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

April 19, 2005

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2005-Apr-19 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 19 April 2005 Mardi 19 avril 2005

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CONSERVATION

KAWARTHA CHOICE

FARMLAND FOODS

BOWMANVILLE FOUNDRY

STEEL INDUSTRY

CECILIA ZHANG

LONDON CLEAN AND GREEN

FORMATION PROFESSIONNELLE /

SKILLS TRAINING

HIGHWAY 7

HEALTH CARE

WEARING OF RIBBONS

REPORT OF CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

VISITOR

DEFERRED VOTES

ONTARIO HERITAGE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L'ONTARIO

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

LONG-TERM CARE

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEE

ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE

OF MINORS

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

COLLÈGE DES GRANDS LACS

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

WINDSOR BORDER CROSSING

LABOUR UNIONS

HERITAGE CONSERVATION /

CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE ONTARIEN

PETITIONS

SPORT PARACHUTING

SCHOOL CLOSURES

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK.

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

CANCER CARE

CARDIAC CARE

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

GASOLINE PRICES

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE SECURITY AND

INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LES SERVICES PRIVÉS

DE SÉCURITÉ ET D'ENQUÊTE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CONSERVATION

Mrs. Julia Munro (York North): On Friday, April 15, I was pleased to attend the 17th annual Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Foundation fundraising dinner. This event is one of the key fundraising activities of the foundation. It supports conservation programs throughout the watershed. These programs serve a variety of conservation needs, such as raising public awareness throughout the watershed, programs designed specifically for teaching children about conservation and the importance of the lake, rural watershed management practices and urban retrofitting projects.

These are all important undertakings for the other "Great Lake," Lake Simcoe. Lake Simcoe is a $200-million annual economic resource. It is the drinking water source for many communities. The lake provides recreational opportunities for over half the population of Ontario.

Many municipalities around the lake were represented at the dinner by their councils. The federal level of government was represented by Belinda Stronach, the MP for Newmarket-Aurora, and Peter Van Loan from York-Simcoe. The province was represented by Frank Klees of Oak Ridges and me.

The best news is that Friday's dinner raised a net $60,000 for the foundation. Congratulations to the organizers and to the generous guests at the great dinner at DiNardo's in Aurora.

KAWARTHA CHOICE

FARMLAND FOODS

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I'm pleased to be able to speak to the House today about Kawartha Choice Farmland Foods, a local Peterborough-Kawartha initiative that has now been running for just over a year.

The Kawartha Choice initiative is designed to provide marketing and branding material and concepts to local agricultural producers and the companies that sell their products. Specifically, Kawartha Choice is a local initiative focusing on promoting the wide variety of agricultural products grown and produced in the Kawartha region.

The original intent was to develop a "Buy Local Beef" campaign; however, once the logo was established, the concept expanded to include other local agricultural products. From beef to buffalo, honey to maple syrup or apples to sweet corn, the Kawartha Choice logo is your assurance of the quality and integrity of locally grown products.

After nearly one year, there are more than 75 participants displaying signs on their farm gates, displaying a sign on their farm market booth, hanging a banner at their event or preparing a dish in a restaurant featuring locally produced product and telling their customers by displaying a banner or including a Kawartha Choice logo on their menu.

The Kawartha Choice initiative is designed to support local producers and the companies that sell their products by providing marketing tools and the official Web site, www.kawarthachoice.com. The goal is simply to help them clearly identify local products for consumers.

The initiative's benefits are: Local producers will sell more product, local companies will either process more products, such as local butchers, or sell products, such as local marketing vendors, grocery stores and specialty shops. Local marketing/promotion companies will benefit from the purchase of Kawartha Choice marketing materials. Tourism events, such as fundraising barbeques, will benefit from the increased "BBQ in a Bag" promotion.

BOWMANVILLE FOUNDRY

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): I rise in the House today to recognize the publication of a new book that celebrates the history of a foundry in my riding. The book is entitled Iron in the Blood, and is subtitled The Bowmanville Foundry: One Hundred Years of Innovation.

The foundry was founded in 1901. It began operation under the ownership of Christian Rehder. It remained in the Rehder family for most of the past century, most recently under the leadership of Tom Rehder, an esteemed member of our community. Today's proprietors, President Michael Patrick and David Boothman, along with their team, continue the tradition of entrepreneurship, innovation and excellence.

Throughout its history, the foundry has employed many generations of men and women in Bowmanville. It has overcome technical challenges, two world wars, a global depression, several recessions, fires and flood.

I'd like to pay tribute to the two local authors, Helen Bajorek MacDonald and Helen Lewis Schmid, who are the co-authors. Their book successfully combines family history along with community, labour and economic history.

The official launch of Iron in the Blood takes place this evening at the Bowmanville Museum. The book recognizes a pioneer business that remains a vital part of the local economy in the 21st century.

I'm pleased to commend the authors for launching the book on the Bowmanville Foundry, and the Bowmanville Foundry and its current operators for their continued service to jobs and the economy in my riding of Durham.

STEEL INDUSTRY

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): This morning the city of Hamilton's planning and economic development committee, backed by the mayor, approved a resolution supporting our steelworkers in their effort to have Stelco entertain a new offer.

Also this morning, I had hoped to hear back from my Liberal MPP colleagues from Hamilton. Yesterday I asked them to sign a joint resolution urging their government to become actively involved in pushing for Stelco to at least consider the USWA-Tricap plan. They had until noon today to express interest in signing a resolution from all of Hamilton's MPPs urging Stelco to sit at the table with steelworkers and their financial adviser and drum up the best possible deal for all workers, past and present, including funding workers' pensions. I regret to say that the phone calls from my Liberal friends never came.

They wouldn't sign on to help our city's number one industry, steel, and its largest employer, Stelco, in their time of greatest need.

The company needs to be looking seriously at every option out there. It can't afford to summarily dismiss proposals out of hand. The Ontario government needs to be there to ensure that all proposals receive due and fair consideration.

I hold no illusions that the USWA-Tricap proposal is a panacea for all that ails Stelco. Nevertheless, the Ontario government needs to be there to send the right signals to ensure Stelco can sustain itself and grow again over time for workers who give the company its strength.

Here in this House I've been asking to see the government's plan for modernizing the steel industry, winning projects that will benefit steel and resolving its pension problems. Today, I will be tabling a resolution supporting steelworkers in Steeltown. I hope Premier Dalton McGuinty and his Liberal MPPs come out of hiding and use their influence to help Hamilton and the people who elected us to represent them.

CECILIA ZHANG

Mr. Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): I rise in the House today in memory of Cecilia Zhang. We all remember the story of the little girl's disappearance and the tragic news of her death in March 2004.

Her parents set up a beautiful memorial Web site and numerous memorial funds. They have openly shared their lives and that of their daughter's with the world.

Cecilia was a caring little girl who loved animals and had the gift for music. The Web site features a wish list that Cecilia wrote. It is not your typical nine-year-old's wish list. She wished nothing for herself. Perhaps the most profound wish she made was "that there are no more wars in the world and that equality is everywhere."

It is with this in mind and her love for music that the Cecilia Zhang Memorial Music Award was created by my wife, Councillor Sandra Yeung Racco, and the Royal Conservatory of Music. This memorial award will be granted to a music student between the ages of nine and 10 who possesses musical ability but not necessarily the financial means. It provides equal opportunity to all deserving young musicians.

Tonight, at the City Playhouse Theatre in Thornhill, the Cecilia Zhang memorial concert will take place. The concert will feature performances by many young students from the Royal Conservatory. All the honourable members in this House are invited.

Special thanks go to Cecilia's parents, the Royal Conservatory of Music and my wife, Councillor Sandra Yeung Racco.

Cecilia's memory will live on through the Cecilia Zhang Memorial Music Award. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for listening.

LONDON CLEAN AND GREEN

Ms. Deborah Matthews (London North Centre): While recently visiting the grade 5 and 6 classes at Trafalgar Public School in my riding of London North Centre, I asked the students what we could do to make our community better. A young woman named Courtney Denda suggested something very practical: planting trees and cleaning up Vauxhall Park, near her school. Several other students immediately volunteered to help.

So, in the spirit of spring and Environment Week, Courtney, myself and many others are doing our part to clean up the environment. We have pulled together the Deb Matthews clean-and-green team as part of the London Clean and Green initiative, which coordinates a number of organizations to clean up London every spring.

On Saturday, April 23, thousands of Londoners will be donning their gloves and rubber boots to work together to help clean and green neighbourhoods and parks around our city. We will pick up litter, remove graffiti and plant trees. Please join us. When you do, you can be proud of being part of a growing trend across Ontario, Canada and North America that happens every April.

London Clean and Green is a local version of a national community cleanup program, Pitch-In Canada. Many other cities across Ontario promote citizens to get outside and clean up their neighbourhoods, including Toronto, Mississauga, Waterloo and Windsor.

Come and join me, Courtney Denda, students from Trafalgar school and our Deb Matthews clean-and-green team at Vauxhall Park on Saturday morning. Let's all work together to make London clean and green.

FORMATION PROFESSIONNELLE /

SKILLS TRAINING

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Il me fait plaisir de partager avec vous et tous mes collègues aujourd'hui une initiative importante du gouvernement McGuinty.

Vendredi dernier, j'étais au campus de la Cité collégiale de Hawkesbury en présence de la présidente, Andrée Lortie, pour faire part d'un octroi au montant de 214 $ mille pour la conception d'un nouveau programme de soudure qui permettra aux jeunes femmes de Glengarry-Prescott-Russell de se lancer dans ce métier.

