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

April 22, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-Apr-22 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 22 April 2008 Mardi 22 avril 2008

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NIAGARA WEEK

MARY ELLEN PAULI

BEEF PRODUCERS

CITIZENS FOR A SAFE ENVIRONMENT

FISH FRIDAY

EDUCATION FUNDING

19 ON THE PARK

HORNEPAYNE SAWMILL

NIAGARA WEEK

WEARING OF RIBBONS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COSMETIC PESTICIDES BAN ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR L'INTERDICTION

DES PESTICIDES UTILISÉS

À DES FINS ESTHÉTIQUES

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

PESTICIDES

PESTICIDES

PESTICIDES

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

NATIVE LAND DISPUTES

ELIZABETH BAIN

CLIMATE CHANGE

GREEN POWER GENERATION

LEGISLATIVE REFORM

COMMUNITY COLLEGES

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

AIR QUALITY

PLANT CLOSURE

ABORIGINAL RIGHTS

MINING INDUSTRY

TOBACCO CONTROL

FIRE IN HAMILTON

WORKPLACE SAFETY

VISITORS

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

PETITIONS

LORD'S PRAYER

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

FIREARMS CONTROL

LORD'S PRAYER

HOME CARE

HOSPITAL FUNDING

LORD'S PRAYER

DISABLED PERSONS PARKING

PERMIT PROGRAM

HOME CARE

FIREARMS CONTROL

LORD'S PRAYER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LEGISLATIVE REFORM

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

GREEN POWER GENERATION

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NIAGARA WEEK

Mr. Tim Hudak: I am pleased to rise in the House to call the members' attention to the fact that this week is the fourth annual Niagara Week at Queen's Park.

I want to recognize the hard work of Niagara regional chair Peter Partington and the many mayors, councillors and Niagara business and academic leaders who are joining us here today.

They're meeting with MPPs of all parties as well as various ministers to draw attention to some very important priorities they have identified in the Niagara region, including the expansion of GO Transit service to Niagara, the completion of the Highway 406 extension to East Main Street in Welland, and the needed acceleration of the mid-peninsula corridor project. Speaking on behalf of west Niagara, investment is much needed for tender fruit farmers and greenbelt communities, where more than 3,700 acres have been affected by recent plant closures, like CanGro and Cadbury Schweppes.

Furthermore, the mayors and councillors will press for investments to improve ambulance response times, which, because of off-loading delays, unfortunately have increased in Niagara by 40%–and the impact of newly designated, provincially significant wetlands on investment and growth, particularly the Niagara Falls to Fort Erie corridor. Obviously, tourism is always important and there is great opportunity presented by the War of 1812 bicentennial.

I invite members to make sure they stop by the Niagara reception in rooms 228 to 230 between 4:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. this evening.

MARY ELLEN PAULI

Mr. David Orazietti: It's my pleasure to rise in the House today to honour an outstanding act of courage and citizenship by a brave Ontario woman. Mary Ellen Pauli, a helicopter pilot with the Ministry of Natural Resources, received the Governor General of Canada's certificate of commendation at a ceremony in Timmins earlier this week. The certificate of commendation honours Canadians who have made a significant contribution to our country by providing assistance to another person in a selfless manner.

On August 19, 2004, Ms. Pauli took an emergency call from the Ontario Provincial Police. A father, grandfather and three children were stranded on an island at the mouth of the Sutton River in Hudson Bay. The family had sent out a distress call before losing their satellite telephone connection, knowing that the rising tide would eventually cover the low-lying island in more than a metre of water. The five stranded were in great peril.

Ms. Pauli was flying a survey crew in the Moosonee area when she heard the emergency call, and she immediately volunteered to attempt a rescue. Flying into heavy winds, rain and sleet, she arrived at the island and was able to safely evacuate the family. As a result, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources' aviation and forest fire management branch nominated Ms. Pauli for this well-deserved commendation.

Mary Ellen Pauli's selfless act of bravery in helping a family in need, despite the significant risks she faced, is admirable and an inspiration to all Canadians. I am proud to honour her in the House today.

BEEF PRODUCERS

Mr. Bill Murdoch: A typical beef product exchanges about 30 hands and travels hundreds, if not thousands, of kilometres from the time it's weaned until the time it ends up on our plate. All County Feed and Grain is changing that trend in Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound by introducing a new marketing tool for beef products. Much like the 100-mile diet concept, this Markdale feed company's values are based on supporting local food production.

All County Feed and Grain is helping local farmers increase their profits by eliminating the middleman and buying and selling only locally grown beef to local customers. They buy the animals locally, they feed the animals locally, they truck them to a local slaughterhouse, and they store them locally before selling the final product through local butcher shops, retailers, restaurants and institutions.

I support this integrated process because I believe it's a more sensible way than that of the big conglomerates. At a time when beef producers are losing between $200 and $400 per animal, the more people we can get behind our local farmers the better. Let's face it: If we were to lose these cow-calf operations in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, we would be in trouble.

This local beef is raised without hormones and antibiotics. It's also fresher, and that means tastier and more nutritious.

All County Feed and Grain owners Darryl Williams and Mark Kuglin started their business only two years ago, first selling feed for horses from a mill between Markdale and Meaford, and eventually expanding into buying and selling beef products. Last week, they processed about 100 animals. Again, at a time when farmers are struggling financially in the face of crippling cattle markets, this is a good-news story that offers all of us a new glimmer of hope.

CITIZENS FOR A SAFE ENVIRONMENT

Mr. Michael Prue: On Earth Day, it seems appropriate that I stand in this place to talk about a local group, Citizens for a Safe Environment. It was founded 25 years ago this month, and 25 years ago, when it was founded, one of the founding members was our own Marilyn Churley, who has gone on to great and wonderful things. That group has targeted polluters in Toronto's east end. It has been instrumental in stopping garbage incineration as far back as 1989. It stopped the sewage sludge being burnt in the Portlands area and did the first Toronto recycling feasibility study in 1988.

Later on, of course, they were instrumental in our communities' actions around the Portlands Energy Centre, unfortunately not with the same success.

Tonight marks their 25th anniversary. They are having their 25th annual general meeting. It is being held at the Ralph Thornton Centre at 765 Queen Street East.

I rise to give kudos to all of the people over those 25 years, the people who have fought for a safe environment, who have got the lead out of the soil, who have stopped the incineration. My kudos to the president, Karen Buck, and to her band of environmental warriors who continue the fight that was begun all that time ago and who continue to do really great things for our city and for our world.

FISH FRIDAY

Mrs. Laura Albanese: Last Friday, I had the pleasure of attending an event that is becoming a tradition in the riding of York South—Weston. It is known as Fish Friday and is a great example of what can be achieved when communities work together towards mutual understanding and co-operation.

The event is organized by the Grenadian-Canadian community through the Spice Isle Association. As you may know, Grenada is also known as the Isle of Spice. There are more spices on this Caribbean island per square mile than anywhere else in the world. In Grenada, Fish Friday is a cultural event that happens every week. Here in Canada, for practical reasons, it's held once a month and is well attended by residents of all ages. It really captures the essence of the island's culinary traditions and fosters an ambiance of goodwill.

This local tradition is the result of hard work. The Spice Isle Association's main goal is to bridge the gap between the Toronto police force and youth within the Caribbean community by fostering positive relations between them. Maria Meyers, the organizer of the event, works with the community police liaison committee of 12 Division in the riding of York South—Weston to encourage positive participation from local police officers, who during these evenings enjoy Grenadian music and food with the community in a relaxed setting.

I commend the people involved. I must say that this serves as a great example of how we can promote dialogue and learn about each other through informal cultural gatherings. In our multicultural society, we would go a long way by following this laudable initiative.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. John O'Toole: I first rise to extend and express my support for Earth Day.

However, Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform the House of teacher layoffs in my riding of Durham. The Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board says that nearly 100 teachers could be facing layoffs this school year. The chair of the school board, Diane Lloyd, was quoted in our local media saying that many other school boards across Ontario are facing similar challenges. In the Durham Catholic board, notices of redundancy were sent to 88 teachers. We have all read the media articles today about the challenges facing the Toronto District School Board. In the Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board, 27 elementary schools are facing the possibility of being closed.

School closures, layoffs and deficits are in the future for many Ontario schools. This government could start to show some leadership with the delivery of the $550 million promised to rural schools that are closing in Ontario. Unfortunately, Ontario lacks any plan or direction from this government and its policies that will protect communities and retain front-line staff in schools.

Mr. Speaker, you know that you in your riding and those in every riding in this House should be concerned and expressing our sincere concerns for the quality of education for our young people. It's not just about re-jigging the governance model for the Toronto District School Board. The closing of swimming pools, the closing of community schools—there simply is no plan for education, and our young people are at risk in the province of Ontario.

19 ON THE PARK

Ms. Helena Jaczek: On Friday, April 11, I had the pleasure of attending the groundbreaking ceremony for the future 19 on the Park, an initiative in the town of Whitchurch-Stouffville within my riding of Oak Ridges—Markham.

Mr. Speaker, 19 on the Park is the concept name for the restoration and development of the historic former town hall at 19 Civic Avenue in the downtown core of Stouffville. I wish to applaud my community, which has independently raised $300,000 to support this splendid project. I'm also proud to announce that this project's completion has now been assured because of provincial funding under the municipal infrastructure investment initiative. Our Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal has provided a grant of $930,000 to assist the town of Whitchurch-Stouffville in realizing its vision of having its own vibrant and growing multipurpose community arts and cultural centre.

Nineteen on the Park will feature a variety of activities, including exhibitions, films, live dance and musical performances, corporate and social receptions, meetings and workshops, and many other community events. The centre's flexible space will complement the meeting place role of Civic Square and Memorial Park and will promote increased pedestrian traffic along Main Street in downtown Stouffville.

Thank you to the town of Whitchurch-Stouffville and the government of Ontario for providing the means to permit this cultural hub to become a reality.

HORNEPAYNE SAWMILL

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I want to spend but a few moments reflecting on a family and a community. Almost two years ago, a fire devastated the local sawmill in Hornepayne, a community of about 1,200 people which is 100 kilometres north of Highway 17, north of Lake Superior. It is a railroad town. Canadian National is still the largest employer, but it is only a shadow of what it once was and what it was expected to be.

The sawmill is the second-largest employer in town. It was founded by Olav Haavaldsrud, and continues to be operated by the family. The Haavaldsrud family and their employees decided to rebuild the mill, a decision the family freely admits was about the community, the workers and, yes, their own family. They do not claim it to be solely a business decision.

With the assistance of the forest prosperity fund, the northern Ontario heritage fund, northern Ontario grow bonds, a new banker and, most of all, sheer determination, the mill is now reopened with a state-of-the-art sawmill line. The company now produces top-quality lumber at competitive prices.

