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

February 28, 2005

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2005-Feb-28 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 28 February 2005 Lundi 28 février 2005

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

JULIAN FANTINO

HOCKEY

HEPATITIS C

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

PSYCHOTHERAPY

PIT BULLS

TOM PATTERSON

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

KITCHENER-WATERLOO

Y.M.C.A. ACT, 2005

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

GREENBELT

ORAL QUESTIONS

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

SALE OF LANDS

GREENBELT

RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE

SALE OF LANDS

REPETITIVE STRAIN INJURY

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

PIT BULLS

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

SKILLS TRAINING

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

VISITORS

PETITIONS

PIT BULLS

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

PIT BULLS

REPETITIVE STRAIN INJURY

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

PIT BULLS

SENIORS' TRANSIT PASS

PIT BULLS

PROPERTY TAXATION

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

PIT BULLS

ONTARIO FILM AND

TELEVISION INDUSTRY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PUBLIC SAFETY RELATED TO DOGS

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA SÉCURITÉ

PUBLIQUE RELATIVE AUX CHIENS

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

JULIAN FANTINO

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): It is a day in the province of Ontario that I don't think we'll ever forget: the last day that Chief Fantino

is chief of the Toronto Police Service.

I had the honour on Saturday night of attending the tribute dinner. It was one of the largest tribute dinners I've seen for any person, let alone anyone in a law

enforcement agency, in my time in politics. There were stakeholders there from all different levels of government in Ontario and, as well, representatives from international police services.

Chief Fantino had a very, very distinguished career. I won't go into all the details of it, because time doesn't allow. Certainly his response to 9/11 here in

the province of Ontario and the city of Toronto was key, and in the SARS epidemic in the spring of 2003, I know how closely he worked with Premier Eves. He also worked with Premier Eves on the

blackout that hit Ontario and the city of Toronto as well. He was chief of police, of course, for York region and for the city of London Police Service as well.

I just want to say to Chief Fantino and his family that I wish them all the best. I thank him for the job he did as chief in the city of Toronto. But I want to

wish him well, on behalf of John Tory and our caucus, as the new commissioner of emergency services here in the province of Ontario.

HOCKEY

Mr. Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): I speak today as a hockey player for over three decades, as a proud hockey parent of my eight-year-old

son, Kennedy, as a trainer and assistant coach for the Toronto Aces minor atom AA GTHL hockey club, and as a proud Canadian who considers hockey to be an important part of our culture and our way

of life.

At a time when the NHL is on strike, parent behaviour is under deserved and intense scrutiny, and costs for hockey are making the game inaccessible to many young

Canadians, there's widespread concern that our priorities have shifted from providing recreational and development opportunities for our youth to boardroom power plays.

There's big money in minor hockey. I know, because I have personally paid out thousands of dollars to allow my own son to play this great game. I and most

parents and coaches do not mind investing our hard-earned dollars in hockey as long as we can be assured that every penny we invest is going toward a better hockey experience for our sons and

daughters. Parents and players deserve the right to know if their fees are going toward hockey development and programs for our kids or into someone's pockets as profit.

In response to these concerns, the GTHL has responded with 16 recommendations that will go a long way toward making teams and clubs more accountable and

transparent to the 40,000 players in the GTHL and their parents. These reforms, which I understand the GTHL will be formally considering this week, are an important step toward our collective

efforts to return confidence and transparency to minor hockey in the greater Toronto area. I want to commend the GTHL for moving forward in this direction. While more reforms may be necessary,

there's no question that these measures are a good first step toward lifting the cloud of controversy that has hung over the GTHL for a number of years. Perhaps the focus can now return to where it

belongs: developing our young hockey players and providing them with the opportunity to enjoy Canada's national sport.

HEPATITIS C

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): All members of the House are well aware of the national tragedy that saw so many Ontarians and

Canadians contract hepatitis C through our blood system. Many will recall that it was former Premier Mike Harris who took steps to ensure that the Ontario government would treat all hep C victims

equitably and fairly. Mr. Harris more than doubled compensation for those who contracted the virus through the blood system before January 1986 or after July 1990.

Unfortunately, the story does not end there. The Ontario government was provided with $55 million from the federal government to assist victims who contracted

hep C through the blood system before 1986 and after 1990. None of these funds have been allocated to the delivery of health care services. As a result, some people who have been disabled with hep

C can no longer work and are being forced to pay out of their own diminished income for life-saving drugs.

I am calling on the provincial government to act immediately to make sure these critical dollars begin to flow to assist these victims. This is a non-partisan

issue that impacts on constituents across all of our ridings. It is in the public interest and in the interest of those innocent victims and their families. We must act now to get them the

assistance they so desperately need and deserve.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Ms. Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Last week, I drew attention again to how the McGuinty government's strategy on domestic violence is

failing to protect women from bail violators.

One of the key, long-standing recommendations made by the coroner and women's advocates is to require police, crown attorneys and JPs to use standardized risk

assessments in determining bail conditions. The Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services concurred with me and others that such a tool in the form of the Ontario domestic assault risk

assessment tool does make a difference in ensuring women's safety, and in fact can save lives. To quote the minister, "It has been tested clinically. There's no question that it works." But then he

indicated that the Liberal government, despite having full knowledge of how ODARA can help to protect women from being attacked by abusive partners on bail, is not allocating the resources to put

it into use throughout Ontario. Instead, it is requiring only two jurisdictions to apply this protocol on a pilot project basis.

The minister said the Liberals had to make sure that the crowns, the defence and the judiciary understand how it works, and the government has to determine how

to make sure the tool is effectively implemented. Translation: The government is not allocating the resources necessary for lawyers and judges to receive the training in real time and for ODARA to

be introduced throughout Ontario's justice and police systems. Cost containment is trumping women's lives. The McGuinty government must revisit their priorities. Otherwise, they are risking

unnecessarily the lives of women in Ontario.

PSYCHOTHERAPY

Ms. Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): I am pleased to rise in the Legislature today to remind my fellow MPPs that this month, February, was

the first ever Psychology Month. The Ontario Psychological Association's motto was, "February is Psychology Month and psychology is for everyone."

The intent of Psychology Month was to raise awareness of the role psychology plays in people's lives and in their communities. Psychologists assist Ontarians

every day to meet challenges big and small. In these complex times, psychology partners with parents, people and industry to assist those in our communities.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank those psychologists who recently donated countless hours of their time to provide counselling to the tsunami

victims and their families.

Psychologists and psychological associates have been promoting psychology in schools, hospitals, clinics, workplaces and the community at large throughout the

month of February. I would like all our members to find out more about the activities that took place in their ridings.

On behalf of this House, I would like to convey our appreciation to the psychology community for all of their valuable work and their dedication.

PIT BULLS

Mrs. Julia Munro (York North): Today we will debate the third reading of Michael Bryant's pit bull legislation. Through this bill, the

government has taken a real problem -- vicious dogs and their attacks on people -- and tried to remedy it with a short-sighted and almost universally condemned bill.

Michael Bryant's Bill 132 has been denounced by almost every group of animal experts in Ontario. The bill establishes an arbitrary definition of pit bull, one

that is likely to lead to a constitutional challenge because it creates a reverse onus on dog owners.

The Attorney General could not even identify a pit bull when the media asked him to, and he expects thousands of animal control officers to be able to do so. The

government has chosen to proceed despite the mountains of evidence against its flawed policy.

I offered a dangerous dog bill as an alternative and I make the offer here today. Take up the bill I introduced and pass real dangerous dog legislation into law.

All members of this House have been hearing from opponents of the bill: dog owners, vets, humane societies and experts from all over the world.

Most if not all members of the opposition parties are opposing this bill. I know some of the Liberal members have expressed concerns to me about the bill. I call

on Liberal members to start speaking up for their constituents and tell Michael Bryant to pull this useless and draconian bill.

TOM PATTERSON

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): It is with great sadness that I stand today to remember the life of Stratford, Ontario's, most famous

citizen. Tom Patterson passed away on February 23 at the age of 84. In the early 1950s, Stratford faced significant economic fallout due to the withdrawal of the railway industry that had sustained

it for almost a century.

It was journalist and World War II veteran Tom Patterson who conceived the idea of a theatre festival devoted to the works of William Shakespeare to stimulate

the local economy. His vision won the support of Stratford city council, which gave him the grand sum of $125 to travel to New York City to secure the support of the great director Tyrone Guthrie.

Working with an enthusiastic citizens' committee, the first Stratford Festival season took to the stage under the original tent in the summer of 1953.

A Companion of the Order of Canada, Tom Patterson received honours too numerous to mention. Locally, the name of Tom Patterson lives on as both the namesake of

the festival's former Third Stage and the beautiful island in Lake Victoria below the Festival Theatre.

I want to extend the sympathy and gratitude of all members to both his family and the Stratford Festival community, past and present. As Ontarians, we are

especially fortunate that Tom Patterson's most significant legacy, the Stratford Festival, continues to shine brightly, the jewel in the crown of Ontario and North America's contribution to the

world of classical repertory theatre.

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): Mr. Speaker, as you and most here in the House know, farming is a way of life in my riding

of Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh. We know that farmers across Ontario work hard. They're up at the crack of dawn and working long after sunset to provide us with the food we have on our tables.

As well, they have to deal with inclement weather -- sometimes a lack of moisture, sometimes too much -- and the highs and lows of markets. I want to thank them for what they do for us each and

every day, and I know that this House and Ontarians join me in thanking them for providing us with the safe, reliable food we have on our tables.

Farmers have always been there to feed us. Now it is time for the federal government to join us in being there for the farmers. We must ensure that we keep

farming a viable way of life in this province. We will do what we can to --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. The member from Simcoe North knows better than to be heckling while the member is making his

statement.

Mr. Brownell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Premier McGuinty and Minister Peters have been working hard, meeting with the farm groups. We will ensure that farmers have the tools as they continue to succeed

and provide us with the food we have.

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): I rise today to speak about the $23-billion gap between what Ontario puts into federal coffers and what it gets back,

and the effect that has on agriculture in this province. This government is committed to supporting our agricultural industry, and as a member representing some of the agricultural area in Brant, I

can tell you that I try to spread this message whenever I meet Ontario's farmers and producers.

We worked to ensure that the farmers got a better deal on the agricultural policy framework with the federal government. We're spending $47 million to provide

stability for our farmers during times of crisis. We are providing up to $30 million to help the cattle industry cope with BSE. These are just a few of the steps we've taken to support agriculture

in Ontario; we know there's still much more to be done.