Yes, this new welding program will help 20 young women in the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell to start careers in welding.

Compte tenu de la pénurie de soudeurs dans les métiers, ce nouveau programme suscitera un vif intérêt chez les usines de la région telles que IVACO et Gray Hawk.

Oui, M. le Président et chers collègues, le gouvernement McGuinty a su répondre à la pénurie de soudeurs sur les chantiers de construction ainsi qu'au besoin d'intégration des jeunes femmes dans le métier.

I am proud of this new direction in the trades brought forward by the Minister responsible for women's issues.

Il était temps pour les femmes et il était temps qu'elles soient reconnues dans cette compétence, soit le métier de soudeur.

HIGHWAY 7

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): Unfortunately, I must rise again to tell members of this House of another tragedy which has occurred on Highway 7 near Carleton Place. On Saturday, a mother and her young daughter from Ottawa were killed in a traffic accident on this dangerous stretch of highway.

I was very proud when I, as Minister of Transportation, committed $85 million to widen this stretch of highway. I knew that I was announcing something that would make a difference in the lives of my constituents. At that time, the project was scheduled to start last year.

Unfortunately, since the McGuinty government came to power, they have said they remain committed to this project but have not yet started any construction. I have written to the Minister of Transportation many times, and I have made statements in this House asking about this issue, and I will continue to do so until construction really does begin.

This accident occurred on a stretch of highway that would not have been affected even if construction had begun as we had planned before. In February, the last time I asked for a timeline, the minister said construction would not likely begin for another year. That is too long for my constituents. Too many people are being injured and maimed and killed. Today I call upon the minister to do everything in his power to get this project started now.

HEALTH CARE

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): I came across an

article by Sam Roberts, a columnist at the New York Times, that I want to share with this House.

Sam Roberts's wife called him at work and said she had inexplicable heaviness in her chest. Mr. Roberts asked his wife to phone her internist. When the internist heard the symptoms and her family history, he said, "Go, go, go to the emergency room," which she did. On arrival, she was tethered to heart monitors, intravenous tubes were inserted and tests were conducted. The specialists ordered she be admitted overnight. The Roberts family was insured, so Mr. Roberts phoned the Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield that covered them. They assigned a number and case to Mrs. Roberts. Nothing was discovered, so she was released the next night and urged to take more tests, including an echocardiogram.

Three days later, the insurance company, through a letter, denied coverage for the cost based on their doctor's judgment that the requirement for acute in-patient hospital stay for evaluation of chest pain was not medically necessary.

A week later, the hospital bill for $4,900 came; $500 for a cardiologist; $900 for an internist; $1,308 for additional tests ordered by the internist; and $1,718 for the tests at the hospital. The total bill payable by Mr. Roberts was $9,375. Even if Empire Blue Cross changes their decision and does accept to pay their share, the Roberts family will still pay $4,400.

If the chest pains come back, what will they do next time? Imagine: This happened with health care coverage. What about the 40-million-plus Americans who are not covered?

When the Leaders of the Opposition, both federally and provincially, want to take us down the slippery slope of private health care, think twice.

WEARING OF RIBBONS

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to allow all members to wear the green ribbon in recognition of organ and tissue donation week.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Do we have unanimous consent as requested by the Minister of Health? Agreed.

REPORT OF CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): I beg to inform the House that I have laid upon the table the 2003 Annual Report of the Chief Election Officer of Ontario.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): In the members' east gallery we have Walt Elliott, a former member from Halton North in the 34th Parliament; also, another distinguished member, Hugh O'Neil, a former member for Quinte from the 30th to the 35th Parliaments. Welcome.

Mr. Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Also in the east gallery, an illustrious council member for the city of Toronto, Toronto Centre-Rosedale, Kyle Rae is here.

We also have the Order of Canada award winner and the former mayor of the city of Toronto, John Sewell.

The Speaker: Thank you very much. My eyes must be fading. I can see you from there and you are all welcome to the House.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I am pleased to announce during Earth Week that the McGuinty government is moving forward to help our province meet the growing demand for electricity in a way that respects the environment and the air we all breathe.

Last April, our government initiated a call for proposals for 300 megawatts of new renewable energy capacity, opening the door to a significant increase in the number of clean power sources in Ontario, such as wind, solar, water, biomass and landfill gas. As a result, shovels are going into the ground on 10 new renewable energy projects that will provide Ontario with 395 megawatts of clean, green power. Not only will these projects bring an estimated $700 million in new investment to Ontario; they will also increase Canada's current installed wind capacity by approximately 80%.

Our government understands that finding clean, affordable, sustainable sources of electricity must be a top priority of this government, especially as the entire country seeks to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. That's why we have set a target of generating 5% of Ontario's total energy capacity from renewable sources by 2007, and 10% by 2010. Achieving these goals would make Ontario a clear leader in encouraging alternative power and greener forms of energy. The strongest interest from our last call for proposals demonstrated that there are plenty of people interested in renewable energy who want to help us meet our needs.

I'm very pleased to announce that our government is taking another giant step forward to embrace cleaner, greener sources of electricity by issuing a call for proposals for up to 1,000 megawatts of new renewable power, enough to power 200,000 homes. The RFP will be released this Friday, April 22, and proponents will have until August to submit proposals for wind, water, solar, biomass and landfill gas projects with a capacity of 20 megawatts or more. The range of proposals we expect to receive will allow us to choose the most viable, cost-effective projects for Ontario's electricity consumers, and we expect that successful projects will be announced as early as this fall.

Our government is creating a brand new industry in our province. For example, when we took office, there were only 14.6 megawatts of wind power capacity in Ontario. We expect that by 2007 there will be more than 1,000 megawatts of wind power capacity, and that is a 75-fold increase. This power will not only help us reduce our reliance on fossil fuel generation and help clean up our air; it will mean approximately $1.5 billion in new investment in Ontario.

More renewable energy means more jobs, more innovation and more economic growth in the province. It also means new and exciting opportunities, such as the potential for new wind turbine manufacturing plants right here in Ontario.

But it's not only large-scale projects that are of interest to our government. We want everyone interested in renewable energy to help us achieve our potential. That's why our government has announced that in June it will be issuing an additional call for proposals for up to 200 megawatts of power from small and medium-sized renewable energy projects under 20 megawatts. This RFP will be coordinated with a strategy initiated by my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources to make crown sites available for water power development, as many of these sites have the potential to provide up to 20 megawatts of power.

Our government is also currently exploring a strategy to encourage very small community- and agriculture-based renewable energy projects. My ministry is consulting widely on the options available, and we expect to make an announcement later this year.

When it comes to clean, renewable energy, every megawatt of clean power counts. Ontario has enormous potential for clean and efficient electricity generation. That's why our government is working on innovations such as Ontario's first wind atlas, which will identify areas of the province with the best wind power potential. That's why we're allowing development of wind and water power sites on crown land. And that's why we have introduced a regulation to allow net metering, which will make it more attractive for small generators such as farmers to produce green power by allowing them to receive credit for the excess electricity they produce.

There is much more to come. Through these initiatives, we're making it more attractive to explore renewable energy options in our province. We're removing barriers, freeing up resources and implementing new ideas to help us meet our supply needs in an environmentally responsible way. We're cleaning up our air and creating a healthier Ontario. We're acting decisively to protect the best interests of the people of this province today and for future generations to come.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Could I have a little less chatter in the House as ministers make their statements? Responses? The member from Durham.

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): Yet another announcement by the Minister of Energy. He should really follow the media reports today. There's more clarity and more sincerity in the reports I'm reading.

"Six Reactors in Ontario Out of Service Again" -- from the Toronto Star this morning. The fact that the minister had to reduce the voltage on the lines by 5% should cause concern for small business and households. It will delay and potentially burn out motors. Also, on the very next page of the clippings this morning, there's a National Post

article entitled "Paying for the Peak."

He should be honest with the public today. What's missing here is any honesty and integrity in terms of, at what price?

Clearly, our leader, John Tory, is committed to safe, reliable, affordable power, with a stress on conservation.

Their Minister of Finance, in his first budget, eliminated the sales tax rebate on the Energy Star program. This was to incent consumers to conserve. This is our core message. This announcement is yet more hot air, shall we say?

When in government, our minister, Elizabeth Witmer, who's here today, made the commitment to close the Lakeview plant, which will take place this May, next month. I might say that Jack Gibbons and the Clean Air Alliance are presenting Elizabeth Witmer with an award for cleaning up our environment.

The work being done by this government is a continuation of the work that was done by the alternative fuels committee, an all-party committee that unanimously endorsed a report that committed, in very strong terms, to raising the renewable portfolio standards. For those members of government who don't understand this -- because the minister doesn't seem to -- renewable energy is on the books for all caucuses, whether it's the NDP or the current government. But certainly we led the way with an all-party report that committed to renewable energy.

The real problem here is, when and where and at what price? In the articles I've referred to today, in the last 18 to 24 months, the only real information we've had is more announcements with no commitment regarding, at what price?

The conflicting outcomes here are these. The irresponsible election promise by the now Liberal government, the Dalton McGuinty government, was to close the coal plants by 2007. In fact, the government itself is now backtracking on its ability to close the coal plants. If you want to know more about it, I know two communities that are highly concerned. Atikokan and Thunder Bay and 230-plus employees are very concerned about the closing of those two coal plants, which represent about 500 megawatts of energy.

