actually, in cabinet, will approve their budget. They have no authority, they have no plan, they have no vision and they

have no leadership. Minister, you're missing. There's nobody driving the bus. We've got gridlock; I recognize that. But what's missing is that you have no plan.

Minister, just simplify the issue, the debate today, as we go forward on Bill 104. Tell the people of Ontario what it's actually going to do besides plan,

coordinate and facilitate. What's your plan? You have no plan. Let's hear it today. Go off the script for a moment, just drop the script and tell us how to solve this problem.

Hon. Mr. Takhar: There's nobody to drive the bus because they never provided any funding for the buses. That's exactly what happened. For

years and years they didn't provide any money for transit. They basically messed it up. Let me tell you what the mayor of Mississauga said: "I just want to emphasize that the backlog which was

created by the Harris government regarding transit will take a long time for the gas tax to address some of those issues." They messed it up; they didn't provide any funding.

But let me just compare it with the GTSB for a moment. They had a huge board, the Greater Toronto Services Board, and it didn't work. You know it didn't work.

It didn't have any focused mandate, either. It did everything from housing to transportation, so nothing worked. That's why we don't have --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

NUCLEAR SAFETY

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Acting Premier. We know that the McGuinty government's real energy plan is to

spend $40 billion on very expensive, unreliable and environmentally risky nuclear power plants. So today, on the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, I believe the McGuinty

government owes the people of Ontario some straight answers on nuclear power and the potential risks. Will the McGuinty government make public today any emergency plans, briefing notes or studies

in its possession that assess the impact of a potential nuclear disaster on human health, the environment and the economy?

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Finance, Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): Perhaps the member doesn't realize that nuclear safety is

regulated by the federal government. That being said, the member will know that there are six levels of nuclear incident in the world, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 -- excuse me, there are five -- and

throughout its history, Ontario has never had more than a level 2.

The Chernobyl incident was a horrible example of what can go wrong when a system isn't properly run, maintained or regulated. In the case of our province's

history, we have a history of well maintained and properly regulated nuclear assets. I'm sure the member opposite wouldn't suggest for a moment that we are in danger of a Chernobyl type of

situation. I'm sure the member would not want to be fearmongering, given our 40-year history. I would invite the member, as we begin the debate --

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

Interjection.

The Speaker: Minister. It's necessary to sit down when I stand up.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. Supplementary.

Mr. Hampton: One of the realities of life is that accidents happen. Before people buy a car, they check out the safety record or the safety

rating of the car, because you want to know what happens in case of an accident. The McGuinty government wants to spend $40 billion on mega nuclear power plants. We believe the people of Ontario

have a right to know what happens if there's a nuclear accident, because, as I say, regrettably, accidents happen. Will the McGuinty government make public all information in its possession about

what impact a nuclear accident would have on human health, the environment and the economy?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: The member opposite is presupposing that a decision has been made on new nuclear power, and he knows full well that, in spite

of his intention to fearmonger, that decision has not been made. The member would also understand there are environmental assessment processes which would consider these questions. The member would

also understand that before a nuclear decision could even be contemplated, the federal nuclear regulating agency has a whole series of processes available to it that are designed in fact to assess

these very issues. That's why it will take somewhere between seven and 10 years, if Ontario were to make the decision to do new nuclear or indeed even to refurbish on existing sites. Those

processes are in place. The history is there.

The member is right that accidents do happen. There's no question about that. But I say to the member, the history is solid. The processes are there in place

to assess. To suggest that these decisions have been made or that there's no opportunity to discuss them in a full and meaningful way, with factual information --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister. Final supplementary.

Mr. Hampton: It seems that either the McGuinty government hasn't done its homework on this issue or you don't want this information in the

hands of the public. Either way, the people of Ontario deserve better before you embark on a $40-billion nuclear mega project scheme.

Energy Probe's Tom Adams says Ontario has had "two near misses at the Pickering nuclear power plant that should have deterred any government from considering

nuclear power any further." So I ask my question again: Will the McGuinty government make public all information in its possession regarding the impact of a nuclear accident on human health, the

environment and the economy?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: That information is well known, well understood and well publicized, I think, by the vast majority of Ontarians. Maybe the

member opposite sees some benefit in this type of questioning.

Let me say this: I don't put a lot of faith in Mr. Adams's views on nuclear power.

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): He's been opposed to everything.

Hon. Mr. Duncan: He's been opposed to everything. That's right. Unlike you, we don't want to triple the price of electricity in this province.

That's what your plan's about. That's what you're saying.

There has been no decision made on new nuclear or the redevelopment of existing nuclear. There is a public debate that has begun. We look forward to that,

working through the environmental assessment processes, working with the federal regulator, working, by the way, with the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission, which also tracks this. That

information is well available to members and to all people of this province. The debate is open, it's clear, it's tough. We're going to come to terms with it. The member opposite may deal in

fiction all he wants, but I can assure you this government will do --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

Mr. Hampton: To the Acting Premier: The MPP for Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge understands nuclear power's grave risks. Earlier this month, he told

this Legislature about his experience as mayor of Pickering, of getting warning calls about big problems at the Pickering nuclear plants. He said that experience has led him to support a new

emergency management act, because he believes "something of that magnitude will require ... a Premier or the cabinet to be able to declare an emergency in a large area." Your own member, the former

mayor of Pickering, is concerned about the risks of nuclear power.