Ontario's agriculture industry will face its share of challenges, as it always has. The $23-billion gap facing Ontario isn't helping us deal with those

challenges or with the other challenges that we face. The $5.6-billion inherited deficit, an inability to properly settle and train our immigrants, being 10th out of 10 provinces in post-secondary

education funding and the problems we face with agriculture are all symptoms of the $23-billion gap. It's unfortunate that last week's federal budget did nothing to address these issues, despite

the federal government's recording its eighth straight balanced budget, and even surpluses. Thanks to everyone in this House -- all parties aside, because this is the engine that powers Canada's

economy -- a fair deal for Ontario is a fair deal for the entire country.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

KITCHENER-WATERLOO

Y.M.C.A. ACT, 2005

Mrs. Witmer moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr11,

An Act respecting The Kitchener-Waterloo Young Men's Christian Association.

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

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

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to put forward a motion

without notice regarding committees.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): The government House leader is requesting unanimous consent to put forward a motion. Do we have consent?

Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Duncan: I move that notwithstanding the order of the House dated June 17, 2004, the standing committee on general government may meet

this week at the call of the Chair and that standing order 74 be waived for the purpose of any such meeting.

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

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45

p.m. until 9:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 1, 2005, and Wednesday, March 2, 2005, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those against, say "nay."

I think the ayes have it. Carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

GREENBELT

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Applause.

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): Thank you very much.

Interruption.

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: There is a working dog in the gallery and it responds this way to

applause. I didn't think it would take that many times for the members of the assembly to learn that.

The Speaker: It's a good point, but I think it's a cautionary point.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: It is my great pleasure to inform the House that earlier today, Premier McGuinty and I officially launched the greenbelt

plan for the greater Golden Horseshoe. This is the final step to ensuring a permanent greenbelt in this most densely populated area of our province, and it has come to fruition due to the strength

of the Premier's vision, the commitment of our government, and the hard work of many Ontarians who have joined us in our determination to build a stronger and healthier Ontario.

As you know, the Greenbelt Act was passed by this Legislature and received royal assent last week. It gives government the authority to establish a greenbelt

plan that contains broad objectives for curbing sprawl and protecting environmentally sensitive and agricultural lands across the Golden Horseshoe.

The plan released today meets these important goals and will help define this area for generations to come. The greenbelt plan sets out the boundaries of the

1.8 million acres of green space that will now be permanently protected, it defines the land use policies that will be in effect, and it sets in motion a new ability to protect the specified

greenbelt area and to enable intelligent planning for the anticipated growth of the broader region.

We are all aware of the projected population numbers. By 2031, about four million more people will call Ontario home, which equals the combined population of

Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton. Most of these people are expected to move to the greater Golden Horseshoe. This growth is welcome. It will attract about two million more jobs and further

strengthen Ontario's economy. But we must also plan it very carefully.

Our government has taken up that challenge. The Greenbelt Act and the greenbelt plan together provide a unique opportunity to ensure that the Golden Horseshoe

grows in a well-planned and thoughtful way. If passed, the Places to Grow Act and the draft growth plan for the region recently released by Minister Caplan will work in tandem with the greenbelt

for the benefit of all.

Ontarians are well aware that we hold in our hands perhaps the last opportunity to really make this busy, progressive, densely populated area grow in a healthy

and effective manner, and they took our invitation to be part of the process to heart. The final greenbelt plan is better for the contribution of so many people. It will clearly benefit Ontario in

so many ways. Our plan will protect the environment. It will preserve agricultural lands and rural lands. It will encourage growth in existing urban areas while curbing sprawl and supporting

vibrant rural communities within the greenbelt. It will provide numerous opportunities for recreational and leisure activities for a burgeoning regional population.

The greenbelt plan strikes a keen balance between meeting the needs of growing communities and protecting our green spaces. It will lead to stronger

communities, to cleaner air and water, to reduced gridlock and urban sprawl, and it will help Ontarians enjoy a quality of life that is indeed second to none.

In terms of next steps, soon I will be establishing the Greenbelt Council, to make certain that as minister and as part of the government, I am kept apprised

of all matters related to the greenbelt, and to which we can look for expert opinions and advice. We will review the greenbelt plan with a public review process every 10 years to ensure it is doing

what it's intended to do: curbing sprawl and effectively protecting environmentally sensitive and agricultural lands.

Our objectives for a well-planned greater Golden Horseshoe are clearly ambitious, but they speak to the vision of our Premier and our government for a strong,

healthy and prosperous Ontario. They speak to the desire of all Ontarians to protect our environment, our farmland, our forests and our green space. They speak to a collective desire to ensure that

our children and our children's children have the same opportunity to enjoy green space that we all enjoyed while we were growing up.

The greenbelt plan released today goes beyond today, beyond our mandate. It is a vision that has become a reality, it's a reality that will become a legacy,

and it will benefit the greater Golden Horseshoe, Ontario and Ontarians for generations to come.

The Speaker: Responses.

Interruption.

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): Obviously, it was viewed that the minister's statement was a real howler, by the response of the barking dogs in

the gallery. Maybe there's whining up there as well.

I wore my green tie today, hoping I would see some good news in terms of preserving green space and today's announcement supporting farmers. But I was sadly

disappointed with the minister's announcement today, which fails to address the real needs of farmers, fails to address the real needs of greenbelt municipalities and fails to produce a plan to

make sure that the Greenbelt Act could truly be successful. I remain convinced that this is nothing but a "greenbotch," not a greenbelt.

In fact, it wasn't just I who was saying that. The chipmunks were back, the same two chipmunks that were there when the minister broke the campaign promise not

to build any houses on the Oak Ridges moraine. Those same chipmunks were back to greet the minister at the McMichael art gallery, where he made his announcement this morning. Chipmunks are not

subtle creatures. Their signs were quite blatant in what they were accusing the Premier of. To put it more subtly, they were comparing the Premier to Pinocchio, but they used that big "L" word that

we're not allowed to say here in the Legislature. I want to say too that the McMichael art gallery --

The Speaker: I'd like the member to watch his language as he describes members of Parliament. It's very unparliamentary, the way you're going.

I'm going to caution you on this.

Mr. Hudak: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You're right; the chipmunks themselves were not subtle creatures.

The McMichael art gallery was a very suitable launching pad today, which proves that the initiative is far more about the art of politics and not environmental

science. In fact, Dalton McGuinty had his own group of seven cabinet ministers there, complete with their staff and their limousines, for that announcement today.

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): The seven dwarfs.

Mr. Hudak: My colleague says, "The seven dwarfs," but a group of seven nonetheless. Maybe the Premier flew to Kleinburg; I'm not exactly

sure.

The seven ministers were there, trying to paint a pretty environmental picture, but beneath that canvas, I'll say again, no plan to support our farmers, no

plan for viability of agriculture in the greenbelt area, no plan to address municipalities whose growth would be frozen by the greenbelt plan. If they want to invest in local services -- a new rec

centre, roads or sewers -- they'll find their tax base frozen, resulting in significant tax increases without support for greenbelt municipalities. There was no plan announced there today, no

appeal mechanism whatsoever. It remains that if you happen to know somebody, maybe in the minister's office or in the Liberal Party, you might get your chance for appeal, but nobody else will have

that opportunity. There is no public transparent or science-based appeal process for people to bring their concerns forward.

Shockingly, despite requests from the opposition for weeks and weeks now, there is no public revelation of the science behind this plan. They had talked about

the LEAR studies done by the Minister of Agriculture to look at the viability of the farm from its soil and the economic circumstances, but the only LEAR study we have received is one from

Ottawa-Carleton, nowhere near the greenbelt area. Obviously, these studies of which they boast are simply ghost studies. They have not brought those forward.

For folks lined up down Highway 401, which we traversed today, or the QEW or the 427, that long line of traffic, that long snake of traffic is just getting

longer on this plan because there's no investment to break gridlock to help people get to work, home to their families and to their friends quicker. Gridlock, without significant investment dollars

behind this plan, will just get worse.

I am pleased that the Boyd Conservation Area, Pleasant View in Dundas and the Beverly marsh are now included in the greenbelt. It's just too bad that it took a

political process to do so. The opposition brought forward a motion at committee for the Boyd Conservation Area, which happens to be in the finance minister's riding, and the Liberal members voted

against it at committee. So we're relieved to see today that some pristine environmental areas are included. It's a shame that it took our publicly embarrassing the government time and time again

to get those areas included in the greenbelt.

I know the minister will soon set up his council. I'm pleased to hear that. I had suggested a separate one for Niagara and for the Holland Marsh. He may still

do so; I hope so. But please make sure that there is strong agricultural representation. We're worried that you're going to leave them off the page.

Interruption.

Ms. Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I think the working dog in here today is giving my response for me: a whine here, a howl there, here a

whine, there a whine, everywhere a howl. Although this greenbelt does protect some farmland and does protect some environmentally sensitive land -- we all concede that, and it's important to do so

-- what we have here is not a permanent greenbelt as promised by the government.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): We've heard this before.

Ms. Churley: Yes, and you're going to keep on hearing it, let me tell you.

As stated by the minister before -- I noticed his rhetoric, in fact, was toned down today. I don't think he's referring to it any more as the "cornerstone" and

"stopping urban sprawl"; he is calling it a legacy. But the reality is that the New Democrats introduced an amendment at committee to fix what I thought was an oversight, and that is because he

said --

Mr. John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): They voted for it.

Ms. Churley: No, they didn't vote for it. He said it was going to be permanent; it is a floating greenbelt, and even worse -- yes, it is --

you can remove lands and add lands as you choose. So you can have the member, say, from Stoney Creek come to you and say, "I'm getting a lot of flak in my riding about some of the lands included in

it. You remove those lands and put in some land from somewhere else." We've already had some examples of that happening, and therein lies the problem: You can remove at will and put in wherever you

want at will. So this is not a permanent greenbelt at all.

The other problem, and there are several I want to bring up again today, is that this greenbelt does not include some of the prime farmland in Ontario. That

farmland is left stranded between the greenbelt and the designated urban centre. It's been said, not just by me but by the Neptis Foundation -- and I'm going to quote them again -- what this means.

Some of the best farmland in southern Ontario, as stated by the Christian Farmers and others, has been left out of the greenbelt. That band up there means that developers can buy up land in that

farmland. Furthermore, south Simcoe is not included in the greenbelt. You've got highways going all over the place through the greenbelt, and you know that if you build it -- the infrastructure,

the big pipe, the highways -- they will come.

This is what Neptis said about your greenbelt plan: "When the proposed greenbelt plan was released, the government announced that the plan would `curb

unplanned urban sprawl' by setting `strict limits on urban boundaries.' While this might hold true within the greenbelt, the plan will do very little to curb sprawl outside the belt."

Minister, you had an opportunity to do something about that, and you chose not to. So you're going to have leapfrog development, you're going to have highways

going through, you're going to have prime farmland developed all around it. Despite the plan in place, in the end the legislation allows cabinet to ultimately determine the shape of the greenbelt.

