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

April 26, 2004

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2004-Apr-26 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 26 April 2004 Lundi 26 avril 2004

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO BUDGET

RIDING OF SARNIA-LAMBTON

LONG-TERM CARE

EVENTS IN YORK WEST

SECOND-STAGE HOUSING

POWASSAN MAPLE SYRUP FESTIVAL

WATER QUALITY

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT (HOURS OF WORK AND OTHER MATTERS), 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI

(HEURES DE TRAVAIL ET AUTRES

QUESTIONS)

PENSION BENEFITS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RÉGIMES DE RETRAITE

COLLECTION AGENCIES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES AGENCES DE RECOUVREMENT

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

AND SECURITY GUARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES ENQUÊTEURS PRIVÉS

ET LES GARDIENS

PIPELINE EXCAVATION SAFETY

AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ

ET LA RESPONSABILISATION

RELATIVES À L'EXCAVATION

DE PIPELINES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

HOURS OF WORK /

HEURES DE TRAVAIL

MEMBER'S CONDUCT

ORAL QUESTIONS

CLASS SIZE

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

ENERGY CONSERVATION

WATER QUALITY

RENT BANK PROGRAMS

TORONTO POLICE SERVICE

HEALTH CARE

TOURISM

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

CLASS SIZE

ENBRIDGE GAS

WATER QUALITY

BEEF PRODUCERS

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

PETITIONS

TILLSONBURG DISTRICT

MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

TAXATION

SEX OFFENDERS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

HIGHWAY 407

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

ONTARIO BUDGET

HIGHWAY 518

SEAT BELTS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOVERNMENT

ADVERTISING ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR

LA PUBLICITÉ GOUVERNEMENTALE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): Today I rise to talk about an important public policy priority in advance of next month's budget. We will

hear a lot of discussion about health care and education, as those are the leading issues on the public agenda. But it's important that we as legislators, and the government, hear those softer

voices, those quieter people whose voices aren't as loud. It's important that we listen to them as well.

Back in the 2001 budget, people with developmental disabilities and those who work to provide support to them received a five-year budget commitment going up to

$197 million a year, in addition to $67 million in capital. This is to help families, particularly aging parents who have raised children with a developmental disability who are now adults. It

includes residential support, day programs and respite support. This announcement was greeted with great fanfare when, as a by-election candidate, the Minister of Finance, Greg Sorbara,

complimented the previous government on this important initiative.

Today, on behalf of people with developmental disabilities, not just in my constituency of Nepean-Carleton but throughout Ontario, I want to call upon the

minister to keep his commitment to our most vulnerable citizens with developmental disabilities and continue this worthwhile initiative that has done so much to help the most vulnerable in our

communities.

RIDING OF SARNIA-LAMBTON

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): I am pleased to rise in this House to speak about Sarnia-Lambton's journey to sustainable development.

With the political will of this government and its Ministry of the Environment, the co-operation of industry and the great safety record of our local workforce, Sarnia-Lambton is well on its way to

becoming a model community that is able to achieve a pro-environment, pro-business standard of excellence. This is the 21st-century way of doing business.

Sarnia-Lambton has had a troubled legacy of environmental problems. Our government, under Premier Dalton McGuinty, is playing a constructive role in helping us

to turn this image around. It is only with the understanding that it is with pro-environment and pro-business attitudes that we will be able to achieve sustainable development. And only with strong

leadership from government at all levels and industry and public support will we be able to achieve this goal of sustainable development.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): On Friday, April 23, Mr Jerry Ouellette and I visited the Wynfield, a new long-term-care facility in my riding. Ms

Katherine Jackson, the administrator, showed us around and gave us a tour of the facility. At the same meeting was Mr Bruce Scully, director of operations for community care.

The Wynfield, as you might know, is a beautiful, new long-term-care facility, home to 172 residents. On our tour, I was impressed with the caring staff and the

cheerful residents.

Elizabeth Witmer, our health critic and former health minister, asked Minister Smitherman a question on April 6 on long-term-care issues. The minister refused to

be clear on the Liberal election platform to invest $6,000 per resident. The facts are unclear, creating instability. However, for Wynfield and its 172 seniors and over 120 staff, the future is

anything but bright. The traditional municipal tax rebate of 90% is being retroactively clawed back. This will force Wynfield and other long-term-care facilities in Ontario to reduce services to

clients and, potentially, to lay off staff.

I am certain Elizabeth Witmer will act to protect our long-term-care community and will work to protect senior citizens. Will Mr Smitherman ignore the issue,

while breaking yet another Liberal promise?

EVENTS IN YORK WEST

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): Last Friday, I had the privilege of attending the grand opening of our new industrial woodworking and

pre-apprenticeship facility in my riding of York West. Before, a space unutilized, it's now providing students with hands-on learning experience as well as computer-assisted machine training for

industrial woodworking.

As we are well aware, there has long been a cry in the marketplace for skilled tradespeople. I'm delighted that establishments such as this, along with the $10

million allotted for Ontario's apprenticeship program, will help in opening the gate for the success of our youth and enhance the future prosperity of our great province.

Established with the positive partnership and co-operation of the Maintenance and Construction Skilled Trades Council, design and construction services, the

Toronto District School Board, the industrial woodworkers' local 1072 and the carpenters' union local 27, their combined efforts have contributed to making this dream a viable reality.

It gives me great pleasure as well to announce another happy event which transpired Friday morning. A $71,000 Ontario Trillium Foundation grant was presented to

the Philip Aziz Centre, a community-based home hospice program that will give support to children, families and adults living with HIV and other life-threatening illnesses. The centre provides a

critically important role in our community by restoring competence and compassion to hospice care. York West is fortunate to have a specialized organization devoted to assisting our people in

need.

SECOND-STAGE HOUSING

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I rise today to remind the government of its commitment to re-fund second-stage housing in this province.

I believe it was on April 6 that the Premier made an announcement of $3.5 million, which led us all to believe, including the people who work, or used to work, in second-stage housing, that that

$3.5 million would go towards re-funding the programs the previous government cut in the existing second-stage housing.

I even stood in this House after the announcement was made -- it's on the record -- congratulating the government for finally keeping a promise and reinstating

that $3.5 million back into the existing second-stage housing. As you know, under the previous government, all of those programs were cut.

We were all led to believe that $3.5 million was going into that existing housing. I questioned the minister a day later, and the result of that questioning was

that that money is not actually going back into existing second-stage housing, although the minister for children's services was not clear about that. But we have talked to ministry officials, and

what is happening is that there will be consultations about how that money will be spent. The government should keep its promise and put that money back into programs in existing second-stage

housing.

POWASSAN MAPLE SYRUP FESTIVAL

Ms Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): I rise today to congratulate the organizing committee of the Powassan Maple Syrup Festival for their efforts

over the weekend. The seventh annual Powassan Maple Syrup Festival took place this past Saturday in my riding and attracted thousands from our area.

Visitors were provided with bus rides to two local maple syrup manufacturers, horse-drawn carriage rides, performances on three stages by local talent and all

kinds of maple syrup delicacies, including beaver tails, maple syrup baked beans, maple syrup cotton candy and -- I'm sure what the member for Durham would appreciate -- maple syrup butter

tarts.

The event included the entire community, with local churches, schools, service clubs and local businesses participating. Many local craftspeople and artisans

have booths on the main street. As well, Geisler Brothers, known worldwide for their cedar strip boats, opened up their workshop and allowed tours.

The highlight for me, of course, was the celebrity pancake toss. The mayors of South River, Nipissing, Chisholm, East Ferris and the former mayor of North Bay as

well as the defending champion, the mayor of Powassan, participated. Unfortunately, I was not successful -- not enough practice this year -- but hats off to the mayor of South River, who holds the

title.

I would like to salute George Thompson, the chair of this festival, and his entire committee as well as Bob Young, the mayor of Powassan, for a delightful day.

I've already marked the eighth annual festival on my calendar for next April and invite all the members of this assembly to join me in Powassan.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I am pleased to rise this afternoon to speak on behalf of the many thousands of rural Ontario churches and

community halls.

The Dalton McGuinty church tax is the newest Liberal assault on the citizens of rural Ontario. It is very clear that many rural Ontario churches and community

halls will be forced to close as a result of the implementation of regulation 170/03.

After a very rigorous partisan advertising campaign costing Ontario citizens tens of thousands of dollars, it is now clear that the McGuinty Liberals will force

churches and community halls to install expensive water treatment equipment.

Church congregations and community halls are most often supported by fewer than 20 to 30 families, and yet the churches and community halls are the heart and

soul of rural Ontario. Without compensation from the McGuinty Liberals, we will see rural communities fall one at a time.

I'm asking the McGuinty Liberals to think beyond the GTA borders and respect the hard-working families of rural Ontario. They expect and deserve to have churches

and community halls. They expect that their churches and community halls, most often built over 100 years ago, can remain active and vibrant for many more years to come. I call upon the McGuinty

Liberals to compensate the citizens of rural Ontario as they force the implementation of regulation 170/03.

I'd also like to thank the deputy mayor of the township of Severn in my riding, Judith Cox, who is distributing petitions to all the churches and community halls

in the riding of Simcoe North.

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

Mr Tony C. Wong (Markham): Today I would like to recognize an important milestone in my riding: the 150th anniversary of the naming of the

village of Unionville in the town of Markham. Unionville officially kicked off its celebrations this past weekend on Sunday, April 25.

For the early German settlers to the area, 1854 must have been a proud year as they witnessed their village get a post office and thus a name. In 2004,

Unionville will celebrate its finely preserved heritage, an important part of which centres around the many exceptionally well-preserved heritage buildings on Main Street. Some of these buildings

are still occupied by the direct descendants of the original owners from the 1820s. Unionville's careful preservation of these buildings has earned much praise and has helped Markham win the Prince

of Wales heritage award for heritage preservation.

Markham was the first city in Canada to receive this prestigious award from the Prince of Wales. I am proud that Markham is setting such a fine example in

heritage preservation. I'm also proud that this government, which recognizes successes like Unionville, has recently introduced legislation strengthening heritage preservation in Ontario.

The 150th anniversary celebrations in Unionville will focus on music, art and culture in a year-long extravaganza. Unionville's award-winning heritage Main

Street welcomes you.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): In question period on Thursday, I asked the environment minister a serious question about a

life-and-death issue in my riding: the four-laning of Highway 7 between Carleton Place and Highway 417. In response, I received a bizarre and entirely inappropriate attack. The minister indicated a

personal grudge against me and suggested she intended to take her animosity out on my constituents. Further, she made the comments while acting as Premier in this Legislature.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Let me hear the member's statement.