I simply ask: If he's concerned, will you table all reports, any studies, any information, any emergency plans to deal with a potential nuclear accident?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: The member referred to is my parliamentary assistant, who I know is a great supporter of nuclear power, and yes, he is a

great supporter of proper accountability in emergency situations. That's why he supported the emergency measures bill that we brought in and that you, sir, voted against.

I remind the member opposite that in fact these discussions were held. Many of the protocols are available in public already, not only through the government

of Ontario but, more importantly, through the nuclear regulator that files annual reports, not only in Ottawa but also with the United Nations. I would invite the member to start looking for those

things. They're quite available, they're quite public, and I'm not going to do your work for you.

What I am going to do is ensure that we have a rational discussion about this, that we ensure, if a decision is made for new nuclear refurbishment, that we

have the proper measures in place. We brought forward legislation. You voted against it. Our legislation was the right step, and we're going to continue to ensure the health and safety --

The Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Hampton: What's puzzling here is that the McGuinty government has the $40-billion nuclear megaproject scheme, but when I ask you where the

plans are to deal with a potential nuclear accident, you say that's somebody else's responsibility.

Even your community safety minister has concerns about risks of nuclear power. This is what he said: "When an emergency happens -- it doesn't matter whether

it's the avian flu, another pandemic of some sort ... a nuclear accident ... we have to respond immediately." So if you have a scheme for $40 billion of nuclear power plants, I'm simply asking

you today, where are the studies, where are the plans, where are the assessments of what would happen in the case of a nuclear accident?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: First of all, the member is presupposing that a decision has been taken. I don't know where he gets the $40-billion

figure.

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General): They make it up.

Hon. Mr. Duncan: He does. He makes it up. He just makes it up. There's no validity, no balance. There's nobody outside of that member's

research office who will confirm that number.

There's no doubt that this government does worry about nuclear safety. We are one of the largest operators of nuclear reactors in the world, and that's why we

rely on the federal nuclear regulatory agency. That's why we rely on the United Nations. That's why we're at the forefront. If you look at our safety record, you'll find it's one of the best in the

world, that we've never even gotten close to a level 3 incident, in spite of what Mr. Adams and others may want to argue.

There has been, and there will continue to be as decisions are made, full public participation, environmental assessment, federal and international regulatory

oversight. I'm satisfied that the system is proper --

The Speaker: Thank you. Final supplementary?

Mr. Hampton: The risk of nuclear power plants is one issue, and we see here that you don't want to provide an answer. The other question is

the storage of all of the very toxic nuclear waste that those nuclear plants would generate. When we ask you where you are going to store the nuclear waste, your response is, "Well, that's someone

else's responsibility too." That's like dumping your garbage in a public park and then saying it's somebody else's job to pick it up.

You are the one with the $40-billion nuclear power scheme. You should have a plan, you should have the assessments, you should have the reports on what happens

in the case of a nuclear accident. You should have a storage plan. Where is it? If you're a responsible government, where are the plans to deal with nuclear accidents and the storage of nuclear

waste? And please don't say it's someone else's responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Duncan: Surely the member opposite is not suggesting that the operator of nuclear plants should be the one regulating the nuclear

plants. That's exactly what he's saying. That's why the federal government regulates not only the operation but the disposal of nuclear waste.

The nuclear waste we have today is stored on-site, a policy that his government followed through on for five years. The federal government, quite properly, the

federal regulator -- and it should be regulated federally because we're the operator. That's a safety precaution. You don't want, as you had in Chernobyl, the operator acting as the regulator. That

was part of the problem at Chernobyl. You probably don't read below the headlines, but if you read what happened, that's precisely why we have the motto we have in Canada.

So I reject his idea that the operator should be the regulator. I reject his notion that the provincial government should not be subject to scrutiny, not only

by a federal regulator but by an international regulator. That's why we'll protect the safety of Ontarians, far more than --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): To the Minister of Transportation: Caledonia and the surrounding area is experiencing traffic

chaos as a result of the land dispute and the road blockades. As you would know, Minister, Caledonia's main thoroughfare, Argyle Street, is blocked. Provincial Highway 6 is blocked. We have some

very serious transportation issues, and I limit my question to transportation. It's a very simple question. What are you doing, Minister of Transportation, to ensure the proper routing of traffic

around Caledonia?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): To the minister responsible for native affairs, please.

Hon. David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources, minister responsible for aboriginal affairs): We are very concerned about the disruption of

traffic flow into and around Caledonia. So are the OPP because of the curtailment, potentially, of emergency vehicles, police vehicles, when needed. The OPP have been having daily meetings with

representatives from the Six Nations about this situation, and it's been going on there. It is also the prime topic of discussion in today's meeting, which has started already, to get the community

back to normalcy. Removing the barricades and getting normal traffic flow is the first job of those discussions.