So a political whim can change the greenbelt.

Mr. Baird: After a fundraiser.

Ms. Churley: Yes, after a fundraiser, and the Tories should know how that works.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing can initiate a change to the plan at any time prior to the 10-year review, followed by the approval of cabinet

colleagues. Talk about the fundraisers and the pressures that are now going to be on these cabinet ministers. I'm telling you, Minister, you have not done your colleagues any favours by leaving

that open to those kinds of pressures.

There is no true arm's-length body established to mitigate cabinet dominance on this issue. For instance, Minister, you know the Niagara Escarpment plan has

the Niagara Escarpment Commission. They assess requests to amend the Niagara Escarpment plan, followed by board approval or rejection of their recommendations.

Minister, you had the opportunity to improve this greenbelt. You could have made it permanent, and you chose not to. The question is, why? You've put your

cabinet colleagues and all of your members in jeopardy because of the pressure on them to now -- think of your agriculture minister sitting there. The pressures on him and on the infrastructure

minister from developers, from farmers, from whomever to move some of the pieces of land in and out is, I think, not only unfair to them but creates great jeopardy for the preservation of the

greenbelt itself.

I'm really sorry that the minister didn't listen to Neptis and others to fix this greenbelt so it truly is a permanent --

The Speaker: Thank you.

There are a lot of discussions on the floor. I would ask members that if they need to talk, they can go into their respective lobbies and have their

discussions, as I'm having difficulty hearing the responses and the members.

I will also at this time ask members, whenever they are addressing any concern, to direct it to the Chair.

ORAL QUESTIONS

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mr. John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): My question is to the Premier. You just can't seem to get your financial act together. For the first time

since Bob Rae was in the Premier's office, Ontario now has a Premier who doesn't seem to even care about the fact that Ontario is running a deficit. Let's make no mistake about it: This is a

massive broken Liberal promise. You're raising taxes after you said you wouldn't. Instead of doing more with less, the McGuinty way is to do less with more.

Premier, 20% of Ontario's doctors will retire within the next four years. So the doctor shortage problem will only get worse under a McGuinty Liberal

government.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. This is the first question, and I'm getting about two or three interruptions on the government side.

I'd like to hear the member for Nepean-Carleton put his question, and I'd like to hear it without any distraction and disruptions.

Mr. Baird: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for getting that other member for Nepean under control.

Premier, the doctor shortage problem will only get worse under a McGuinty Liberal government. I don't think you have a plan to solve our doctor shortage

problem, and I don't think you even know what that problem is. Prove me wrong. Stand in your place and tell us today how many doctors we'll need to get on-line by 2008.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'll be delighted to acquaint the member opposite once more with our

plan when it comes to increasing the number of doctors available in the province of Ontario. First of all, we are increasing the number of spaces in our existing medical schools. Beyond that, we

are building a brand new medical school, the first of its kind in Canada in the past 30 years. Those two efforts will increase the number of graduating doctors by some 150. Beyond that, we've taken

the number of residency spaces for our international medical graduates and gone from 90 to 200, so we are fully capitalizing on the brain gain. Beyond that, and I'll be glad to speak more about

this in our supplementaries, we are bringing on-line family health teams. There's been a tremendous interest in this new concept we're putting forward.

Mr. Baird: Premier, the people of Ontario now see that not only do you not have a plan, you're not even fully aware of what the problem is.

You talk about an extra 110 doctors a year through your IMG program, but in fact, even with the numbers that you talked about, Ontario will still be 4,200 to 6,200 doctors short. The bottom line

is, under your stewardship this problem will go from being a bad instance to a crisis, a growing crisis.

I remind you that it was the Conservative government under Mike Harris who announced the funding for the new medical school, it was the Conservative government

who increased medical school enrolment by 30% while in office and it was the Conservative government that expanded the international medical school program. Your Liberal government has done nothing

new to even address this problem. Working families in Ontario now see that you're choosing big spending over balanced budgets. They are now paying a massive new health tax, after you promised not

to. Premier, stand in your place and tell us just how much of this $2.4 billion in health tax money you are spending to finally solve this doctor crisis.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: First of all, the NDP cut medical school spaces. The Conservatives, when they served in government, then waited a full four

years before they decided they were going to do something on that. We went from over 60 underserviced communities in the province of Ontario to over 140 on their watch. We have acted quickly. We

have more than doubled the number of residency spaces that had been put in place by the Tories on their watch, when it comes to accommodating our international medical graduates. We are building a

brand new medical school. Beyond that, we're establishing family health teams.

T he members opposite laugh, but these are the people who are very quick to produce rubber cheques. We're actually paying for the darn medical

school, not producing rubber cheques. That's the difference: Our commitment is real.

Mr. Baird: Let's look at the numbers. With all the measures that you've just recited here now, Ontario, despite all those numbers, will be

short some 4,200 to 6,800 doctors by the time voters go to the polls in the next election. The Premier nods his head, but in fact those numbers are the truth.

Premier, stand in your place and tell us if you will accept a Conservative idea to address this problem. We in the Conservative Party would like to propose

that you strike an all-party select committee in this Legislature to examine the doctor shortage issues with tight time frames to report back to this House. I noticed earlier today that your

government established a panel to look into ergonomic issues. Will you stand in your place and accept our idea as a constructive first step to solve this problem? Will you establish a select

committee on this crisis, yes or no?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I can tell you that we are very optimistic when it comes to increasing the attractiveness of our jurisdiction for family

doctors and specialists alike. I can tell you that we are working hard with the OMA at the present time to land a good agreement that will -- in fact, the offer that's been on the table, and this

is no secret, will make our family doctors the best paid in Canada and our specialists the second-best in the entire country.

Just recently, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario told us that in 2004 they issued over 2,700 licences. That is the greatest number in the past

20 years. Very interestingly enough, for the first time, more of those were issued to foreign-trained physicians than to those trained domestically. What that tells me is that this jurisdiction is

very attractive to doctors in other parts of the world. We are going to build up our complement. If I could, I would wave a magic wand, but we're doing the best we can under the circumstances you

left us.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Could I get the member from Nickel Belt to come to order?

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leader of the Opposition): Premier, your priorities are questionable at best. You have no plan for the economy, no

plan for health care, no plan for farmers and for maintaining the rural way of life.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of farmers will be at Queen's Park this Wednesday. They will say with one voice that you have no plan for farming, no plans to

stand by them and see them through their most difficult times. Farmers shouldn't have to protest to get your attention. Why have you turned your back on Ontario's farmers?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Obviously, I don't agree with the characterization that the Leader of

the Opposition puts on our good, strong, productive working relationship with Ontario farmers.

I had the opportunity again, just last week, to meet with representatives of various farming communities. They impressed upon me, once again, how dire their

circumstances are, especially when it comes to our grain and oilseed producers. They're looking at 25-year lows when it comes to their commodity prices, due to factors virtually beyond their

control -- due to international markets -- and we're going to have to find a way to help them.

As well, when it comes to cattle and other ruminants, they are being buffeted by the border closure. I had an opportunity to meet with Ambassador Cellucci once

more just last Friday and impressed upon him once again the value of opening up that border as much as we possibly can. He assured me that on March 7 we will see at least a partial opening. We have

yet more work to do. I'm sure I'll be provided the opportunity shortly to acquaint the member opposite again with the other things we're doing to help our farmers.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Supplementary?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Premier, when it comes to protecting farming as a way of life, you have failed miserably. Your first signal to

Ontario about the priority the Liberal government places on farming was a 20% cut to the agriculture and food budget. Then, without consultation, you cut the municipal drainage outlet program. We

all heard what happened to you then. The treatment you received from rural Ontario was enough to get you to announce some transition funding. They obviously kept the pressure on, because a few days

ago your minister announced the program was to be reinstated, although with considerably less money.

Premier, it seems that your government doesn't have a plan for rural Ontario. It's just making random decisions without regard to the consequences. Why are you

making uninformed, irrational decisions that later need to be fixed, rather than consulting with the industries affected? Why must farmers show massive negative reaction before you think to listen

to them?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Let me tell you about some of the things we have been doing for and with Ontario's farmers in order to strengthen the

viability of that very important enterprise that all Ontarians benefit from. We have, together with the federal government, provided some $410 million to the industry that's been affected by the

BSE crisis, as much as $138 million coming from Ontario alone.

I had the pleasure and privilege of hosting the first annual Premiers' Agrifood Summit. Beyond that, we are doing much work arising from that and look forward

to the next annual one, reporting on milestones between now and then.

We're providing $172 million in business risk management programs for farmers. We've delivered $20 million so far in nutrient management financial assistance

to help farmers come into compliance with some of the new regulatory requirements they've got to subscribe to.

We are working very actively with Ontario farmers. They find themselves today in some trouble; there's no doubt about that. Our responsibility as a government

is to work with them to find a way out of that trouble, and we're looking forward to doing that.

Mr. Hardeman: Premier, your government has demonstrated sheer incompetence in listening and responding to the needs of Ontario farmers. You're

more concerned with banning the trillium while farmers are trying to figure out where they're going to get the money to plant this year's crops. You have $400 million for the Casino Windsor Hotel

but not $300 million for grains and oilseeds to help the second-largest industry in this province. I can see your government has no meaningful plan for helping our farmers.

I have a young farmer in my riding who came to me and said that he can't afford to plant this year's crop and that he will lose money if he does, the same as

he did last year. If today's farmers can't make a living and turn a profit, what is going to happen to agriculture in the future? Premier, what do you say to the young farmer who sees absolutely no

positive future in farming in a Liberal Ontario?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I would want to tell him that part of the good news is that there is a Liberal government on the job that is actually

committed to farming and its future in Ontario.

Just today, as a sign of our unwavering commitment to farming in Ontario, we have established a 1.8-million-acre greenbelt that will preserve farmland in

perpetuity. It's interesting to note that my friends opposite voted against that legislation, and if given the opportunity, rather than save farmland, they are more than prepared to pave farmland.

I think there's an interesting study in contrasts here. We are working hard to save farmland for farmers and all Ontarians, but, given the chance, they would gladly choose to pave that same

farmland.

SALE OF LANDS

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Premier, this weekend people across Ontario learned about a serious potential breach of the public

trust. The Toronto Star investigated a $15.8-million land deal between York University and developer Tribute Communities. The investigation uncovered some disturbing details: First, the

multi-million dollar land deal was untendered; second, the land was sold for less than half of its value; and third, the person who brokered the land deal for the university, one Joseph Sorbara, is

a close business associate of the land purchaser, Tribute Communities. Premier, do you see anything wrong with this deal? If so, what are you prepared to do about it?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I appreciate the question. I know that the body ultimately responsible

for these kinds of transactions is the board of governors. It is my information that the board of governors is in fact reviewing this very transaction as we speak, and I look forward to the outcome

of those deliberations.