Mr Sterling: Needless to say, my colleagues, my constituents and I were surprised and dismayed.

In my part of the province, many people know someone who has been killed along this stretch of Highway 7. That's why the previous government committed $85

million to this much-needed four-laning.

As I stated in the Legislature last week, people are dying on the existing two-lane highway. Progress is being held up due to an environmental approval, in spite

of this being a minor environmental approval. The minister has sat on this file for over six months. It is clear that this minister is not on top of this file.

I'm calling on the Premier to intervene. What should be a routine part of her ministry's function has clearly slipped off the radar screen. We can save lives by

moving forward with the four-laning of Highway 7. The government must act today.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT (HOURS OF WORK AND OTHER MATTERS), 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI

(HEURES DE TRAVAIL ET AUTRES

QUESTIONS)

Mr Bentley moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 63,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 with respect to hours of work and certain other matters / Projet de loi 63, Loi modifiant la Loi

de 2000 sur les normes d'emploi en ce qui concerne les heures de travail et d'autres questions.

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

Mr Bentley.

Hon Christopher Bentley (Minister of Labour): I will defer my statement to ministerial statements.

PENSION BENEFITS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RÉGIMES DE RETRAITE

Mr Kormos moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 64,

An Act to amend the Pension Benefits Act / Projet de loi 64, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les régimes de retraite.

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

Mr Kormos.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): This bill amends the Pension Benefits Act to raise the amount guaranteed by the pension benefits guarantee

fund from $1,000 per month to $2,500 per month.

COLLECTION AGENCIES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES AGENCES DE RECOUVREMENT

Mr Sergio moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 65,

An Act to amend the Collection Agencies Act / Projet de loi 65, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les agences de recouvrement.

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

Mr Sergio.

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): The bill amends the Collection Agencies Act by specifying that certain behaviours are prohibited practices and

prohibited methods in the collection of debt. The bill establishes a discipline committee and an appeals committee to deal with complaints concerning engaging in prohibited practices or employing

prohibited methods in the collection of debt.

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

AND SECURITY GUARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES ENQUÊTEURS PRIVÉS

ET LES GARDIENS

Mr Sergio moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 66,

An Act to amend the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act / Projet de loi 66, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les enquêteurs privés et

les gardiens.

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

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): The bill amends the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act to require that licensees under the act meet

certain educational and other standards.

PIPELINE EXCAVATION SAFETY

AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2004 /

LOI DE 2004 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ

ET LA RESPONSABILISATION

RELATIVES À L'EXCAVATION

DE PIPELINES

Mr Sergio moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 67,

An Act to provide for greater safety and accountability in pipeline excavations and to amend the Technical Standards and Safety Act, 2000 to require

annual reports in the pipeline sector and to increase penalties for offences under the Act / Projet de loi 67, Loi prévoyant une sécurité et une responsabilisation accrues en

matière d'excavation de pipelines et modifiant la Loi de 2000 sur les normes techniques et la sécurité afin d'exiger la présentation de rapports annuels dans le secteur des

pipelines et d'augmenter les peines imposées pour les infractions à la Loi.

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

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): The bill places a duty on the operators of pipelines to obtain declarations from professional engineers

specifying the location of their pipelines and places a duty on engineers to provide those declarations with care and skill. Anyone engaged in an activity that may interfere with a pipeline is

required to first ascertain the location of the pipeline from the operator and then to engage in the activity that may interfere with the pipeline safely and with skill.

The bill also provides that it is an offence to breach any of the various duties imposed with respect to safe pipeline excavation and establishes maximum

penalties for those offences.

In addition, the bill amends the Technical Standards and Safety Act, 2000, to require designated administrative authorities and directors to submit annual

reports to the minister on the state of public safety in the oil and gas pipeline sector. The minister is required to submit each report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and to table it in the

Legislative Assembly.

Finally, the penalties for offenders under the act are increased, and the penalties for a director or officer of a body corporate who fails to take reasonable

care to prevent the body corporate from committing an offence under the act are increased as well.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

HOURS OF WORK /

HEURES DE TRAVAIL

Hon Christopher Bentley (Minister of Labour): Today I have the privilege of introducing the Employment Standards Amendment Act (Hours of Work

and other Matters), 2004. As a government, we are delivering real, positive change by introducing legislation that would, if passed, ensure employees have a genuine choice about whether to work

extra hours. This government made a commitment to end the 60-hour workweek introduced by the previous government and to restore a worker's right to choose whether to work more than 48 hours in a

week. This legislation keeps that commitment.

We are taking a fair, balanced approach. We will protect the vulnerable and support the choice of all workers whether to work extra hours, while ensuring

Ontario businesses have the necessary flexibility to compete nationally and internationally.

To work more than 48 hours, the employee must agree and the employer's application must receive Ministry of Labour approval.

Les employés dévoués de l'Ontario méritent de pouvoir concilier une vie professionnelle et une vie personnelle riche et valorisante.

La législation adoptée par le gouvernement précédent a fait en sorte que certains employés étaient trop préoccupés par

leur travail pour refuser à leur employeur de travailler jusqu'à 60 heures par semaine. Aucun mécanisme de surveillance gouvernemental n'était en place pour appuyer le choix des

employés. On avait aboli, sans trop se préoccuper de la façon dont les personnes vulnérables pourraient faire valoir leurs droits, un mécanisme de protection fondamental

qui était en place depuis des décennies.

This is not a small issue. Estimates are that over 466,000 Ontario employees worked 50 or more hours in a week in 2003 -- and those are the ones we can

measure. Those are most likely underestimates, as it is difficult to measure workers in the most vulnerable situations. A recent study by Dr Linda Duxbury of Carleton University and Dr Chris

Higgins of the University of Western Ontario found that work-life conflict has increased over the past decade. They also found that work demands have increased, leading to a significant portion of

the Canadian workforce having trouble balancing the competing roles of employee, parent, spouse and elder caregiver.

After announcing our government's intention to roll back the 60-hour workweek, we asked for the best advice on how to achieve that goal. During the ensuing

consultations, ministry officials met with 31 key labour, employer and community stakeholders. We received over 30 submissions from other stakeholders and almost 80 letters from members of the

general public.

We listened. We are proposing to restore a protection that existed for decades, but doing so in a way that reflects the need of business to compete in today's

society. With the companion announcement I will speak to in a moment, we will also ensure that the legislation will actually protect those it must.

Ministry approval would be streamlined for businesses. They would be able to file on-line, by fax, by mail or in person and receive timely responses from the

Ministry of Labour. Approvals could be for up to three years, eliminating the necessity to apply every year. Sample agreements and simplified forms would be provided. There would be no fee. A

transition period would allow employers time to get ministry approval before the law comes into effect. The ability to respond to the special or distinct needs of a particular industry through

regulation would be restored.

The proposed legislation also deals with the issue of overtime averaging. Averaging has the potential to lower the amount of overtime pay employees might

receive. We must ensure that employees are agreeing to overtime averaging for the right reasons, without undue pressure from their employer.

The current act allows employees to agree to have their overtime hours averaged over a period of up to four weeks without Ministry of Labour approval. We are

restoring the requirement that ministry approval be obtained for averaging of any overtime, a protection that had existed for decades before it was removed in the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

Employees have the right to make an informed and effective choice.

These new protections will be supported by a new approach to awareness and enforcement. Two of the biggest obstacles to ensuring the act protects those it must

are a lack of awareness of rights and responsibilities by employees and employers, and a lack of enforcement of those rights and responsibilities.

First, we will be increasing awareness of the rights and responsibilities for both employers and employees. The overwhelming majority of employers either do or

want to do the right thing. Many are not aware of their responsibilities, and it is not always easy to find out about them. We are developing a workplace portal which will provide easy-to-use

information about workplace rights and responsibilities. This will ensure businesses can easily determine how to keep themselves in compliance with the act.

For employees, we recognize that many of the most vulnerable are recent arrivals to Ontario who are not aware of their rights. Many others speak a language

others to make sure that the information is disseminated as widely as possible.

What about enforcement? What should we do when some refuse to comply? Rights without remedies will not be rights for long. Remedies that are not used are not

remedies at all.

Both business groups and workers have told us that a new, more effective approach to enforcement of employment standards is long overdue. Such an approach

would protect vulnerable workers and at the same time level the playing field for honest employers who comply with the rules.

The Employment Standards Act, 2000, contains many enforcement tools to ensure that the rights in the act are protected, but those tools are not being used as

effectively as they could be. The result has been that those who need the act's protections may not always be getting them and those who comply with the act are often placed at a competitive

disadvantage to those who choose not to.

To support the proposed hours-of-work legislation, and every other right in the Employment Standards Act, 2000, we are taking a different approach than has

been followed. We are going to make sure that all the tools in the Employment Standards Act, 2000, are used, where appropriate, to ensure compliance. We have changed the dial. Enforcement is back

in style.

In conclusion, the legislation introduced today will help us build a strong and prosperous Ontario by building an economy based on high skills and high

standards.

We are proposing a set of rules for regulating hours of work that will work for everyone -- employers and employees. We will support these proposed rules and

every other protection in the Employment Standards Act, 2000, with new awareness initiatives and enhanced enforcement.

We are working toward building a strong and prosperous economy, one that will provide the people of Ontario with the highest quality of life that is second to

none.

These are positive changes for all the people of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Responses?

Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): If one were to read the papers and listen to the radio this morning and now listen to the Minister of Labour in

this place, you would think that this is significant legislation. You'd think, in fact, that people have been obliged, have been forced, to work 60 hours a week over the past several years in

Ontario. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's a disservice to the people of Ontario for this minister and this government to pretend that any employee in the province of Ontario -- small

business, big business -- has been obliged to work 60 hours a week against their will since the Employment Standards Act was amended in 2000. That is wrong.

The minister talks about economic growth. Here's how you encourage economic growth, according to this Minister of Labour and this government: Bring back an

old-fashioned, rubber-stamp-permit data system at the Ministry of Labour. Have a whole bunch of public servants on University Avenue at the Ministry of Labour doing what they used to do:

rubber-stamping these permits week after week in industries where people need flexible hours, in small business and in large business. What a waste of resources: red tape upon tax increases. That's

how you intend to grow the economy in the province of Ontario.

We lost 25,000 jobs in the province last month. The minister says he is concerned about economic growth. If he's concerned about economic growth, he ought to

emulate the policies that we followed, that created in excess of a million net new jobs in Ontario. The Liberals have this patronizing attitude; that is, they know here at 400 University Avenue

what's good for small business in the province of Ontario. They know what to say to someone in Thornhill or Sudbury or Thunder Bay or Haileybury. Tell them how to run their business. Give them

another paper burden so that when they agree with their employees to work an extra few hours -- a written agreement, which is the law now -- it has to come to University Avenue in Toronto so

someone can rubber-stamp it and send it back to the hard-working small business owners and small business workers in the province.