There's nothing in this announcement today that assures me that we're going to have safe, reliable, affordable power by 2007. In fact, the government should come clean and say the renewable power that they're committing to today -- I am asking the minister, on the record here today, to tell the people of Ontario, at what price?

According to the

article today that I've cited, "Paying for the Peak," I just want to put the consumers of Ontario on notice -- I'm on your side on this -- that you're going to be paying double, 100% more, for electricity this summer. It's going to be 9.3 cents a kilowatt hour. When we were in government, we froze it at 4.3 cents. The Liberals, in opposition, agreed with that. They supported that. Their very first post-election action was to break that promise and whack the consumers of Ontario with an increase in electricity -- an unannounced, non-consulted, high-handed, arrogant policy development on the fly.

It appears to me that this RFP does nothing to resolve any of my concerns about adequate replacement power for shutting down 7,400 megawatts of coal-powered plants. They haven't produced one new kilowatt of energy since they took over government. More announcements; no content, no details. Who he's leaving in the dark here are the consumers of Ontario.

I remain strongly concerned, and I can assure the consumers of Ontario that the opposition party, under the leadership of John Tory and Elizabeth Witmer, will remain vigilant and committed to the environment. Conservation is the first initiative. I hear nothing from this minister, although these were also election promises.

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I'm pleased to respond on behalf of New Democrats and to say that we have yet another announcement by the McGuinty government of potentially some electricity down the road, at the very time when Hydro One has to reduce voltage in the lines because there is not enough electricity from day to day to supply demand as we have it now.

It is very interesting: We get announcement after announcement, but no plan in terms of electricity pricing, which is a very important issue for industry; no plan in terms of how to close coal-fired stations; no plan about how to ensure that we have adequate supplies of electricity.

I don't think there is anyone in Ontario who would disagree with wind power. That's like motherhood and apple pie. People would say this is fine. But what people want to see is a plan, and there are several questions that people need to start asking about this government's lack of a plan.

For example, on the price issue, we found from the last request for proposal that this government proposes wind power at 8.5 cents a kilowatt hour. Why is Manitoba able to deliver wind power at 5.3 cents a kilowatt hour? I wonder, does it have anything to do with that long line of Liberal insiders, like the president of the Ontario wing of the Liberal Party, who are collecting the gravy on these contracts, who will be collecting, as we say, a lot of money? Is that why wind power in Ontario will cost 8.5 cents a kilowatt hour, while in Manitoba they can deliver it for 5.3 cents a kilowatt hour?

The other thing people need to start asking is, how real are some of these announcements? A few months ago, the Minister of Energy announced to Ontarians that the government was going to proceed with the development of a number of water sites. One of the water sites that were identified was stage 2 of the Ear Falls generating station. That was the announcement. Just this past week, OPG was forced to announce that the project is not going to go ahead; it is delayed. Why is it delayed?

Because before making the announcement, this government did not sit down and reach a settlement with Lac Seul First Nation on the outstanding grievances with respect to the damming of Lac Seul and the river, and the flooding which happened. So here is one site that was announced by this government that is not going to happen: 13 megawatts of power.

I wonder how many of those other sites that have been announced by this government, particularly water power sites, are never going to materialize because the McGuinty government didn't bother to sit down and negotiate real issues with First Nations whose territory these potential water sites are on.

There are some other questions that I think need to be asked. Last week, we heard the government announce two new natural gas sites. Yes, there were some other things; there was some money for Loblaws. I'm sure Loblaws, a very profitable corporation, will appreciate getting money from the hydro consumers of Ontario. But it boiled down to two natural gas plants, and I searched and searched through the announcement to find information on price. The government was too embarrassed to announce price.

I know why: because those bids came in at over 10 cents a kilowatt hour and the government doesn't want to announce to the people of Ontario that very soon their your hydro bills will see yet more increases, more substantial increases.

I also noticed in that announcement last week that while the government had asked for 2,500 megawatts in that request for proposal, even with the window dressing they were only able to muster a little over 1,500 megawatts. What does that say? Once again, this is a government that is desperate to make announcements because they don't have a plan.

We need to see the plan, Minister. What's your plan for those industries in Ontario that are very sensitive to increases in the price of electricity? Are you simply saying to the pulp and paper industry, the mining industry, the smelting industry and the steel industry that the McGuinty government doesn't want them? They need to know your plan for price.

Secondly, we need to know the plan for coal. This won't enable to you to close down Nanticoke coal, and the announcements you made a week ago will not enable to you shut down Nanticoke coal -- by your own admission, the largest polluter in Ontario. What's the plan, Minister?

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): I understand we'll be on our best parliamentary behaviour today, because I want to draw to the members' attention that present in the gallery is our former Lieutenant Governor, the Honourable Lincoln Alexander.

Applause.

The Speaker: I was about to point out that anyone who is in the gallery as a visitor should not partake in the applause, but understanding that the former Lieutenant Governor did so, I withdraw all my comments in that regard at this moment.

DEFERRED VOTES

ONTARIO HERITAGE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE PATRIMOINE DE L'ONTARIO

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 60,

An Act to amend the Ontario Heritage Act / Projet de loi 60, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le patrimoine de l'Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1406 to 1411.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Barrett, Toby

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Broten, Laurel C.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Chudleigh, Ted

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Horwath, Andrea

Hoy, Pat

Jackson, Cameron

Jeffrey, Linda

Kormos, Peter

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marchese, Rosario

Marsales, Judy

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Orazietti, David

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Runciman, Robert W.

Sandals, Liz

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Gregory S.

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

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

Nays

Flaherty, Jim

Hardeman, Ernie

Hudak, Tim

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Sterling, Norman W.

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 77; the nays are 6.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. When you replaced the community reinvestment fund with the new municipal partnership fund, you claimed you were going to bring in a more fair program. But all across Ontario, municipalities are discovering that when they lift the thin veil of short-term transition funding, the reduction in funding to municipalities is some $47 million annually.

Minister, you know it's going to result in program cuts in municipalities, increased taxes or both. How can you stand in your place and say this is a fair program when the reduction is some $47 million?

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): I'll refer that question to the Minister of Finance, since it's a finance matter.

Hon. Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I simply tell my friend from Erie-Lincoln that we are very proud indeed of the new Ontario municipal partnership fund. We've replaced an old, archaic model that the previous government developed, which was expensive, inequitable and unreliable in terms of municipal funding. The new system of funding creates a grant that has elements of equity in it. It specifically deals with the increased problems of northern and rural communities, and specifically reflects, by way of a grant, additional costs for policing in smaller and more remote communities. We are very proud indeed of this new fund.

Mr. Hudak: That may be what the minister says and what some of his backbenchers say here in the House, but it's not what municipalities are saying across the province. Let me give you some examples:

Ron Leavens, the mayor of Pelham, says, "I think we need to launch some kind of lobby with the Ministry [of Municipal Affairs and Housing] that the changes they've made with the formula are still inequitable -- even more so than in the past."

"Niagara is losing as a result of the program."

The mayor of St. Catharines says, "Over a period of three years we'll be whittled down to nothing," in transfers from the province. In fact, across the region of Niagara recent headlines have shown some $5 million annually cut from funding programs to municipalities. That's not what you promised, and the result: cuts to programs and increases in taxes.

Minister, just confess: You're downloading $47 million of services on Niagara's municipalities and on municipalities across the province. Will you correct the funding formula and address the concerns of regions and municipalities like those in Niagara?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I need to quote my parliamentary assistant, the member from Eglinton-Lawrence, who accurately describes that member and that party as the kings of downloading. During the period from 1995 to 2003, the added burden on municipalities as a result of initiatives taken by that government was simply unconscionable. That's why we had to fix the old community reinvestment fund, and that's why we've created this new partnership fund.

In addition to that, I might point out, in the area of municipal funding, the agreement by our government to take on added costs in public health, the agreement to transfer two cents per litre of gas tax so that we can build stronger public transit systems. The community of Port Colborne in the member's own riding will receive an additional $1 million --

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): You may tell him in the supplementary. Final supplementary.

Mr. Hudak: I say to the minister that when it comes to cuts to municipalities, there is a new king. His name is Dalton McGuinty, the same man who is the king of broken promises, because this sure ain't what he promised during the election campaign.

Minister, it's not just localized to Niagara. In Lambton county some $3.8 million has been stripped from local municipal budgets. Lambton county, Strathroy, Petrolia -- Mike Bradley, the mayor of Sarnia, had this to say about the new funding formula: "The formula is way too complicated, but the bottom line is that the province is saying we get nothing by 2006. Lambton county isn't being treated equitably either. We're struggling to understand this." St. Clair, Lambton Shores, Petrolia, Strathroy, Dawn-Euphemia, Plympton-Wyoming, Warwick, Enniskillen all have cuts under the Dalton McGuinty Liberal funding formula.

Minister, how is this fair to Lambton county and the municipalities I've mentioned?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Again, I would simply point out to the people of Ontario that what they want to know and what I can reassure them of is that we have finally put in place a funding formula that treats local municipalities fairly and equitably. Under the old system, for some municipalities the grant was much in excess of their needs, and other municipalities were absolutely struggling, so we've created a grant that is more equitable.

I'm very surprised at my friend from Erie-Lincoln, knowing, as he should, that his own region of Niagara will be receiving a 10% increase in funding this year over what they received last year.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Whitby-Ajax.