Mr. Hampton: This is not just a matter for the board of governors. This is a publicly funded university. A lot of precious Ontario tax dollars

go to this college and university. We want it to go to the students, not into the pockets of developers. York University, a publicly funded university, sold public land, untendered, for less than

market value, and the person who brokered the deal on behalf of the university has business interests with the purchaser of the land. On the face of it, that sounds like a big conflict of interest

and a potentially huge loss, not only to the public purse but the public trust. The last time I checked, you were in charge of the public purse and the public trust in Ontario. So my question to

you, Premier, is, what are you prepared to do about this, since it is a matter of the public trust and the public purse?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Again, I think this is --

Interruption.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I'm not used to that kind of heckling. I'm not quite sure what to say in response to that kind of a heckle.

Let me say that I believe this is a matter that ought to be fully considered by the board of governors, but I can tell you what we have done beyond this. We

have, for the first time ever, increased the authority of the Auditor General, formerly known as the Provincial Auditor, in the province of Ontario to ensure that that individual and his or her

office can now cast their net over colleges and universities, hospitals and school boards. So if for some reason the Auditor General has an interest in this matter, he is now empowered to act on

that.

Mr. Hampton: As the Premier knows, in these kinds of issues the Provincial Auditor awaits a signal from us. So I have prepared a letter, and

I'm going to sign it -- and I want to know, Premier, if you and the Minister of Finance are prepared to sign it -- to ask the Provincial Auditor to conduct an investigation. The issue here, as I

say, is not just for the university. This was public land sold by a public institution that receives taxpayers' money. The land was sold at less than half its commercial value. The deal was

brokered by one Joseph Sorbara on behalf of the university, in spite of the fact that he has a business relationship with the purchaser who got the land on the cheap.

Somebody over there must be interested in protecting the public purse and the public trust. I want to know, Premier, are you interested? Will you sign on the

dotted line and ask the Provincial Auditor to investigate this shady land deal?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: As I understand the story, none of the facts are a surprise to those involved in the transaction. People knew what they

were doing. My advice to the member opposite is to allow the board of governors to review the transaction, as they are doing at present.

It is true that we gave the auditor new authority, and if the member opposite wishes to send a letter to the Auditor General advising him that he ought to be

inquiring into this further, then of course he is more than free to do so.

The Speaker: New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr. Hampton: Premier, this is what someone said very recently: "We will allow the Auditor General to shine a light on organizations that spend

taxpayer dollars, ensuring that Ontarians are getting value for the money they invest in public services." This was the now Minister of Finance, Greg Sorbara, on November 22, 2004.

I'm simply saying to you, on the record, that on the face of it, this land deal looks like a breach of public trust, it looks like a breach of the public

purse, it looks like public lands were sold at far below their market value in a sweetheart deal to somebody who was connected with the principal person acting on behalf of the university. I'm

simply asking, are you prepared to sign on the dotted line to ask the Provincial Auditor to look at this deal? You and your Minister of Finance seemed to be in support of having the Provincial

Auditor look at these things only three or four months ago. Will you now sign on the dotted line asking the Provincial Auditor to do just that?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Again, Speaker, I leave it to the member opposite. If he feels particularly strongly about this issue, if he has lost all

confidence in the board of governors of York University, then by all means he should send a letter to the Provincial Auditor making whatever request to that individual he feels is appropriate.

Mr. Hampton: I have another quote: "The Harris-Eves government hides half of the budget from the Provincial Auditor. They deny him access to

the province's balance sheet when it comes to spending by hospitals, universities, school boards...." and then, "We will give the auditor the power to scrutinize them all so that you know whether

your dollars are being well spent." Who said that? Dalton McGuinty during the 2003 election.

So I'm asking you here today: Potentially, Premier, this land heist makes Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid look like a bunch of amateurs. Are you or are you

not prepared to sign on the dotted line, along with your finance minister, Greg Sorbara, and ask the Provincial Auditor to conduct an investigation of this potential breach of the public trust and

the public purse? Yes or no, Premier?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: As usual, the NDP wants to take it a step too far. They not only want to ensure that the Provincial Auditor, now the

Auditor General, has full authority to conduct audits of colleges, universities, hospitals and school boards, but more than that, they want us now, apparently on an individual basis, to be very

selective, in terms of those things that suit our particular passing fancy, of where they're going to conduct an audit. I have greater confidence in the Auditor General than does the member

opposite. I say again, we were more than glad to expand the ambit of his authority. If he has a particular interest in this matter, then I would recommend to him that he send a letter requesting of

the Provincial Auditor himself that he perform some kind of whatever.

Mr. Hampton: I wonder what happened to Dalton McGuinty. I remember, when a Conservative government was doing so-called land deals, Dalton

McGuinty was asking not only for forensic audits; he was asking for criminal investigations. This is clearly the public trust: a public university with lands that were donated by the public to be

used, hopefully, for education, not to line the pockets of a developer. The person who negotiated the deal, Joseph Sorbara, acting on behalf of the university, also acts with the land buyer -- a

conflict of interest. The land was sold for much less than its market value. Again, it looks possibly like a breach of the public purse, a beach of the public trust.

Premier, when you were in opposition, you said that deals that smelled like this ought to be investigated. You said that you would facilitate the Provincial

Auditor looking at this. I've given you a letter -- a letter I'm asking you and Greg Sorbara to sign -- to ask the Provincial Auditor to investigate. Will you do the right thing and sign the

letter?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Well, I can understand the member's interest in this, but I can tell you that we have a tremendous amount of confidence in

the board of governors at York University. They have decided to review this matter. I think that is appropriate, given the circumstances, and I look forward to the outcome of their

deliberations.

GREENBELT

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): A question for the Premier: In Bill 135, which you had a record-speed proclamation of on Thursday, you've given

extraordinary powers to the Minister of Municipal Affairs when it comes to protected countryside and farmland. Clause 6(2)(

a) says, "Policies prohibiting any use of land or the erection, location

and use of buildings or structures for, or except for, such purposes as may be set out" for the act.

That's why farmers in the greenbelt are concerned, because of the extraordinary powers and new regulatory burden you're bringing down on greenbelt farmers.

Shamefully, you characterize any concerns farmers have as them simply being speculators: They want to sell their land. Farmers we talk to want to ensure that they continue to farm viably and can

pass off their land to the next generation. But in Dalton McGuinty's Ontario, that's getting harder and harder to do. Premier, you shouldn't be in the business of regulating barns in Durham or

grape processing facilities in Grimsby. Tell us today that you're not bringing in any more interference on farms through your greenbelt legislation, none whatsoever.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): I'm pleased that the member has asked this

question, because today is certainly a great day for Ontario, with the legacy legislation that has been passed and the greenbelt plan that has been put into operation. We have made sure that a

million more acres of land are protected environmental and agricultural uses.

Specifically, with respect to the member's question, let me say just this: All existing farming uses that are currently in operation will continue. Not only

that, there are policies in place to make sure that new technological advances in agriculture can be handled and dealt with on the lands that are agriculturally zoned within the greenbelt area. We

want to make sure farmland is protected so that farmers can continue to produce the produce that is so much required for this part of Ontario. We are very proud of this legislation, and I know, in

time to come, the few people that don't like the legislation will come to appreciate as well what we've done for generations to come.

Mr. Hudak: I know that the minister is of the opinion that he is a lot smarter than farmers in the greenbelt area, but there are ongoing

concerns about your plans for farmers in the greenbelt. You say that it won't interfere with existing structures. Well, you gave yourself an extraordinary ability to do so in your legislation. Your

own advisory team tells you, for example, to limit on-farm businesses to no more than 1,600 square feet in size and to no more than 4,500 person-hours. That's less than two employees at the on-farm

business.

If you limit it to 1,600 square feet, that means a Henry of Pelham, a Harbour Estates Winery, any of the wineries that exist today, which help to support

agriculture, would not be allowed under your greenbelt legislation and this advice.

Please tell me today that you're going to scrap this plan, that you're not going to limit the buildings on farms, as your own team is telling you to do.

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: I know the Minister of Agriculture would like to answer this part of the question.

Hon. Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): We're very proud of the work that the agricultural advisory team did. Lyle Vanclief and

Bob Bedggood brought forth a number of good initiatives that we're working on to implement. For example, there was concern in the greenbelt area about surplus dwellings and the ability to sever

those surplus dwellings. We're moving forward to give those farmers that ability to sever off surplus dwellings.

We're working with the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board to ensure that we enhance the ability of the agricultural community to continue to operate

viably. We're moving forward with the --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): I'm going to have to warn you, member for Durham, about the continuous heckling.

Minister.

Hon. Mr. Peters: It's really unfortunate that the member for Durham isn't standing up and making sure that he's there supporting his farmers.

He's certainly not doing that at all.

As well, we're moving forward. The previous government had two minimum-distance-separation formulas in place. It was very confusing for the agricultural

community. We're strengthening that. We're going to have one MDS formula. We're moving forward and we're implementing some of these recommendations. Others are in the process of being --

The Speaker: New question.

Ms. Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): To the Premier: Your own minister's staff, as well as the Coalition on the Niagara Escarpment -- as

you know, it's a highly renowned group with immense expertise in protecting natural areas in Ontario -- has stated that the greenbelt is not permanent.

Again today, with the announcement of the final greenbelt plan, you have done nothing to address the floating nature of the greenbelt boundaries. This means

that boundaries can be shifted around at the whim of the minister or the cabinet of the day.

Premier, on this day, the day that you've announced the greenbelt plan, will you immediately keep your promise and now ground the floating greenbelt, and give

Ontarians the permanent greenbelt that you promised?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Let me begin by thanking the member opposite for her support for this bill, this plan and this greenbelt.

This is a very ambitious vision that we have breathed life into today. In fact, we committed to putting in place protection for 600,000 acres; we've exceeded

that and we've protected one million new acres as a result of the efforts of this minister. We are very proud of the efforts he's made on behalf of this government and generations yet to come.

Beyond that, as we moved through a period of time after we first introduced the draft plan, we have added another 8,500 acres beyond the original plan that we

had in place as a draft. So we're very proud of the ambition, the breadth, the scope and the depth of this particular plan. Once again, I thank the member opposite for her support for this

greenbelt.

Ms. Churley: Premier, instead of protecting south Simcoe lands and curbing urban sprawl, as you promised, your recent draft Places to Grow

plan reveals the greenbelt as a beltway for new highways, including a major highway between Kitchener-Waterloo and Brampton, and an extension of Highway 404 north to Ravenshoe Road at Keswick,

fuelling sprawl all the way to Lake Simcoe. You know that if you build it, they will come, that this plan will not in fact curb urban sprawl; it will increase it. Premier, will you stand against

urban sprawl today and cancel those major highways and major highway extensions through the greenbelt?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I think we've got it just right. The Tories, of course, voted against this bill, which tells me that if given the chance,

they would gladly eliminate the greenbelt -- there's no doubt about that whatsoever -- and pave over every square inch of farmland. We'll do our best to make sure that doesn't happen.