Mr. Barrett: Minister of Transportation, these are questions I'm getting from motorists, from truckers, from e-mails I'm getting. My questions

solely focus on issues around signage; traffic routing; narrow back roads; the overloading of bridges; Nanticoke industrial park; there's a problem of access obviously down to Port Dover,

Hagersville, Cayuga. Also, with respect, Minister, on signage: Many people don't realize that Caledonia is open for business.

Minister of Transportation, drivers are getting furious. It's a road issue. Why can you not present a comprehensive answer and an approach? At minimum, present

a transportation plan to enable those of us in the area to accommodate these problems. It's a road question. I leave it with you. We're asking for a plan, Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I would assure --

Mr. Barrett: Wrong minister.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Well, I'm going give you the answer, because this minister has been working with the OPP. MTO has installed temporary

messaging signs all around this area, alerting people to what roads are closed at the moment, what routes are open, what are the best traffic flow options for them. I suggest maybe you drive around

in your riding there. You would see these signs because they're up there and they're there for the people. We're working with the people, making sure they're informed as to what's the best routing.

As I said to you, this is job one for us right now. We want to get the community back to normal operation, because that's what's good for both communities there and that's what we're working

on.

HEALTH CARE

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is to the Acting Premier. In his first budget, Dalton McGuinty hit working families with

a very unfair, regressive health tax. Under that health tax, high-income people, people with an income of, say, $500,000 a year, got hit with a 3% tax increase. But low-income people, people with

incomes of $30,000 a year, got hit with a punishing 24% tax increase. Now, in that context, can you explain why, under the McGuinty government, low-income families, immigrants and aboriginals are

paying more for health care, but according to the Ontario Health Quality Council they have less access to health care?

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Finance, Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): The report that's out today suggests strongly that this

government is, in fact, going in the right direction in health care. First of all, we're measuring wait times. Second of all, we're identifying those priority areas. Third of all, by our

investments we're ensuring public health care in Ontario that's open and accessible to all the people of this province, regardless of their income level. That record involves reducing wait times on

such important procedures as cardiac surgeries. Cancer wait times, region by region, are down. The investments that we've made, the $2.6 billion from the health premium, have been invested in those

wait times. They're coming down. The government acknowledges that there's more to do, the government acknowledges that the challenges are great, but this government remains committed to public

health care and to ensuring that all people have equal and fair access to the health care system that we --

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

Mr. Hampton: Acting Premier, here's the report. It makes it very clear that under the McGuinty government, the lowest-income Ontarians are

having less access to health care than in the past.

One of the things that Mr. McGuinty did in his first budget was he cut optometry services, delisted optometry services. When he did it, he promised that no one

who needed eye exams for medical reasons would have to go without. So how does the McGuinty government explain the Ontario Health Quality Council's finding that half of Ontario's newly diagnosed

diabetics aren't getting eye exams within a year, even though they are supposed to get them and they need to get them in order to prevent blindness?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: First of all, the member neglects to answer that that number hasn't changed since we took office; that's number one. So we

want to make sure we get all the facts. In terms of those who are in most need, there are 22 new health care centres that serve underserviced and poorer communities. Aboriginal communities and

other at-risk communities like Malvern and others are getting these community health centres, which you voted against.

I'd remind the member opposite that his party cut $268 million from hospitals in 1994-95. You cut funding to OHIP by $315 million. You, sir, voted for that.

Mental health: That member voted for a $23.5-million cut in 1992-93, and you voted for a $42.4-million cut to mental health in 1994-95. You voted to cut the Ontario drug benefit. You hurt the

poorest --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Ms. Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, there's been a lot of speculation in the

last few days of a deal on softwood lumber. As you know, Tembec is a major employer in my area and an important corporate citizen, and of course forestry is so very vitally important to all of the

north. News stories are starting to emerge this afternoon that a deal has been reached in the softwood lumber dispute. Can you tell us anything about the details?

Hon. David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources, minister responsible for aboriginal affairs): We are hearing, through our negotiators who

are representing Ontario and are in Washington today and have been involved in the last couple of days in discussions, that there is a framework arrangement agreed to between Canada and the United

States. It looks to be particularly disadvantageous to Ontario, despite Ontario's stressing to the Canadian ambassador that the volume of the quota that will come needs to be based on our

historical trading patterns with the United States, which would bring us anywhere from 10% to 12%. It looks like it's something below 10%. This will have a negative impact on our northern

communities.

Ms. Smith: Minister, this is very discouraging and disturbing to our northern communities. You have described this agreement as being

disadvantageous to Ontario. Can you explain a little bit how this will impact on our communities in the north that are so dependent on this industry?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: What this means is that we could see more downsizing in our mills, because we've now had our ability to export lumber into

the United States restricted by an agreement that the federal government has signed on to. I would say to the members here that the McGuinty government stands for Ontario, stands for the Ontario

industry, and we will not sign on to an agreement that puts Ontario at a disadvantage.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): A question for the Deputy Premier: Two months ago, Premier McGuinty told the Ottawa Citizen that he would not

address skyrocketing property assessments because he "didn't run on it." Of course, the minister knows that Dalton McGuinty didn't exactly run on pit bull bans or tax hikes or abolishing the Senate

either. Now Dalton McGuinty finally says that his government is suddenly seized with the issue. Small wonder. There's a growing and increasingly powerful coalition of taxpayer groups, seniors'

associations and municipalities getting behind caps on increased property assessments. The latest is CAPTR, the Coalition After Property Tax Reform, holding a press conference tomorrow. I hope the

minister will take time to attend. Minister, will you entertain CAPTR's proposal to cap assessment increases at 5% per year?