At what cost to taxpayers, Minister of Labour? It's certainly no benefit, but at what cost to taxpayers? The deal now, the arrangement now, is that if an

employee is going to work more than 48 hours in a given week, the employer and the employee must agree in writing in order to do that. The system has worked well. I was talking to some of my

colleagues here, asking them about the number of complaints they have had about this system.

Interjections: None.

Mr Flaherty: None. We hear nothing, because the system works -- perhaps some complaints from the Ontario public service that positions that

were involved in granting permits were eliminated, but it adds nothing to business and to economic growth in the province of Ontario.

Show some respect to small business. Small business is the engine of economic growth. More than half the new jobs in Ontario in the last nine years have been

created by small business. They don't need another burden. They don't need another form from the Ministry of Labour on University Avenue. What they need is some understanding of what they are

obliged to do in order to make a living, to grow their businesses, to employ more people in the province, not an additional red tape burden.

Small business people work hard enough, and big business does too. I can remember visiting one of the large manufacturers in Ontario -- I'm glad the Minister

of Economic Development is here -- and hearing from them about the paper burden with the Ministry of Labour's employment standards branch in the province of Ontario. Their employees wanted to have

flexible hours. They wanted to work some overtime. It's one of the most important industries in the province. But no. This Minister of Labour says that his government wants to grow the economy, but

they're putting this burden on small business and on large business across the province.

It's pseudo-reform; it's reform without meaning. It changes nothing in the lives of workers in the province of Ontario. It's a smokescreen. It is purely a

creation of forms and permits. In fact, it's going back to 1985 and 1990, when we had all these forms and permits and where the Liberal mantra was -- and it looks like it is again, with the largest

single tax hike in the history of the province -- "If it moves, tax it; if it slows down, subsidize it; if it stops, nationalize it."

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Responses?

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I feel compelled to respond.

The Speaker: If I could give you your proper time. Order.

Mr Hampton: On behalf of New Democrats, I feel compelled to reply to what amounts to nothing more than media spin.

Under the Conservatives, workers could be coerced into working a 60-hour workweek. Now, under the Liberals, workers can be coerced into working a 60-hour

workweek. All the employer needs to do is to say, "You work 60 hours or you'll be out of here." Then they sign and he sends in an application, but the application doesn't even have to be

considered, because after 30 days it's automatic.

Under the Conservatives, we saw a whole lot of inspectors and enforcement officers at the employment standards branch laid off, so that the branch became quite

ineffective in terms of being able to go out there and protect the rights of workers, particularly workers who don't have a union. Under the Liberals, are those same inspectors and enforcement

officers coming back? No. The Liberals are going to follow the Conservative staffing plan, which means completely ineffective enforcement.

Under the Conservatives, an employer could deprive his workers of overtime pay simply by opting for averaging. Under the Liberals, he simply coerces his

workers into signing and then files an application for averaging of overtime pay, and the application doesn't even have to be considered. It's automatic after 30 days.

The Conservatives should be pleased today. What's happened here is that the Conservative regime of the 60-hour workweek has simply gotten a little Liberal-red

wrapping paper but remains essentially the same. I thought for sure -- I was hoping -- the minister would be here today to tell us that the "just cause" provisions in the Employment Standards Act

were going to be tightened up so that it would give workers some options when an employer tried to coerce them. I thought there would be some criteria in the bill which an employer would have to

meet when he applies for longer overtime hours, that the alternatives like hiring new employees would have to be considered. Nothing like that is there. This is wide open.

I thought for sure there would be some provisions which ensured that workers were going to be paid their overtime pay, but this allows for the same kind of

averaging, the same kind of deprivation of overtime pay that existed under the Conservatives.

The minister talks about enhanced enforcement, but when the minister talks about that, he should know that there is an existing backlog of 20,000 complaints at

the employment standards branch of the Ministry of Labour. And do you know what most of those complaints involve? Complaints by workers: failure of the employer to pay wages, failure of the

employer to pay overtime, failure of the employer to pay vacation pay.

The minister says he is going to become proactive. What is he going to do? Tell the 20,000 complainants who have already said, "I wasn't paid the wages that

were due to me" to take a hike? Is that what you are going to do? You don't even have a strategy to deal with the backlog, never mind be proactive about future enforcement.

The government likes to talk about change, but the only thing that has changed here is a little bit of Liberal gift-wrapping on top of Conservative policy

which was very damaging to workers. That is the only thing that has happened.

The other point that I want to raise is, what happens to a lot of lower-paid workers, a lot of workers who are working for minimum wage, who work in two jobs?

Many of them do. What happens if the employer says, "You are going to work overtime here. Sign here. If you don't sign here, you're gone," and then files the application, which no one needs to

consider? What happens to those workers? Is there any protection for them in this bill? I don't see any. I don't see any protection at all.

A further point: The government says that somehow this is restoring the law to what it was. I wish the government had just restored the law to what it was

under Bill Davis in 1980, but you don't even meet that test. You even fall short of that test here.

MEMBER'S CONDUCT

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): On Tuesday, April 20, 2004, the member for Erie-Lincoln, Mr Hudak, rose on a question of privilege concerning

an incident that occurred immediately after the adjournment of the House on Wednesday, April 14.

As members well know, just prior to the adjournment of the House on April 14, the Deputy Speaker was presiding over a recorded vote on a motion of

non-confidence in the government. The atmosphere of the House at the time of the vote was raucous, and immediately after the vote, the Deputy Speaker made a statement to the House on the situation.

However, emotions continued to run high after the ensuing adjournment of the House.

According to the member for Erie-Lincoln, it was at this time that the Deputy Speaker, who was in the under-gallery on his way out of the chamber, directed

gestures and facial expressions toward him. The member was of the view that these gestures and expressions amounted to a contempt of the House, so he asked the Speaker to rule that a prima facie

case of contempt exists.

The member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, Mr Barrett; the member for Niagara Centre, Mr Kormos; and government House leader, Mr Duncan also spoke to this

matter.

Then, on April 22, the member for Essex, during a point of personal explanation, indicated to the House his position that what he was attempting to do at the

time in question was invite the member for Erie-Lincoln behind the dais to discuss what had occurred during the vote that had just taken place.

I had an opportunity to reflect on this matter, and I am now going to rule. Since it is not appropriate to question the conduct, suitability or impartiality of

the Chair on a point of privilege, which the member of Erie-Lincoln has acknowledged, I will address only the contempt issue in this ruling. Erskine May defines contempt in the following terms on

pages 108, 117 and 120 of the 22nd edition:

"Generally speaking, any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or

impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is

no precedent of the offence. It is therefore impossible to list every act which might be considered to amount to a contempt, the power to punish for such an offence being of its nature

discretionary....

"Indignities offered to the House by words spoken or writings published reflecting on its character or proceedings have been punished by both the Lords and the

Commons upon the principle that such acts tend to obstruct the Houses in the performance of their functions by diminishing the respect due to them....

"Other acts besides words spoken or writings published reflecting upon either House or its proceedings which, though they do not tend directly to obstruct or

impede either House in the performance of its functions, yet have a tendency to produce this result indirectly by bringing such House into odium, contempt or ridicule or by lowering its authority

may constitute contempts."

That is what Erskine May says on contempt.

In our own House, there have been several occasions on which a member has alleged that another member threatened or intimidated that member. For example, on

December 5, 2000, a question of privilege was raised concerning an allegedly threatening and intimidating remark made by a minister to another member while the minister was leaving his seat in the

chamber.

The Acting Speaker ruled, on page 6103 of the Hansard for that day as follows: "I understand there's a difference of opinion here as to what was and what

wasn't said. None of what has been alleged to be said is on the record so we don't have the privileges of being able to take a look at that. I would ask all honourable members in this place to

respect the privilege of each other, as we are expected to do or are wont to do or are understood to be doing when we're sent here by the electorate, and that in future we will act

accordingly."

Later the same day, a member rose on a point of order to indicate that during a recess for grave disorder, another member had crossed the floor and approached

him at his desk in a physically intimidating and threatening manner. The Acting Speaker ruled, at page 6123 of the Hansard for that day, as follows:

"While all that happened, the House was in recess and I wasn't here. I have no reason to doubt the scenario you've painted. However, I would expect all members

in this place, duly elected by their constituents, to assume to be honourable and that they would carry themselves in that manner in this place."

Finally, on October 23, 2001, a point of order was raised concerning a member's alleged challenge to another member as the former was leaving the chamber at

the end of question period to meet him outside the chamber. The Speaker dealt with the point of order by indicating, at pages 2929 and 2930 of the Hansard for that day, as follows:

"I know that occasionally members do get rather heated in here. I'm sure the member will agree that the Sergeant at Arms does all he can. In circumstances like

this, if members could realize that we are honourable members -- and in fact on that particular occasion, it could have been a discussion taken outside. I would ask all members to act honourably,

which I'm sure they will do."

I say to members of this House that in a proper case, threatening or intimidating behaviour by a member against another member can amount to a contempt of the

House. In assessing whether the alleged behaviour in the case at hand establishes a prima facie case of contempt, I have to say that there are different ways to interpret what actually occurred.

Indeed, these differences were reflected in the various submissions and statements that were made in the House concerning this question of privilege: What the member for Erie-Lincoln claims was

threatening and intimidating conduct, the member for Essex claims was an invitation to explain a rule. The competing claims of the honourable members lead me to the view that in this case the

Speaker is not in a position to make a preliminary finding as to the nature and intention of the conduct in question. Therefore, I find that a prima facie case of contempt has not been made.

In closing, I want to thank the member for Erie-Lincoln, the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, the member for Niagara Centre, the government House leader and

the member for Essex for their thoughtful and helpful contributions on this matter.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Mr Speaker, just very briefly, it's an unpleasant thing for the Speaker to have to consider a matter like

this. I want to thank you for your consideration of the issues raised before you.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CLASS SIZE

Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): My question is to the Premier. You have often said in this place that there are limited resources available

budget-wise. On Thursday you announced in Richmond Hill that the government of Ontario would be imposing on local schools a hard cap of 20 students per class from kindergarten to grade 3. That has

been costed by ministry officials at $1.63 billion, which is more than the government plans to spend on education in total.