The MPPs supported the bill, but now I hear that it doesn't go far enough. Well, you cannot possibly put this forward in good conscience with any element of

reasonableness if we say that we're somehow going to put a greenbelt that circumscribes the greater Golden Horseshoe and there will be no roads connecting the inside to the outside. That would

simply be unreasonable.

What we have in place is something that is nothing less than visionary. It was said by many that it could not be done. We have managed, for generations yet to

come, to stand up for their unspoken voices and to protect in perpetuity 1.8 million acres, and we're very proud of that.

RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Rural infrastructure is a very important

issue in my riding. In particular, farmers need good drainage systems to ensure the viability of their agriculture operations. Minister, as you may remember, in the summer of 2004 the municipal

outlet drainage program was suspended. Shortly after, I held a public meeting in my riding in the village of Maxville, where farmers from the seven greater eastern Ontario counties and rural

municipalities expressed their concerns on this matter.

Minister, last week at ROMA you announced a new agricultural drainage infrastructure program. How will this new program work, and how is it different from the

old program?

Hon. Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): It is a new program, and it's a better program because we're going to ensure that the

dollars are targeted to where they need to be, and that is assisting agricultural landowners not only to build new drainage systems but, as well, to maintain those drainage systems. These are

dollars that are going to be focused. We're not going to allow them to be eaten up in all kinds of other costs.

I want to thank members of the rural caucus, because their criticisms can be levelled, but we do listen. We heard from our rural members that we needed to

bring back a new program, but a program that was going to do what it was intended to do in the first place. The Tories lost sight of that. They just let a program run rampant, without any good

oversight. What we're going to do is make sure there is oversight in that program.

I want to take this opportunity to publicly thank my parliamentary assistant, the member for Huron-Bruce, for her hard work on this program.

Mr. Lalonde: Thank you, Minister. I am delighted to learn that our government has listened to the concerns of rural Ontario and has responded

with a real commitment to enhance drainage infrastructure in our province. Will you please explain what else our government is doing to support the agricultural sector in rural Ontario at the

present time.

Hon. Mr. Peters: We're certainly not going to do what the Conservatives did. They cut over $100 million from the budget between 1996 and 1999.

We're not going to close offices; we're going to make sure that we're investing in programs. We're moving forward. We're investing in research. We're working very collaboratively with the

University of Guelph: over $40 million a year in research.

We're investing in slaughter capacity in this province. One of the things the BSE case has taught us is that there's a severe shortage of slaughter capacity.

We're going to have a slaughter capacity of over 6,500 additional animals a month.

We've moved forward on the RST exemption for farmers to use their farm cards, something that the Tories ignored.

We've moved forward on family-to-family land transfer sales, to take away that land transfer tax, something the previous government ignored. We're moving

forward on it.

We've invested in a number of areas. We're making strategic investments that are going to move for long-term viability. That's why we hosted the Premier's

agricultural summit. We have short-term issues, but this Premier is a man of vision. He believes we need to look forward, and that's what we're going to do with the agriculture and the agri-food

industry in this province.

SALE OF LANDS

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): My question is to the Premier as well. Recently, your government froze the value and changed the

value of millions of acres for people living around the greater Toronto area. We have heard today of a tremendous concern -- and the Treasurer says to us -- about speculation, and that's my

question to the Premier. Mr. Premier, you have the power to freeze the zoning in any part of Ontario. Will you use that power on the York University lands that were recently conveyed to a

developer?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): No.

Mr. Sterling: Would you not think, Mr. Premier, while this cloud of investigations goes on, that it would be in the best interests of the

public that this land not be further developed than it is today, that the public have the confidence that York University has received full value for this property? You and your cabinet have the

tools to freeze the zoning on that land this afternoon so that we can ensure that the land will be used, in the future, for the good of York University and not for the good of some development

company.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Maybe to shed a little bit more light on this and the position being taken by York University, here's a letter I received

today from the president and vice-chancellor, Lorna Marsden, and I'll quote from that in part. She says:

"We emphatically reject the thrust of these articles" -- making reference to the Star articles -- "and believe that we have followed all the appropriate steps

in approving the land developments, which have been in the planning for more than eight years.

"Because the leader of the NDP is quoted in Sunday's Star, I want you to know that we are happy to have a review of this matter by an outside and independent

person. We will be tabling this suggestion to our board of governors at our meeting today. If our board decides to proceed, I will keep you fully informed of the terms of reference, and of the

outside reviewer."

I think we should give the board an opportunity to consider this matter.

REPETITIVE STRAIN INJURY

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Minister, you know that today is the sixth annual Repetitive

Strain Injury Awareness Day. You also know, because it's WSIB data that tell us, that over half of workplace injuries are from various forms of repetitive strain injuries.

Today you announced an advisory panel -- we understand that -- but you know that workers across this province and their advocates have been unequivocal in

their call for ergonomic regulations like those in Saskatchewan and British Columbia. Some workers are here today. Will you please stand up and tell them that ergonomic regulations will be an

essential part, an inevitable part, of your response to this crisis?

Hon. Christopher Bentley (Minister of Labour): I would like to thank the member for the question, and I'd like to thank those who have come

today to make sure that everybody understands the terrible toll that ergonomic injuries, repetitive strain injuries, take on workers in this province. It is an enormous toll: 40,000 musculoskeletal

lost-time injuries every year.

During the Minister's Health and Safety Action Groups last year that brought business and labour together, it was apparent that this was a very significant

issue, and there were calls for action. What I committed to do was to form an advisory panel, which will be chaired by my parliamentary assistant, the MPP for Oakville, Kevin Flynn, and which has

business and labour representatives on it. They have their first meeting on March 7, and we spent a couple of months putting together the membership. What I've asked them to do is to take a look at

an overarching strategy, including consideration of regulation, the possibility of regulation and what that might look like, to make sure we have an overarching strategy to reduce workplace

ergonomic injuries in all workplaces in the province. I look forward after six months to their recommendations.

Mr. Kormos: Minister, workers in Ontario have witnessed consultations before, and injured workers have endured even more of them, but they

know that at the end of the day it is action and not talk that's going to deal with repetitive strain injury.

Both British Columbia and Saskatchewan have acted. The template is there for you. These are ergonomic regulations that protect workers from these incredible

injuries, these disastrous injuries. These are regulations that help stem this epidemic of repetitive strain injury in the workplace.

What these workers want to hear you say -- and I understand you're having a panel engage in consultations. Will you please -- you've read the regulations from

Saskatchewan and British Columbia -- tell these workers today that similar ergonomic regulations will be a part of your response, notwithstanding anything else that panel may come back to you

with?

Hon. Mr. Bentley: Thank you again. In fact, the regulations in different jurisdictions are different, and one of the things is that if

regulation is to be part of the response, we need to know what that regulation will look like and how detailed it is. We of course have a general regulation in the province of Ontario for

employers, a general duty. That may well not be enough, but we need to know, if we're going to regulate, what it looks like.

In addition, I'm looking forward to the recommendations of groups such as the CAW, the United Steelworkers, the IAPA, the Federation of Labour, the Canadian

Vehicle Manufacturers' Association and the Business Council on Occupational Health and Safety.

But in addition, it is important to know what we've already done. The Minister of Health has already announced $74 million in funding for bed lifts for our

health care facilities. That assists with respect to the lifting of patients. We've now hired 125 more inspectors to make sure that we can inspect workplaces where we didn't used to get to, to

ensure that the regulations we have are being properly enforced. The WSIB is funding a research project on this very issue, ergonomic injuries, and there's a strategy being developed --

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Thank you. New question.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

Mr. Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, Ontarians are fiercely proud Canadians. We're

proud to be the heart of Canada, the province that helps fund programs like health care and higher education in seven other provinces and three territories. But our ability to make important

investments in our people and their prosperity is compromised by the $23-billion gap. This is a $23-billion gap between what the federal government collects in revenue from Ontarians and what it

returns to us in spending.

On Friday, the federal finance minister recognized some of Ontario's concerns, like immigration. However, I did notice that he stated that Ontario benefits

from the Canada health transfer and the Canada social transfer, which support things like health care and post-secondary education. Minister, how is Ontario affected by these transfers?

Hon. Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): Thank you to my friend from the county. Obviously, Ontario benefits from these transfers, but the

point that we've been trying to make is that systems for distributing the assets across the country are significantly out of whack. If I could just provide you with one example: Under the CHT, the

Canada health transfer, and the Canada social transfer, what comes to Ontario on a per capita basis is $608 under these grants. But the per capita amount for the rest of the country is $667. That's

a difference of about $60 a person. When you add it all up, it costs this province about $1 million a year in transfers that don't come to our people, our hospitals, our universities or our

schools.

Mr. Parsons: Minister, one of the most obvious problems is in immigration. Investment in immigration settlements means new Canadians can start

contributing to Canada quickly and use their skills to better themselves, our province and our country. In Ontario, the federal government provides just $800 to help settle a new Canadian. In

Quebec, they invest $3,800. Minister, on Friday the federal finance minister agreed that Ontario's concerns about this gap are valid. How will this small victory help to close the overall

$23-billion gap?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: If I might just correct the record in my first answer, some of my colleagues say I said the difference was $1 million; it's

actually $1 billion in the per capita transfer.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Runciman knew that; there's no doubt about that.

On the immigration matter, the first thing is, I want to put on the record that this government and I personally have a strong relationship with Finance

Minister Ralph Goodale. Our two governments work well together. I want to say to you that he does have an understanding of the fact that Ontario needs an immigration agreement that will help us to

settle immigrants in this country at a very high standard of settlement. That's why I'm sure that Finance Minister Goodale is going to be a strong voice in the federal cabinet to make sure that

Ontario has an immigration agreement and that it has an immigration agreement very quickly indeed.

PIT BULLS

Mr. Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): My question is for the Premier. Instead of dealing with the real priorities of Ontarians --

eliminating the doctor shortage, reducing wait times and providing proper hospital funding -- your government is calling the fatally flawed Bill 132, the dog statute amendment act, or pit bull ban,

for third reading today. You were told at the public hearings that the day after Bill 132 passes on March 1, the public will be no safer from vicious dog attacks because there will be not one fewer

pit bull or vicious dog on the street but there will be more victims of pit bull and vicious dog attacks.

My question to the Premier: Why should the public have confidence in an Attorney General who fails to understand that safety from vicious dogs matters to them?