This family, with their employees and with the support of the province of Ontario, has produced good, sustainable jobs in the forest industry in very challenging times. I want to congratulate the Haavaldsrud family, their employees and, most of all, the community of Hornepayne.

NIAGARA WEEK

Mr. Kim Craitor: This week is Niagara Week at Queen's Park. This week has become a great tradition here in Toronto. I want to welcome back to this assembly the chairman of the region, and in fact a former member of this House, Peter Partington. Welcome. Joining him today are many mayors, councillors, economic development officers and business leaders, and I would be remiss if I didn't mention my mayor from Niagara Falls, Ted Salci. Welcome, Ted. As the regional chairman has said to many of us, this is the week that he wants to thank our government for the investments we have made in the Niagara region.

As well, this week is about showcasing the new Niagara: bigger, bolder and better than ever. We have a great park system, a growing agricultural community, many superb attractions, including two casinos, four- and five-star hotel accommodations, several championship-rated golf courses, a world-class professional theatre, a new convention centre in the works, and one of the nicest places to visit and in which to live in Ontario.

I need not remind the members that Niagara has extremely fine VQA wines and great restaurants that feature Ontario-grown produce. But I do want to remind you that we will have a chance to sample some of the great Niagara regional wines and foods at a reception later this evening. I'm hoping that all the members will be there. I'm looking forward to seeing everyone, including you, Mr. Speaker.

WEARING OF RIBBONS

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'm seeking unanimous consent. It's National Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Week, and the Ontario Trillium Gift of Life Network has asked that we wear these green ribbons and that they be made available in both lobbies.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Agreed? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COSMETIC PESTICIDES BAN ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR L'INTERDICTION

DES PESTICIDES UTILISÉS

À DES FINS ESTHÉTIQUES

Mr. Gerretsen moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 64,

An Act to amend the Pesticides Act to prohibit the use and sale of pesticides that may be used for cosmetic purposes / Projet de loi 64, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les pesticides en vue d'interdire l'usage et la vente de pesticides pouvant être utilisés à des fins esthétiques.

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

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The minister for a short statement?

Hon. John Gerretsen: I will make a statement during ministerial statements.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Michael Bryant: I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding private members' public business.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon. Michael Bryant: I move that, notwithstanding standing order 96(d), the following change be made to the ballot list of private members' public business:

Mrs. Jeffrey and Mr. Qaadri exchange places in order of precedence, such that Mrs. Jeffrey assumes ballot item 25 and Mr. Qaadri assumes ballot item 22; Ms. Pendergast and Mr. Levac exchange places in order of precedence, such that Ms. Pendergast assumes ballot item 30 and Mr. Levac assumes ballot item 20.

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

Agreed to.

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon. Michael Bryant: I move that, pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 22, 2008, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those 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 (Hon. Steve Peters): All those in favour will rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): All those opposed.

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 48; the nays are 31.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I declare the motion carried.

Agreed to.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

PESTICIDES

Hon. John Gerretsen: It's my honour to rise and tell the House about important legislation that, if passed, would ban the sale and use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes across Ontario. This is the first step in Ontario's new toxics reduction strategy, which we announced last November. This proposed bill is designed to protect our people's health, particularly that of our children.

Our government understands that by acting now, by tackling toxics in our air, land and water, and in consumer products, we can help safeguard our environment. More and more, we understand how our health and the health of future generations is linked to the amount of chemicals seeping into our environment. It's up to us all to take a stand and make a difference.

To that point, I would like to acknowledge Jan Kasperski, with the Ontario College of Family Physicians, who is in the gallery today. She's joined by Susan Koswan, Sari Merson and Tania Orton, with Pesticide Free Ontario; Doris Grinspun, of the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario; Gideon Forman and Farrah Khan, of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment; and Irene Gallagher, with the Canadian Cancer Society. Welcome to each and every one of them, and thanks for the hard work they have done on this issue.

Jan is the CEO of the Ontario College of Family Physicians, and tells the story of how her grandson was running onto a lawn that had just been sprayed with pesticide. He was too young to read the warning sign. He picked up a ball and put it in his mouth, and became gravely ill. As she states, "We need to choose the health of our children over the odd weed in our yard."

Our government agrees. We listened to Jan and to others throughout the province on this issue. We also listened to medical experts, who have made a convincing case for reducing our exposure to pesticides, particularly for children who are susceptible to the potential harmful effects. Our proposed legislation benefits from their input, as well as from the insight of diverse groups representing environmental, agricultural, industrial and municipal interests, as well as many others.

Our government would like to recognize the good work of the Ontario

chapter of the Canadian Cancer Society, Cancer Care Ontario and so many other organizations that fight this terrible disease and support those who suffer. The Canadian Cancer Society has expressed its concern over growing evidence that exposure to pesticides may cause an increased risk of some types of cancer. Numerous other studies have also shown that pesticides can negatively affect human health.

Therefore, since the cosmetic use of pesticide has no health benefit, and does have the potential to cause harm, and since there are environmentally friendly alternatives for lawn and garden care, our government is proposing this ban on both the use and sale of pesticides. Pesticides, including herbicides, insecticides and fungicides, would be banned for use for cosmetic purposes; for example, sprays and chemicals that are applied merely to improve the appearance of lawns, gardens, parks and schoolyards.

The proposed legislation would allow pesticide use in Ontario's agricultural and forestry sectors, since they already have strict rules on the storage and application of pesticides through certification and licensing processes. An exception will also be made for golf courses; however, that exception would only be given if golf courses comply with the requirements set out in regulations that would be made if the legislation is enacted, through integrated pest management programs. It would also allow pesticides to be used, as needed, to ensure public health; for instance, to fight West Nile virus.

If passed, this legislation would authorize the province to develop a regulation listing the specific pesticides and active ingredients in lawn and garden products that would be banned. We're also posting the proposed legislation on the Environmental Bill of Rights registry. We ask that interested parties follow the link on the Ministry of the Environment's home page to review the legislation and provide their comments by May 22 of this year. We hope that the proposed legislation will be passed and a ban will go into effect for the 2009 growing season.

Today we proposed a ban on the cosmetic use and sale of pesticides across the province. This is an important step towards protecting Ontario's children and families from needless exposure to harmful chemicals. I urge all the members of this House to support this legislation.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Responses?

PESTICIDES

Mr. Toby Barrett: I will say off the top, on behalf of myself and many of my caucus colleagues, that we support the concept of eliminating, obviously, the non-essential use of pesticides, albeit to protect the health and environment of this province. We might even support this bill—although I see it's only three pages—provided it's not, as we've heard in the media today, public relations puffery, which this government is renowned for.

Now, as far as an outright ban—a ban on the sale and use—well, that's why we have debate. That's why we have public hearings. That's why it's so important to review the literature, to review the research and the evidence.

To be more specific, we support a science-based approach to ensuring our health and environment are protected when it comes to the use of chemicals, not only on our food, but on our parkland, our lawns, our gardens, our farms, our golf courses. This is a very important issue, not to be decided on emotion or based on a gimmick presented during the very important Earth Day celebration that goes back decades and not to be rushed through as a mere three-page bill.

I can also say that to achieve our shared goals, take a look at farmers and what they've achieved in reducing their pesticide use by 52% over the past 15 years, through proper, informed use that stresses the benefits of IPM—integrated pest management. Clearly, we can learn from the example our agricultural producers have set, farmers who are required to go through training and certification every five years, as I think you've just mentioned.

I certainly look forward to debating this legislation's place within the myriad, the constellation, of rules and regulations, legislation that's already in existence, not only here in Ontario but right across Canada.

For instance, in the province of Ontario, pesticides and their use are already regulated federally: The federal Pest Control Products Act controls the sale and use of pesticides in Canada. The Food and Drugs Act allows for the setting of maximum limits for pesticide residue in foods. The Environmental Protection Act includes numerous provisions to protect the environment and human health from injury from pesticides. The Fertilizers Act requires registration of the fertilizer-pesticide mixtures. The Feeds Act is to prevent contamination of livestock feeds.

And here, within our own province of Ontario, as we know, we have the Ontario Pesticides Act, we have the Municipal Act, we already have the Weeds Act and the forest sustainability act.

We have met with stakeholders on all sides on this issue in the wake of the government's publication of its proposal on the Environmental Bill of Rights. I do note there's very real concern that emotion does not override what we can learn from science and from experience, from advice and regulations as we see from the federal PMRA—the pesticides management review agency.

I also do note—I hear concerns—that it is important to be clear of

definitions of cosmetic use distinguished from curative and public health issues. There's confusion. Are we talking about cosmetic use or cosmetic pesticides? As well, in rural Ontario, the current proposal has led to questions emanating from the possible introduction of a ban on the use of Health Canada-approved pest control products in urban centres, while permitting their use in rural settings. Some do point out that this precedent establishes two standards for health and safety for Ontario residents. Clearly, where our health and the health of our environment are concerned, a double standard is neither desirable nor acceptable.

Further, I hear in rural Ontario the concern that this proposed legislation may well be a slippery slope. It seems to suggest that there's something inherently wrong with the various herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and I would go on to mention algaecides and rodenticides, whether they be used in farming, forestry, on golf courses or on homeowners' properties. Is it okay to walk on a sprayed lawn but not on a sprayed golf course? Or, is it okay to eat food that has been treated with some of the products we're discussing today?

PESTICIDES

Mr. Peter Tabuns: New Democrats look forward to ensuring that the bill that's been presented by the minister actually has the teeth to deliver the ban on the aesthetic use of pesticides that Ontarians want.

Let's be clear that praise today should be for Ontario's municipalities, like the city of Toronto, and Ontario's activists, many of whom are here today: the RNAO, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, the Ontario College of Family Physicians, and the David Suzuki Foundation—a variety of people who over a long period of time have worked hard to make sure that action would be taken in this province. They've done the heavy lifting on this issue.

It was actually the city of Toronto that, 10 years ago, first brought forward in this province the legislation, and was joined by 30 other municipalities like Oakville, Georgina, Caledon, Guelph, Newmarket, Markham, Vaughan, London and Peterborough. Those were the pioneers. They were the people who went through the heavy-duty fights in the council chambers to make this happen.

In January I had the opportunity to talk to a fellow in London who had been on the other side of this fight when London brought forward its bylaw. He had been a pesticide applicator in the lawn care business. He found that, in the end, when that bylaw came into effect, he did extraordinarily well switching to analysis of lawns and their need for nutrients and feeding lawns with nutrients as a way of having them resist pests and weeds without using herbicides or pesticides—a huge business opportunity for him and a huge business opportunity for this province as a whole.

So it was the city of Toronto and these activists who fought the chemical companies all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. That's what these folks did, and we need to thank them today, on Earth Day. They have been the leaders.

I want to say to you, Speaker, and to those in the gallery who are listening today that they've gone quite a distance. But I have to note to them that

an act that was the key recommendation from the Walkerton inquiry, the Sustainable Water and Sewage Systems Act, has not yet been proclaimed by this government even though it has been passed. So my caution to all of you: You've come quite a distance. This act may well be passed in this Legislature. Will it in fact be proclaimed?