We know that you've had the Ontario public service cost your promises. My question to you today is, first of all, what is the cost of the hard cap of 20

students per class from K to grade 3 when it is fully implemented? Is it $1.63 billion, as the ministry told us, or do you have another figure?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm very pleased to speak to this issue and to this question in

particular. I will tell the member opposite that he can look forward to the budgetary details in the upcoming budget. But let me tell you this: We are absolutely determined to get class sizes down,

in the early years in our public schools, to a maximum of 20 for the years JK to grade 3. That evolution will begin to take place this very September. I'll tell you why we believe it's so

important: because we think our children deserve more individual attention so they might find greater success inside our schools. Only one half of Ontario children who are taking our standardized

tests are meeting the Ontario standard when it comes to reading, writing and mathematics. So instead of investing in private schools, which the member opposite was a champion for, we are going to

invest in our public schools for our students to enjoy success.

Mr Flaherty: The question to the Premier was not a complicated one. It was, how much? The people of Ontario did not get an answer.

We know the Liberal platform said that the cost would be something like $375 million, and we know that's wrong. We know that in September, for example, the

York Region District School Board figured it would cost them $50 million, and the York region Catholic board, $20 million -- a lot of this money to be spent on portables and that kind of thing, not

on literacy and on numeracy in our schools. That's $70 million in just one region of Ontario, which shows how unreasonable, how foolish the figure is being used by the Premier of Ontario.

We also have a commitment from this government to fulfill the Rozanski recommendations, at a cost of $1.6 billion. They are now going to spend all of that on

one ideological commitment to a hard cap. Will the Premier confirm that he intends in this mandate to fulfill all of the recommendations of the Rozanski report?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I will not apologize for this government investing in the future of Ontario by investing in our children. I'll tell you why

this investment is so desperately called for. During the course of the last eight years, we've had a 40% increase in private school enrolment. We've had 200 new private schools open in the province

of Ontario,

whereas 400 public schools have been closed. It is estimated that as many as 25% of our high school students will be dropping out of school. To us on this side of the House, those

figures are unacceptable.

Just as this member was committed to investing in private schools, we on this side of the House are committed to investing in better public schools for all our

children.

Mr Flaherty: I suggest to the Premier that his government and he himself have not thought this through. How does it help literacy in grades 8,

9 and 10 when they may have larger classes because of this commitment of in excess of $1.6 billion? How does it help students in K through grade 3 to be put out in the schoolyard in portables? It's

going backwards.

How does it help a principal, who is trying to be flexible managing his or her school, when the 21st student walks in the door in grade 2, having to go hire

another teacher, having to get a portable, having perhaps split classes between grade 2 and grade 3? This is not progress. This is retrograde in Ontario. It is an ideological commitment by this

Premier to an artificial hard cap.

What I say to the Premier is, go and consult with the principals of the local grade schools in the province. Will you commit to have an open public

consultation with all of the principals of the public schools in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I do not underestimate the extent of the challenge before us, but we're bringing something to this task that was sorely

lacking in our predecessors. We're bringing commitment. We're bringing energy. We're bringing dedication. We're bringing a sincere desire to do what is needed for the benefit of our students.

It may be that they don't vote. It may be that they are not a powerful lobby group. It may be that they don't phone us, write us and stand outside on the front

lawn here at Queen's Park, but we believe that it's in their interest and in the interest of our province's future that we support public schools. We will never apologize for that.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. I was just wondering if you were ready for your second question.

New question.

Mr Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question is to the Premier. Could you tell us in this House, could you tell school boards, could you tell

parents, could you tell superintendents across this province how many teachers you're going to hire?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I will hire as many teachers as are necessary to ensure that we have a cap of 20 students in classes from JK through grade 3

by the end of our term. My advice to the member opposite and his colleagues would be to focus on the number that is of interest to parents and a benefit to students. It has to do with the number

20. It has to do with what should be a real cap on class sizes from JK to grade 3. That is the number that motivates us, that is the number that inspires us and that is the number on which we will

deliver.

Mr Klees: I'd like you to be a little more specific. Did you not say on September 16, "We're going to hire over 1,000 new teachers annually,"

and "We've accounted for it in our plan"? Did you not say that?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I'm not sure what part of the number 20 the member opposite does not understand or is failing to grasp. Twenty is the number

that is important to our schools, to our students and to our parents. At the end of the day we will employ as many teachers as are necessary in order for us to achieve that number. That is the

number we are focused on.

Mr Klees: Speaking of focus, I'd like to speak about what you said on Graham Richardson's Focus Ontario this past Saturday. Will you admit to

this House that you misspoke yourself when you told Graham Richardson that he was wrong about the number that he said you had committed to? Will you publicly apologize to Graham Richardson and the

people of Ontario today?

Hon Mr McGuinty: If the member has an appetite for numbers, in addition to ensuring that we have 20 students per classroom from JK through

grade 3, I was also very pleased to announce that in each elementary school in Ontario we are going to have lead teachers. Our goal, ultimately, is to have four lead teachers, specially trained, in

every elementary school. It has never been done before. They will be specially trained in the delivery of literacy and numeracy to ensure that our students can achieve a standard that we know

they're capable of achieving, that our province is worthy of.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Last week you flitted around the province with your so-called new

vision speeches. But the people of Ontario are still asking questions about your last vision speeches of seven months ago, during the election campaign. You had this vision that was called the

Liberal election platform.

You must remember the vision of stopping development on the Oak Ridges moraine. That didn't happen. You must remember your vision of rolling back the tolls on

Highway 407. That didn't happen. You must remember your vision that you were going to maintain the hydro rate freeze. That didn't happen. Premier, given your failure on all of those visions, why

should people believe any of your so-called new visions?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I want to focus for a moment on the education announcement that we made

last week. The question I would have for the leader of the NDP is, what part of our commitments does he not support with respect to education? Does he not support the investment of $112 million we

made into schools to help struggling students? Does he not support the restoration of democracy we brought to Toronto and a couple of other school boards? Does he not support our tuition freeze?

And why did he not support our getting rid of the private school tax credit? Why did he vote against that?

We have made significant steps on the matter of public education, on the matter of medicare, and we look forward to doing so much more as our term unfolds.

Mr Hampton: Let's talk about your education vision, which I think is more aptly called a revision.

On September 16, 2003, you said, "We are going to hire over 1,000 teachers, new teachers, on an annual basis." That's 5,000 new teachers, you said, over the

term. This weekend on Focus Ontario, Mr Richardson asked you about that and you said, "You're mistaken." You tried to deny that. Then, of course, Mr Richardson produced a video clip of your lips

moving and you saying those exact words.

When you can't even be accountable on what you said six months ago, how can people believe what you are saying now?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I say to my friend opposite, is that really the best he can do when so much is at stake in the matter of public education? I

said we will hire as many teachers as are necessary in order for us to achieve our goal of a maximum number of 20 students per year from JK through to grade 3. That's what it's all about.

What I would have expected from the member opposite was his support at least for our getting rid of the private school tax credit in Ontario. I would have

expected that at a minimum. I would have expected him to jump up today and say, "Yes, I'm with you when it comes to 20 students, I'm with you when it comes to having lead teachers inside our

elementary schools and I'm with you when it comes to your support for public education at long last." Those are the kinds of expressions of support that I would have expected from the member

opposite.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): New question.

Mr Hampton: I suspect we are going to get lots of other video clips where the lips moved and you promised this and you failed to deliver.

Let's talk about your health vision. Remember your vision to put an end to P3 hospitals? You didn't do that. Remember your vision to hire 8,000 new nurses?

We've got less than 800. Remember your vision to extend IBI autism treatment to kids over age six? Apparently that was a hallucination as well.

Premier, I ask you again: When you have already broken all these promises on health care, why should people put any faith in your so-called revision that you

announced last week?

Hon Mr McGuinty: On the matter of health care, I took the opportunity last week before a convention of the Registered Nurses Association of

Ontario to let them know that we are going to assume our leadership responsibilities in Canada when it comes to championing and defending medicare. I also indicated that Premier Campbell and myself

have agreed that we will host a meeting of all the health care ministers for Canada. At that point in time we will come together, and ultimately we will meet with the Prime Minister with a view to

ensuring that we bring a constructive, positive tone to the debate for health care as it unfolds in Canada. Our ultimate objective here is to secure, it is true, better financing from the federal

government, but at the same time to ensure that not only Ontario but all provinces continue to benefit from a strong Canada Health Act and that we all continue to devote ourselves to the precepts

of medicare.

Mr Hampton: Last week, you said you and Mr Charest were going to lead; this week it's you and Mr Campbell from British Columbia. Would this be

the same Mr Campbell who is privatizing every health service he can get his hands on in British Columbia? Would this be the same Jean Charest who is overwhelmingly unpopular in Quebec because he is

trying to do the same thing? Premier, that's not much of a vision. That sounds like a nightmare.

But I want to remind you of another vision you had, a vision to cut auto insurance premiums by 10% to 20%. Now, when drivers across Ontario open up the notice,

they get a 10% or 20% increase. Premier, when all of your visions over the last seven months have turned into revisions and nightmares, why should the people of Ontario trust any of your most

recent visions?

Hon Mr McGuinty: We put out a number of important statements and announcements last week that spoke to some of our most pressing and urgent

priorities, including the need for all of us to take responsibility when it comes to conserving electricity, and including the need for us, as a society frankly, to invest in public education, not

only for purposes of enlightened self-interest but also because we sense an obligation toward our children.

I also took the opportunity last week to talk about medicare and the unfolding debate across the country, and to insert ourselves and assert ourselves as

leaders in the nation when it comes to this particular issue. I have said on behalf of the people of Ontario that the position we will be bringing to this national debate is one that advocates and

continues to champion medicare.

I believe that is the kind of vision the people of Ontario want laid before them, and we look forward to articulating more and more specifics as the days

unfold.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): My question is to the Premier. In your absence last Thursday, I put a question to the Acting Premier,

the Minister of the Environment. As an Ottawa MPP, you will know that the previous government committed $85 million to four-laning Highway 7 between Carleton Place and Highway 417. For more than

six months now, your environment minister has failed to make a decision on a routine -- some would say minor -- environmental question related to the four-laning work.

My question to the minister was about this delay. In response, your environment minister delivered an entirely inappropriate reply. She indicated a personal

grudge against me and suggested she intended to take her animosity out on my constituents. I have grown a pretty thick skin over the last 26 years I've sat here, and I expect that those attacks

might come. But I cannot stand for the notion that your environment minister is putting forward; that is, she is making the ministry her personal fiefdom, rendering decisions based on personal

feelings and preferences. My constituents have a right --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Thank you. Premier.

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The minister informed the Legislature subsequent to this exchange that

she had misspoken. She intended to say that she would in fact be providing better service, and that is exactly what she is doing.