You have done nothing in Bill 132 to protect them from vicious dog attacks. What will you say to victims of vicious dog attacks after March 1 when Bill 132 fails to protect them?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The Attorney General.

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): There has been

an enormous amount of public consultation on this bill, and it is coming forward for further debate again today. I think this bill probably got more days of public hearings, more days of debate in

the Legislature and more consultation than any other bill on the subject of dogs in the history of the Commonwealth, and it has benefited from that.

If the Legislature votes in favour of this bill, mark my words, this bill will save lives and save injuries and, over time, it will mean fewer pit bull attacks

and, overall, fewer attacks by dangerous dogs. That's good news for public safety in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Tascona: Bill 132 contains no measures to address the two major problems involving vicious dog attacks and public safety: (1) a lack of

enforcement, and you are on record saying there'll be no money for municipalities to better enforce, and (2) no measures to make irresponsible dog owners more responsible. You are betraying the

public trust in proceeding with Bill 132, which, as you know from the experts in the public hearings, will not protect the public from vicious dog attacks now.

Attorney General, it seems that Bill 132 is simply a shameless exercise to promote your image. Why haven't you listened to the public and proposed legislation

that will effectively protect the public from vicious dogs and allow people to feel safe while walking on our streets?

Hon. Mr. Bryant: The people of Ontario said they wanted legislation in place that would protect them from dangerous dogs, and we've done that

with this bill. The people have said that they don't want to continue to walk the streets, parks, farms and living rooms of Ontario and be attacked by pit bulls, and we're on their side. We want to

bring that public safety.

But what they would like to know is, I say to the Conservatives, what side are you on? Back on September 20, 2004, when asked about the Liberal pit bull plan,

here's what John Tory said: "I think there is a real issue there.... But I think -- I've read enough to believe, you know, there's enough evidence about this particular breed of dogs that probably

this is a wise thing to do." Then in November he said, "I was certainly never gung-ho. From day one I have said this is what it is...."

Well, this government is not going to roll over on public safety, even if John Tory will. We look forward to seeing how they're going to vote this week on this

bill.

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Ontario farmers are in desperate straits. The BSE crisis has

decimated the beef industry and is also affecting farm income in the dairy industry. Crop farmers are facing 25-year lows for oilseeds and require an immediate infusion of $300 million just to be

able to put crop in the ground this spring. Michigan farmers are dumping subsidized corn in the Ontario market well below the production costs of Ontario corn farmers.

Premier, Ontario farmers need a comprehensive agricultural plan that returns their costs of production. Quebec farmers have such a plan. American farmers have

such a plan. Where is the McGuinty government's plan for Ontario farmers?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): To the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Hon. Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): It's wonderful to see all this interest in agriculture from the other side, with all the

silence that we've had over the past two weeks.

We're moving forward on a number of fronts. We've signed the agricultural policy framework, which has put in place the new CAIS program. The CAIS program will

flow more than $190 million in support to farmers in this province. We've moved forward with the wedge funding: $172 million in support for farmers in this province. We've move forward on the

2003-04 payouts to the old market revenue insurance program, which will flow more than $94 million to grains and oilseeds farmers. We're moving forward on a renewable fuels strategy because,

ultimately, that's what we have to do. We have to deal with things and commodities in our own backyard and need to add value. That's why we're moving forward to make sure that we're going to have a

program in place that encourages domestic consumption and that encourages domestic production. We're going to move forward as well on a biodiesel strategy. We're going to move forward to make sure

that our farmers are competitive.

Mr. Hampton: Farmers in Ontario have heard all that. They've heard all that over and over again. Here's the reality for corn farmers: In

Ontario, they get $26 an acre for their corn crop. Meanwhile, next door in Michigan, they get $126 an acre for their corn crop. Farmers are wondering what it will take before you notice them.

Now, farmers haven't missed the fact that the McGuinty government has announced a $500-million investment strategy for the auto sector, that you've announced a

$100-million investment strategy for the movie and television production industry in Toronto. They haven't missed that you've announced a $400-million investment strategy for the Windsor casino.

What they are asking is, where's the investment strategy for Ontario farmers? That's what they want to know: Where's the investment strategy for them?

Hon. Mr. Peters: That investment strategy was signed in December 2003, when we signed the agricultural policy framework, which will bring $1.7

billion in support for Ontario farmers over the next five years. As well, the Premier had the opportunity to meet with farm leaders last week, and he made the commitment to them that we're going to

undertake a comprehensive review of the safety net programs that we have in this province, to look at not only a short-term but a long-term strategy.

The member makes reference to the ASRA program. I think what he needs to understand is that when his party was in government, they didn't introduce an ASRA

program. When the Tories were in government, they didn't introduce an ASRA program.

We're going to continue to work with farmers. We're going to continue to advocate to the federal government, because you need to understand that this drop in

commodity prices is not a result of provincial government policies. This is a national problem that requires a national strategy. When we meet as federal-provincial ministers this week, that's the

message that I'm going to take from Ontario. We need to make sure the federal government recognizes the plight of Ontario farmers.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mrs. Liz Sandals (Guelph-Wellington): My question is for the minister responsible for women's issues. This past Friday our government

announced new funding under the women in skilled trades initiative. In my riding of Guelph-Wellington, this funding will enable women to receive pre-apprenticeship training in general carpentry at

Conestoga College. I've always been a strong advocate for women in non-traditional roles, so I'm very pleased that our government has made this opportunity available for training in Guelph. Our

area is experiencing a major building boom, and women who graduate from the WIST program will be able to pick up great jobs with local building contractors. Minister, can you please tell the House

who will benefit from this initiative?

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

opposite for the question. She indeed is a role model for women in non-traditional roles herself. Just being in this House makes you a great role model.

Let me say that this program, which was announced, once again, this past Friday, is a tremendous program for low-income women as well as new Canadians. It

targets women who have difficulty in terms of finding work placement. It provides in-school training and placement with employers. There are several other places across Ontario that are benefiting:

Georgian College in Barrie, with the general carpentry program; new homes service technician and general carpentry in Burlington; welding in Hawkesbury; native residential construction at Northern

College in Moosonee; and the industrial electrician program at Algonquin College in Ottawa. Congratulations to all of those campuses for participating.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Supplementary, the member for Etobicoke North.

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North): Minister, on Friday our government also announced new funding to help unemployed and low-income women in

Toronto train for good jobs in the information technology field through its information technology training program for women. In my riding of Etobicoke North, the Community MicroSkills Development

Centre has received over $1.3 million to continue their good work preparing women in my riding for challenging technical careers. Many of those who enrol in this program face unique hurdles,

particularly new Canadians who often require a variety of social support mechanisms to help them adjust to their new cultural and economic environments. Can you please tell the House how this

program will help these women contribute to and succeed in Ontario's workplace?

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: This member opposite has a very good grasp of this program, and people in his riding will certainly benefit, as well as

people across Ontario.

This particular program is for women only, and it does address issues for new Canadians who are new to what Canadian workplaces demand, so it not only teaches

the technical nature of the program but also the expectations of work here in Ontario. It has been extremely successful in the past, and we hope that this year will be no different. The best part

about this program, which is funded through the Ontario Women's Directorate, is that the success rate for finding jobs for these graduates is 75%. Congratulations.

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The cry of anger being heard from rural Ontario and the

farmers of this province is growing louder by the day. A year ago, you announced transition funding for a new generation of safety nets, which included bridge funding for the market revenue

insurance program. At that time, you recognized the problem in the industry and promised that money would flow. Then you announced the same bridge funding for the market revenue insurance program

on December 7, 2004, saying how important it was that farmers get the money. At the end of year, you reannounced the reannouncement of the market revenue program in your year-end announcement. Then

three days ago, guess what? You reannounced the reannouncement of the reannouncement of the same money for the market revenue bridge program.

Minister, are you prepared to provide the $300 million that grain and oilseed farmers say are going to be required in order for them to even plant the crop

this spring, without further reannouncement and in time so they can plant the crop to have a decent season?

Hon. Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): As the honourable member should know, when the agricultural policy framework was signed,

there were a number of companion programs that were going to be phased out. Two of those companion programs were the market revenue insurance program for the grain and oilseeds sector and the

self-directed risk management program for the horticultural fruit and vegetable sector.

I asked that a report be completed as to where we go post-MRI. Where do we go post-SDRM? Those reports have been completed. I just met with the horticultural

and vegetable sector this morning to go over their post-SDRM report, because we are looking ahead.

The other thing that I certainly would encourage the honourable member to do is that the federal government said that they are no longer funding companion

programs. I would encourage him to advocate to his Tory colleague in his own riding that the federal government should be providing their traditional 60% share of safety net programs. We've had

that long-standing relationship of 60-40 funding. The federal government is absent when it comes to 60% funding for --

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

Mr. Hardeman: Thank you very much, Minister, and I think that's really what my whole question was based on. You continually just keep spouting

the same talk but sending absolutely no money to the farmers. Farmers are telling me they can no longer make a living, and their input costs are far surpassing what they're getting for their

product. It seems to them that this government just doesn't care. The prices have dropped in the grain and oilseed sector, and you're doing absolutely nothing to help these farmers.

Ontario's farmers are suffering because European and American governments realize the importance of agriculture and helping their farmers. Minister, what are

you going to do to level the playing field, get the money out to the farmers and get all this money that you promised them but are not delivering? Farmers are still waiting for their CAIS money

from 2003, Minister. You heard it at the ROMA conference. They stood at the mike and said, "Minister, please send us the money" --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Peters: The dollars are going to flow. We committed $94 million from the remaining market revenue fund. The 2003 payment is about $8

million; the balance is going to grain and oilseed producers for the 2004 crop year. We're continuing our discussions with the grain and oilseed leaders not only to develop a strategy for Ontario

but how we can take a strategy forward to the federal government.

He hit the nail on the head, Mr Speaker. He talked about the European government and United States government. That's the challenge we're facing in Ontario.

Those are national programs. We need national leadership. We need national recognition of the hurt that the grain and oilseed sector is facing, and that's the message we're going to take

forward.

VISITORS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I want to inform the members that we have with us in the Speaker's gallery a delegation from the

foreign affairs office of Jiangsu province, China. Please join in warmly welcoming our guests.

PETITIONS

PIT BULLS

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): I appreciate the Speaker in the Chair is one I'm particularly pleased to work with.

I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas aggressive dogs are found among any breed or crossbreed; and

"Breed-specific legislation and breed bans are not effective solutions to the problem of dog attacks; and

"The problem of dog attacks is best dealt with through a comprehensive program of education, training, and legislation encouraging responsible ownership of all

breeds;

"We, the undersigned," respectfully "petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to refrain from enacting provincial animal control legislation that is breed

specific, and instead implement a comprehensive bite prevention strategy that encourages responsible ownership of all breeds," similar to the legislation from the member, Julia Munro.