A second point: If proclaimed, will it be enforced? Last year, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario reported widespread non-enforcement of environmental laws in this province. His report was entitled Doing Less with Less. In fact, there are not adequate resources with the Ministry of Natural Resources or the Ministry of the Environment to enforce the laws that are on the books. Those laws that are on the books but going unenforced may just as well not even be on the books.

I have to say to the people in this Legislature and to those who are present in the gallery today that you have to be prepared to go the next few steps to make sure that if legislation is passed that's useful, then you have to make sure it gets proclaimed so that it comes into effect. Then they will have to act to ensure that it is enforced. Those are things that have to happen. It is not good enough to simply put a law on a table, declare a virtue and walk off. The other steps have to be there.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We welcome a number of guests to the Legislature today.

On behalf of the member from Hamilton Mountain, in the east members' gallery: Elyse Bantum.

On behalf of the member from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, in the east members' gallery: Mark Mackenzie, his Green Party opponent in the 2007 provincial election.

On behalf of a number of members here in the Legislature today, we would like to welcome students from the environmental club from Cathedral High School in Hamilton and their teacher, Mrs. Salciccioli: Cristina Silvestri, Natasha Laroque, Natalie Lolua, Stephanie Santos, Chandal Kilgor, Amy Pachai, Codie Taylor and Linh Hoang. They're located in the east members' gallery.

In the west public gallery, members of the Organization of Part-time and Sessional Employees of the Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology: Roger Courvette, Candy Lindsay, J.L. Roy, Sabrina DeGirolama and Shirley Wood. That's on behalf of the member from Trinity—Spadina.

On behalf of page Michael Thomas-Fulford, we'd like to welcome this afternoon to the west members' gallery: Sally Thomas, his mother; John Fulford, his father; Patrick Thomas-Fulford, his brother; and Patricia Fulford, his grandmother.

On behalf of all the members from the Niagara region—many of them have been introduced—we'd like to welcome the mayors and councillors from the Niagara region visiting Queen's Park for Niagara Week.

On behalf of the Legislature, in the west members' gallery: Mr. Peter Partington, the member from Brock in the 33rd Parliament.

Welcome to all of our guests today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

NATIVE LAND DISPUTES

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I have a question to the Premier regarding the expansion of native protests across Ontario. Over the last number of weeks, Six Nations protestors have been blocking access to a number of construction sites in Brantford. Yesterday, the member from Haldimand—Norfolk raised the fact that Six Nations protesters are now blocking a development on the Ancaster fairgrounds. Yesterday, we learned that native protestors had set up a blockade on County Road 2 in Deseronto, and have been occupying a nearby privately owned quarry for some time.

Premier, whatever your government has been doing in Caledonia for the last two-plus years clearly isn't working. Native protests are expanding. What do you plan to do about this escalating situation?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Hon. Michael Bryant: Just as an update to the subject that the member raised, the blockade erected by Mohawk protestors in eastern Ontario has in fact come down. It came down at about 10 a.m. today.

I note as well that the chief of the band council of the Tyendinaga Mohawk Council said yesterday that that council, and he as chief, did not—I repeat, did not—sanction a blockade of the busy southern Ontario highway.

I think it's important to note that, in fact, the blockade is down and that the chief and council exercised some leadership to indicate that this was not something sanctioned by their First Nation. Those streets are now free, and we're pleased that it ended in a peaceful fashion.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: We're pleased that it's ended, perhaps temporarily, in a peaceful situation. But the reality is that we're not aware of any charges being laid. By failing to enforce the rule of law in Caledonia and Brantford, and refusing to shut down HDI—which is making what everyone would classify as extortion demands, and may fall under that classification in the Criminal Code of Canada—you are in fact giving tacit consent to further protests and further blockades. Developers are being told by the government not to pay the fees, but you do nothing to stop the situation in Brantford and others areas.

Minister, what are you going to tell the people of Brantford, Ancaster and Deseronto who are worried about their safety, their homes and their businesses? That they should steel themselves, because, as your Premier said to another issue, "This too shall pass"?

Hon. Michael Bryant: I was speaking to Haldimand county council today. In attendance were a number of citizens; obviously, the full council and the mayor were there. Issues around what we are doing next were discussed. The answer is, negotiations are being encouraged that would see those who are on the street and at the work sites come off the street and off the work sites and allow for discussions by way of negotiation.

Based on the recommendations of the Ipperwash commission, it is the recommended course of action not to escalate the tension but rather to de-escalate the tension and, most importantly, to come to a lasting solution. That lasting solution will only happen if the parties sit down and negotiate, and that's exactly the goal that we're pursuing.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary. The member from Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington

Mr. Randy Hillier: Premier, your government is creating a culture of violence and confusion. In Napanee and Deseronto, we expect nothing less than one law for every man and injustice for no man. You choose not to protect our communities from armed thugs, nor do you defend legal title to our properties. When will you stand up and protect property, stop the violence and end your policy of different laws for different people?

Hon. Michael Bryant: This comes from a member who—

Interjection: Shot deer out of season.

Hon. Michael Bryant: Well, shot deer out of season and blocked Highway 401.

If I'd closed my eyes, I could have heard the words of Mike Harris, when he said—

Mr. Randy Hillier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Those are patently untrue. Unless that minister has evidence, I would ask him to withdraw those comments.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): It's not a point of order, but I do remind the members again to be conscious of their language. We've got a full gallery here again today. Anything that's going to evoke stress within this chamber isn't useful to any of us.

Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Mr. Peter Kormos: On a point of order, Speaker: standing order 23(k)—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I thank the member for the reminder.

Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Hon. Michael Bryant: The member makes reference to violence. In fact, the most violent confrontation, the one that gave rise to a public inquiry, was the Ipperwash confrontation, and in it, the recommendation from Commissioner Linden was very clear:

"It is inappropriate for the government to enter the law enforcement domain of the police. Law enforcement properly falls within the responsibility of the police. To maintain police independence, the government cannot direct when and how to enforce the law...." It is for the police to decide "whether and when arrests will be made, and the manner in which they will be executed."

We will continue to follow that advice.

ELIZABETH BAIN

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is to the Attorney General. It has to do with the rather extraordinary circumstances surrounding the Robert Baltovich trial and the decision by the crown today to call no evidence and no witnesses. Of course, the judge directed the jury to come in with a not guilty verdict.

To the minister: I think this cries out for some elaboration and explanation. This is almost four years from the appeal court's decision that there should be a new trial. Mr. Baltovich has had his life turned upside down. The Bain family, the parents of Elizabeth Bain, have been twisting in the wind, essentially, for the last number of years. I would ask the Attorney General to elaborate on what happened today and why it happened.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: The Leader of the Opposition is correct. This is a tragedy for the Bain family. It's a tragedy for the parents of Elizabeth Bain. They do not have any closure, and my sympathies and, I know, all members' sympathies go out to them.

For Mr. Baltovich, he was found not guilty today, and I hope that he will be able to get on with the rest of his life. As the member knows, and as all members know, a new trial was ordered as a result of an appeal process. There were certain decisions made by the trial judge with respect to the appropriate evidence in light of changes in the law. After those rulings were made, the crown made an immediate determination, based on advice from the chief prosecutor and the head of the criminal law division, that there was not a case to proceed with, indicated that quickly to the court this morning, and the not guilty verdict has resulted.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I'm not sure when the judge made those as yet unspecified changes, in terms of pretrial evidentiary rules, but it seems passing strange to anyone on the outside that they would go through the process of scheduling court time, empanelling a jury and then standing up and saying, "We're not going to call witnesses; we're not going to present evidence." It seems to me that this could have been dealt with in a much more timely way, and I think it calls out for much more elaboration than the Attorney General has given at this point in time.

I again ask him to make an effort here today to explain a more understandable rationale for the decision, especially for Elizabeth Bain's family.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: The member will want to know that the victim services people have been of assistance to the Bain family throughout these proceedings.

The member is quite right: My understanding of the process is that the trial judge was making ongoing determinations with respect to evidentiary matters, as is not uncommon in cases of this size and complexity. He made some determinations of certain evidence and determined it was not appropriate to be introduced.

There were some changes in the law, and as a result of those, the crown made the determination to seek further advice, and got advice from the chief prosecutor, from the director of the criminal law division, and, pursuant to the crown's duty, advised the court that it would not be appropriate to proceed. That is in the highest traditions of the crown office. Quite appropriately, the jury returned the only verdict available, which was not guilty. It had to be done that way, because the hands—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I think that the Bain family, whether they are meeting with victim services or not today—not only the Bain family, but the public at large—deserves a more fulsome explanation of what happened here. If there were changes in evidentiary rules and the crown opted no to appeal, based on advice from the chief prosecutor, I think that the public and the Bain family have a right to know. You're not really explaining why it took so long, why it went to this process of getting court time and empanelling a jury.

I would suggest that if it was purely a question of not enough admissible evidence, why not stay the charge while attempting to gather additional evidence? It strikes me that this calls out—this is an extraordinary situation—for a public inquiry. Will the minister commit to doing just that?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: As the member knows, this matter has gone through an appeal process, and a new trial was ordered. It was entirely appropriate to proceed with the new trial.

In the course of the new trial advancing, the trial judge made certain evidentiary rulings based on changes in the law. Some of those rulings meant, before the case got too far in, that evidence that the crown thought was going to be available was not appropriate to be introduced. On the basis of those rulings, the crown made the determination it must make. The crown sought advice from the chief prosecutor; the director of the criminal law division determined there was no case to answer.

Again I say this is a tragedy for the Bain family. Our heart goes out to the parents, and our condolences to them. The memory of Elizabeth Bain will not be forgotten. I know the parents will always be wondering. Our hearts do go out to them in this difficult time.

CLIMATE CHANGE

Mr. Peter Tabuns: A question for the Premier: When will you present a fully funded and detailed climate plan for the people of this province?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know that my friend, who has a passionate interest in this issue, must have missed much of the good news that we've been putting out in recent times regarding our climate change plan. It includes everything from specific targets to a broad array of approaches that we are taking to arrive at our targets. The single biggest thing that we're doing here in Ontario, which will result in the single largest greenhouse gas reduction in the country, is to phase out coal-fired generation. We're one third of the way there.

We look forward to proceeding and achieving more success on this particular file, but that is the single biggest source reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the entire country, and that's an important component of our plan.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: The Premier says he has a plan, yet he's allowing garbage incinerators to go forward that put out 30% more carbon dioxide than coal plants; for gasification we're talking 90%. Why, if you have a plan, are you allowing these greenhouse gas belchers to go forward?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, just so we understand what we're after here, our green targets for greenhouse gas emissions are 6% below 1990 levels by 2014, 15% by 2020 and 80% by 2050. Those are pretty ambitious. Again, we think the single most important feature of that remains our phase-out of coal-fired generation, but there are other components to our plan as well, including Move Ontario 2020. I'd love to have the member opposite's support in this regard. It's the single greatest investment in public transit, not just in the history of our province, but in the history of the country.