I understand that certain things can be said in the heat of debate here, but let me assure you of this: I have a perspective on the minister's work ethic and

performance that the members opposite do not have by virtue of our proximity, working together in cabinet. This minister is absolutely dedicated to providing good, quality public service, to

standing up for the environment and doing the very best she can. I feel very confident in the approaches she's taking on behalf of the people of Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Let's settle down here. Supplementary.

Mr Sterling: I ask the Premier to read Hansard and draw his conclusions from Hansard.

As an Ottawa MPP, you will know the tragic toll that Highway 7 has taken. In our part of the province we all know of someone who has been killed along this

stretch of highway. I'm told by one of my municipal councillors that at a recent ROMA conference your transportation minister said that you, Mr Premier, would make the final decision on which

highway projects go ahead. Will you indicate today that your government will fulfill the province's already announced $85-million commitment to fund the four-laning of Highway 7 between Carleton

Place and Highway 417, and will you ensure that the Ministry of the Environment deals with this minor decision very soon?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I would not categorize this decision as being minor. I think it's an important decision and should be given the time that is

necessary to ensure that it's addressed in a responsible way. I know that the member opposite would be pleased with the announcement we made today in connection with the 417. We look forward to

speaking to other announcements in connection with other highways.

The member makes a good point about the safety issues connected with Highway 7, and I commend him for raising this issue here on behalf of our fellow

constituents in eastern Ontario. I recognize that it's an important issue, and we look forward to moving ahead on that score at some point.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): My question is to the Minister of Energy. Last week our government committed to creating a

culture of conservation, working to propel Ontarians to become leaders in North America in terms of energy conservation.

In my riding of Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh, I attended the General Vanier Intermediate School to discuss energy conservation and to distribute

energy-efficient light bulbs. As well, I attended the Raisin Region Conservation Authority's Earth Day at the Gray's Creek Conservation Area, where they provided spruce seedlings to residents.

Minister, recently you gave a speech outlining several initiatives to reform Ontario's electricity sector. Ontarians would agree that the vitality of our

electricity system is essential to our province's prosperity. Can you explain how this plan will benefit the economy and the environment in Ontario?

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): We have outlined a balanced plan that we believe will return an element of

stability to the electricity sector that has been missing. Bill 35 did not work, did not reduce prices for electricity, did not create new supply and did not improve reliability of supply.

As we began this process, we outlined the broad parameters. I intend to be bringing in legislation later this session that will put that into even greater

focus. We believe that creating stability in this industry is first and foremost. We believe this is the right step to take. It is one of a number of steps that must be taken to undo the problems

that were created by the previous government.

Mr Brownell: Minister, during the past Tory regime Ontarians became reliant on price-capped power and a sense of artificial reliance on the

government's ability to provide cheap, reliable power. As a province, we now understand the strains on our electricity system and the reality that we must conserve in order to ensure the lights

will stay on.

I think we all agree that we need to develop new sources of electricity supply. Can you tell us how our government's plan will enable this now and in the

future?

Hon Dwight Duncan: By 2020, factoring in growth in our economy, we need to replace approximately 80% of our existing generation. It's a huge

undertaking that could turn out to be the largest infrastructure undertaking in the history of not only this province but also the country.

I am most pleased that our plans have been endorsed by the Ontario Clean Air Alliance; the Consumers Council of Canada, the Dominion Bond Rating Service Ltd,

the Electricity Distributors Association, Standard and Poor's, the Association of Power Producers of Ontario, the Central Ontario Energy Alliance, the Canadian Energy Efficiency Alliance, and

CanSIA, the Canadian Solar Industries Association.

Our plan represents a balanced plan to move forward, a plan that we readily acknowledge will need to be reformed and changed as time goes on to accommodate

changing needs and changing demands. But this is a step we, as a province, must and will take. Premier McGuinty and his government are showing leadership in this vital --

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): New question.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Premier, I want to congratulate you, and obviously that hasn't been what's going on. In your quest to find more

tax dollars, I see you have found a way to tax our churches. Before you became Premier, of course, they were exempt from taxation.

Because of the drinking water regulations, many rural community churches can no longer afford to operate. In rural Ontario, these churches are often places

where child care and community programs are delivered. Now that these churches will not be able to afford to operate, these communities will be losing their gathering places and the services that

these churches have been providing. Premier, what are Ontario's rural families to do now that your taxation is taking away their ability to deliver programming and support from their rural

churches?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): My understanding is that we're merely delivering on a Tory government

regulation which they wholeheartedly supported when they sat in government. Perhaps in his supplementary the member could indicate why it was such a good idea on this side, but now that he's on

that side, apparently he's not in favour of it.

Mr Hardeman: I appreciate the answer, Premier, and I will tell you just that. How it's being implemented is in fact why it is hurting our

churches.

Premier, I have an ultraviolet system on the well, my water system, at home. That system is considered great protection for me and my family and for the safety

of the guests who come to my home. The church down the road used the same UV system to ensure safe drinking water for the people who use their facility. The difference is that because of your

regulation, those places need to pay engineers from $15,000 to $20,000 to tell them that what they are doing is the right thing to do -- money they don't have and that is well beyond their ability

to raise.

Premier, will you support our rural communities and recall this regulation until you've put a plan in place that will accommodate recommendation 84 of the

O'Connor report, which says you will provide funding if the costs are too high for these systems to endure?

Hon Mr McGuinty: I know the Minister of the Environment has more detail.

Hon Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): I think it would have been appropriate if the member opposite had made those very points

before regulation 170 had been passed by the previous government. We have inherited a flawed regulation. There is no question that when I met with over 40 municipal representatives at ROMA, it was

a common, recurring theme that regulation 170 was presenting significant problems for them across rural Ontario, particularly for church groups and other charitable organizations that access small

community facilities. I have committed to have staff look at regulation 170. They are going to bring me recommendations to improve the regulation so that people across Ontario will be able to

maintain these facilities.

RENT BANK PROGRAMS

Ms Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Last week we heard a question with

regard to the new provincial rent bank, the $10 million in assistance for tenants who are at risk of losing their homes due to unforeseen circumstances. Minister, could you please clarify to this

House and to my constituents how the rent bank is going to work?

Hon John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): First of all, I'd like to thank the member

for the question and just indicate to her and other members of the House that the $10-million rent bank this government put in place is good news for tenants who are at risk, either through an

emergency situation, ill health or losing their jobs, so that they can get up to two months' rent to help them during those tough times.

We are living up to a campaign promise. Not only are we helping the tenants involved who will benefit from this program but, more than that, we are also

helping our municipalities to defray the otherwise more expensive social service costs they would have to implement in the event that these tenants were actually evicted. So this is a good-news

story for everybody: for our municipalities and for the tenants who may need this program.

Ms Mossop: It actually has been recognized as a good-news story, as the minister mentioned. There was a headline in the Ottawa Sun, "Rent Bank

Plan is Right on the Money," and there were others in the Spec. But there is still some confusion for the municipalities as to exactly how they are going to be able to administer this. Can you

explain that to them?

Hon Mr Gerretsen: I'd be more than pleased to answer that to this member. She has a very good question there.

First of all, municipalities can charge up to 10% of the money that's actually been allocated to them for administrative costs. Basically, what we are trying

to do is assist those municipalities that already have rent banks. I might say that 82% of the people of Ontario are already covered by a service provider that in effect has a rent bank in place.

We will simply be adding this money to the existing rent banks, so whatever the rules and regulations are in those municipalities will in effect be applicable to the rent bank situation. This can

either be delivered through the service providers themselves or through some agency. Once again, it's good news for those tenants who need help in an emergency situation. We look forward to

covering 100% of the province as soon as the other 18% who aren't currently covered come on stream.

TORONTO POLICE SERVICE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have a question to the Premier. Today, four Toronto officers were charged with 14 offences under the

Police Services Act. The charges are connected to money laundering and car theft. There are yet more allegations around protection of drug depots and shaking down of business owners by officers of

52 division who also are now being investigated. Months ago, there were charges of extortion, perjury, theft and assault against members of the drug squad.

As Mayor Miller said, Torontonians are proud of their police services, but this series of incidents and allegations reveals a very disturbing pattern, and

we're very worried about it. The public needs to be able to trust its police force, and our good police officers need to be able to trust each other. I'm asking you today, Premier, will you call a

public inquiry into these incidents so that confidence can be restored?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The minister will speak to this.

Hon Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): The member should know, and I'm sure she does, that all police

forces in Ontario are covered by the Police Services Act. The Police Services Act provides for police services boards and gives responsibilities to the chiefs to administer their police forces,

with the ability and authority to discipline from a human resources point of view, criminal charges, all of those things. At the present time it seems to me, given the announcement today by the

chief of police of Toronto, that he is exercising his authority and his responsibility by announcing that those charges are being made.

The other thing that I think you should know, when you talk about this "trend" and this "disturbing situation," is that we are talking about very, very few

officers -- very few -- and we're talking about a police force that has 7,000 members. Do the math on it and figure out what we're talking about. I have the utmost confidence in the police services

board and in the police chief and in what they're doing, and they're doing what they're supposed to do: exercising their authority.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Supplementary?

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): Minister, I have equal confidence with you in the police chief and in the 7,000 officers of this great

city, but I think the people of Toronto want to know that the province is -- that you as the minister are -- prepared to investigate if investigation is called for. They want to know from you, as

the minister, if broader changes are needed to prevent this kind of misconduct in the future. They know that the province has the tools and the ability to make it happen. What they want to hear

from you, and they want to hear it from you today, is, will you take the responsibility to call a public inquiry?

Hon Mr Kwinter: The member is not quite correct in what he is saying. I do not have the authority to go in and investigate a police force. If

the chief feels -- and he's done it in the past, and there's ample history in other municipalities in Ontario -- that he is being compromised to the point where it would be advisable for him to

bring in another police force to do that investigation, whether it be another municipal police force, the OPP or the RCMP, he has the authority to do that. Obviously, he doesn't feel that that

stage has been reached. Today he announced that charges are being laid. I think the people of Ontario and the people of Toronto should have confidence that the problem has been identified and is

being addressed.

HEALTH CARE

Ms Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): My question today is to the Minister of Health, and it involves the many mixed messages this

government is sending out with regard to health care costs. This weekend's mixed message was delivered by your Premier, who said on Friday in his speech to the RNAO that he intended to reduce the

growth curve in health care spending and that your budget will speak to that. Can you inform the House today, and all Ontarians, just how you intend to accomplish this goal in your budget?

Hon George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): We have been very clear, but I'm happy to say it one more time for the member.

It's a message that I have been communicating for many months, in particular to Ontario's hospitals, which is to say that, with respect, the 10% increases for the last five years in the hospital

budget -- which is, at $11 billion, the largest line item in the government's budget -- are not increases that are sustainable.