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): "Please fix the problem we

created."

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Finance, Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): That's the question. "We created a problem. Now fix it."

Yes, you're right, the Premier has looked hard at this issue and we found a huge mess with the property tax system, one that you left, one that you did not address meaningfully in eight years. I

have said before, and I'll say it again, a cap on property taxes may in fact cause more problems than it solves. What we are saying --

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Education, minister responsible for women's issues): How many bills did they have?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: It was I think eight bills; not one, not two, not three, not four, not five, not six, not seven, they had eight attempts and

they didn't get it right.

The other thing is that MPAC is an expensive operation. I know the member's not suggesting that we should keep MPAC running and not use it, and pay for it. I

know the member would like to reflect the views of other groups and other municipalities that are concerned about the capping recommendation. This is a difficult issue. We look forward to further

discussions with the member opposite, with the opposition, and we look forward to meeting with the ratepayers' groups we have talked to already --

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

Mr. Hudak: To an extent, like one of my colleagues once said, trying to track down Dalton McGuinty on the issue is like trying to nail Jell-O

to the wall; he seems to be all over the place on this issue. I would point out that is --

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I said it first.

Mr. Hudak: I'll give Mr. Hampton credit for it. He was right.

Minister, I say with respect, you've had three years to address this issue. Dalton McGuinty said as soon as two months ago that he wasn't going to do anything

about it. You in fact did, Minister, have one bill, and in that bill, you will recall, Bill 83, then-Finance Minister Sorbara indefinitely delayed assessment averaging. The minister knows full well

that assessment averaging would have smoothed out the skyrocketing assessments for the last assessment. Does the minister now regret abolishing assessment averaging or is he bringing that back on

the table like caps are back on the table?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: What I regret is that, if the member is so concerned, why didn't he do anything about it? Here's what his own local newspaper

said, the Welland Tribune. The headline says, "Hudak's Party Created Tax Problem." Here's what his colleague John Yakabuski said, when asked if the former government under Harris bungled the

property tax evaluation system, "Apparently so."

I would say, sir --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Duncan: "Apparently so" is absolutely right. Unlike the member opposite, we are looking at this in a constructive way. We want to get

it right. It has caused too much uncertainty and too much anxiety. This requires a careful, thorough, thoughtful review. We're committed to that, and we're committed to get right what that member

and his party didn't get right, not once, not twice, but eight times.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): A question to the Acting Premier. Kathy Borisenko is co-chair of the family advisory council at Rapelje

Lodge. She's a personal witness to the growing crisis of humiliation, boredom and ill health among Ontario seniors in long-term care. Her once-dignified father, Sam Dickson, in the final years of

his life, had occasion to look up at her with tears running down his face, saying, "I had to go to the bathroom, but there was no one to take me." You see, Mr. Dickson had soiled himself.

Minister, during the election, you and Mr. McGuinty promised $6,000 more per resident for things like basic personal care. When are you going to keep that

promise?

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Finance, Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I'll remind the member that we have indeed moved great

steps to do that: First of all, a $740-million, 35% increase since taking office, from $2.1 billion to $2.84 billion -- $151 million this year alone, 5.8%. Results to date: 2,334 new staff,

including 472 new nursing positions on the way to our target of 600; a long list of other initiatives; new regulations -- and I congratulate the member from Nipissing for all of her good work on

this file -- new regulation 205 for 24/7 RNs and two baths per week; increases to the comfort allowance for those most vulnerable in our long-term-care homes; freezing resident copayment fees until

July 2006; and $385,000 to support family and resident councils.

We acknowledge that there's much to do; we acknowledge that there's more that can be done. We're moving as quickly and prudently as we can to ensure that the

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

Mr. Kormos: Sir, you had a $3-billion windfall in unexpected revenue and you chose to dedicate $1.2 billion of it to accelerating a tax break

for banks and insurance companies.

At Rapelje Lodge and across Ontario, seniors "wind up in wheelchairs, not able to move, not able to dress themselves, not able to eat." They're not getting the

$6,000 per senior that you promised. They're not getting the daily hours of personal care that you promised. Nurses and personal support workers are stretched to the limit, and you know it. And in

Niagara, you cut the 3% inflationary funding increase in half, leaving Niagara with a $860,000 budget shortfall.

Minister, when are you going to keep your promises to these seniors -- our folks and grandfolks -- who worked so hard and built so much in this province?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: We are keeping our promise, and we're keeping it in a way that no previous government has done. No government has put the

interests of seniors in long-term-care homes or complex continuing care facilities higher on the agenda than this government has.