It's $17.5 billion, which will result in all kinds of new opportunities for people who are presently using cars to remove themselves from the comfort and convenience of their car and to move towards the comfort and convenience of a modern public transit system. Again, that's just one other dimension of a very comprehensive climate change plan.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Well, all interesting points, but not a plan. Your Minister of the Environment about a month ago said that you would be bringing forward a climate plan in two or three months. Which of you is right?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Let me just remind the member of some parts of our plan that have been out for some time now. In addition to our green targets for greenhouse gas emissions, we have a green power plan, which is another dimension of our plan—$150 million to assist homeowners in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, conserving energy and adopting green technologies. There is Move Ontario 2020, the plan which I just referenced—a $17.5-billion investment in public transit. There's the creating-jobs-by-going-green part of our plan, which includes our $1.15-billion Next Generation of Jobs Fund.

There's also another dimension to our plan, our grow green dimension, which is 50 million new trees to be planted in southern Ontario by 2020. Those are just parts of a very comprehensive and very exhaustive climate change plan which we're proud to prosecute on behalf of the good people of Ontario.

GREEN POWER GENERATION

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is for the Premier. The onset of climate change and its implications for the environment and economy will require significant investment in green technologies in areas such as energy generation. Here in Canada, Quebec is home to the sole manufacturer of large wind turbines. Quebec has aggressively pursued investment in new manufacturing facilities through the introduction of a fully refundable manufacturing tax credit. When will the McGuinty government do the same and adopt the NDP's 20% manufacturing investment tax credit to attract green jobs to Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: The NDP keeps talking about the refundable tax credit. That's a particular approach, but we haven't adopted that. We've gone with an immediate retroactive cut to capital taxes, which puts results in the hands of our manufacturers immediately.

But I do agree entirely with the member opposite when he says there are economic opportunities to be found in going green. We are the fastest-growing renewable jurisdiction in all of North America. We've got wind turbines popping up around the province. We're putting up the largest solar farm in the world just outside of Sarnia. All of that is good for the economy. It's creating good, new, green jobs and it's going to produce more revenues to support good-quality public services.

Mr. Paul Miller: Last August, the McGuinty government directed the Ontario Power Authority to seek 2,000 megawatts of renewable energy, much of which will come from wind. This is an opportunity to create thousands of well-paying green jobs in Ontario.

Why won't the Premier commit to the NDP's 50% Buy Ontario policy for any future Ontario turbines paid for by the province's hydro taxpayers?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Gerry Phillips: I am very proud of our renewable plan. We're certainly leading Canada, if not North America. The OPA, the Ontario Power Authority—it is true: We've gone from, I think, 15 megawatts of wind power four years ago; we now have 500. We've got another 1,300 under contract. We've gone from last to first in Canada in terms of wind generation. On the solar, as the Premier just mentioned, a few days ago we announced a solar plan in Kingston, and we announced a solar plan in Sarnia.

These are real jobs being created to develop these projects, to produce these projects, to construct these projects. We are, as I say, leading the way in North America on clean, renewable energy, creating jobs for that and creating clean, renewable energy for the people of Ontario.

Mr. Paul Miller: The Ontario manufacturing sector has lost more than 200,000 jobs under the McGuinty government. Competing jurisdictions are catching the wave of the green manufacturing as a way to create new well-paying jobs. Last year, there were eight million green jobs in US industries. That attracted $148 million in investment, an increase of 60% from the year before.

Ontario can attract some of these green jobs with a 20% green manufacturing investment tax credit and a 50% Buy Ontario strategy. What is the government waiting for?

Hon. Gerry Phillips: We're not waiting. My colleague the Minister of Research and Innovation has a specific job fund, a job fund to ensure that we encourage manufacturing sectors here for clean, renewable projects. That's happening. That's a significant financial investment there.

We are also insisting, on behalf of the people of Ontario, on doubling the production of electricity through renewables. As I said earlier, we've gone from virtually no wind to 500 megawatts now and we have another 1,300 coming on stream. These will create jobs; these will create manufacturing jobs. With my colleague the Minister of Research and Innovation, with our future job fund—I think it's $1.2 billion—that too will create real manufacturing jobs for our clean, renewable sector.

We have a leadership role that we're playing. We are doubling the use of renewables that will create effective wind and solar power, but also manufacturing jobs, which we're seeing across the province right now.

LEGISLATIVE REFORM

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is to the Premier. Premier, today you and the three House leaders received a letter from Randy Rath, the president of the Queen's Park press gallery, advising that at their AGM today press gallery members voted unanimously to raise concerns about the timing of question period under your proposed changes to the standing orders.

The letter raises the same concerns that we have raised; that is, that having question period in the morning will limit media access to the Premier and cabinet ministers and will interfere with their filing for noon newscasts.

I ask you today, Premier, are you prepared to seriously consider these concerns and change the timing of question period to 1 p.m., as we suggest?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the House leader.

Hon. Michael Bryant: Yes, this bombshell arrived on my desk this morning. You know, it's one thing to get into a fight with people who print ink by the barrel, but it's another thing to face the wrath of Randy Rath. So it is with shaking hands that I respond to his invitation, where he says he would "welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns with you." It's hard to imagine Mr. Rath saying that he'd welcome the opportunity. He'd probably say something—well, I won't say it here. I would welcome the opportunity, of course, to sit down with Randy Rath and with the press gallery and discuss this matter in a fulsome fashion.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I think all these words ring hollow when you look at the process involved in the discussions with the House leaders. There was no discussion, so your promise to Randy Rath and the gallery probably is the same. But I would ask you today, will you meet with the House leaders and the press gallery this week in order to discuss changing the timing of question period to 1 o'clock in the afternoon so that we can have freedom of the press and make sure that you don't—

Interjections.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: —and that we can ensure that your current plan doesn't move forward, because your current plan, as you know, is attempting to avoid media scrutiny and, in turn, public scrutiny.

Hon. Michael Bryant: I know the Free Randy T-shirts are being printed as we speak. I confess to having some concern with this. The idea that the media wouldn't have access frankly is very troubling to me. So I'm going to have to seriously take a look at this and we're going to have to talk about this further.

In all seriousness, the original proposal in fact was to have a 9:30 question period start, which would have addressed all of these issues, and instead, in response to the opposition, we compromised. The bottom line is that Mr. Rath has asked for a meeting with either himself or the entire press gallery—my preference is the entire press gallery—and I look forward to that meeting.

COMMUNITY COLLEGES

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My question is to the Attorney General. On August 30, 2007, Minister Bentley, then Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, promised to extend collective bargaining rights to college part-time workers and sessionals. Why did the minister, now as the Attorney General, send his lawyer to the labour board last Thursday to argue against these very same workers for those rights?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: To the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. John Milloy: I thank the member for his question. It gives me an opportunity to reiterate our government's commitment to extend bargaining rights to part-time workers in Ontario's colleges. The honourable member is well aware of that commitment and our work with Kevin Whitaker, who we commissioned to do a report on this. We thank Mr. Whitaker for his report, which was made public on February 1. We've had an opportunity to review his report and consult with stakeholders, and I hope to be reporting back to the Legislature in the near future.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Thank you, Minister Bentley, for the answer.

I would say that the report of the adviser, Mr. Whitaker, said this to you, government: "Part-time employees should be immediately granted the right to unionize." That's what he said on page 34 of this report. That was 82 days ago and you're still studying the report, it seems.

What we know is that the Ministry of the Attorney General argued strenuously against letting part-timers and sessionals have their say on union representation. That's why the question was to Minister Bentley. Roger Couvrette, president of the provincial organization of part-timers, is here, with many others. He and the thousands and thousands of workers who have signed cards would really like to hear the minister's response: Why did Minister Bentley promise to extend collective bargaining rights to college part-timers and sessionals in August and, by April, argue against these workers' rights to good wages, benefits and stability?

Hon. John Milloy: As I said, we thank Mr. Whitaker for his report and I hope to be reporting back to the House in the near future on living up to the commitment that we made last August. It's funny that in his question, the honourable member forgot to point out that when the NDP were in government, they put forward a bill on this same matter and never let it go beyond second reading.

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

Mr. Peter Kormos: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I regret raising a point of order during question period, but again I refer to standing order 23(k), and I ask the Speaker to reflect upon the reply of the government House leader to the question from the Conservative Party, Mrs. Witmer, with reference to a legitimate communication from the Queen's Park press gallery and his mocking of it. His mocking of it, his trivialization of it, his disregard for that body, representatives of the fourth estate and fifth estate here, is, I submit to you, at the very least the type of abusive and insulting language that's contrary to standing order 23(k).

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I appreciate the member's point of order. I would remind all members that perhaps it's good for all of us to take some time to read the standing orders. I think it would be a good refresher for everyone, because 23(k)—and I say this to all members of the House—is very clear: for any member to use "abusive or insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder" in this House. I'm not speaking directly to the point he just raised. We had another point raised earlier. I'd just remind all members of 23(

k) and trying to maintain some order in this House and language that causes disorder in the chamber.

Hon. Michael Bryant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—obviously not on that point, because you've made a ruling already—I just want to be clear here: Are you making a finding that abusive or insulting language was used in my answer? If not now, then perhaps you would review the transcript and report back to the House. It would be helpful, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I am not directing my comments at any member. I'm asking each of us to think about what we say and how we say it and what it causes within the House. I'd just ask you to think about the language you use.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: My question is to the Minister of Research and Innovation. The Ontario Institute for Cancer Research is an independent, not-for-profit organization making a huge difference in the lives of Ontarians and people around the world through its focus on prevention, early detection, diagnosis and treatment of cancer. I'm proud to say that the institute is partnered with researchers at the McMaster Institute for Molecular Biology and Biotechnology. Will the minister please outline the steps our government is taking to make sure this fundamental part of Ontario's fight against cancer can continue to do its important work?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank my friend from Hamilton Mountain for the question. I would share with her the sobering statistics that one in three Canadian women will develop cancer, one in two Canadian men will develop cancer and one in four Canadians, regrettably, will die from cancer, so I think it falls upon all of us to try to fight cancer.

What we did back in 2005, before the member was here, was that we created the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research. We committed some $347 million over five years to send a clear signal that we wanted the full range of cancer research to be done and coordinated and for our researchers to collaborate so that they weren't duplicating their efforts, and, as you said, with clear goals of prevention, detection, diagnosis and treatment, all in efforts of trying to find a cure.

I'll answer your question in the supplementary. I just want to say, on behalf of all of us to our colleague the Minister of Government and Consumer Services, who himself is recovering from cancer surgery, that we hope, Ted, to see you back shortly.