In exchange, what we've said to Ontario's hospitals is that more modest rates of growth will be necessary. But the other part of the formula that we're very

committed to is making enhancements in those complementary health care services at the community level, such as meaningful primary care reform, home care that works, long-term care facilities that

give us confidence for our loved ones who live there.

It's true, our government was elected. Over the course of its mandate we fully intend to deliver on the commitment that we made, which is to enhance the

quality --

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

Ms Scott: I thank the minister for stressing more investment in community health care; that is needed. But many of my constituents are afraid

your government's going to reduce spending by charging user fees for drugs to seniors, shortchanging long-term-care facilities, curbing hospital budgets and underpaying doctors. Which of these

methods do you feel is the most appropriate way to, as your Premier put it, reduce the growth curve in health care spending?

Hon Mr Smitherman: The honourable member, in her question, raises a number of issues, but the assurance I can provide to her is that this

party and this government will continue to make investments in health care, to build on a system which we think is a high-quality system. We've made a commitment to the people of the province of

Ontario to enhance it, and I mentioned in my earlier response some of those areas where we intend to be able to make targeted investments.

I think the message that we send from this place today to the people of the province of Ontario is that we intend, as a government, to build on health care, to

enhance the quality of the health care system that has been built in this province to date. But in order to make that sustainable, we ask in particular that our hospitals, which have been

experiencing double-digit increases for the last five years, work with us to restrain that growth in such a fashion that we can make those investments in complementary community-based services.

Those have the effect over time of taking some of the pressure off our hospitals, which have been asked to do too much by some of the failures at the community-based level.

TOURISM

Mr Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): My question is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Tourism in Toronto plummeted last

year after the outbreak of SARS. Hotels experienced a 50% reduction in occupancy. Restaurants were doing 20% to 30% less business. Theatre attendance was dwindling. More than 800 bus tours were

cancelled, and major conventions were held elsewhere outside the province. Minister, as we head into warmer weather and the peak of tourist season, what is your ministry doing to ensure Toronto is

open for business to tourists around the world?

Hon James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): That's an excellent question, I must say to the member. The government is

committed, through a program he may be familiar with -- the tourism recovery program -- to revitalizing Toronto and Ontario to what we'd call first-class destinations. My ministry has made a number

of investments recently in the marketing of the city of Toronto to potential visitors from around the world: $3.5 million in advertising and marketing for Toronto and Niagara as tourist

destinations; playing a partnership in the city of Toronto's branding exercise, from which a new image for the city will emerge; and our continued investment in such events as the Beaches jazz

festival.

I'm glad the member's question touched on the area of conventions. Last week I was speaking with Meeting Professionals International, which entices conventions

to Toronto. This government recognizes the importance of the convention industry. That is why the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation allocated $2.6 million to Tourism Toronto's convention

development -- an additional $250,000. All kinds of conventions are coming to Toronto as a result --

Mr Berardinetti: I also want to point out that not only did SARS affect tourism in Toronto, but as a gateway to Ontario, it affected tourism

across the province. As we all know, our great province houses many diverse and unique attractions. What initiatives are in place by your ministry to ensure that visitors this summer will continue

nation's capital?

Hon Mr Bradley: I found some statistics on this, in fact. Last Wednesday, CFPL News did a piece on a new initiative to revitalize

Chatham-Kent's tourism industry. The city is investing a quarter of a million dollars in a new campaign aimed at day trippers, extolling the virtues and events of Chatham-Kent. More than half the

funding comes from the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation.

Last Thursday in Sault Ste Marie, at the second annual tourism awards dinner, my parliamentary assistant, Tim Peterson, announced marketing funding of $150,000

for the Soo.

St Jacobs Country, near Kitchener-Waterloo, will be receiving $150,000 in marketing support to promote the area and its attractions.

Finally, the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation will continue to produce Ontario's experience guides in both official languages to serve as a consumer guide in

trip planning for tourists, informing all potential visitors, and reminding those who have visited Ontario before, about a wide variety of attractions and activities available to them in the

province.

If the opposition has any further questions, I'd be pleased to provide more information.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question today is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Recently, as you know,

the two-hatter issue has been a very important issue in rural Ontario, as has the loss of volunteer firefighters. As we know, it affects community safety. Minister, can you inform this House when

your new mediation-before-legislation process will begin and, more importantly, can you inform us who will conduct the mediation?

Hon Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): The member has asked this question several times. If this issue

could be easily resolved, that party, when they were in government, would have resolved it. They even had one of their members bring in a private member's bill, and their own party defeated it.

What we have is a situation where there's obviously a problem. I've already been told that the Adams report is not acceptable, that they are not prepared to

sit down and do a mediation. My challenge is to come up with a structured mediation so that going into this mediation they will know what the parameters are. We are working on that. We are

finalizing that. Once we get that finalized, we will appoint a mediator to do it, and hopefully we will come to a solution that will do what my major challenge and my major goal is: to provide

safety for all the citizens of Ontario.

Mr Dunlop: Thank you very much for your response. When Minister Runciman was awaiting the recommendations of the report by Justice George

Adams, a moratorium was in place to avoid the further loss of any of the professional firefighters on the volunteer fire services, a moratorium that was lifted very shortly after your election.

Minister, will you endeavour to reinstate the moratorium until the outcome of the mediation is complete?

Hon Mr Kwinter: There are ongoing discussions with all the parties. The fire marshal is absolutely key to this whole exercise, because it is

his responsibility to make sure the people of Ontario have adequate fire protection. I am in touch with him on a regular basis, he is in touch with the parties and, as I say, we will get this

resolved.

CLASS SIZE

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): My question is for the Minister of Education. As you know, the Premier made a very important and, I believe, historic

announcement last week about education. Inside that announcement, he referred to the cap on the class size for JK to grade 3 at 20 starting this fall.

In my conversations with educational leaders in my riding, they support the direction, they support the concept and they understand why we're doing so, but

they do have some concerns and issues. One of them is, what are the criteria for determining what schools will see this cap first, and what can my constituents expect to see as a reduction in the

class sizes throughout the province?

Hon Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): There's no question that there is interest and enthusiasm in the education community and, I think,

fairly spoken, in parents and others in what we can start to do right away for students in this province. What we have said is that we're very clear on the end point: We are going to have 20 kids

in a classroom from JK to 3. But we're working with our partners, which are the school boards, in terms of making sure that this isn't -- we've learned very well the dangers of one-size-fits-all

education policy. What we've said to the boards is we want to see where the students are most overcrowded, where they're having the most academic challenges, because that's what this is about:

helping those children do well.

Other than that, we're going to work with the boards. They come up with the plans. They are going to be able to submit to fit this intention, so instead of

making all the children of this province fit the policies coming from the provincial government, the policies of the provincial government will, for once, fit the children of this province.

Mr Levac: Thank you very much, Minister. I understand and I know they're looking forward to working with you to achieve that goal and they

understand the realities of the day. So I'm looking forward to that.

The Premier has also made reference to targeting goals of having 75% of our 12-year-olds meet the provincial standard in literacy and numeracy by 2008. What

resources will the government provide this very ambitious target? The same educational leaders are asking the tough questions about how you resource something that's as difficult to achieve as

you've set out in this target.

Hon Mr Kennedy: Part of our outlook is certainly to have the smaller class sizes, but not just class sizes. There's not magic in the size of

the class. The magic is in giving the children in those classes individualized attention; so supporting teacher training.

We're going to have something that has not been tried at all in this jurisdiction, and it's unfortunate, because we've had years and years of evidence,

millions of dollars spent on tests showing us that kids are struggling. So we're going to have, for the first time, two lead teachers -- one in literacy, one in numeracy -- specially trained with

time available to lead the effort in each elementary school -- over 16,000 specially trained teachers.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): Bureaucracy.

Hon Mr Kennedy: Not bureaucracy, as one of the member opposite tries to suggest, but in fact in the schools, helping to teach kids, giving

them the advantages they were denied by the previous government. This is something we know how to do. It's been done; unfortunately, only in some communities, in some schools. The difference under

a McGuinty government that is it will be made available to every elementary student in this province, and every one of them will be able to access their future through this strategy.

ENBRIDGE GAS

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Energy. The Supreme Court of Canada has unanimously ruled that

Enbridge Gas charged criminal interest rates of its gas customers in Ontario. It ordered Enbridge to pay back close to $100 million because, as Mr Justice Frank Iacobucci said, criminals "should

not be permitted to keep the proceeds of their crime."

But imagine the surprise of Ontario natural gas consumers when they learned that Enbridge intends to ask the Ontario Energy Board to allow them to pass this

$100-million cost on to all the gas consumers in Ontario. In other words, Enbridge wants the gas consumers to pay for its criminal conduct.

Will you pass a regulation or a policy directive this week telling the Ontario Energy Board that the shareholders of Enbridge should pay for the criminal

conduct, not the gas consumers of Ontario?

Hon Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): The member had a chance to review both the Peel court decision as well as the

Supreme Court decision, and the member quotes accurately from those decisions. The Ontario Energy Board has a legislated mandate to protect consumers, and I expect the Ontario Energy Board to

fulfill its mandate.

Mr Hampton: We've seen before where the energy board needs some directive from the Minister of Energy. When you were in opposition, you were

quite prepared to give that direction.

For example, only a year ago you demanded that the Ernie Eves government issue a policy directive under

section 27(1) of the Ontario Energy Board act

disallowing retroactive rate hikes. That was your position then.

Minister, that's exactly what's going on here. The company has been found criminally in breach of the law. It had to pay a $100 million. Now they want to go to

the Ontario Energy Board and say, "Will you allow us a rate increase to cover the $100 million in criminal conduct?" That's a retroactive rate increase. Your position a year ago was, "Pass a policy

directive." Can you tell us why you wouldn't pass a policy directive now, since it was so appropriate a year ago?

Hon Mr Duncan: The member opposite forgot an important part of that debate. First of all, after NDP Finance Minister Floyd Laughren approved

the retroactive Union Gas hike, we asked first for the Ontario Energy Board to make a decision; that is, to fulfill its decision. The Ontario Energy Board, under the leadership of Floyd Laughren,

refused to do that. I was astounded at the member's silence at that time on that issue and couldn't understand why he would be so silent at that time on that particular issue.

Let me re-emphasize for the member opposite and for the Ontario Energy Board: The Ontario Energy Board has a legislated mandate from this assembly to protect

consumers. The minister expects them to fulfill their mandate, unlike Mr Laughren, the NDP finance minister in the Union Gas situation.