Mr. Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): My question is for the Minister of Finance. The minister says he is proud of this program, but it is the people of Ontario, including southwestern Ontario, who are going to pay the price of your pride. In fact, many ridings in southwestern Ontario are being severely punished under your new funding formula. Let's look at the facts. For example, the member from Perth-Middlesex is left trying to explain lamely to his constituents why their municipal budgets are being slashed by your government. The town of Southgate is down $600,000. The city of Stratford is down $2.8 million. The county of Perth is down $2.7 million.

Minister, is this the program you're so proud of, so proud that these municipal taxpayers will see their municipal taxes increase because of your abrogation of your responsibility, your imposition of an additional tax burden on Southgate, Stratford and Perth county?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I'm looking for a way to deal with this delicately, with my friend from Oak Ridges, because the alleged information he put to this House in his question simply does not represent the facts at all. Firstly, what the people of Ontario need to know in respect of the grant for this year is that not one municipality will receive one cent less than they did in the previous year. Secondly, he should know that, for example, Lambton county is getting $88,000 more through the public health system increase.

Even in his own community, a wonderful community like Whitchurch-Stouffville will receive more than a $500,000 increase, because their old, archaic system, which has the former minister's fingerprints on it, was inequitable, unfair and simply did not work for the vast majority of municipalities.

Mr. Flaherty: Just to help the minister, I know he doesn't know the numbers in the finances of Ontario, and he also needs a lesson in geography. Although Whitby starts with a W, like Whitchurch-Stouffville, it's a little bit different. The people in Whitby know they're not living in Whitchurch-Stouffville, unlike the Minister of Finance.

It's just as bad east of Toronto as it is in southwestern Ontario. You've got Mr. Leal, the member for Peterborough. Do you know what the director of finance for the county of Peterborough says? He says, "The recently announced fund did not help fund these costs (highways, bridges, ambulance services, child care, social services) at the county level." That's what the poor member for Peterborough --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'll give you your time back. Order, member from Peterborough. Order.

Mr. Flaherty: I know it's not easy being the Liberal member from Peterborough when this is happening. Do you simply ignore the member from Peterborough when you make a move like this, Minister, which reduces by over $700,000 the budgets of Peterborough and surrounding communities? That's east of Toronto, now, Minister. We've dealt with the southwest; they're getting less. Now, east of Toronto, they're getting less.

You say that you've fixed the fund. You've fixed the people of Peterborough.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I'm incredulous at my friend from Whitby-Ajax. He really knows how to put his foot into it. He mentions funding for highways, bridges, ambulances -- all the stuff they downloaded on municipalities and made municipal government intolerably expensive. We're starting to turn that around.

I want to speak specifically about Peterborough. I want to talk for the moment about the new hospital that my friend the Minister of Health has announced for Peterborough. Because it is an underserviced area, I want to mention the new family health team that my friend the Minister of Health has announced for Peterborough. In discussing Peterborough, I want to reiterate how quickly this government moved to action when that wonderful community was hit with that terrible flood, lo these many months ago. We are very proud of our commitment to Peterborough.

Mr. Flaherty: Bad news in Perth-Middlesex, bad news in Peterborough. Do you know where it's the worst, though?

Hon. Jim Watson (Minister of Consumer and Business Services): Whitby.

Mr. Flaherty: No, this is in Chatham, in southwestern Ontario. The member for Ottawa will know that this is in southwestern Ontario, even if the Minister of Finance does not.

Some $12.8 million has been slashed under this so-called fairer program. According to the Chatham Daily News -- that's a newspaper in Chatham -- municipal taxes could rise 10.5% as a result of this program. I'll quote from an editorial in the newspaper: "If the ... funding changes go through as proposed, local MPPs Pat Hoy and Maria Van Bommel should be treading on thin ice. Their government will have badly let the residents of this municipality down."

Minister, is a $12.8-million cut to municipal services your idea of a fairer program for the burdened people of Chatham?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I could take up the rest of question period describing the increases that will come to communities right throughout southwestern Ontario. But I want to quote my colleague from Perth-Middlesex, who has actually gone through the numbers and says that Perth county is a net beneficiary in the new funding.

Do you know what? It's not about choosing favourites. What it's about is bringing forward a reform package that treats communities equitably so that the funding responds to their needs.

In our view of the world, it was important to pay specific attention to help municipalities, smaller municipalities, with their social service costs, to help those municipalities with their policing costs and to help municipalities, particularly northern and rural municipalities, really be able to discharge the burden of municipal finance, and to clean up some of the terrible mess left by an administration that we threw out of office, partly because they did not understand the realities in communities across Ontario.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Acting Premier. Over the last eight weeks, a coroner's inquest has investigated the tragic events at Casa Verde nursing home in North York, where a 74-year-old resident suffering from dementia murdered two other residents. The inquest heard evidence of 11 such homicides at Ontario long-term-care facilities since 1999 and more than 3,000 reported incidents of aggression.

Yesterday, the jury released its findings: "Nursing homes are in dire need of more funding, stiffer regulations and better-trained workers." It also urges the McGuinty government "to revise the funding system presently in place ... within the next fiscal year," and made 85 other recommendations.

Acting Premier, lives are at risk. Will those seniors in Ontario who deserve good care see a revision of the funding formula in this budget for this next fiscal year?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'm pleased to acknowledge that the incident the coroner's court recently investigated is an incident from 2001. Obviously, none of us is satisfied with any circumstance arising from care in an Ontario long-term-care home that doesn't meet what we consider to be a high Ontario standard. In the days since we came to office, we've moved very aggressively on issues related to the improvement of care in those facilities.

I haven't yet had the opportunity to be a recipient of the findings from the coroner's inquest. I do very much look forward to them. I give the assurance to the honourable member and to all honourable members that in our ongoing effort to improve the quality of care in our long-term-care homes, we're going to look closely at those recommendations and seek to be action-oriented on their implementation, as we have on a variety of other initiatives already.

Mr. Hampton: I thought I asked a straightforward question: Is the funding formula going to be revised as you promised before the election and as the jury now says is urgent?

But I want to ask about another recommendation. Before the election, Dalton McGuinty promised to restore a provincial standard of care for nursing home residents. He said, "Ontario Liberals are committed to reinstating the standards of care for nursing homes that were removed by the Harris-Eves government -- including minimum 2.25 hours of nursing care daily and three baths per week." You're now into the second year of your mandate and Dalton McGuinty's promise on that front is a broken promise.

The evidence at the Casa Verde inquest showed that residents in long-term-care facilities in Ontario received just a few minutes of direct registered nursing care per day. These levels are among the lowest in the country. The jury said you must fund and set standards requiring long-term-care facilities to increase staffing levels so that you can provide 3.06 hours of overall nursing and personal care per resident per day. That was your promise. Are you going to fulfill that now?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: As I had a chance to say to the honourable member in my earlier response, these recommendations that he's reading from have not been formally sent to the ministry and, therefore, obviously I haven't had a chance to consider them.

I can tell the honourable member that already our agenda with respect to long-term-care homes has been an agenda of action: tougher compliance; unannounced inspections; a 1-800 number action line with any call that comes in investigated very thoroughly and very promptly; a $191-million investment to improve the quality of care in our long-term-care homes; for the first time in 20 years, increases to the comfort allowance for those residents who are there and a freeze on the increases in the proportion of costs they pay; a public Web site that for the first time makes the compliance data available for all Ontarians to view; and new legislation that is forthcoming in 2005.

This is evidence of the progress we've made, the commitment that we have to long-term care and, of course, we'll be looking very closely at the recommendations the honourable member is referring to.

Mr. Hampton: I'm surprised the minister would try to come here today and say he doesn't know anything about this. I read the highlights of the report in today's paper. The last time I checked, you had a staff of over 20 in your office. I'm sure some of them read the paper and briefed you.

I want to ask you again about what you promised before the election. Before the election, you promised $420 million of new funding for long-term care on an annual basis. Eight months later, in May 2004, you announced less than half of what you promised, only $191 million. Then we checked with the long-term-care facilities to see what they got, and they got only $116 million, about a quarter of what you promised in the election. The recommendation is clear that you must, on an urgent basis, revise the funding formula. Are you going to do what the jury recommends and what you promised before the election, Acting Premier?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: As I've had the opportunity now twice to highlight to the honourable member, we've made very, very significant progress on this file. We're the first to acknowledge that we have more work to do, but, unlike the honourable member, I don't consider my work to be sufficiently well done if I'm simply reacting to a newspaper story. That's not where I get briefed. It is not where I seek detail. It may be sufficient for the honourable member to read a newspaper story and draw all necessary conclusions, but I think that's inappropriate.

A group of Ontarians sat together, I believe for eight weeks, and carefully considered information. It seems prudent to me that I actually receive a report and have the opportunity to consider it, before I leap to the conclusions that the honourable member has.

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

Mr. Hampton: Acting Premier, you and your Premier had no trouble leaping to announcements of $420 million a year in increased funding for long-term care before the election. You had no trouble announcing that you were going to put in place a regulation requiring 2.25 hours of nursing care per resident per day. Now you've got a coroner's jury that is very, very clear. It was very easy for to you make those promises before the election. Now this jury is saying, "The promises you made are urgent." They are saying to you, "You need to do this now. You need to revise the funding formula. Put the money in now."

So I say to you, Minister, you made the promise before the election, you made several promises on this front. The coroner's jury after the deaths of these people has simply confirmed that this is what must be done. Is the McGuinty government prepared to do it or not?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: The evidence of our preparedness is clear, and that's why we've already made so much progress.