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: Dr. Yonghong Wan, at the McMaster Institute for Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, is receiving over $600,000 in funding for research into vaccines that can engage the immune system and attack tumour tissue without harming normal tissue.

At McMaster, rapidly moving research from concept to clinical trials is a priority and is in line with the goals of the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, which looks to quickly turning discoveries into treatments. This funding provides opportunities for internationally renowned scientists to come to McMaster and continue their work, as well as opportunities for undergraduate and graduate students to become the groundbreaking researchers of tomorrow. Would the minister outline the ramifications this funding will have locally and globally?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I had the pleasure last week of joining Dr. Tom Hudson, who is the president and the scientific director of OICR, for the announcement of some $60 million worth of cutting-edge, globally significant research. I want to commend Dr. Wan and his team at McMaster for being successful in receiving one of these grants.

We can imagine a day when we can actually be vaccinated against cancer. I say to my friends here, we know that there is a new vaccine for cervical cancer, so that our daughters one day will never have to suffer from cervical cancer as women. I remember last week, we made an announcement with Sanofi Pasteur about their new, $100-million global research centre sited here in Toronto, which is looking for vaccines for melanoma and for colorectal cancer.

I believe that day will be found here in Ontario because of the hard work of our researchers. We commend Dr. Wan and his team for being part of that bright new future.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Madam Minister, under your former adoption disclosure legislation, Bill 183, children's aid societies could file a disclosure veto to protect the identity of victims of severe child abuse who were removed from their parents and then adopted.

Your present Bill 12, which is in front of the standing committee, removes that protection, meaning that a child who is raped by her birth father, rescued by the children's aid, and adopted after September 1 of this year will have no way to prevent her natural parents from finding out her adopted identity once she turns 19. Why are you removing this important protection for victims of severe child abuse?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I appreciate the question coming from the member of the opposition party. It's a good question. It's a question that we asked ourselves in drafting this new legislation. But the McGuinty government strongly believes that all Ontarians should be able to learn more about their own personal history. That is why the government has decided to introduce this legislation. The proposed legislation does not include a determination of abuse.

We have discussed this issue with our stakeholders and their advice was that we should treat adults like adults and not like children. So the intent of the proposed legislation is to open adoption records for adults, not children.

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: May I quote the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies' submission before the committee: "Children who survive rape as infants, attempted murder, torture, or are starved and exposed to other forms of neglect should be afforded the opportunity to rebuild their lives in loving, adoptive homes. Adoptees should not have to live in fear that the perpetrators of those acts of violence have a legal entitlement"—that's what you are giving them—"to learn their names at age 19 and then track them down...." That's what the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies says.

Why don't you take these people's advice, who have tremendous experience in this area, whom we entrust many of our children to? Why don't you have a heart and protect these children in their adulthood from these very abusive and violent people?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Again, the proposed legislation does not include a determination-of-abuse process. We have consulted with our stakeholders and the advice that we've received is for open adoption. So this is to modernize the legislation.

We're not the leader in that area. Many provinces across Canada have this type of legislation. It's to open the adoption records, and that's what we're doing. People are allowed to know where they come from. That's what this legislation is doing.

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

Mr. Peter Kormos: I have a question to the Premier. The Premier heard the government House leader reply to the question of the member for Kitchener—Waterloo, wherein she referenced a letter that had been written to the Premier by Mr. Rath, the president of the Queen's Park press gallery.

He heard his minister respond in terms that were derisive, mocking, abusive, insulting and an effort to generate cheap laughs. Does he approve of that behaviour on the part of his minister?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, to the House leader.

Hon. Michael Bryant: Again, I say that the letter that was sent from the press gallery to myself asked for a meeting. I agreed to the meeting. As far as I'm concerned, that's the end of the story. If there were any remarks in there that were in any way mocking, frankly they were self-deprecating to the speaker. I look forward to continued debate on this very, very important matter.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Again, to the Premier: The members of this chamber, as well as scores, if not hundreds, if not thousands of people listened to your minister mock and speak derisively and dismissively of Mr. Rath when Mr. Rath, on behalf of journalists here at Queen's Park, attempted to raise some very serious matters on behalf of, yes, the Queen's Park press gallery.

Will the Premier stand up and condemn his minister for that behaviour?

Hon. Michael Bryant: Speaker, I just want to reinforce that the question that was put in the letter was, in fact, to state a position and ask for a meeting.

Interjection.

Hon. Michael Bryant: I'm trying to answer the question; the member apparently wants a question, and I look forward to getting it.

I think the gist of this was, can we have a meeting? The answer is yes.

I appreciate the words of advice from the leader of the third party and certainly will be checking Hansard to see the language that he has used in the past—a member who has shown up on the legislative grounds dressed up, literally, in a dog-and-pony outfit, lecturing people in this Legislature about their conduct. I do look forward to having the opportunity—or your having the opportunity, Speaker—to make a ruling on whether or not those words were in violation.

AIR QUALITY

Mr. Charles Sousa: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Almost daily, I hear concerns from the constituents of my riding of Mississauga South about the quality of the air we breathe.

Recently, a study was done to look at pollution and particulate matter along the QEW in the Clarkson area and the effect it has on air quality. The Clarkson Airshed Study concluded that we have higher areas of ambient air pollution along the Lakeshore and QEW corridor in my riding of Mississauga South. It has been identified that a great deal of this pollution comes from vehicle congestion on our roads, especially from transport trucks.

On this Earth Day, can the Minister of Transportation please tell the residents of my riding, as well as the House, what the ministry is doing to ensure that air quality in my riding does not get any worse?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I want to thank the member for an excellent question today. There is no doubt this is an important issue, not only to his constituents but to people across the province. That is why we have moved to address air pollution through our speed-limiter legislation, which is now before the House.

If passed, this legislation will cap the speed of large trucks built after 1995 at 105 kilometres per hour. Studies have shown that between 30% and 60% of large trucks speed in excess of 105 kilometres per hour on the 400-series highways. By limiting speeds, this proposed legislation will—listen to this—allow for a 280,000-tonne reduction in greenhouse gas emissions each year. To put that in perspective, that's like taking 2,700 tractor-trailers off the road each year. It also means conserving more than 100 million fewer litres of diesel fuel by the trucking industry each year. We expect that will reduce us by about 2% in our goal towards—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary.

Mr. Charles Sousa: Again, to the Minister of Transportation. I would like to applaud him and his ministry on proposing this speed-limiter legislation. I will also be supporting this initiative as it progresses through the legislative process. However, speed limiters on trucks do not address the other concern of congestion on our highways. With studies showing that cars and trucks make up about 26% of greenhouse gas emissions, with close to 50% of that coming from passenger vehicles, can the minister please tell us what is being done to get these cars off the roads?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Speed limiters?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Well, the speed limiter might be put on the member for Timmins—James Bay's car with some justification. I don't know that.

What we are doing is this: We are putting an unprecedented investment into public transit right across the province. You will know now that $314 million was transferred to municipalities this year, in our portion of the gas tax. That was very much appreciated by transit commissions and transit authorities right across the province, including, I can assure you, in the regional municipality of Niagara, Niagara Falls, Welland, Port Colborne, St. Catharines and those places.

Also, you know we have the $17.5-billion rapid transit action plan for the greater Toronto area to reduce that challenge that we have. We know this will help build a strong, prosperous economy, and we're investing this in every municipality in Ontario to reduce the use of—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question to the Premier: On Friday, the remaining 120 workers at CanGro in Niagara were summoned to hear the very unfortunate news that the deal to purchase and invest in the facility fell through, and they would be out of work. The Premier knows a private sector consortium, led by respected Niagara business leaders, was bringing about $20 million to the table to keep the plant open and was looking for provincial support. Premier, why did the province of Ontario walk away from the table and allow CanGro to close?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'll speak to the first question; I know my colleague will want to speak to the supplementary.

Let me tell you that we worked as hard as we possibly could to pull out all the stops, to find a way to bring parties to the table and to ensure that parties might be willing in terms of ensuring some kind of succession plan for this business. We know this is really tough on the families. We have a number of programs in place, close to $2 billion now by way of special programs, including our Next Generation of Jobs Fund.

I know that the minister could speak to the details of this, but my advice to my colleagues was to do everything we possibly could to see if we might land some kind of a succession plan for this particular enterprise. Unfortunately, it was not there. We could not make it happen. It is with great regret that the ensuing result has been made apparent, but we will work as hard as we can with those workers in that community, and throughout Ontario, to find new jobs.

Mr. Tim Hudak: I say to the Premier that municipal leaders, business leaders and tender fruit growers would have a completely different view, indeed, about the lack of activity of the province of Ontario to try to save this plant. The Premier also knows that this impacts on some 150 growers representing 2,600 acres of pear and peach land in the peninsula. They're now being pulled out of the ground.

Premier, when it comes to the greenbelt, you have become an absentee landlord. You find a way to give Magna Corp. some $50 million, and they're paying their CEO some $40 million per year. Last week, you gave a foreign-owned pharmaceutical plant some $14 million, despite their $4 billion in international sales.

Premier, I ask you, why do you give big grants to foreign-owned multinationals, but walk away from tender fruit growers and workers in Niagara?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I'm very happy to address this, and I want to say first off that the very premise of the member's supplementary question simply is not based in fact. I have to say that we have had ongoing discussions on a personal level, both my ministry and the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, with Lord Mayor Burroughs. There are members who are leaders from the Niagara region who are in the House today who will attest to the work that we in my ministry have done on a personal level on this particular issue. We have worked very hard to try to keep CanGro in operation in the Niagara region as the last remaining canning opportunity here in Ontario.

When we were at the table, making the offers that we have made, we needed to have the company at the table with us. Unfortunately, CanGro was not in a position to want to work with the numbers of people that we brought to the table to try to do a deal. That's a very unfortunate outcome. We will work very diligently with the economic commission of the Niagara region, as we have in the past. The leadership is here today that will prove that that has in fact been the case and will continue to be the case, to find good jobs—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

ABORIGINAL RIGHTS

Mr. Howard Hampton: To the Minister of Northern Development and Mines: Can the minister tell us why the McGuinty government is awarding Platinex Inc. new mining rights to 72,000 acres of land in northern Ontario while First Nations leaders from Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug who oppose mining exploration on their traditional lands are sent to jail?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I'm not in a position to comment on that, in the sense that I'm not aware of any particular permits that have been given to any other land that's out there. In terms of the situation with Platinex and KI, we very much regret the situation that has resulted from the legal challenges, and I'm not able to comment on those either. In terms of your specific question, I'm not aware of any such arrangement being made.

Mr. Howard Hampton: Well, I—

Hon. David Caplan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Standing order 23(

g) says that the Speaker shall call a member to order if they refer to a matter that is subject to "a proceeding that is pending in a court or before a judge for judicial determination."