I have some personal knowledge of this. Both of my parents are in complex continuing care. The care they receive is outstanding. The amount of care they have

has increased in the last three years. The type of care they get from dedicated RNAs and RNs is second to none anywhere in the world, I would suggest.

There is more to be done. We will not leave our seniors behind. We have invested more in health care. That government -- his government -- cut health care, and

he voted for those cuts. He personally voted for them.

We're moving in the right direction. We have more to do -- there will always be more to do -- but we're doing it, and we're doing it better than anyone before

us. We're proud of our record in long-term care.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Tony C. Wong (Markham): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. On Monday, I had the great pleasure of participating in yet

another landmark McGuinty government announcement: the creation of the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority, or GTTA.

As a member of this government's 905 caucus, I am confident that the proposed legislation will benefit Markham commuters through coordinated fares and transit

services. In the words of Markham Board of Trade president Keith Bray, "This initiative will have a huge" -- and may I add positive -- "impact on the long-term resolution of Markham's traffic

issues. With a workforce that comes from all across the GTA and will continue to grow, we in Markham welcome this announcement."

Minister, could you please explain how this newly proposed Greater Toronto Transportation Authority will make commuting easier for people living in my riding

of Markham and across the GTA?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): Let me start by saying that congestion is a serious issue in the GTA area, and there are

more people moving to the GTA, including the Markham area, which the member represents.

But this congestion didn't just happen. Let me just give you some numbers, what kind of money the previous government spent on transit. Maybe that will give

some answers to the member from Durham, who, actually, has left the House. In 1995-96, when the previous government took over, spending on transit was $666 million. In 1999 and 2000, the investment

in transit was $64.5 million -- from $666 million to $64.5 million. In 2000 and 2001, it became $38 million. This year we will be spending, without including GO Transit, around $860 million on

public transit.

Mr. Wong: As acknowledged in your speech at the Markham Board of Trade this past January, traffic congestion results in lost time, lower

productivity and higher transportation costs for businesses. For employees, the stress of the daily commute on congested roads negatively affects the quality of their life and work. With the

opening of the Milliken GO station in Markham, our investment of over $14.8 million in York region public transit from October 2004 to 2006 through gas tax funding and, as announced in this year's

budget, our $1.2-billion investment in Move Ontario, this government has shown that we are committed to creating positive change for Markham's commuters and business community. In addition to these

major investments, Minister, can you please tell my constituents what our government is doing to improve public transit.

Hon. Mr. Takhar: I want to thank the member from Markham for his question. He is absolutely right. We are spending $1.2 billion in Move

Ontario. But in addition to that, we're spending $850 million in transit as well. When people travel from one place to another, they don't see municipal boundaries. They want to just travel from

one place to another. They want to do so in a convenient and reliable manner. So our government's plan is to make sure that the municipalities can get together and develop a long-term plan that can

address congestion on the highways. All we are concerned about is that people be able to travel in an integrated and seamless way from one place to another and that their travel time is reduced.

That's what our objective is. That's why we created the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority. I'm very proud of the fact that this legislation is in front of the Legislature, and I look forward

to everyone's support.

NORTHERN ONTARIO

HERITAGE FUND

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Minister, I note that the Premier

made a rare trip to Thunder Bay today, to make an announcement. He announced $2.2 million from the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp., funding for a cancer and cardiac research centre. However,

the local Liberal member, the MPP for Thunder Bay-Superior North, Michael Gravelle, disagrees with this kind of funding. I'd like to quote from Hansard. He said, "Certainly in reference to the

northern Ontario heritage fund, I think it has become almost farcical how it is now being used by the government basically as a means to fund programs and services that may be very, very valuable

but should be coming from the Ministry of Health." So my question is, why is the funding for this health project coming from the northern Ontario heritage fund; why not from the Ministry of

Health?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): The answer is very, very simple. It's because we've changed the mandate of

the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp. Do you know what the previous government -- the Harris-Eves government, the government in which this member from Parry Sound-Muskoka was the parliamentary

assistant for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines -- used to do? They funded golf courses, golf tournaments. They funded things that didn't create employment. When we took power, we

decided that we would change the mandate of the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp. to one that created prosperity in northern Ontario, that created jobs. That's why we funded that project.

Mr. Miller: Minister, surely you should have been able to find the funds. You're collecting an extra $2.5 billion in your illegal health tax,

so surely some of that could have been used for this.

This was a good-news announcement, but as usual there are very few details in the announcement. Can you give the time lines for when the research centre will

open, how many years until the research centre opens?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bartolucci: I don't know. I don't like it, but I want to know the details about it so that we can try to take credit for it,

maybe.

Let me tell you what I will tell you. The Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp. with its changed mandate has to date approved $151 million toward 571 projects

in northern Ontario. Now sit back, member from Parry Sound-Muskoka, because, unlike you, we have created 5,607 total net direct jobs. That's direct jobs. Our contribution has leveraged $506 million

to the communities of northern Ontario. The member from Parry Sound-Muskoka may want to fund golf tournaments. They may want to return to the old way. We want to create jobs.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday, ABP Recycling in Hamilton filed for a

judicial review of your ministry's --

Interjections.