Here is what Greg Fougere, the chair of the Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors said in January 2005: "There has been a lot done in the past year with the revolution in long-term care, and we can see that this government is moving on many fronts to improve care and services for seniors." That has included moving forward with reinstating significant regulations that will provide an enhanced level of care for some of our most vulnerable Ontarians who are receiving care in our long-term-care homes.

I'm of the opinion that we have the right formula in place, that we're going to continue to build upon the progress that we have made. Only from the manufactured negativity of the third party could come anything short of recognition that significant improvement has been made. Of course, we're going to look very carefully at these recommendations coming forward from that jury.

Mr. Hampton: Minister, I just want to remind you of some of what you said.

On December 8, 2003, George Smitherman promised a revolution in long-term care. He said, "This is not Ontario's standard." Smitherman wiped tears away from his face, and said, "`This is a sub-par performance ... I want to bring a sense of missionary zeal to the work we do in this office...."

You haven't changed the funding formula that you promised. You haven't provided the levels of nursing care that you promised. Here are a couple of the other things that they recommend: a minimum staff-to-resident ratio, using permanent staff rather than contracting out; mandatory reporting by long-term-care facilities on how nursing and personal care envelope money is spent; major changes to the way in which residents with dementia are cared for.

Minister, you promised all of these things yourself a year and a half ago. Where are the changes that you promised before the election, during the election and when you shed your tears after the election?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: I think the evidence is quite clear, and it is to be found all across the long-term-care-home sector. The evidence of the revolution is well underway. We've done significant progress on this.

Don't take it from me. Here is what Lewis Massad, the executive director of the Ontario Finnish Resthome Association said on January 10 in Sault Ste. Marie: "I appreciate that the government has invested significant resources in terms of the development of new care standards for long-term care and has increased the funding component to support the new enhanced standards. The ministry is also currently reviewing and preparing proposed legislation to govern long-term-care homes. Such measures are long welcomed."

The fact of the matter is that I have not concluded we are done yet. We have more work to do. I've acknowledged that in every one of our answers. The people of Ontario, based on the record we have around action on long-term care, know that, unlike the opposition party, we will deliver.

Mr. Hampton: It's interesting that the Acting Premier mentions new long-term-care legislation. You promised that too, last fall. Here we are in April of the next year; still no legislation.

This is also what the Casa Verde inquest said. They said almost half of institutionalized seniors show some form of aggression. One out of every three people will develop some form of dementia. Complaints about residents assaulting other residents and staff have grown exponentially over the past five years.

You promised all these things; you haven't delivered. Let me tell what is really a serious problem here. You made promises to autistic children, to vulnerable children. You made a promise to end the clawback of money from the lowest-income children in this province. You made other promises with respect to children. All of the vulnerable seem to be forgotten. Here we have vulnerable seniors you made promises to before the election, during the election, after the election. The coroner's jury is calling you on your promises. When are we going to see the new funding formula? When are we going to see minimum hours of standard of care for these --

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: The long-term care home sector well knows that we have already installed regulations, standards for 24/7 RN coverage and for two baths a week as a minimum. This is a significant improvement to the commitments we made. Our colleague from Nipissing, Monique Smith, has done a tremendous body of work on this and continues to work alongside a variety of people, seeking and consulting around the appropriateness of the long-term-care legislation. The honourable member, at the same time, says, "Be beholden to the information that comes through, that comes across, as it will, in a formal report from that jury" --

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Just keep your promise. That's what he's saying.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: Please, if the honourable member would give his critic a question.

I think what we have is a historic opportunity to take advantage of the best information that comes forward, including from this --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, member from Nickel Belt.

You have 10 seconds to wrap up.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: We're in a historic opportunity. We're working hard on drafting long-term-care legislation for the future of this sector in Ontario, and we have an opportunity to take into consideration the important work of the citizens of Ontario in that jury's work.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Energy. There is growing fear in the energy sector across Ontario. There are three articles in the papers today. In one, which I mentioned earlier, there are "Six Reactors in Ontario Out of Service Again," near brownouts, reduction of voltage. I have another

article here from the Post about paying the peak price for power that says that with smart meters households will be paying 9.3 cents per kilowatt hour.

Minister, clearly you've rushed in an ill-advised plan for the shutting down of coal plants. More specifically, I want to drive this to how it affects people in their lives. The Thunder Bay plant, as you well know, produces 310 megawatts of power, the Atikokan plant produces about 215 megawatts of power, and together they employ some 230 people. Would you tell the people of Ontario how you're going to replace the 525 megawatts, but more importantly, what about those jobs in Thunder Bay and Atikokan? What do you say to those people who are going to lose their jobs with an ill-conceived, ill-developed and poorly delivered plan on energy replacement for the coal-fired plants?

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I'll remind you that the previous government had done nothing to create any new generation in Ontario in their entire eight years in power -- not a thing. We were left with an absolute mess.

We have announced the Niagara tunnel project, a $700-million investment that will create thousands of jobs; we did the first RFP on renewables for 395 megawatts, a $700-million, 700-job opportunity; the 2,500 megawatt proposal, which we announced the first 1,600 megawatts of last year, again $1 billion of investment. In addition, we have announced today another 1,000 megawatts of renewable power, an anticipated investment of $1.5 billion that will create somewhere around 1,000 jobs.

When it comes to closing coal, there will have to be replacement and there already is replacement: $170 million invested by Hydro One that created close to 300 permanent jobs. The job creation associated with these energy projects will create more new jobs in Thunder Bay --

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Supplementary.

Mr. O'Toole: A very long answer but no content once again. I remain concerned and remain extremely vigilant. I can only say to you that this is a plan that is at risk, and it's an issue of competency in your ministry. It is irresponsible with respect to the five coal plants, which we spoke of. You had your election promise, which was premature; you have backed away from it now, and it's another broken promise. What we need is a reliable source of affordable replacement power before you commit to the closure of these plants.

I'm going back to the story of the people's lives in Atikokan and Thunder Bay. Clearly you offer them no exit or transition strategy for what's in their lives for the future. It is not just about the consumers paying 100% more for the electricity in their home, and the seniors who will be at risk because of your ill-conceived policy; it is about the lives of 230 employees who will be out of work because your ill-conceived plan for Thunder Bay and Atikokan. Minister, tell the people in that community: what's the plan? What's the plan for their lives? Give them some hope for the future.

Hon. Mr. Duncan: I'm glad the member is concerned. I wish he had been as concerned when Paul Rhodes was given a $335,000 contract for strategic communications. I wish that he had been concerned when he was given a contract for $225,000. I wish that he had been so concerned when they refused to apply freedom of information to Hydro One and OPG. I wish you had been so concerned when, without contract, Tom Long got a $685,000 contract for Hydro One. I wish that he had been concerned when Leslie Noble got a $250,000 contract, again untendered. That government had no plan; that member had no response.

This government is creating power in an efficient, respectable and sustainable way that will undo the damage that that member and his party and John Tory did to this province's electricity sector.

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEE

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Your government promised to set a higher standard when it comes to ethics and conduct. Is it acceptable for you or anyone on your staff to have violated the election laws passed by this Legislature?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): Absolutely, we all operate within the election laws, and we respect all the laws of this province and this country.

Mr. Prue: Perhaps then you can explain to this House why you recently brought Navjeet Mangat on to your staff as a senior adviser. You can explain why Mr. Mangat, as a long-time Liberal Party operative, also worked for a lobbyist Jeff Lyons until the year 2003. You can explain that during 2000, in the city of Toronto, Mr. Mangat along with other employees of Mr. Lyons made large and illegal donations to a number of successful municipal candidates. You can explain, and we know, thanks to the MFP inquiry, that Mr.

Lyons and his employees were funnelling money to those campaigns on behalf of businessman Ball Hsu, and they continued to do everything in their power to deny it until they were finally revealed. When a whistle-blower came forward, Mr. Mangat refused to verify her story to the press, and he stayed in Lyons's employ while Lyons told the media the whistle-blower was lying.

You promised a higher ethical standard. Is it appropriate that you have Mr. Mangat on your staff?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): I am not aware of any allegations against any of my staff members. I am not sure where this member is coming from or what he's talking about.

ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE

OF MINORS

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): My question is to the Attorney General. First let me congratulate and thank you and the Premier for the realization of a full public inquiry into the sex abuse scandal that has shaken the community of Cornwall and area. I was proud to be with you yesterday at city hall in Cornwall to see the looks of relief on the faces of the victims as it became clear that the McGuinty team was fulfilling its promise to hold an inquiry. From the formation of this government, you have worked tirelessly with me and with those involved in the community and area to see that this long-standing concern was addressed.

Attorney General, you have appointed the Honourable Justice G. Normand Glaude to lead this inquiry. Could you explain to us what led you to choose him as a commissioner? And now that he has been appointed, what happens next?

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): I thank the member for his question. It was an honour to be with you in Cornwall yesterday. It was an honour to be with you in Cornwall some months ago when we sat down with your community, sat down with the victims and heard what they were looking for; namely, someone who was a senior member of the bench, someone who had experience in criminal law, someone who was fluently bilingual, someone who was not from the Cornwall area and did not have any connection to any of these matters but was willing to conduct the entirety of the inquiry in Cornwall.