I believe the member has just done this. His House leader, earlier today, referred to standing order 23(k). I ask for your ruling in this matter.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): A couple of points on the point of order. First, as Speaker, I'm not aware that it is an issue that is before the courts right now. As well—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I recognize and thank the finance minister for his comment. I also recognize that the leader of the third party, in his questioning, I'm sure, is going to be conscious that it's not going to in any way interfere in any proceedings.

Mr. Howard Hampton: I'm simply referring to historical fact now. Historical fact is that the leadership of Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug First Nation are in jail. They're in jail because they stood up for their constitutional rights to be consulted and accommodated before mining rights were handed out to a mining exploration company.

On the other hand, Platinex, the company which sued the First Nation for $10 billion and almost bankrupted the First Nation, is getting an additional 72,000 acres of mining rights from the McGuinty government, mining that would involve Webequie First Nation, Marten Falls First Nation, Fort Hope First Nation, Neskantaga First Nation and Gull Bay First Nation.

I'm simply asking, is this the message the McGuinty government wants to send to First Nations, that if you stand up and ask for your constitutional rights to be recognized, you can go to jail while the mining company gets mining rights half the size of the city of Toronto?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: There is no confirmation of these particular permits or claims. I have no confirmation of that, but regardless, we continue to work in terms of respecting our duty to consult. That's been an important factor for us. It was acknowledged that, indeed, we met our duty to consult. We absolutely feel terrible about the situation in terms of KI and what has resulted in terms of the court case, but again, I can't discuss that in any detail.

We continue to work—there are some great stories out there in terms of First Nations working very co-operatively and positively with mining companies. Memorandums of understandings have been signed, and impact benefit agreements have been signed with a number of First Nations. We have a great example in the Victor Diamond Mine in Attawapiskat, again, in terms of a process whereby there are very positive impacts for First Nations communities. Certainly I don't think there need to be the constant attempts to be very negative about something that could be very positive for many, many First Nations in the north.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: My question is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. I have heard some very negative comments coming from the opposition benches that Ontario is not a desirable mining jurisdiction. They say that Ontario is not a good place to invest. It sounds to me like they're getting their cues from another Ontario politician who holds a similarly pessimistic view of this great province.

I must ask the minister this question: What is the status of mining in Ontario and how do we stack up against other jurisdictions?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I thank the member from Huron—Bruce for the question. Everyone in the House will know that the largest salt mine in North America is in Huron—Bruce, in Goderich, and that's a fabulous story.

Interjection.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Yeah, that's good news.

Certainly we know that mining is being received very positively in terms of the economic impact. We know that Ontario's mineral production increased to $10.7 billion in 2007—a record level. We know that Ontario is forecast to lead the country in mineral exploration in 2008, with over $629 million in exploration. We also know that mining sustains some 100,000 direct and indirect jobs in the province and is a supplier of all the raw materials that drive 21st century society.

As I said in my earlier remarks, as well we have the first-ever diamond mine in the province of Ontario, the Victor diamond mine. So we're very keen about the fact that mining is indeed one of the great places in terms of the economy of Ontario, and we're very proud of that fact.

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: Thank you, Minister, for providing that information. I'm very heartened to hear that the industry is showing such investment in Ontario and that we indeed are attracting that investment. They are truly impressive figures, and a great level of activity on the industry side as well.

I know that the mining sector is one of truly province-wide importance. From the salt mine in Goderich to the diamond mine in Attawapiskat to the trading floor of the Toronto Stock Exchange, it covers from border to border.

What I'm also interested in specifically is what the McGuinty government is doing to foster growth in the sector and also to address the issues that mining is facing today.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Again, I thank the member from Huron—Bruce and I look forward to visiting your salt mine next month.

I want to assure the House that my ministry is hard at work to meet the challenges head-on and maintain an attractive investment climate here in Ontario. To that end, one of the things we are doing is undertaking a review of the Mining Act. We have initiated public discussions about improving consultation with our First Nation communities, and in fact we've already implemented some transitional measures based on what we've heard.

We're also very proud to say that we've launched Ontario's first-ever mineral development strategy—greatly supported in our 2008 budget—as well as a four-year, $20-million geological mapping initiative that will bolster Ontario's mineral exploration sector and identify new areas of economic opportunity. Certainly we're very proud of that, as well as our abandoned mines rehabilitation program: $90 million committed by our government over the last six years, working very closely—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

TOBACCO CONTROL

Mr. Norm Miller: A question for the Minister of Small Business and Entrepreneurship. The Ontario Convenience Stores Association estimates that as many as half of Ontario's 10,000 convenience stores will not be able to comply with the new retail display ban on tobacco products set to take effect on May 31. My question is simple: Will the minister help these convenience store owners by extending the deadline to comply beyond May 31?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I want to thank the member for asking the question. I know he has an interest in this issue.

I said in the House last week that we have been working very closely with the Ontario Convenience Stores Association and also with the Ontario Korean Businessmen's Association. I had the chance to meet with them last week and we will continue to work with them. If there are issues, we will sit with them and work out those issues. It is in our interest to do that because they contribute enormously to the prosperity of our province.

Mr. Norm Miller: Does the minister not see it as his job to assist small businesses, especially in light of the fact that the government waited until this January before it issued its guidelines? In Belleville, workshops designed to help retailers only started yesterday. You gave store owners weeks, not years, to comply. Convenience stores should not be penalized because this government failed to act until the last minute. I've now asked six times to provide more help for these store owners, and still you refuse to do so.

If the minister is truly committed to helping small businesses, he will extend the deadline and give store owners enough time to avoid being hard hit by this government's heavy-handed enforcement. Will he make that commitment today? Will he extend the deadline? Will he finally do something to help small businesses in this province?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I am very proud of our small-business community, and we have been working very closely with them.

I read a statement in the House last week from Dave Bryans, president of the Ontario Convenience Stores Association. Let me just read it again. He said:

"I would like to take this opportunity to briefly thank you for all the help and support that you, your cabinet colleagues and the Premier have given to Ontario's independent family-run convenience stores.... As I have said in the past, all OCSA members will comply with the Smoke-Free Ontario Act."

I have great confidence in our small-business community, and we continue to work with them and will address their issues if they face any problems complying with this legislation.

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. The fire at the Biedermann packaging plant in Hamilton sent tonnes of pesticides and other harmful toxins into Spencer Creek, killing thousands of fish initially, and ultimately endangering children, pets and the broader ecosystem. Why is the McGuinty government keeping information about the toxic Biedermann fire secret, while refusing to call a full public inquiry into the environmental disaster? Ten years later, has nothing been learned from the 1997 Plastimet fire?

Hon. John Gerretsen: As I've indicated to this member before, right after the Biedermann fire, there were a number of tests done over the next month or so that indicated that the amount of toxins that were in the water as a result of the fire were being reduced at all times.

As a matter of fact, we continue to work with the city of Hamilton, we continue to work with the enforcement branch that's been out there as well, to make sure that everything is as best as it can possibly be. It's my understanding that about a month after the fire, in effect, the water quality was roughly the same as it was when the fire first happened. But we continue to be concerned about it. We continue to monitor the situation and work with the city of Hamilton on this particular issue.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This minister should know that "just trust us" doesn't cut it in Hamilton. I've been trying to get the Biedermann fire reports from this minister's office since February using freedom-of-information laws. I was promised the material by April 18, which was last Friday, but only if an unnamed third party gave approval for that release. The legal deadline has come and gone, and still no information from this minister's office.

The McGuinty government continues to interfere with the community's right to know what happened that day and what has happened subsequently. What I want to know is, what dirty environmental secret is the minister trying to hide? Why not hold a public inquiry?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I ask the member to withdraw the comment, please.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Withdrawn.

Hon. John Gerretsen: As the member well knows, our toxics reduction law that we intend to introduce as a result of some of the work that we're doing in the whole toxics area—as a matter of fact, today is a good day. Today, we introduced a bill that will ban the cosmetic use of pesticides and the sale of them throughout this province. But as she well knows, and as I've indicated to her a number of times, our toxic reduction law will include the right-to-know law.

We will continue to work with this particular member on the issue of the Biedermann fire, which I know is of great concern to her. I will make sure that the information that she's talking about will be released to her as soon as we can do it, after we've spoken to our legal experts within the ministry. We will continue to work with this member to make sure that she has all the information she requires.

WORKPLACE SAFETY

Mr. Mike Colle: My question is to the Minister of Labour. This government places the highest priority on the hard-working people of Ontario, as we all do in this House, and it's committed to making sure workplace health and safety is a given for all Ontario workers. This government takes seriously, I hope, its responsibilities as a full partner in workplace health and safety in Ontario. We certainly cherish our hard-working citizens who pay taxes and put bread on their tables.

I'd like to hear from the Minister of Labour just exactly what this government is doing to protect, on an everyday basis, the health and safety of Ontario's workers.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I thank the member very much for his question and for his advocacy to help this government improve the health and safety of workplaces right across this province.

I guess it was in 2003, about four years ago, that the previous Minister of Labour set a goal of a 20% reduction in workplace injuries. At the time it was seen as too dramatic and very risky, but this government was determined, working with our partners in the health and safety sector, to reach that goal. I'm very pleased to say that we're well on the way to reaching that 20% reduction goal.

But it's not something we can do alone; it's something we've had to do with our partners. Just yesterday I was at the Industrial Accident Prevention Association conference—over 6,000 people attending, 350 exhibits. These people were not just inspired, they were inspiring to all of us. They're dedicated to working with our government to improve the health and safety in workplaces right across this province. We're proud of their efforts and we're proud to work with them.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I want to take this opportunity to welcome the former member from Brampton North in the 36th Parliament and the member from Brampton Centre the 37th Parliament, Joe Spina. Joe is in the west members' gallery. Joe, welcome back to Queen's Park today.

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

Mr. Randy Hillier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: the government House leader, earlier in today's proceedings, accused me of shooting and killing deer out of season. I said it was patently false and untrue and I ask that minister to withdraw the remark. It is false. If he has evidence, I ask him to turn around and speak to the Attorney General and have me charged. Otherwise, come out of the House and say it, Mr. Minister. I would ask the Speaker to review Hansard and censure that minister for his allegations.

Hon. Michael Bryant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: In the Belleville Intelligencer of December 15, 2005, a picture of a dead deer with cabinet minister Leona—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I ask the member to come to order. Minister of Transportation.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I ask all members to come to order.

I will take a look at the Hansard. I would remind members that, at the immediate time, if they have concern with an issue, they should rise and speak directly to the issue that they take exception to. But in this case, because of a number of comments that were made today—and it's not a practice that I want to engage in on a regular basis, reviewing Hansard of all members, because as a Speaker I cannot hear every comment that is made within the chamber—I will take a look at it.

Interjections.

Mr. Randy Hillier: You're a liar.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd ask the honourable member to withdraw the comment that he just made, please.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Mr. Speaker, I have much respect here—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would ask the member to withdraw the comment, please.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the comment.