Ms. Horwath: Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to ask a question.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Stop the clock. The member from Hamilton East has a point.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I can wait.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Minister of Labour.

The member for Hamilton East.

Ms. Horwath: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize if I was inappropriate in my remark a minute ago. It's an important issue for my

community. Yesterday, ABP Recycling in Hamilton filed for a judicial review of your ministry's director's order. In that application, they stated that you actually have neither the authority nor

the jurisdiction over their particular operations. Only due to the actions of the city of Hamilton, as you know, did your ministry finally take action this past month on ABP's illegal wastewater

dumping into our sewer system.

Minister, your ministry has already allowed ABP to operate for several years without a proper certificate of approval. I know you're aware of this. In this

light, what are you doing to ensure that your director's order will stand and not be stayed during ABP's appeal?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten (Minister of the Environment): I think it is important for me to indicate clearly to the member opposite that absolutely

every suggestion that a facility's activities may violate the province's environmental laws is taken very seriously by my ministry. Based on information that was received and provided by the city

staff, my ministry undertook an inspection of this facility. The ministry's inspection determined that the facility was undertaking some activities for which it did not have the requisite approvals

from my ministry, and my ministry promptly ordered the facility to cease these activities until it applied for and received the requisite approvals.

Now, at the present time, the company has appealed my ministry's order to the Environmental Review Tribunal, and as the member opposite can surely understand,

the matter is before the court and it would be highly inappropriate for me to argue that case here in the Legislature.

Ms. Horwath: You've already reviewed the history, and it's a fact that you've already failed east Hamilton residents by not ensuring the

certificate of approval actually existed in the first place. Now the company, as you know, wants to expand its facilities despite the fact they've shown very little regard for environmental

standards. It's clear to everybody that your ministry lacks the teeth to effectively clamp down on corporate polluters.

My question is very specific to the procedure we're now in. We know there is a court procedure, but what we need to know, what the residents of Hamilton East

need to know, is that you, as the Minister of the Environment, are prepared to ensure that your director's order will not be stayed during the ABP appeal.

Hon. Ms. Broten: I guess I will take some time to review the facts again. On March 27, 2006, the ministry issued the company a provincial

officer's order, as we have the authority to do, indicating that the company was required to (1) discontinue accepting sewage until it had received the ministry's approval; (2) apply for the

ministry's approval to transfer and process waste; and (3) apply to amend its existing waste system approval to haul sewage.

The company appealed that order to the ERT and the company has also indicated that it will apply for a judicial review of the order. That matter is now before

the courts. The matter will be decided by a court, and it is not appropriate to comment on this matter before the Legislature. Perhaps my friend does not understand how court proceedings operate,

but I can tell you these matters are before the courts and they will be determined in that forum.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I have a question to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Minister, with today's announcement

regarding the impact on the forest industry, we're seeing a lot of changes coming forward and we're seeing a lot of displaced workers in the forest industry. Do you have a program, with all the

jobs and the great things that you have come forward with and mentioned, that is going to assist these displaced workers in the forest industry for other working areas in northern Ontario?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I think the people of northern Ontario clearly understand that finally they

have a government that cares; finally they have a government that is willing to work with municipalities to try to find the answers. Whenever one job is lost in northern Ontario, it's of concern to

this government. That's why, after listening to municipalities across northern Ontario, our northern prosperity plan addresses the critical need that was lacking before, and that's the integration

of all levels of government in coming together to try to find solutions. When we hear things like the Minister of Natural Resources said earlier, when we hear that the federal government is selling

out Ontario with regard to the softwood lumber settlement, we have great concerns.

Mr. Ouellette: My question was about the displaced workers and how you're going to be able to help them. There is a lot of concern within the

forest industry, which is one of the lifebloods of northern Ontario, about how you're going to assist those individuals, to reintegrate them in areas that are of high concern. For example,

Minister, I know that skilled trades, as mentioned earlier on, is one of the areas where there's a shortfall in northern Ontario. Have you got anything coming forward that will assist these

individuals to move forward in areas such as skilled trades or other areas that can help the north?

Hon. Mr. Bartolucci: The reality is that this is the responsibility of the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, and I turn the

question over to him.

Hon. Christopher Bentley (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): As the member should know, we have something called the advisory

adjustment process. As soon as there is a layoff or even a notice of a layoff in a particular community, the first thing that happens is that we contact the company, the union, if there is one, and

the head of the community to advise them of adjustment advisory activities. That can include counselling; it can include direction to a job retraining facility.

On top of that, because we've now signed the labour market development and partnership agreements that your party decided not to sign for eight years, we're

now getting new funding to build a stronger adjustment process so that people can go on to the type of skilled training they'll need to remain in their communities and get good jobs for the future.

That's going to be the future of job training: an integrated process that ensures people get the training they need for the jobs they need to ensure the prosperity that we all want in the province

of Ontario.