Mr. Justice Normand Glaude fulfills all those criteria and then some. He's a very highly respected and experienced regional senior justice for the northeast region for the Ontario Court of Justice who has served on the bench for some 15 years and has a significant background in criminal law.

It is now in the commissioner's hands. All decisions about the commission and how it proceeds are in his hands, as they should be.

Mr. Brownell: Thank you very much for explaining this. I know many here in the House will join me in expressing our appreciation for your commitment to your promises and to the people of Cornwall.

I would also like to personally thank my predecessor, the MPP for Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh, the honourable John Cleary, and also MPP Gary Guzzo for their diligent efforts on this file.

Everyone is anxious to see this issue be properly addressed so that the healing process may begin in my community. Attorney General, can you assure us that Justice Glaude has the tools he needs to finally get to the heart of the matter and to resolve this issue for the victims and their families?

Hon. Mr. Bryant: Yes, with the public inquiry, under the Public Inquiries Act, he has all the tools at his disposal to leave no stone unturned and to provide recommendations that ultimately, we hope, will lead to some reconciliation and healing for the people of Cornwall. Along the way, we will work with the commission, as the commissioner sees fit, to ensure that victims get the services they need during what will inevitably be a very painful time for them.

Ultimately, with this public inquiry, we will finally get to the bottom of what happened and will get recommendations so we can proceed better in the future, in a way that not only can everybody have confidence in the system, but the victims can feel that justice has been done.

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): My question is for the Minister of Finance. It involves his new municipal partnership fund. That's the fund that replaces the community reinvestment fund. It's supposed to help compensate municipalities for services like roads and land ambulances and policing and social services.

Mr. Minister, the treasurers of the municipalities in Grey county met this morning, and they report the following about your new municipal funding: Owen Sound loses $2 million and property taxes will eventually go up 12.5% because of your new funding; the Town of the Blue Mountains will see a decrease of $1.3 million and property taxes will go up 17% because of your new formula; and the municipality of Grey Highlands loses $1 million and property taxes will go up a whopping 25%. That's from the treasurers themselves.

You should be embarrassed. You complained all the time about our funding formula, but never in the history of Ontario and never in the history of PC politics did we ever raise property taxes by 25%. You should be ashamed of yourself. How can you look municipalities and municipal taxpayers in the eye and say that this is a fair funding formula?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order.

Hon. Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I was considering asking the member to repeat the question, but I'm not sure this 100-year-old structure could take it.

Let me just let my friend and the people of Ontario know what Roger Anderson, the president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, said. He said, "Today's reconciliation announcement" -- that is, on the details of the new fund -- "shows that the Premier is listening to municipalities. The province's decision to pay money owed to municipalities for 2003 and 2004 is good news for property" --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Could I ask the members to come to order so that I can hear the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Even in my friend's own riding, the municipality of Wasaga Beach will receive an increase in 2005 of some $765,000. But it's not the individual municipalities that are the concern. The concern is that we have a system, finally, that is fairer, more equitable and affordable for this province. We are very proud of this system.

The Speaker: Supplementary, the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant.

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Minister, just two weeks after announcing $15 million for Ontario's hard-hit tobacco communities, you've pulled the rug. Funding to ag minister Steve Peters's Elgin county, a tobacco-growing municipality, will be slashed $4.4 million. That's a 68% cut under your shell game. Brant county, which I share with Dave Levac, is being cut by $2.9 million. That's a drop of 48%. Mr. Levac's city of Brantford itself is dropping by $6.7 million, a 53% drop. Mayor Mike Hancock feels a sense of betrayal; Councillor Carpenter calls it the Ontario pilfering fund.

In Norfolk county, another tobacco county, $7.3 million. That's a 55% cut. Oxford county sees a 100% reduction. They grow tobacco in Oxford.

Minister, how is this fairer for the tobacco-growing communities of Brant, Elgin, Oxford, Norfolk? How is this fair for the city of Brantford?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The simple answer to that is that it is fairer because it is more equitable. He mentions Brantford in particular. Brantford will receive almost $800,000 in additional public health and gas-tax funding.

My friend mentions the wonderful southwestern part of this province, where tobacco farmers have gone through such difficulties. He will know, and you will know, sir, that my friend the Minister of Agriculture has a program to help the transition out of tobacco farming which is unprecedented in the province and in the country.

But the main point I reiterate: When we were called upon to govern, we found a municipal financing system that had burdened municipalities with responsibilities for highways, for bridges, for public health, for ambulance services, which was making it very difficult. Through this new funding formula, we have finally brought a very high degree of equity, fairness and predictability to municipal financing, and we're very proud of that.

COLLÈGE DES GRANDS LACS

M. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): Ma question est pour la ministre de la Formation et des Collèges et Universités.

L'ancien gouvernement conservateur a fermé le Collège des Grands Lacs en 2001 de façon illégale et anticonstitutionnelle, sans avoir consulté la communauté francophone du centre sud-ouest de l'Ontario.

Malgré les promesses de M. McGuinty d'être plus à l'écoute des besoins des francophones de l'Ontario, votre gouvernement libéral appuie la décision du gouvernement Harris de fermer le seul collège francophone de la plus grande ville du Canada.

Ministre, pourquoi appuyez-vous cette fermeture ?

Hon. Mary Anne V. Chambers (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): I appreciate the question from the member for Trinity-Spadina. However, as I have previously indicated in a letter to Ms. Casselman, who participated in the press conference today, I really am not in a position to discuss this matter at this time because it is a matter that's before the courts. Collège des Grands Lacs is before the courts, and I gather that it's also an issue that's before the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Until that is resolved, it would be absolutely inappropriate for me to discuss it.

Pourquoi refusez-vous de les rencontrer pour poursuivre les discussions afin de garder ouvert ce collège ?

Hon. Mrs. Chambers: I will repeat my previous response. It's absolutely inappropriate for me to meet and discuss matters that are before the courts. That is a process that must be respected.

I should also bring to the attention of this House that we have two very highly respected, well-supported francophone colleges in Ontario: Collège Boréal and La Cité collégial. I think it's really important to recognize that since the closing of Grands Lacs, Collège Boréal has been doing an excellent job in addressing the needs of francophones in southwestern Ontario.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mr. Bruce Crozier (Essex): My question is to the Minister of Energy. I see today that the McGuinty government is announcing another request for proposals for renewable energy projects in Ontario. I know the first request for proposals was very successful, resulting in 10 new projects representing 395 megawatts of clean, renewable power and an 80% increase in Canada's wind generation capacity. As you know, I come from a part of the province with good wind generation potential and would love to see more of these projects being built. Minister, what is the goal of this most recent RFP, and what sort of clean, green generating capacity is it going to create?

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): The McGuinty government is moving forward to protect the interests of Ontarians by enhancing the available supply of clean, renewable electricity. The types of power we're looking at are wind, solar, water, biomass and landfill gas. By seeking up to 1,000 megawatts of renewable energy, that's enough power to power 200,000 homes. We believe very strongly that finding this clean, affordable and sustainable resource is important to the vitality of our economy and to our future growth, but moreover, it's important to our environment and important to our collective public health and individual health outcomes.

We're sending a very clear signal that we want participants in the market interested in clean, renewable electricity to come to the table to help us meet our supply need. The range of proposals we expect to receive will allow us to choose the most viable, cost-effective projects for all of Ontario's electricity consumers.

Mr. Crozier: Minister, it seems to me that this request for proposals, combined with the earlier ones, is going to bring a significant amount of investment to Ontario. I expect that areas with good wind potential, like along much of the shores of the Great Lakes, are going to see an influx of investment, as will rural areas with potential biomass projects and the untapped resources of northern Ontario's rivers and streams.

I would assume that 1,000 megawatts translates into a sizable economic investment. Minister, how big an investment will it be, and how many jobs will it create?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: More renewable energy means more jobs, more investment, more innovation and economic growth in Ontario. By increasing Ontario's share of renewable energy, the McGuinty government is building a new industry in our province. When our government took office, there were 14.6 megawatts of wind power capacity in Ontario. We expect that by the end of our first mandate there will be more than 1,000 megawatts of wind power capacity, representing a 75-fold increase across the province.

We believe that this RFP will result in $1.5 billion of new investment in our province in addition to the $700 million that was invested in the first RFP. Today's announcement is the first of a phased plan designed to accommodate energy projects of all sizes to help us meet our needs. We want everyone interested in renewable energy to help us achieve our goals. We're moving to projects under 20 in June and even smaller projects this coming fall. This represents new investment, new jobs, new revenue for the province. It's good news for everybody.

WINDSOR BORDER CROSSING

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Shortly after you were sworn in as minister, you travelled to Windsor, Ontario, where you promised the city that when they came up with a plan to improve the Windsor-Detroit border crossing, you would be prepared to move.

That was about 18 months ago. Since that time, the city has hired Mr. Schwartz, a consulting engineer. He has come up with a comprehensive plan and a vision for the border crossing, and they are waiting for your action. All of us who are watching the situation are wondering why your two senior cabinet ministers down there aren't prodding you to do something. Why have you not acted on the Schwartz report, after you asked for solutions from the city of Windsor and now you have not acted to implement those?

You seem to have $400 million for the Windsor casino, but you're doing nothing to facilitate those US tourists coming across the border. When are you going to act on the Windsor border crossing and make improvements?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): It is really interesting that this question is coming from the opposition, who did nothing for eight years. They didn't do anything at all. As soon as we came into power, the first thing we did was agree on the first phase of the Windsor crossing.