I support Julia's bill. I don't support --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Petitions.

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I have the following petition, signed by 981 people:

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty and his Liberal government were elected based on their promise to rebuild public services in Ontario;

"Whereas the Minister of Community and Social Services has announced plans to close Huronia Regional Centre, home to people with developmental disabilities,

many of whom have multiple diagnoses and severe problems that cannot be met in the community;

"Whereas closing Huronia Regional Centre will have a devastating impact on residents with developmental disabilities, their families, the developmental

services sector and economies of the local communities;

"Whereas Ontario could use the professional staff and facilities of Huronia Regional Centre to extend specialized services, support and professional training

to many more clients who live in the community, in partnership with families and community agencies;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the government to keep Huronia Regional Centre, home to people with developmental

disabilities, open, and to transform them into `centres of excellence' to provide specialized services and support to Ontarians with developmental needs, no matter where they live."

I am in agreement and will affix my signature thereto.

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there is no established province-wide standard to deal with anaphylaxis in Ontario schools; and

"Whereas there is no specific comment regarding anaphylaxis in the Education Act; and

"Whereas anaphylaxis is a serious concern that can result in life-or-death situations; and

"Whereas all students in Ontario have the right to be safe and feel safe in their school community; and

"Whereas all parents of anaphylactic students need to know that safety standards exist in all schools in Ontario;

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the McGuinty government support the passing of Bill 3,

An Act to protect anaphylactic students,

which requires that every school principal in Ontario establish a school anaphylactic plan."

I sign my name to this petition and hand it to Kristine.

PIT BULLS

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly, and it reads:

"Whereas aggressive dogs are found among any breed or crossbreed; and

"Breed-specific legislation and breed bans are not effective solutions to the problem of dog attacks; and

"The problem of dog attacks is best dealt with through a comprehensive program of education, training, and legislation encouraging responsible ownership of all

breeds;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to refrain from enacting provincial animal control legislation that is breed specific, and

instead implement a comprehensive bite prevention strategy that encourages responsible ownership of all breeds."

I affix my name in support.

REPETITIVE STRAIN INJURY

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Minister of Labour and the provincial Legislative Assembly.

"Whereas repetitive strain injuries, back injuries and musculoskeletal injuries are of epidemic proportions and are on the rise at an alarming rate affecting

workers in all sectors; and

"Whereas the human cost and suffering to workers and loved ones is incalculable; and

"Whereas there have been many workplace ergonomic studies that have provided evidence that applied ergonomics and early intervention could prevent such

injuries if regulations and standards for the workplace were established; and

"Whereas British Columbia and Saskatchewan have provincial ergonomic regulations;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Minister of Labour, the provincial Legislative Assembly and Parliament as follows:

"That the Minister of Labour introduce ergonomics regulations similar to the British Columbia ergonomic regulation and draft code of practice, to protect the

workers of this province and Canada."

I've signed it, along with thousands upon thousands of others, and deliver it to the Clerks' table now.

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

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

"Whereas it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Education to standardize and enforce up-to-date policies and procedures in all Ontario Catholic and public

school boards for all students with allergies and for anaphylaxis; and

"Whereas the Toronto public and Catholic district school boards have had recent changes made to their policies for such cases, and were revised in June of

2003;

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

"That all school boards in Ontario initiate and enforce up-to-date and standardized policies and procedures and guidelines for children with allergies and

anaphylactic reactions;

"That all school boards in Ontario also standardize the food products used for fundraising projects, and all parents with children at risk be made aware of any

potential items or products used for any purpose of fundraising or in-class projects or field trips;

"We hope that immediate action will be taken in this matter, and we thank you on behalf of our daughter and look forward to hearing from the Legislative

Assembly of Ontario soon."

I also sign this petition.

PIT BULLS

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas aggressive dogs are found among any breed or crossbreed; and

"Breed-specific legislation and breed bans are not effective solutions to the problem of dog attacks; and

"The problem of dog attacks is best dealt with through a comprehensive program of education, training, and legislation encouraging responsible ownership of all

breeds;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to refrain from enacting provincial animal control legislation that is breed specific, and

instead implement a comprehensive bite prevention strategy that encourages responsible ownership of all breeds."

Julia Munro, our member, has brought in a bill to that effect. I support this petition and her bill.

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas aggressive dogs are found among any breed or crossbreed; and

"Breed-specific legislation and breed bans are not effective solutions to the problem of dog attacks; and

"The problem of dog attacks is best dealt with through a comprehensive program of education, training, and legislation encouraging responsible ownership of all

breeds;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to refrain from enacting provincial animal control legislation that is breed specific, and

instead implement a comprehensive bite prevention strategy that encourages responsible ownership of all breeds."

It's signed by thousands and by myself as well. Page Ian is delivering these to the Clerk.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Davenport.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that very much.

I have a petition here to the Parliament of Ontario and to the minister responsible for seniors. It reads as follows:

"Whereas most seniors live on fixed incomes which are eroding every year due to inflation costs and other necessary expenses" --

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Especially if they voted NDP.

Mr. Ruprecht: I don't know why this member disagrees with this, Mr. Speaker --

The Deputy Speaker: Please read from the petition.

Mr. Ruprecht: -- but I'm telling you that every year --

The Deputy Speaker: Will the member for Davenport --

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Davenport.

We'll move on.

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

"Whereas aggressive dogs are found among any breed or crossbreed; and

"Breed-specific legislation and breed bans are not effective solutions to the problem of dog attacks; and

"The problem of dog attacks is best dealt with through a comprehensive program of education, training, and legislation encouraging responsible ownership of all

breeds;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to refrain from enacting provincial animal control legislation that is breed specific, and

instead implement a comprehensive bite prevention strategy that encourages responsible ownership of all breeds."

I have signed this also, Mr. Speaker. I know that the Attorney General won't put his hands over his face on this one.

SENIORS' TRANSIT PASS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We'll try again. The member for Davenport.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad that you said that, because I didn't want to be interrupted.

The Deputy Speaker: Just read from the petition, please.

Mr. Ruprecht: The petition is to the Parliament of Ontario and to the minister responsible for seniors, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas most seniors live on fixed incomes which are eroding every year due to inflation costs and other necessary expenses;

"Whereas most seniors have their freedom severely restricted when unable to go about their daily business, which includes public transit;

"Whereas most seniors should be encouraged to live active, healthy lives -- visiting friends, relatives, going shopping etc.;

"Whereas other jurisdictions already provide free local transit passes to seniors, namely, many cities in the USA;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, strongly urge the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and responsible for seniors to ensure that seniors be granted a

free TTC pass, and/or introduce legislation that will force the local Toronto Transit Commission to issue free TTC passes."

Since I agree, I'm delighted to sign this petition.

PIT BULLS

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I'm pleased to present over 5,600 signatures and about 440 petitions. I want to commend Sandra Alway from the

Golden Horseshoe American Pit Bull Terrier Club, among others.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Just read from the petition, please.

Mr. Hudak: You bet, Mr. Speaker. It reads as follows:

"Whereas aggressive dogs are found among any breed or crossbreed; and

"Breed-specific legislation and breed bans are not effective solutions to the problem of dog attacks; and

"The problem of dog attacks is best dealt with through a comprehensive program of education, training and legislation encouraging responsible ownership of all

breeds;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to refrain from enacting provincial animal control legislation that is breed specific, and

instead implement a comprehensive bite prevention strategy that encourages responsible ownership of all breeds."

In support, my signature.

PROPERTY TAXATION

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

"Whereas the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) provides poor service to the people of Ontario;

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

"(

a) Direct the MPAC to improve their customer service;

"(

b) Reduce the property tax for people on fixed incomes, such as senior citizens and people on disability;

"(

c) Abolish the current market value assessment tax and return to the former tax assessment system."

I also signed this petition.

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty and his Liberal government were elected based on their promise to rebuild public services in Ontario;

"Whereas the Minister of Community and Social Services has announced plans to close Huronia Regional Centre, home to people with developmental disabilities,

many of whom have multiple diagnoses and severe problems that cannot be met in the community;

"Whereas closing Huronia Regional Centre will have a devastating impact on residents with developmental disabilities, their families, the developmental

services sector and the economies of the local communities;

"Whereas Ontario could use the professional staff and facilities of Huronia Regional Centre to extend specialized services, support and professional training

to many more clients who live in the community, in partnership with families and community agencies;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the government to keep Huronia Regional Centre, home to people with developmental

disabilities, open, and to transform them into `centres of excellence' to provide specialized services and support to Ontarians with developmental needs, no matter where they live" in the

province.

I'm pleased to sign my name to this.

PIT BULLS

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I also have petitions against breed-specific legislation, thanks to people like Sandra Alway.

"Whereas aggressive dogs are found among any breed or crossbreed; and

"Breed-specific legislation and breed bans are not effective solutions to the problem of dog attacks; and

"The problem of dog attacks is best dealt with through a comprehensive program of education, training and legislation encouraging responsible ownership of all

breeds;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to refrain from enacting provincial animal control legislation that is breed specific, and

instead implement a comprehensive bite prevention strategy that encourages responsible ownership of all breeds."

I support this, and I sign it.

ONTARIO FILM AND

TELEVISION INDUSTRY

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the foreign export production industry in Ontario has been badly hit by the recent economic events that have transpired here over the course of the

past 18 months;

"Whereas we are in desperate need of a substantial increase in the provincial foreign film labour tax credit to stop the exodus of production. We are at risk

of total industry erosion of infrastructure and jobs in this industry;

"Whereas there are currently 25,000 taxpaying jobs at risk here. The end effect will result in millions of dollars in lost direct revenues for the province and

hundreds of thousands of dollars the provincial government will have to pay out in unemployment insurance benefits;

"Whereas an increased provincial foreign production services tax credit is not a subsidy that will be a drain on provincial coffers. It will only serve to

protect the livelihoods of thousands of industry-dependent workers and taxpayers, as well as the ever-so-important infrastructure that has taken decades to develop;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, as workers in the Ontario film production industry, demand immediate action by the Liberal government to act swiftly to save

the foreign film and television production sector."

Since I agree, I'm delighted to sign this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PUBLIC SAFETY RELATED TO DOGS

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA SÉCURITÉ

PUBLIQUE RELATIVE AUX CHIENS

Mr Bryant moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 132,

An Act to amend the Dog Owners' Liability Act to increase public safety in relation to dogs, including pit bulls, and to make related amendments to

the Animals for Research Act / Projet de loi 132, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la responsabilité des propriétaires de chiens pour accroître la sécurité publique

relativement aux chiens, y compris les pit-bulls, et apportant des modifications connexes à la

Loi sur les animaux destinés à la recherche.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Bryant.