KASHECHEWAN FIRST NATION

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): My question is to the Acting Premier. You will know that the community of Kashechewan has been

devastated yet again, with the third evacuation this season. You will know that the damage is fairly extensive. The water plant has now been damaged fairly extensively by overflowing water, and

also the sewer; the intake line is gone. Forty houses have been damaged to the point they need to be rebuilt, the same 40 houses as last year. The nursing station has been damaged; the airport has

been damaged; the roads have been damaged; the dike is damaged. It goes on and on.

We need a commitment from this government that you're prepared to work with us in order to accelerate moving the community from its present location to higher

ground, so that we don't have to go through this every spring. Will you do that with us?

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Finance, Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): To the minister responsible for aboriginal issues.

Hon. David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources, minister responsible for aboriginal affairs): On Monday, I travelled to Ottawa to talk to

the federal minister of aboriginal affairs, Minister Jim Prentice, about this very issue. As the member who represents the community knows, this is the third evacuation now in 12 months. In regard

to the flooding, this almost becomes an annual routine for this community because of the siting of this community.

We also know about the infrastructure damage that has occurred to this community over the years. It's certainly Ontario's wish to work with the First Nation

community to find them a new permanent home.

PETITIONS

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): I have a petition on behalf of my constituents and it reads as follows:

"Whereas, without appropriate support, people who have an intellectual disability are often unable to participate effectively in community life and are

deprived of the benefits of society enjoyed by other citizens; and

"Whereas quality supports are dependent on the ability to attract and retain qualified workers; and

"Whereas the salaries of workers who provide community-based supports and services are up to 25% less than salaries paid to those doing the same work in

government-operated services and other sectors;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to address, as a priority, funding to community agencies in the developmental services

sector to address critical underfunding of staff salaries and ensure that people who have an intellectual disability continue to receive quality supports and services that they require in order to

live meaningful lives in their community."

I think of people in the riding of Durham. I support this petition.

COMMUNITY MEDIATION

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly, and I'd like to thank Hailey Clarke for bringing me

the signatures. It reads as follows:

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

in the dispute; and

"Whereas Inter-Cultural Neighbourhood Social Services established the Peel Community Mediation Service in 1999 with support from the government of Ontario

through the Trillium Foundation, the Rotary Club of Mississauga West and the United Way of Peel, and has proven the viability and success of community mediation; and

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

Peel Community Mediation Service as an alternative to a court dispute; and

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

of community mediation in Peel region would be much greater than the small annual cost of funding community mediation;

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

Peel Community Mediation Service through Inter-Cultural Neighbourhood Social Services."

This is an excellent petition. I'm pleased to support it, to affix my signature and to ask page Billy to carry it for me.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I have a petition provided to me, by the St. Andrew's Terrace long-term care facility at 255 St. Andrews

Street in Cambridge, Ontario, addressed 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 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 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;

"We, the undersigned, who are members of the 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)."

I affix my name thereto.

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): I have a petition that was sent to me by Mr. Fred Haggart, president of the Madonna long-term-care

facility family and friends' council, on behalf of that facility. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas long-term-care service funding levels in Ontario must be improved in order to facilitate additional staffing and lengthen the hours of care provided

by our facility;

"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 as follows:

"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."

I appreciate all the good intentions of the Madonna long-term-care facility and hereby affix my signature. I will send this up with page Julian.

MACULAR DEGENERATION

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

"Whereas the government of Ontario's health insurance plan covers treatments for one form of macular degeneration (wet), and there are other forms of macular

degeneration (dry) that are not covered,

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the government of Ontario as follows:

"There are thousands of Ontarians who suffer from macular degeneration, resulting in loss of sight if treatment is not pursued. Treatment costs for this

disease are astronomical for most individuals and add a financial burden to their lives. Their only alternative is loss of sight. We believe the government of Ontario should cover treatment for all

forms of macular degeneration through the Ontario health insurance program."

As I believe in it, I affix my signature.

COMMUNITY MEDIATION

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I received a petition from Mr. Singh, who lives on King Street in Mississauga, Ontario:

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

in the dispute; and

"Whereas Inter-Cultural Neighbourhood Social Services established the Peel Community Mediation Service in 1999 with support from the government of Ontario

through the Trillium Foundation, the Rotary Club of Mississauga West and the United Way of Peel, and has proven the viability and success of community mediation; and

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

Peel Community Mediation Service as an alternative to a court dispute; and

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

of community mediation in Peel region would be much greater than the small annual cost of funding community mediation;

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

Peel Community Mediation Service through Inter-Cultural Neighbourhood Social Services."

I will give it to the page.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have a petition here from the good folks at People Care Tavistock, the long-term-care facility there, and it's

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;

"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)."

I affix my signature, as I agree with the good folks at People Care Tavistock.