We do appreciate the work that has been done by the city with Sam Schwartz, and we are working very closely with the federal government and the municipality to come to a solution that will address the long-term issues of the border. This border is really important for the provincial economy.

Mr. Wilson: You say, "You did nothing." You must mean the federal Liberals did nothing also, because in 2003 Premier Eves, along with senior federal cabinet ministers, made the announcement, committed the money, booked the money in the budget and had a nine-point plan to improve the crossing. Since that time, you've rejected that --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. Stop the clock for a minute.

I would ask the government side to allow the member to ask his question. I notice members on his side too won't allow him to ask the question. But I'd ask them to come to order. I know he takes his question very seriously, so I'm going to let him put his supplementary now.

Mr. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You didn't like our plan, so you asked for a new one. You've had that new plan for four months now, and you're doing nothing. In fact, your Premier was down in Washington yesterday and today, along with two of your ministers. He's down there lecturing the Americans about their passport proposal. I suggest to you that, rather than whining to the Americans, maybe if you actually did something on this side of the border in your own backyard to improve the situation, the Americans wouldn't be threatening passport controls. Why don't you do what you said you would do, make this the number one priority and get to work on improving that border crossing? Why won't you do that, Minister?

Hon. Mr. Takhar: We are very anxious to move ahead with this project. Our Premier is in Washington fighting hard to make sure that some of the issues that we need to address on the border get addressed. I also want to tell you that he is the only Premier who has taken a keen interest to make sure that some of the issues on the border get addressed. We will resolve this issue, not like them. For eight years they did nothing.

LABOUR UNIONS

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): A question to the Minister of Labour: Today Steelworker members were here at Queen's Park visiting MPPs looking for fairness. They want card-based certification to be extended to all workers. They say that Bill 144 is unfair and discriminatory, and they're saying it doesn't warrant being supported in its present state. Why don't you extend card-based certification to all workers in this province?

Hon. Christopher Bentley (Minister of Labour): We're determined to make sure that all workers are treated fairly. That's why we're introducing fair and progressive changes in Bill 144.

But it doesn't just end with labour legislation. For the first time in nine years, this government raised the minimum wage and now we've done it two years in a row. That helps all workers, particularly those in the least-advantaged situations. For the first time in many years, we're actually enforcing the Employment Standards Act. In fact, there have been more prosecutions instituted in the last 15 months than there were in the last 15 years, including the five under the NDP.

We've brought in family medical leave to help caregivers -- disproportionately, I suspect, women. What party tried to hold up family medical leave? The NDP. Why did they? It wasn't an issue of principle. It was more postage. It's the postage party, and we don't stand for that. We stand for the most vulnerable workers in this province.

Mr. Kormos: Minister, it's not just those Steelworker members today who say you've betrayed working people across this province. Buzz Hargrove, CAW: "Fairness and equity demands that your government not overlook the needs of workers in other sectors." Emily Noble, ETFO: "There is no apparent reason why the government couldn't restore the right to all workers." Cec Makowski of CEP says simply vote against it unless it's amended. Alex Dagg of UNITE-HERE says vote against this unless it's amended. Mike Fraser of the United Food and Commercial Workers says vote against this bill unless it's amended.

Wayne Fraser of the United Steelworkers of America says vote against your Bill 144 unless it's amended to extend card-based certification to every worker in this province and eliminate the discriminatory and sexist position that you are imposing on this province.

Minister, why don't you simply extend card-based certification to every worker in this province?

Hon. Mr. Bentley: We're determined to make sure that we have fair and balanced legislation that applies to all people, and it is a balance. It's progressive legislation to assist the most vulnerable. But we won't do what the NDP did between 1990 and 1995 and try to drive investment out of the province, because that drives jobs out and that affects the most vulnerable workers in the province.

We are determined that we will not delegate government's responsibility to assist the most vulnerable either to any individual or organization. We take our determination to assist the most vulnerable very seriously. That's why we've moved on employment standards issues, moved on health and safety issues, moved on labour legislation that is fair and balanced and progressive and in the interests of all the people of the province of Ontario.

HERITAGE CONSERVATION /

CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE ONTARIEN

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): My question is for our wonderful Minister of Culture, who is having a wonderful day today. For years, our heritage resources have been left vulnerable. We've been powerless to protect what is most important to our society: the legacy built and left to us by generations of Ontarians. That's why this government presented Bill 60,

An Act to amend the Ontario Heritage Act, a stronger Ontario Heritage Act to prevent the demolition of Ontario's precious heritage landmarks and a stronger act to provide more tools and flexibility to protect local and provincial heritage.

Minister, you were able to bring this bill to fruition, where others in the past have not been successful. How does this bill differ from previous Ontario Heritage Act amendments?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur (Minister of Culture, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I want to thank the member from Perth-Middlesex for his support of heritage buildings in his beautiful city of Stratford.

Since the Ontario Heritage Act was introduced in 1975, this is the first government to propose major improvements to bring Ontario's heritage legislation in line with leading jurisdictions in Canada and around the world.

This amended Ontario Heritage Act will empower municipalities to preserve their heritage and reinvigorate their business economies. We now give municipalities the power to prevent, not just delay like in the past, the demolition of heritage buildings. This amendment is counterbalanced by the landowner's rights to a binding appeal. We now also have new provincial powers to identify and designate heritage sites of provincial significance, as well as the power to prevent their demolition.

Mr. Wilkinson: Merci beaucoup, Ministre. This is indeed a great day for Ontario. We've made history today in this House. In my riding of Perth-Middlesex, landmarks such as the Discovery Centre at the historic Stratford Normal School in Stratford, Fryfogel Inn in Perth East, and the Carnegie Library in St. Marys are sources of historical pride and cultural enrichment for my constituents. Minister, what other Ontario landmarks enrich our culture across the province?

L'hon. M me Meilleur: Oui, aujourd'hui c'est un grand jour par l'adoption du projet de loi 60. Dans le passé, comme députée de la ville d'Ottawa, j'ai vu trop souvent de beaux édifices historiques être démolis. Avec ce projet de loi, nous allons pouvoir protéger nos édifices patrimoniaux qui nous sont très chers.

Je pense, par exemple, à des édifices qui ont été protégés dans ma ville : le Pavillon Aberdeen dans le parc Lansdowne, la Cour des arts, le centre communautaire du Glebe, la maison Patterson et la maison Wallis.

Je veux aujourd'hui rendre hommage à Sandy Smallwood, un promoteur immobilier de la ville d'Ottawa qui a su investir pour pouvoir protéger ces beaux édifices qui sont admirés par les visiteurs et les résidents de la capitale nationale.

PETITIONS

SPORT PARACHUTING

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

"Whereas the lives of student and novice sport parachutists have been and continue to be lost due to a systemic lack of regulation or accountability on the part of any currently governing bodies;

"Whereas inconsistent monitoring, a serious disregard for, or inability to responsibly and competently police adherence to rules, regulations and manufacturer specifications on the part of the skydiving schools and the Canadian Sport Parachuting Association creates unnecessary risk to human life;

"Whereas evidence presented at the coroner's inquest of Gareth Rodgers suggests that the current regulatory body has no desire for accountability or means of enforcing rules and regulations in the sport of parachuting;

"Whereas a system of teaching standards and regulations to safeguard novice and student sport parachutists is grossly deficient;

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

"

(1) That the Dalton McGuinty Liberal government immediately pass and implement Joe Tascona's bill," the Gareth Rodgers Act for Sport Parachuting;

"

(2) That the Dalton McGuinty Liberal government petition the federal Liberal government to act in a swift and responsible manner in order to ensure that the lives and safety of sport parachutists, especially student and novice jumpers, are protected by law and that the skydiving industry operates in a responsible, competent and transparent manner;

"

(3) That the federal Liberal government consider immediate and responsible interim measures to suspend these activities until a viable solution to this matter may be attained;

"

(4) That the federal Liberal government seriously consider the 12 sound recommendations submitted by the jury in the coroner's inquest of the skydiving fatality of Gareth Rodgers;

"

(5) That the federal Liberal government make the industry both responsible and accountable for its actions and omissions, within strict standards of safety that must be governed by a competent body whose paramount mandate must be to maintain current equipment, thorough and competent record-keeping, and to ensure that manufacturer specifications are strictly adhered to and that appropriate safety standards are being observed at all times for student/novice skydivers and the equipment that they use."

I support the petition and sign it.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I have a petition on behalf of the Laurentian Public School council.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Laurentian Public School in the west end of Pembroke, Ontario, is the only public elementary school in this end of the city, and as such is the centre for public education for west end residents, as well as a recreational and cultural centre for the entire city; and

"Whereas no school boundary or transportation studies were completed by the Renfrew County District School Board prior to the announced closure of Laurentian Public School in June 2005; and

"Whereas, on-line support, a call centre employing 200 people immediately, with the potential for employing 500 people within five years, has opened in west end Pembroke; and

"Whereas the economic health and development in the city of Pembroke will be severely affected by the closure of Laurentian public school; and

"Whereas the Ontario Minister of Education created new guidelines for schools titled Good Places to Learn: Renewing Ontario Schools prior to the announced closure of Laurentian Public School;

"Therefore

be it resolved that the Laurentian Public School council is urgently requesting that the decision to close Laurentian Public School in Pembroke, Ontario, be reversed, and that all construction and capital expenditures related to the closure of the school be suspended immediately."

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK.