PETITIONS

LORD'S PRAYER

Mr. Bill Murdoch: I have a petition from the First Christian Reformed Church in Owen Sound and it's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the current Liberal government is proposing to eliminate the Lord's Prayer from daily proceedings in the Ontario Legislature; and

"Whereas the recitation of the Lord's Prayer has opened the Legislature every day since the 19th century; and

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer's message of forgiveness and the avoidance of evil is universal to the human condition: It is a valuable guide and lesson for a chamber that is too often an arena of conflict; and

"Whereas recognizing the diversity of the people of Ontario should be an inclusive process, not one which excludes traditions such as the Lord's Prayer;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, ask the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to preserve the daily recitation of the Lord's Prayer by the Speaker in the Legislature."

I have signed this and I will give it to Georgia.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I have a petition signed by hundreds of people, some of whom are here in the gallery, and I've got thousands of other people in an informal petition that is not accepted by this assembly but there are thousands of people who have signed it. It reads as follows:

"Whereas car culture has destroyed and alienated our communities and dominated our public space; and

"Whereas equitable mobility is a right and transportation is a need to all, including the young, the elderly and those who refuse to drive; and

"Whereas Ontario is sorely lacking in infrastructure for active and public transportation (i.e., in most of the province there's no choice but to drive a car); and

"Whereas a reported 26% of Ontario's economy is directly linked to an auto manufacturing sector that year after year has proven volatile and unsustainable, requiring billions of dollars in government loans and subsidies, under the constant threat of layoffs of thousands of workers at a time; and

"Whereas Ontario has covered hundreds of thousands of acres of our country's most fertile farmland with concrete highways and suburban housing developments; and

"Whereas our imported food supply is increasingly threatened in this time of climate change; and

"Whereas the Ministry of the Environment issued 39 smog alerts in 2007, a year with 86 days of air quality worse than 30 AQI (air quality index); and

"Whereas pollution from smog is directly linked to asthma, breast cancer and leukemia, and the sedentary lifestyle of the auto-dependent is linked to the epidemics of diabetes and obesity that increasingly plague our country; and

"Whereas Toronto Public Health reports that 440 deaths per year in the city of Toronto are directly linked to pollution from cars, and the Ontario Medical Association estimates 5,800 deaths yearly in Ontario from smog; and

"Whereas the Canadian Institute of Child Health cites traffic injuries as the leading cause of injury and death in Canadian school children; and

"Whereas billions of dollars are currently spent on the health system to treat accident victims and victims of smog, and on treatment of disease linked to our society's reliance on the automobile; and

"Whereas financial decisions made by the Ontario government have a drastic impact on global climate change and the ability of our biosphere to support life;

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

"Stop any tax breaks, subsidies or loans to the automotive sector; and

"Create a public awareness campaign exposing the ill effects of automobile dependency; and

"Ban the advertising of automobiles, just like cigarettes; and

"Immediately allocate money to pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, public transit and an intercity train system, including programs to help shift our labour force into these sectors; and

"Amend the Highway Traffic Act, making street closures for community festivals distinct from closures for general road construction; and

"Put a halt to development projects that do not support the use of public and active transportation; and

"Create programs to encourage the development of small-scale mixed organic and natural farming of food for the local market, with tax breaks for hiring labour instead of labour-saving, pollution-creating machines; and

"Measure the cost of all government spending with a triple bottom line, including social, environmental and economic impact"—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Would the member care to summarize the conclusion of the petition, please?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Okay. The conclusion is, "Make policy decisions considering the value of life over the value of money."

I appreciate your tolerance.

FIREARMS CONTROL

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I have a petition to stop unlawful firearms in vehicles. This petition is in tandem with Bill 56 introduced on Thursday by the member from Eglinton—Lawrence. This petition reads as follows:

"Whereas innocent people are being victimized by the growing number of unlawful firearms in our communities; and

"Whereas police officers, military personnel and lawfully licensed persons are the only people allowed to possess firearms; and

"Whereas a growing number of unlawful firearms are transported, smuggled and found in motor vehicles; and

"Whereas impounding motor vehicles and suspending driver's licences of persons possessing unlawful firearms in motor vehicles would aid the police in their efforts to make our streets safer;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to pass Bill 56, the Unlawful Firearms in Vehicles Act, 2008, into law, so that we can reduce the number of crimes involving firearms in our communities."

Since I agree with this petition 100%, I am delighted to sign it.

LORD'S PRAYER

Mr. Jim Wilson: I want to thank Mr. Currie Phillips, from Elmvale, for sending me this petition:

"Whereas Premier Dalton McGuinty has called on the Ontario Legislature to consider removing the Lord's Prayer from its daily proceedings; and

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer has been an integral part of our parliamentary heritage that was first established in 1793 under Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe; and

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer is today a significant part of the religious heritage of millions of Ontarians of culturally diverse backgrounds;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to continue its long-standing practice of using the Lord's Prayer as part of its daily proceedings."

I agree with this petition, and I have signed it.

HOME CARE

Mr. Paul Miller: I would like to present a petition from the SEIU union and the people of Hamilton and Burlington.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario government has continued the practice of competitive bidding for home care services; and

"Whereas the competitive bidding process has increased the privatization of Ontario's health care delivery, in direct violation of the Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act, 2004; and

"Whereas competitive bidding for home care services has decreased both the continuity and quality of care available to home care clients; and

"Whereas home care workers do not enjoy the same employment rights, such as successor rights, as all other Ontario workers have, which deprives them of termination rights, seniority rights and the right to move with their work when their employer agency loses a contract;

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

"We call on the government of Ontario:

"(1) to immediately stop the competitive bidding for home care services so home care clients can receive the continuity and quality of care they deserve; and

"(2) to extend successor rights under the Labour Relations Act to home care workers to ensure the home care sector is able to retain a workforce that is responsive to clients' needs."

I agree with this petition and hereby sign it.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Joe Dickson: "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Central East local health integration network (CE-LHIN) board of directors has approved the Rouge Valley Health System's deficit elimination plan, subject to public meetings; and

"Whereas, despite the significant expansion of the Ajax-Pickering hospital, its largest in its 53-year history, a project that could reach $100 million, of which 90% is funded by the Ontario government, this plan now calls for the ill-advised transfer of 20 mental health unit beds from Ajax-Pickering hospital to the Centenary health centre in Scarborough; and

"Whereas one of the factors for the successful treatment of patients in the mental health unit is support from family and friends, and the distance to Centenary health centre would negatively impact on the quality care for residents of Ajax and Pickering; and

"Whereas it is also imperative for Rouge Valley Health System to balance its budget, eliminate its deficit and debt and realize the benefits of additional Ontario government funding;

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

"That the Rouge Valley Health System continue to provide the current level of service to our Ajax-Pickering hospital, which now serves the fastest-growing communities of west Durham; and

"That the Ajax-Pickering hospital retain the badly needed 20-bed mental health unit."

I shall affix my signature to that and give it to Ida.

LORD'S PRAYER

Mr. John Yakabuski: I want to thank Rev. Rose LeClaire for forwarding this petition to me, on behalf of herself and her congregation.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the current Liberal government is proposing to eliminate the Lord's Prayer from its place at the beginning of daily proceedings in the Legislature; and

"Whereas the recitation of the Lord's Prayer has opened the Legislature every day since the 19th century; and

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer's message of forgiveness and the avoidance of evil is universal to the human condition: It is a valuable guide and lesson for a chamber that is too often an arena of conflict; and

"Whereas recognizing the diversity of the people of Ontario should be an inclusive process, not one which excludes traditions such as the Lord's Prayer;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, ask the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to preserve the daily recitation of the Lord's Prayer by the Speaker in the Legislature."

I support this petition and send it to the table with page Adam.

DISABLED PERSONS PARKING

PERMIT PROGRAM

Mr. Michael A. Brown: "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there currently exist problems of exposure to theft and the weather when displaying a disabled person parking permit on a motorcycle while parked in a disabled parking space;

"We, the undersigned, petition our members of Parliament to promote the development of a special, fixed permit as proposed by the Bikers Rights Organization, for use by disabled persons who ride or are passengers on motorcycles, even if that requires an amendment to the Highway Traffic Act."

I agree with this petition and thank the Bikers Rights Organization and, in particular, Michael Warren from Iron Bridge for this.

HOME CARE

M me France Gélinas: I have a petition from SEIU and the people of Cambridge, Guelph and Kitchener.

"Whereas the Ontario government has continued the practice of competitive bidding for home care services; and

"Whereas the competitive bidding process has increased the privatization of Ontario's health care delivery, in direct violation of the Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act, 2004; and

"Whereas competitive bidding for home care services has decreased both the continuity and quality of care available to home care clients; and

"Whereas home care workers do not enjoy the same employment rights, such as successor rights, as all other Ontario workers have, which deprives them of termination rights, seniority rights and the right to move with their work when their employer agency loses a contract;

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

"We call on the government of Ontario:

"(1) to immediately stop the competitive bidding for home care services so home care clients can receive the continuity and quality of care they deserve; and

"(2) to extend successor rights under the Labour Relations Act to home care workers to ensure the home care sector is able to retain a workforce that is responsive to clients' needs."

I support this petition and send it with Bethany.

FIREARMS CONTROL

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas innocent people are being victimized by the growing number of unlawful firearms in our communities; and

"Whereas police officers, military personnel and lawfully licensed persons are the only people allowed to possess firearms; and

"Whereas a growing number of unlawful firearms are transported, smuggled and found in motor vehicles; and

"Whereas impounding motor vehicles and suspending driver's licences of persons possessing unlawful firearms in motor vehicles would aid the police in their efforts to make our streets safer;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to pass Bill 56, the Unlawful Firearms in Vehicles Act, 2008, into law, so that we can reduce the number of crimes involving firearms in our communities."

I support it, and I've signed the petition.

LORD'S PRAYER

Mr. Bill Murdoch: I have a petition that's been sent to me by Dennis Foerster from R. R. 1, Neustadt. It's a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the current Liberal government is proposing to eliminate the Lord's Prayer from daily proceedings in the Ontario Legislature"—

Interjection.

Mr. Bill Murdoch: Mr. Speaker, I have heard that this may not be true and that the Minister of Transportation has said this, so I hope in his statement he will correct this and that that will be fine. We'll listen for his statement.

"Whereas the recitation of the Lord's Prayer has opened the Legislature every day since the 19th century; and

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer's message of forgiveness and the avoidance of evil is universal to the human condition: It is a valuable guide and lesson for a chamber that is too often an arena of conflict; and

"Whereas recognizing the diversity of the people of Ontario should be an inclusive process, not one which excludes traditions such as the Lord's Prayer;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, ask the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to preserve the daily recitation of the Lord's Prayer by the Speaker in the Legislature."