WATER QUALITY

Mr John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question today is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation -- it's a busy day for the

minister. The last time I asked you a question, it was with regard to the punishing McGuinty McMeal tax. I recall that a few days after, they got rid of that tax. I'm hoping that you will use your

seniority and influence in this government to go to bat for the tourism industry in rural Ontario once again.

My colleague has talked about churches and the tremendous hardship that regulation 170/03 is going to have on them and community halls. I also want to talk

about campgrounds and tent and trailer parks. Some of these businesses are threatened with extinction because of these regulations. Will you as a minister go to your cabinet table and stand up for

the tourism industry in this province and fight for them with regard to implementation of rule 170/03 so that our tourism industry is not injured irreparably?

Hon James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): As I said to my friend for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke last week -- he was

speculating about a potential tax out there. I said that when I was in opposition I used to speculate about those taxes as well. I knew that the Treasurer of the day would never tell me what was

going to be in the budget. You don't fearmonger. Others may; you don't fearmonger, but the concerns you expressed were unnecessary concerns because that's not there.

You've addressed another issue that is, I think, of some importance, and I will certainly be discussing that with all of my colleagues to see how we can best

deal with this issue. It is a regulation, as he will know, that was brought in by, I think, the Honourable Chris Stockwell or the Honourable Elizabeth Witmer. I know that they would have given

consideration to the economic ramifications of these regulations before they brought them in. They wouldn't possibly have simply brought them in, left them on the table and not had those

considerations. So I'm prepared to explore that with my colleagues to see what can be done.

Mr Yakabuski: The minister will well know that regulations and legislation are brought in, but the true effects, the far-reaching

ramifications of that legislation, are not really felt until implementation comes along. These regulations are now being implemented on your government's watch. You have the power to make changes.

Recommendation 84 of the O'Connor report says that we will assist those people who don't have the funds to commit to these regulations. Will you see that recommendation 84 is, in fact, adhered to

by this Ministry of the Environment?

Hon Mr Bradley: I would agree with the member that this government has to undo a lot of things that the previous government did. He knows I

take his representations seriously today, but I look at the front benches -- and it's not your fault, because you weren't a member at that time -- and wonder who didn't think of the fact that there

would be a cost assigned to this. I thought a former Treasurer, for instance my friend Mr Flaherty -- someone else would have made provision in the budgetary plans, well into the future, to

consider this particular imposition, which of course from an environmental point of view is absolutely essential but also has a cost to go with it.

I know that the Premier has said that all the recommendations in regard to the O'Connor commission are going to be implemented. They are essential to

implement. We'll try to do them as fairly as possible. I'll share your thoughts with my colleagues.

BEEF PRODUCERS

Mr John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. As you are aware, I'm proud to represent the

most productive agricultural riding in Ontario. Beef is one of the largest animal commodity groups in my riding.

Since the US closed the border to Canadian beef and other ruminants 11 months ago, the pressure on cattle and dairy farmers in my riding have increased daily.

They worry about being able to sustain their farms and their livelihood. They worry about being able to not only feed their herds but their families as well. For the farmers of Perth-Middlesex, the

border must be reopened. What have you done to address the border issue?

Hon Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): We've been working very hard. We've been dealing with state legislators; we attended a

conference in January dealing with state legislators. We've been to Washington. We've talked to agriculture commissioners from across the United States. We've met with the USDA. As well, we've

taken

part in the tri-national NAFTA accord, trying to make sure that the message got through to both the United States and Mexico that this is an issue that needs to be based on science. We cannot

allow the emotions of politics to get in the way.

We've been very active in trying to move this issue forward. We saw a good first step last week by the United States, but truly the only thing that is going to

help this industry, turn it around and set it in the right direction for the future is the reopening of the full border and the resumption of the trade of live cattle. That's what we're going to

continue to advocate for.

Mr Wilkinson: I know that the farmers in my riding are thankful for all your efforts on an issue that can be construed as being primarily

federal. I recently read a report that stated that the Canadian cattle industry is overly dependent on cross-border trade. In Perth-Middlesex, the cattle industry currently relies on exports. What

are you doing to address this issue?

Hon Mr Peters: First and foremost, we've been working very closely with the cattle industry. I think it's important that the Ministry of

Agriculture and Food recognize the need to work together. We have done that. We've worked very closely with the Ontario Cattlemen's Association, the Dairy Farmers of Ontario, the Canadian Livestock

Genetics Association and, quite honestly, other ruminants. I think a lot of people focus in on this as a beef issue, but many other sectors in the agricultural economy have been affected by this:

deer, goats and sheep, to name a few. We need to continue to work with them.

As well, we've been investing. Right now we're in the process of trying to develop some new slaughter capacity in this province. We have an extreme shortage of

slaughter capacity. The mature animal program is going to help ensure that we have a new program in place. The best thing that citizens can do is make that conscious decision in the grocery store:

Eat beef; choose a Canadian product.

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): My question is to the Premier. Two years ago in the provincial budget there was a five-year commitment

made to help Ontarians with developmental disabilities. It was a program designed to increase funding annually by $197 million. It's something that's incredibly important. Health care and education

may top the agenda for public priorities, but these people depend on you and your government, and on all of us in this House, to speak up for them.

Premier, would you stand if your place and confirm to the people of Ontario and to those advocates, those associations for community living across the

province, that you'll maintain these funding increases that were to be phased in over five years. Would you do that?

Hon Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I know the minister would like to speak to this.

Hon Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): I'm very pleased to answer this

question. Let me tell you the difference between your government, when you were the government, and this government. We just announced $24 million for places to live in our communities, and those

places have already started being built. As a matter of fact, the first ones should be ready by June this year.

Here's the big difference: you guys were great at making announcements; this government is good at action.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): That's the end of oral questions.

PETITIONS

TILLSONBURG DISTRICT

MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have a petition here signed by a great number -- well in excess of 2,000 -- of my constituents.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario" --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Alvin Curling): Order. Let's just wait until the members are settled. Those who are having a conversation, could you have it

outside, please. Let me proceed with petitions. Members are anxious, especially the member from Oxford, to get on with petitions.

Mr Hardeman: My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Tillsonburg District Memorial Hospital has asked for ministerial consent to make capital changes to its facility to accommodate the placement of a

satellite dialysis unit; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care has already given approval for the unit and committed operational dollars to it; and

"Whereas the community has already raised the funds for the equipment needed;

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

"That the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care give his final approval of the capital request change from the Tillsonburg District Memorial Hospital

immediately, so those who are in need of these life-sustaining dialysis services can receive them locally, thereby enjoying a better quality of life without further delay."

I sign this petition, as I totally agree with it.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I have a petition.

"To the Honourable the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, in Legislature assembled:

"The petition of the undersigned states:

"That Ontario Works was slashed by 21.6% in 1995, and with the increases to the cost of living, that cut is worth nearly 40% today;

"That Ontario disability support program benefits have been frozen since 1993; and because current social assistance rates do not allow recipients to meet

their cost of living;

"That the people of Ontario deserve an adequate standard of living and are guaranteed such by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights;

"That the jury at the inquest into the death of Kimberly Rogers recommended that social assistance rates be reviewed so that they reflect the actual costs of

living;

"Therefore, your petitioners respectfully request that the Honourable House urge the Ontario government to immediately increase social assistance rates to

reflect the true cost of living. This means shelter allowances that are based on the average local rents as calculated by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp, a basic needs allowance that is based

on the nutritional food baskets prepared by local health units as well as the calculations for the costs of household operation, household furnishings and equipment, clothing, transportation and

health care as reported in Statistics Canada's Average Household Expenditures."

TAXATION

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I've got a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas every day, 1.5 million Ontarians, including seniors, health care workers and students, purchase a basic meal that costs less than $4; and

"Whereas a new 8% tax on such meals will disadvantage low-income Ontarians; and

"Whereas adding a tax for the first time on a glass of milk, a salad, a bowl of soup or a cup of coffee will affect a total of 1.5 million Ontarians each and

every day in restaurants and cafeterias across the province;

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

"Do not" -- repeat, do not -- "impose a new 8% tax on basic meals under $4."

It's another collection of these I've received from folks in the St Catharines area, with thousands of signatures. I've affixed my signature as well, and I'm

sending the page Jen to the table with this petition.

SEX OFFENDERS

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm pleased to present this petition to the Legislature of Ontario, and it reads as

follows:

"Whereas it is the right of every Canadian citizen to have the knowledge and the means to protect themselves and their children; and

"Whereas each act of a sexual offence against a child affects the quality of life for our nation's children, their families and the general public; and

"Whereas incidences of child exploitation, child pornography, child prostitution and other sexual offences against children in Canada are on the rise; and

"Whereas those who commit sexual offences against children are at high risk to reoffend;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to press the federal government to pass new legislation that will: disallow parole of a sex

offender who has refused treatment; require all released offenders to maintain treatment and be registered with their local police department within 24 hours of moving into a community and

bi-yearly after that; ensure all schools, daycare centres, community centres and other places where children amass are notified when an offender is released into their community; place the names of

all persons convicted of a sexual offence against a child on a national DNA data bank, available to all law enforcement agencies across the country; enforce stiffer sentences upon conviction, with

a minimum of three years and a maximum of 10 years for a first offence, a mandatory 10 years and a maximum of 20 years for second offences and a minimum 25 years to a maximum life sentence

thereafter."

I support the petition and affix my signature.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of seniors from Fort Erie, including Janet Dwyer and Art Rankin. It

reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas, during the election campaign, the Dalton McGuinty Liberals said they would improve the Ontario drug benefit program but now are considering delisting

drugs and imposing higher user fees; and

"Whereas the Liberal government has increased costs to seniors by taking away the seniors' property tax rebate, and increased the price of hydro;

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

"The Dalton McGuinty Liberals should keep their campaign promise to improve the Ontario drug benefit program and abandon their plan to delist drugs or increase

seniors' drug fees."

In support, I affix my signature.

FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I have a petition from my constituents in Parry Sound-Muskoka and I shall read it.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas municipalities are solely responsible for funding fire services; and

"Whereas the previous government committed $40 million to help small and rural communities in the purchase of new emergency firefighting equipment;

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

"That the province of Ontario proceed with a program to support municipal fire services for the purchase of life-saving equipment, and that the province

develop a rural response strategy in consultation with municipal fire services."