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

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

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

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

of the Ontario Historical Society; and

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

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

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

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

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

I want to thank the good people of ReMax Wasaga Beach who sent me that petition.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as

follows:

"Whereas the McGuinty government is committed to improving public transit and eliminating gridlock;

"Whereas the McGuinty government understands that public transit over the course of the past 10 years has been in a constant state of decline;

"Whereas this means that residents of the city of Toronto and Scarborough have seen this decline in the form of bus routes being eliminated from various remote

areas and wait times for buses have doubled from 30 minutes to an hour and even more in some cases;

"Whereas this decline has also seen necessary repairs being delayed to the point where transit services such as subway travel are marked by increased delays

along subway routes;

"Whereas the Scarborough LRT is on its last leg and is on the verge of becoming obsolete and through neglect and inaction will create further transit stress

for the residents of Scarborough;

"Whereas public transit in other jurisdictions, such as New York state, is funded by all levels of government and the TTC has been supported solely by the city

of Toronto;

"Whereas, as populations across the GTA and in the province of Ontario continue to grow ... ;

"Whereas the TTC in the past has not received any substantial money or support to expand the subway system ... ;

"Whereas the McGuinty government upon taking office on October 23, 2003, has taken steps to remedy this steady state of decline;

"Whereas the McGuinty government is the first government in 10 years to restore a steady, constant and, for the first time, a growing source of cash support

for transit authorities through its implementation of a two-cents-a-litre gas tax initiative ... ;

"Whereas the McGuinty government views transit as such a high priority that they have convinced the federal government to come to the table and support public

transit in the form of capital funding and ongoing federal gas tax revenue subsidies;

"Whereas the McGuinty government's efforts have been so successful that the federal government is committing an additional $1 billion in transit expansion

funding;

"We, the undersigned, support and continue to encourage the McGuinty government's commitment to public transit."

I support this petition. I affix my signature to it and give it to page Vanessa.

GASOLINE PRICES

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

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the price of gas is reaching historic price levels; and

"Whereas provincial and federal governments have done nothing to protect consumers from high gas prices; and

"Whereas provincial tax on gas is 14 cents per litre and federal tax is 10 cents per litre, plus 8% GST; and

"Whereas these taxes have a detrimental impact on the economy and are unfair to commuters who rely on vehicles to travel to work; and

"Whereas the province has the power to set the price of gas and has taken responsibility for energy prices in other areas, such as hydro and natural gas;

and

"Whereas we call on the province to remove the 14.7-cents-per-litre gas tax and on the federal government to eliminate the 10-cent gas tax, plus 8% GST, which

amounts to 30% or more;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and urge the Premier to take action and to also persuade the federal government to remove

its gas taxes."

I support the petition, and I affix my signature.

BORDER SECURITY

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I just received a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the United States government, through the western hemisphere travel initiative, is proposing that American citizens require a passport or

single-purpose travel card to travel back and forth across the Canadian border; and

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

barrier to many visitors; and

"Whereas this will mean the loss of up to 3.5 million US visitors in Ontario, losses of" -- over -- " $700 million, and the loss of 7,000 jobs in the Ontario

tourism industry by the end of 2008; and

"Whereas many of the northern border states in the United States have expressed similar concerns regarding the substantial economic impact of the

implementation of this plan; and

"Whereas the safe and efficient movement of people across the border is vital to the economies of both of our countries;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support the establishment of a bi-national

group to consider alternatives to the proposed border requirements and inform Prime Minister Harper that his decision to not pursue this issue with the United States is ill-advised."

I'll affix my name to this petition.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs. Julia Munro (York North): "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;

"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)."

As I am in agreement, I've affixed my signature.

PUBLIC EDUCATION

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): I have a petition, and this is a bit shorter than the last one. It's addressed to the

Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the people of Ontario demand a quality public education system that will give our children the tools to compete with the world; and

"Whereas Premier McGuinty and the Liberal caucus are fighting for our future by implementing a positive plan to improve our public schools, including smaller

class sizes;

"Whereas the Conservative Party and John Tory want to take millions from public education to literally pay people to withdraw their children from the public

system and send them to elite private schools";

Mr. Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): Where you went.

Mr. Berardinetti: I went to public school.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support Premier McGuinty in his commitment to giving our children a ladder to success

through excellent public education and not spend taxpayer dollars to benefit the few who can afford private school tuitions."

I agree with this petition. I affix my signature to it and give it to page Philippe, with me here today.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SECURITIES TRANSFER ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LE TRANSFERT

DES VALEURS MOBILIÈRES

Mr. Phillips moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 41,

An Act to create a comprehensive system of rules for the transfer of securities that is consistent with such rules across North America and to make

consequential amendments to various Acts / Projet de loi 41, Loi instituant un régime global de règles régissant le transfert des valeurs mobilières qui cadre avec celui

qui s'applique dans ce domaine en Amérique du Nord et apportant des modifications corrélatives à diverses lois.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Michael Prue): Mr. Phillips has moved second reading of Bill 41,

An Act to create a comprehensive system of rules for

the transfer of securities that is consistent with such rules across North America and to make consequential amendments to various Acts.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Dispense.

The Acting Speaker: The member of government services -- I mean the Minister of Government Services. You've got me going here.

Hon. Gerry Phillips (Minister of Government Services): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That was not the

short title you read there. The

short title is

the Securities Transfer Act.

I'll just mention I will be sharing my time with my colleague, my parliamentary assistant, the member for Guelph-Wellington, on this important bill.

I'm pleased to rise to begin debate on it. The bill, if passed, will update legislation to help ensure that On