I have signed this. I'm sure that the Minister of Transportation will agree with me and will—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Thank you.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LEGISLATIVE REFORM

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 21, 2008, on the amendment to the motion by Mr. Bryant to amend the standing orders.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): When we last dealt with this matter, I understand the member for Hamilton Centre had the floor. I return to the member for Hamilton Centre.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I certainly did have the opportunity—I think it was just yesterday—to make a few remarks on the standing order changes that the government's brought forward. I think much of my remarks yesterday focused on a little bit of frustration around the government's lack of consultation and/or acknowledgment with a particular committee that was set up to undertake a particular job, and that is to talk about how to make this place more amenable to family relationships for all of the members who are privileged to sit here and represent the people of their riding.

Unfortunately, as people who watched yesterday's proceedings will know, the government has not only not consulted with that committee but they haven't even really officially struck the committee. Myself and a member from the Conservative caucus were eagerly awaiting that call to arms, if you will, in terms of trying to obtain the opportunity to sit and have a dialogue about these issues. Unfortunately, the government never did see fit. To this day, April—what's the date? April 22; something like that?—the government has still not seen fit to have that committee meet.

So notwithstanding the government couching this in terms of anything to do with families, the reality is, and I think everyone knows, it's got little, if anything at all, to do with that.

But having said that, I'll set that aside, because I did deal with those issues in my remarks yesterday. Just this very day, just a few shorts moments ago, we learned in this House that it's not only the Conservative caucus and not only the New Democratic caucus that have some concerns about these standing order changes; in fact, the government House leader was provided with correspondence from the press gallery. The Queen's Park press gallery are the people whose job it is to report on the happenings of this very place and to ensure that the public gets information about what happens here through various media sources of all kinds: print media, television media, radio media—

Mr. Jim Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I ' m just wondering if we have quorum.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): The table will ascertain if there's a quorum.

The Deputy Clerk (Mr. Todd Decker): Quorum is present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate? The member for Hamilton Centre.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It's an interesting request for a quorum count because the suspicion is—many people here think that once the new rules come into place, quorum won't be able to be obtained very often under the new rules. There will be members, particularly on Thursdays, who won't be bothered to stay here for something that the government pretends is being lofted up to some kind of very high degree of import in terms of expanding this

section of our agenda, which people in the community might know as private members' bills.

The government is suggesting that adding a third private member's bill time slot in debate is raising the profile or highlighting the import of private members' public business. But I have got to tell you, it's been our experience, and in particular the experience of my colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, that once a private member's bill is debated in second reading here in this chamber, the next piece of the process is that it goes to committee. In the committee process then, there's a discussion about how to handle the bill.

The way it normally works, because government has the majority of people in the committees, is that the government business is brought to the top of the heap in terms of priority within the committee. People understand that; it's part of the process.

In this particular committee, Bill 6 was brought forward and there was no other business on the committee agenda—no other business. There were no government bills. There was nothing else for this committee to do, save and except lonely little Bill 6, which was brought forward by my colleague from the Hamilton area, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. Lo and behold, what happens when this committee is charged to meet and deal with bills that come before it? What happens?

Of course, you would think what normally happens is that the committee would do the job that it is struck to do, which is to bring forward this bill and go through the process of public hearings, of clause-by-clause, and eventually get it back to this House for third reading debate.

But lo and behold, this particular private member's bill, again, private members' bills that this government is pretending—if people recall yesterday, when I made these remarks, the government House Leader did talk about how private members' business was going to become oh so much more important. I said yesterday, and I repeat today, that the government House leader was talking a big, big fish tale when he was talking about what he thought these standing orders meant.

I think everyone around this chamber would agree that it was a big fish tale, because it has nothing to do with vaulting private members' business into greater import because now there are three bills that are going to be debated instead of two.

We saw what happened with Bill 6; I'll go back. The fact that the government members of the committee—just like in this chamber, all of the committees have a majority of government members. It's all proportionate: Just like they have a majority in the House, they also have a majority in committee. So in the committee, the government members decided that they didn't want to know anything about Bill 6. They didn't care about Bill 6. They didn't care that the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek had actually worked really hard to put Bill 6 together.

They didn't want to hear anybody from the province of Ontario who might be interested in Bill 6. Let me tell you what Bill 6 is about. Bill 6 is about justice for workers. Bill 6 is about making sure that workers have economic justice when it comes to situations they have no control over around the closing of their plants.

I think that's important. I guess, coming from Hamilton, I would think that's important. You would think that every single member of this Legislature who has a single plant that has closed in their riding would at least think it was important to hear from workers across the province, and from people who represent workers across the province, as to the efficacy of Bill 6, which might help workers across the province.

But just like this Premier refuses to deal with job losses in this province, their committee—a majority of government members—refused to deal with Bill 6, a bill to deal with the pain and suffering currently being felt by many, many a family across the province of Ontario and particularly in the area of Hamilton and other industrial-type cities.

But no, they didn't want to hear from this member—this member's private member's bill—they didn't want to hear from workers across the province and they didn't want to hear anything at all that had to do with any kind of solution or any kind of effort to help workers in this province, and shame on them.

For the government House leader to get up and pretend that these standing orders changes have anything to do with private members' business, I think, is a bit of a stretch of the truth, and that's where that fish tale comes in, right? The fish is really this big, and by the time the tale about the fishing trip gets told, the fish is actually this big. I have to tell you, even though the member from Timmins—James Bay has lots of fish in his riding, as does the member from Nickel Belt, who is joining me in this afternoon's debate, it's not appropriate for the government House leader to tell fish tales when it comes to what these standing orders changes really mean.

In fact, even though three bills will be debated with the new changes, when now only two are, what the government House leader is not telling you is that those bills get shorter shrift. We used to have an hour to debate a private member's bill, and under these new changes, we might get 45 minutes. We're getting shorter shrift. We're being cut back by 15 minutes apiece.

I don't know if the government backbenchers know that their private members' bills not only don't get an hour's hearing anymore—they only get 45 minutes—but also that they get 45 minutes on the very last day of the week in the afternoon, when the vast majority of people are not going to be inside this Legislature. They're not going to be here.

In fact, speaking of ringing the quorum bell, I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that on a Thursday afternoon when we're here debating private members' business, we're going to have quorum bells constantly, because nobody is going to be here listening to your lowly little private member's bill, and you're not going to be able to get a whole bunch of people here to cheer on your private member's bill. The media are going to be long, long gone; they're not here on Friday. They're not going to care a bit about your private member's bill. Government backbenchers be warned: Your private members' bills are going down the tubes with your government's changes to the standing orders.

I've had enough to say. Our leadoff speech is coming from our House leader a little bit later on, and we look forward to those remarks.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate?

Ms. Laurel C. Broten: I'm very pleased to indicate today that I'll be sharing my time—oh, I'm on a two-minute. I'm watching the clock here.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: No, you're on your 20 minutes. There are no questions and comments.

Ms. Laurel C. Broten: Okay, I'm on my 20 minutes—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): The member has the floor, and I look forward to your comments.

Ms. Laurel C. Broten: I'm pleased to share my time with the member for Thunder Bay—Atikokan, and I'm pleased to talk about the amendments to the standing orders.

I'll focus my remarks on the hours of sitting, which currently extend regularly into the evening. For me, the most important amendment we are making to the rules of procedure of this House will be changing the primary sitting hours to normal business hours: 9 to 5:45, with evening sittings being limited to the last eight days of the spring and fall sessions, much more like those of us who have had the opportunity and privilege to work in other fields, where we work primarily during the day, as do our constituents.

I want to lend my voice, with respect to the proposed amendments to the standing orders, to the pilot project. In my view, these changes will have a positive impact on the willingness of women to run for provincial office, their willingness to stay, to contribute and to succeed in the political realm—a role which I've been privileged to serve in and continue to serve in on behalf of my constituents in Etobicoke—Lakeshore and one in which I think women have made over the years, and will continue to make, a strong impact.

When we talk about balancing our work life and our family life, I guess it's something that we're always in search of. As a mother of two two-and-a-half-year-old boys, I don't know that I have the secret to finding that balance. I think the reality is that it's a very difficult thing to achieve. I think we can best describe it as trying to integrate two things that you love passionately—your work, your family—and that you try to balance ebb and flow throughout your career, throughout your children's lives, back and forth; and that you, hopefully, by the end of your life have achieved a life with some balance.

A family-friendly approach for the governance of the Legislature is one to make it easier for women to make the decision to run for public office in the first place. If we do that as a society, as a province, as a Legislature, we will benefit from the tremendous contribution that women will make in political life. The laws will be better. They'll be more inclusive when we have greater diversity in this place.

I don't say that as someone who's trying to make us feel good, or from the perspective of being a do-gooder, but I think it's something that we can certainly learn from business, because it is a model that business has studied and business has learned over the years.

I want to share with you a business concept that has been really expanded by the business writer James Surowiecki. I'm reading now and I certainly encourage folks to take a look at this book by a Harvard law prof, Off-Ramps and On-Ramps. It really studies the career trajectory of women.

"James Surowiecki writes: 'The basic premise is that diverse teams make better decisions.'

"Surowiecki assembles a great deal of evidence to show that homogeneous groups become progressively less able to investigate alternatives, to bring new and different people into an organization, and even if they are less experienced, they actually make the group, as a whole, smarter, simply because what they know is not the same as what everyone else in the group knows.

"A woman who grew up on the wrong side of the tracks and attended a small Baptist college has had very different life experiences from an upper-class white male who attended Yale. Introduce this woman into a group of Ivy League-educated men and the thinking will change. Any kind of difference—race, class or gender—can have this kind of effect."

I think that business model is one that we can learn and have observed in this Legislature as to the benefit of bringing diverse voices, diverse perspectives, to the table. We can learn a great deal from business leaders and corporations across North America and around the world who have sought to go the extra mile to ensure that women succeed within their business organizations.

You can name a few: Ernst and Young, Lehman Brothers, Johnson and Johnson, Cisco, General Electric. Many of those companies—again, outlined in this very extensive analysis by Professor Hewlett—have gone the extra mile to find ways to help women balance their careers. In so many of those instances, the very request made by women who had highly demanding, challenging jobs, as we do, as legislators—what they asked for was the opportunity to spend that critical time with their children from 6:30 to 8:30. They sought that flexibility.

I would have to say that for me, with young children, as I know my colleague across the House, who also has young children, has said, you're up early, you're ready to be here, you're hard-working, you love your job, but you love your kids. And when you don't get home for that 6:30 to 8:30 time slot, it is so critical. I notice a real difference in my ability to spend quality time with my kids when I miss dinnertime, when I miss bath time, when I miss bedtime. It's a real struggle to find that balance that we're always searching for.

I want to just talk a little bit about some of the other institutions similar to this. I know that my friends across the House might say, "You can't compare litigation"—which is what I did before coming to this place—"and courtroom hours to what we do here." I would suggest to you that you can, to a great extent, contra