I support this petition and affix my signature.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Jeff Leal (Peterborough): "To the Honourable the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, in Legislature assembled:

"The petition of the undersigned states:

"That Ontario Works was slashed by 21.6% in 1995, and with the increases to the cost of living, that cut is worth nearly 40% today;

"That Ontario disability support program benefits have been frozen since 1993; and because current social assistance rates do not allow recipients to meet

their cost of living;

"That the people of Ontario deserve an adequate standard of living and are guaranteed such by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights;

"That the jury at the inquest into the death of Kimberly Rogers recommended that social assistance rates be reviewed so that they reflect the actual costs of

living;

"Therefore, your petitioners respectfully request that the Honourable House urge the Ontario government to immediately increase social assistance rates to

reflect the true cost of living. This means shelter allowances that are based on the average local rents as calculated by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp, a basic needs allowance that is based

on the nutritional food baskets prepared by local health units as well as the calculations for the costs of household operation, household furnishings and equipment, clothing, transportation and

health care as reported in Statistics Canada's Average Household Expenditures."

I affix my signature to the top of it.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I have a petition signed by folks from York, Ontario, like the Ballantynes, and the Greenwoods of Wellandport,

that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas, during the election campaign, the Dalton McGuinty Liberals said they would improve the Ontario drug benefit program but now are considering delisting

drugs and imposing higher user fees; and

"Whereas the Liberal government has increased costs to seniors by taking away the seniors' property tax rebate and increased the price of hydro;

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

"The Dalton McGuinty Liberals should keep their campaign promise to improve the Ontario drug benefit program and abandon their plan to delist drugs or increase

seniors' drug fees."

In support, I affix my signature.

HIGHWAY 407

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I'm pleased to present a petition on behalf of one my constituents, Mr Bert Werry, as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the timely and efficient movement of people and products is critical to the success of the Ontario economy;

"Whereas the province of Ontario is meeting the challenge of traffic congestion in the greater Toronto area by improvements to our highway network and by

improved public transportation;

"Whereas the construction of Highway 407 eastward into Durham region, across Clarington to highways 35 and 115 would improve the flow of traffic in Durham

region and throughout the GTA;

"Whereas citizens and municipalities of Durham region have faced uncertainty over the final alignment of the proposed 407 highway for many years and are

entitled to a timely resolution of this matter;

"Whereas CAAC, the Clarington agricultural advisory committee, has expressed concerns and advocates for final construction completion of Highway 407 through

Clarington, connecting to 35 and 115;

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

"That the Parliament of Ontario take steps to fast-track the extension of Highway 407 eastward into the regional municipality of Durham and that this

commitment include the extension of Highway 407 through Clarington to connect with highways 35 and 115, while ensuring that all the necessary environmental assessments and public consultations are

followed."

I am pleased to sign this in support of my constituents in the riding of Durham.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Liberal government has said in their election platform that they were committed to improving the Ontario drug benefit program for seniors and now

are considering delisting drugs and imposing user fees on seniors;

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

"To halt the consideration of imposing an income test, delisting drugs for coverage under the Ontario drug benefit plan or putting in place user fees for

seniors and to maintain the present Ontario drug benefit plan for seniors to cover medications."

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I have a petition I wish to present to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as

follows:

"Whereas the Liberal government has said in their election platform that they were committed to improving the Ontario drug benefit program for seniors and now

are considering delisting drugs and imposing user fees on seniors;

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

"To halt the consideration of imposing an income test, delisting drugs for coverage under the Ontario drug benefit plan or putting in place user fees for

seniors and to maintain the present Ontario drug benefit plan for seniors to cover medications."

I support the petition and affix my signature.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr Jeff Leal (Peterborough): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the parliamentary tradition in Ontario of presenting annual budgets in the House of the Legislative Assembly has existed for decades; and

"Whereas the previous government in 2003 showed disrespect for our public institutions and the people of Ontario by presenting a budget inside a private,

for-profit auto parts factory; and

"Whereas the previous Speaker of the Legislative Assembly condemned the actions of his own party's government;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to uphold parliamentary tradition and hold a public presentation and debate of the 2004

budget, and every budget thereafter, by our publicly elected members of Parliament inside the legislative chamber."

I'll affix my signature to this.

HIGHWAY 518

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I have a petition from my constituents in Parry Sound-Muskoka, and I shall read it. It says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Highway 518 between Highway 69 and Highway 11 serves the residents of the communities of Haines Lake, Orrville, Bear Lake, Whitehall and Sprucedale;

and

"Whereas Highway 518 is in a deplorable condition; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Transportation has previously assured local residents of its intention to upgrade and improve Highway 518;

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

"We request that the Ministry of Transportation immediately proceed with the reconstruction of Highway 518 between Highway 69 and Highway 11."

I support this petition and sign it.

SEAT BELTS

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): I have several hundreds of petitions here addressed to the Ontario Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas most school buses and almost all tour buses operating within the province of Ontario are not equipped with seatbelts for the safety of the passengers;

and

"Whereas this situation poses a real danger to all said passengers; and

"Whereas, as the result of an accident which occurred on July 29, 2003, on Highway 401 in the vicinity of the Pearson International Airport, just west of the

municipality of metropolitan Toronto, one woman died of her injuries and 41 other passengers of a tour bus, all senior citizens, were seriously injured; and

"Whereas we value the lives of all passengers on said vehicles; and

"Whereas the fatality and some of the other injuries to the rest of the passengers might not have occurred if the said vehicle had been equipped with seat

belts;

"We, the undersigned, petition the province of Ontario Legislative Assembly to enact legislation requiring it to be mandatory for all school buses, no matter

what size, and all tour buses, no matter what size, operating in the province of Ontario to be equipped with safety seat belts."

Speaker, I concur and I will affix my signature to it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOVERNMENT

ADVERTISING ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR

LA PUBLICITÉ GOUVERNEMENTALE

Mr Phillips moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 25,

An Act respecting government advertising / Projet de loi 25, Loi concernant la publicité gouvernementale.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Mr Phillips, you have leadoff of an hour.

Hon Gerry Phillips (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I should inform the House that I'll be sharing my time

with the members for Prince Edward-Hastings, Mississauga West and Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge.

It's an honour to have this opportunity to begin the debate on the proposed Government Advertising Act. I had the pleasure of introducing this important piece

of legislation in December 2003 as part of our pledge to the people of Ontario to deliver positive change. We believe this groundbreaking legislation is the first of its kind in the world. There is

no other legislation like this anywhere else in the world that we've been able to find. So I'm pleased and I think all of the Legislature should recognize that we are really providing leadership in

this area to ban partisan government advertising.

The Government Advertising Act is a central part of our government's democratic renewal initiative. The bill helps us, among other things, to fulfill a pledge

we made to help restore public faith in our democratic institutions and to strengthen our democracy. This is one of our five major goals that we've laid out for the people of Ontario. Making

government more accountable, transparent and fiscally responsible are key priorities of our government.

Partisan government advertising is the expensive use of taxpayers' dollars to purchase television, radio or print media to promote politicians and political

parties instead of using those hard-earned dollars to inform the public. Under the previous government, it's clear that literally millions of dollars of hard-earned taxpayers' money was used for

partisan purposes. If this bill is passed, this waste will stop. Taxpayers' money will be spent more responsibly.

Obviously, the money saved, every single dollar, will be spent on things that matter to Ontarians: the quality of our health care system, our classrooms, our

environment and our communities. It won't be spent glorifying politicians and party platforms, nor will it be spent criticizing those who do not share the government's point of view. The days of

finding a glossy, partisan booklet in your mailbox will be gone for good.

I would say to the public that there was $10 million of taxpayers' money spent every single year for the last several years on those glossy brochures that we

received in our homes. That's the day -- the day when this will be gone for good -- that I'm personally looking forward to. It's been a long time coming.

Allow me now to provide some of the details of this groundbreaking legislation for the Legislature. First, the Government Advertising Act would, if passed,

require the office of the Provincial Auditor to pre-screen all government advertising. What it means is that any government advertising that's proposed by an Ontario government ministry for

television, radio, print, billboards or mass mailings first must be brought forward to the Provincial Auditor for review. This would include print materials that a ministry proposes to pay to have

delivered to Ontario households through bulk mail. The Provincial Auditor or the Advertising Commissioner -- and the legislation provides the authority for the Provincial Auditor, if he or she so

chooses, to appoint an Advertising Commissioner to perform this role for the Provincial Auditor. The Advertising Commissioner appointed by the auditor would have a specific amount of time in which

to review the advertising and determine whether it's appropriate or not. The auditor will review the ad to ensure that it meets the standards set out in the act. I'd like to just briefly review

those standards for the Legislature.

The first requirement is that the ad must not be partisan. The auditor would review it against that criteria. The ad must not, as a primary objective, foster a

positive impression of the governing party or a negative impression of a person or entity who is critical of the government. In other words, the primary objective of this advertising can't be to

promote the party in power or to attack any organization that may have a view contrary to the government.

Another requirement of the advertising is that there should be a reasonable means to achieve one or more of four purposes, and we lay out in the bill four

under the law. The third is to encourage or discourage specific social behaviour in the public interest. The fourth is to promote Ontario, or any part of Ontario, as a good place to live, work,

invest, study or visit. Those are the four criteria against which it's evaluated.

Let me give you an example of how it would work. Imagine that a ministry -- probably the Ministry of Health -- develops a television ad to prevent teenage

smoking. Before this ad could be aired, it goes to the Provincial Auditor for review. The auditor would review the ad in its entirety, using the standards I spoke of a moment ago. An ad to try and

prevent teenage smoking would meet the third objective that I talked about: to encourage or discourage specific social behaviour in the public interest. So it would meet the standards spelled out

in the ad. And as long as it was not partisan, as long as it did not include the name, voice or image of a member of the executive council, as long as it didn't have as a primary objective to

foster a positive impression of the governing party and as long as it included a statement that the item is paid for by the government of Ontario, it would be permissible. So the Provincial Auditor

would authorize that ad. It's as simple as that.

One area I would like to spend a few moments talking about is that there is one area where it is possible -- in all other cases you cannot use the name, voice

or image of a member of the executive council or a member of the assembly -- to have an exception, and that is where the primary target is located outside Ontario. We have put this in the act

because the experience we have looked at suggests that one of the most effective ways of attracting trade to a jurisdiction is by using the head of the government to communicate that. So the bill

does permit the Premier or a minister to appear in advertising as long as the primary audience is outside Ontario.

But I would stress that even those ads must meet all of the other criteria. Those ads, even though they would be appearing in the US, for example, still have

to go to the Provincial Auditor. The auditor would still review them to determine whether they're partisan or not, to determine whether the primary objective is to foster a positive impression of

the governing party or a negative impression of a person or entity. It must include a statement that it is paid for by the government of Ontario, and it must meet one of those four standards.

I think the one area where we've had some comment on the bill is this particular one, where the bill does permit a member of the Legislature, the Premier, to

be used in advertising. But the only place it can be used is where the primary audience is outside Ontario, and still the Provincial Auditor must review the entire ad and it must meet all the other

criteria.

As I said, the rea