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): I'm going to

share my time with the member from Willowdale, a great parliamentary assistant to the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The member from Willowdale sat on the standing committee of the Legislative Assembly for the entirety of the four days of public hearings into Bill 132, which

wrapped up on February 3. I know he will be speaking to some of the issues that arose from those hearings, and I, of course, want to make some comments about Bill 132.

First, I'd like to thank all members from all parties who sat on the committee on the Legislative Assembly. It was four days of hearings. In the days when I

sat on legislative committees for four and a half years, I don't ever remember four days of hearings on anything when the Conservatives were in power, certainly not on the subject of dog safety. I

was pleased that over 100 people and organizations participated in the public hearings, either in person or in writing, and those who attended as observers were there and had an opportunity to be

heard.

I also want to thank all of those who participated in the consultations prior to the drafting of Bill 132. I held a round table on September 9 last year that

was well attended, with representatives of a variety of positions, including police officers, municipalities, bylaw enforcement officers, humane societies, dog trainers, the National Companion

Animal Coalition and the Canadian Kennel Club. That was just one day of round table discussions and this preceded the input that ministry officials and or myself received directly.

We had meetings with a number of different groups. We received volumes and volumes of material, and we received significant deputations. I thank all ministry

officials who participated in this remarkable consultation, on all sides of the issue, for their work, and the MPPs, who also consulted with many people on this and provided their input. I and

ministry officials received input from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the city of Mississauga, the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association and the Ontario Society for the Prevention

of Cruelty to Animals, who also deserve additional thanks for graciously hosting ministry officials and providing a tour of their facility in Newmarket. Of course I also thank the thousands of

people who answered the call for input regarding this issue. Not all of the e-mails that were received were supportive of it, but certainly we received input from a lot of people over a significant

period of time. I think that probably more consultation has gone into this bill than any other bill on the subject of dog bites, dangerous dogs and pit bulls, maybe in the history of the

Commonwealth.

Bill 132 is about public safety. The public at large want the freedom to walk their streets, their parks, their fields and enjoy their backyards without

serious, dangerous attacks. I say that pit bulls are a breed apart, an inherently dangerous dog that over time, if this bill passes, will decreasingly cause the serious attacks that they routinely

are responsible for in Ontario.

I know some people say that they aren't responsible for the attacks; it's the dog owners. The dog owners are indeed responsible. That's why we've made changes

under Bill 132 to put forth deterrence to irresponsible dog ownership like no other deterrence that exists in the country in terms of the penalties and the extent to which we will now be able to

intervene in situations where people are being irresponsible. That doesn't just apply to pit bulls; that applies to all dogs and all breeds of dogs.

I say again that pit bulls are inherently dangerous. No matter the nurture, they are an inherently dangerous dog, and I'll be speaking to that a little later

on with some scientific evidence and some remarks by a number of people who know something about dogs.

But I say we're not going to back down, because we believe that this bill is about public safety. We believe that this bill will make our communities safer.

That's why we're doing this. I look forward to the debate, from those who oppose the bill, as to how they think the status quo is somehow satisfactory, because it is not. It is difficult to imagine

a week that goes by in this province, it seems, where we don't have another report of a pit bull attacking somebody or some pet -- more on that in a moment.

The bill delivers by addressing the severity and frequency of dog attacks in Ontario, by addressing the problem of pit bull dangers and their propensity for

severe attacks. Secondly, the bill delivers by addressing dog bites and irresponsible dog ownership generally. One more pit bull attack is one too many.

We heard from people who have experience with legislation such as this, and the best example we have is a Canadian example. Tim Dack, the chief operating

officer of the City of Winnipeg's Animal Services Agency, stated very clearly, "Since the restrictions came into effect" -- in Winnipeg -- "the number of reported bites by pit bull-type dogs has

been reduced from 28 in 1989, to 11 in 1990, to zero in 2004. Altogether there were 310 dog bites reported in the city in 1989. Over the years this number has generally declined, with 159 bites

reported in 2004."

The point here is, first, the goal in Winnipeg was to reduce pit bull attacks, and it succeeded. For those who say that this bill will be ineffective, I ask,

how do you say that in the face of the experience in Winnipeg and Kitchener-Waterloo?

Second, there is always this hypothetical that somehow, as the pit bull population declines, we will get more serious dog bites from other breeds. On the

contrary. We learned from the Winnipeg experience that in fact, overall, dog bites went down in the city of Winnipeg. So not only were pit bull bites not replaced by other dog bites, but overall

the community was safer. That's what we in this government want for the people of Ontario.

We also heard from Councillor Berry Vrbanovic and Regional Councillor Jake Smola for the city of Kitchener, who informed us that there has been, in their

words, a dramatic drop in pit bull attacks, with 18 incidents in 1996, before the ban was put into place, and approximately one per year after the ban. So when they were asked overall about their

assessment of the ban in Kitchener, they said this: "A ban on pit bulls has worked in Kitchener and Waterloo, and that is why we are here to express our support for this bill.... We believe that

every citizen in every city and town across Ontario deserves the same level of safety that we have in Kitchener and Waterloo."

I think we have to acknowledge the courageous and pioneering work done by Councillor Berry Vrbanovic, who I know was a pioneer in this area here in Ontario,

and also the work done in the city of Winnipeg. There are other municipalities across Ontario that are either adopting or have adopted a pit bull ban. Windsor is one. I'll get to Windsor in a

moment.

We also heard in the committee hearing some powerful testimony from people on the front lines who have to face pit bulls at their most dangerous. Consider the

compelling testimony from Chief Julian Fantino, who spoke on behalf of the country's largest municipal police service. Mr. Fantino said in no uncertain terms, "Pit bulls pose a very serious, very

real and legitimate threat to the safety of the public and to our police officers." He went on to say, "These officers know better than anybody that appropriate and consistent training is essential

for any breed of dog. However, they also have experienced first-hand what can happen with predatory-type dogs, regardless of their training or circumstance. These officers have seen the utter

viciousness and severe rage with which these dogs attack." That is compelling.

We heard from other police officers. The Police Association of Ontario supports the position taken by the Toronto Police Service. The Police Association of

Ontario, as you know, is an organization representing over 21,000 police and civilian members from 63 police associations across the province. These people are on the front lines of community

safety, and they have testified in reference to encounters with dangerous dogs, "...the overwhelming number of examples we have received from our membership involve pit bulls."

There were moments during the debate, public in the media and otherwise, where people posed the question, is it nature or nurture? The argument was made by

some that it is completely nurture. I don't think anybody would ever doubt that there are certain dog breeds that have certain inclinations that make them particularly good at things. If we think

of the bloodhound, we think of the working dog; we think of the dog that's able to track better than others. It defies common sense to suggest that genetics don't play some kind of role in terms of

the wiring of any particular breed.

Recently we heard from a University of Windsor behavioural genetics researcher. I'm relying here on the Windsor Star in reporting, "The Ontario government is

justified in banning pit bulls because by nature some mammals are more aggressive than others, says a University of Windsor behavioural genetics researcher." This professor of biological sciences,

Doug Wahlsten, said, "The important thing we've found is that ... some genetic strains are more affected than others.... I think (banning pit bulls) is a public safety issue." Wahlsten's research

-- and again I'm relying on the

article here -- regarding genetics and behaviour has been published in Science magazine. He said that similar research was done in the Netherlands, the US and

Finland. I'm quoting here from Wahlsten again: "The rearing does not change their heredities."

I'm not doubting that the behaviour of dog owners is very important. That's why there is a component in our bill supported by some who didn't support the bill

in general but who had been asking for a long time for new opportunities and powers for animal control officers to try to prevent dangerous dog attacks, not just pit bull attacks but all dangerous

dog attacks. It was in that name that we brought in that other component of this particular bill.

It's not just the behavioural science professor from Windsor who has spoken to this. Others have spoken to it. That includes people who have experience with

these dogs. There's a television show called Ultimate Dogs: Behind the Bite. In this show, the videotape that I saw of it, a number of things were said by people who know something about pit

bulls.

Sandra Alway, American pit bull terrier owner and president of the Golden Horseshoe American Pit Bull Terrier Club, said, "The breed was really honed and

perfected over the sport of dog fighting.... They get something in their head and they're going to do it unless they've been taught otherwise.... We don't believe that off-leash parks for this

breed are a good place for them to be. They may not start the fight, but they will surely finish it." It is true; I think Ms. Alway has got it right on this front.

Kerry Vinson, a canine behaviourist, said, "The original people who created pit bulls tended to cull out any that showed aggression to humans. On paper that

certainly sounds good, but the reality is there's been quite a few attacks on humans by pit bulls." That's for sure. There's no doubt that there have been quite a few attacks on humans by pit

bulls.

A dog trainer, Jennifer Segal, said, "These animals are really being raised to" -- as she put it -- "hate other animals.... When they do go into that mode of

biting or attacking, they would rarely if ever stop."

American pit bull terrier breeder Doug Marr said this: "They have a lot of power, it's phenomenal, it's extreme. I know dogs that are 30 pounds in weight pull

and they're pulling over 1,500 pounds."

This conforms with most people's understanding of what pit bulls were originally bred to do and what they have been doing. So what are we doing? We are saying

that, over time, we need to have an Ontario that does not see pit bull attacks. We begin that, if this bill passes, by increasing the safety of pit bulls currently in Ontario. As recommended by

most responsible dog owners, we would be requiring the leashing and muzzling of these dogs. We'd require them to be neutered or spayed in order to make them safer. Over time, as these pit bulls

live out their natural life, we will see, as we saw in Winnipeg and Kitchener-Waterloo, fewer pit bull attacks. That's good news for public safety in Ontario.

At the same time -- and this was reflected in the testimony we had before the public hearings and certainly conforms with what everybody I spoke to said about

the population of humane societies across Ontario -- even before this debate began, even a year ago, we had a situation in our humane societies where a disproportionately high number of dogs being

dropped off there by their owners were pit bulls. We heard some of those numbers during the testimony. I think for one humane society, 25% of the overall dog population were pit bulls. There is no

doubt that humane societies don't have an easy time adopting out pit bulls. My concern is that over time, five or six years from now, we're going to have a situation where humane societies are

bursting at the seams with pit bulls because, as we increasingly get more and more attacks on other animals and on people, we're going to have an unsustainable situation where the pit bull

population of Ontario is going to be growing up, or not, in humane societies. I don't see the humanity in that at all.

At the end of the day, though, there is no question what the motivation behind this bill is: It is to increase public safety for Ontarians. We want to have

fewer pit bull attacks, and over time, this will do that. We want to put into place the tools and deterrents to deal with irresponsible dog ownership, and this bill will put that into place.

I look forward to the debate. I look forward to seeing where the parties stand in the vote to come in this Legislature. I ask members for your support.

The Deputy Spea