Mr. Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): I'm pleased to submit this petition on behalf of NASK from the Niagara region.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas there is no specific comment regarding anaphylactic shock in the Education Act" and there certainly should be; "and

"Whereas anaphylactic shock 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'm pleased to sign my signature to 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; and

"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'm pleased to sign my name to that.

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): : I've got a petition here from Florian and Eunice Bergeron, who are joining a great many of our residents in Mississauga in petitioning the Ontario Legislature. It goes as follows:

"Whereas some 20,000 people each year choose to make their home in Mississauga, and the Halton Peel District Health Council capacity study stated that the Credit Valley Hospital should be operating 435 beds by now and 514 beds by 2016; and

"Whereas the Credit Valley bed count has remained constant at 365 beds since its opening in November 1985, even though some 4,800 babies are delivered each year at the Credit Valley Hospital in a facility designed to handle 2,700 births annually; and

"Whereas donors in Mississauga and the regional municipalities served by the Credit Valley Hospital have contributed more than $41 million of a $50-million fundraising objective, the most ambitious of any community hospital in the country, to support the construction of an expanded facility to meet the needs of our community;

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

"That the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care undertake specific measures to ensure the allocation of capital funds for the construction of A and H block at Credit Valley Hospital, to ensure the ongoing acute care needs of the patients and families served by the hospital are met in a timely and professional manner, to reduce wait times for patients in the hospital emergency department and to better serve patients in the community in Halton and Peel regions by reducing severe overcrowding in the labour and delivery suite."

I absolutely support this petition. I've affixed my signature to it, and I'll ask Alexandra to carry it down for me.

CANCER CARE

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

"Whereas people of all ages with cancer have the right to seek treatment in their own area without the added trauma and obstacles imposed by having to travel great distances while unwell; and

"Whereas the citizens of" Barrie, "Bradford West Gwillimbury, Innisfil, East Gwillimbury and Georgina have shown their good faith and continue to fundraise for their share of the costs for the development of a regional cancer centre, enabling area patients to receive their life-saving treatment close to home, near their family and friends; and

"Whereas the building of a regional cancer care centre will remove the barrier for area patients to receive their life-saving treatment close to home;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to provide the approvals and funding necessary to commence construction of the" Royal Victoria and "Southlake Regional cancer care" centres.

CARDIAC CARE

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I have a petition regarding Ontario's heart condition, and it reads as follows -- I'm assisting my seatmate, Kim Craitor, here:

"Whereas Niagara region has a population of over 430,000 people and has the highest 30-day death rate in Ontario for heart failure, has the second-highest one-year death rate in Ontario for heart failure, has the second-highest heart failure readmission rates in Ontario, has the third-highest post-heart-attack one-year death rate, and is 25% higher than the Ontario average for ischemic heart disease deaths; and

"Whereas in fiscal year 2002-03, Niagara region residents had 1,230 admissions to hospital for heart failure, 1,150 patients admitted to hospital for acute heart attack, 862 admissions to hospital for ischemic heart disease, 93 admissions to hospital for cardiomyopathy, a repatriation population of 458 post-angioplasty patients, 341 admissions to out-of-region hospitals for coronary artery disease, 328 post-coronary artery bypass patients, 92 heart valve replacement patients and three heart transplant patients; and

"Whereas all of the above-mentioned 4,503 heart patients are eligible for cardiac rehab in Niagara, which translates to 1,500 new patients who would access Niagara cardiac rehab services every year; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care funds cardiac rehabilitation in 24 communities but does not fund cardiac rehabilitation services anywhere in Niagara. Heart Niagara, a registered non-profit corporation, provides services in one of the largest cardiac rehab programs in Ontario at no charge to the patient but relies on funding through donations and special events;

"Therefore we, the undersigned concerned citizens of Niagara, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That cardiac rehabilitation services in Niagara be funded by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, as they are in 24 other Ontario communities, and made comprehensive and accessible."

I support this petition. I join with my seatmate, Kim Craitor, in supporting cardiac patients in Niagara. I'm pleased to affix my signature and ask Ryan to carry it for me.

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I have another group of petitions from the folks up at Huronia Regional Centre.

"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; and

"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'm pleased to sign my name to that.

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): It's my pleasure to rise and to thank Zachary and Nicklaus Ramwa and their grandmother, Olive Seepersaud, for this petition to protect anaphylactic students in Ontario schools. It reads as follows:

"Whereas there are no established, Ontario-wide standards to deal with anaphylaxis in Ontario schools; and

"Whereas there is no specific comment regarding anaphylaxis in the Ontario 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 Ontario schools, be it therefore resolved that

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

"That the government of Ontario support the swift passage of Bill 3,

An Act to protect anaphylactic students, which requires that every school principal in Ontario establish a school anaphylactic plan."

I agree with this petition. I'm affixing my signature to it and asking Zoé to carry it. Once again, I thank Zach and Nick Ramwa for their help.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I have a petition signed by the good citizens of Cambridge.

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas gasoline prices have increased at alarming rates during the past year; and

"Whereas the high and different gas prices in different areas of Ontario have caused confusion and unfair hardship on hard-working Cambridge families;

"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"

(1) That the Ontario McGuinty Liberal government immediately freeze gas prices for a temporary period until world oil prices moderate; and

"

(2) That the Ontario McGuinty Liberal government and the federal Martin Liberal government immediately lower their taxes on gas for a temporary period until world oil prices moderate; and

"

(3) That the Ontario McGuinty Liberal government immediately initiate a royal commission to investigate the predatory gas prices charged by oil companies operating in Ontario."

As I agree with this petition, I will sign same.

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; and

"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'm pleased to sign my name to that.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE SECURITY AND

INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LES SERVICES PRIVÉS

DE SÉCURITÉ ET D'ENQUÊTE

Mr. Kwinter moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 159,

An Act to revise the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999 / Projet de loi 159, Loi révisant la

Loi sur les enquêteurs privés et les gardiens et apportant une modification corrélative à la Loi de 1999 sur le Tribunal d'appel en matière de permis.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): The minister has the floor.

Hon. Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time this afternoon with my parliamentary assistant, Liz Sandals, the member for Guelph-Wellington.

It's with great pleasure that I speak in support of the Private Security and Investigative Services Act. This bill marks the first significant improvement in 40 years to the legislative framework governing the private security industry in Ontario. This legislation is about making Ontarians safer. It's a preoccupation shared by our partners, some of whom are with us today. I'd like to recognize Doug DeRabbie from the Retail Council of Canada and Bruce Miller of the Police Association of Ontario, who are in the gallery today.

The proposed act will increase the professionalism of the industry by standardizing training and making licensing mandatory for most security practitioners. Many things have changed since the current Private Investigators and Security Guards Act was enacted in 1966. Our society has changed. The role and importance of the security industry in our daily lives has evolved, and the legislative framework governing the industry must change as well. There were roughly 4,600 licensed security practitioners 40 years ago. There are now 30,000, and the numbers keep increasing.

We must ensure that those protecting us are properly trained and licensed to do so. That means mandatory licensing, standardized training and new, more up-to-date standards for uniforms, vehicles and equipment.

The regulations that will be developed if the Legislature adopts Bill 159 would better reflect the growing presence of security guards and private investigators in our society. The proposed act results from a long series of events and consultations with our partners. First, a 2002 discussion paper from the Law Commission of Canada recommended the professionalization of the security industry, and in 2003, a conference organized by the commission looked at the blurring of the role between public policing and the private security industry.

Then there was a coroner's inquest held after the death of a Toronto man following an altercation with grocery store employees and security practitioners. The inquest resulted in 22 recommendations for the security industry, including those on mandatory licensing, training, licence classification, portable licensing and an effective enforcement system. I'm pleased to say that the proposed legislation addresses most of the issues raised by the jury's recommendations.

Some of my colleagues in the House have played a role as well. I'd like to thank my colleagues Dave Levac and Mario Sergio in particular. Their respective private members' bills proposed many amendments to the existing act, including changes to training, licensing and uniform standards. Bill 159 is much more comprehensive than the private members' bills introduced by my colleagues, particularly in the areas of licensing and training requirements.

Other provinces are also moving ahead in modernizing their legislation on the private security industry. Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba and Nova Scotia are all at different stages of reviewing their legislation and introducing changes similar to Ontario's proposals. So there exists a clear momentum to update the way we legislate the private security industry.

We are moving ahead because we need to keep up with the times. It's not 1966 any longer, and the existing Private Investigators and Security Guards Act clearly lags behind the times. The current act lacks defined criteria on training, eligibility or competence, and its licensing criteria are mostly limited to criminal record checks. Almost half of those who provide security services are currently exempt from licensing requirements of the existing legislation.

It became obvious to almost all our stakeholders that we needed to update our legislation. We have worked with our stakeholders throughout the entire process. The ministry's discussion paper on the proposed changes to the legislation was sent to more than 600 stakeholders and posted on the ministry Web site in June 2003. We received 73 written submissions in response, and these submissions informed the drafting of the legislation.

We have continued to work with our partners since the Private Security and Investigative Services Act, 2004, was introduced in this Legislature in December 2004.

Earlier this year, we held briefings for our key stakeholders to outline the key aspects of the proposed legislation and to listen to their concerns and suggestions. Ministry officials met with representatives from the Association of Professional Security Agencies, the Canadian Society for Industrial Security and the Council of Private Investigators of Ontario, among others. We also met with the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires and representatives in the retail and hospitality sectors. Officials from my ministry also met with key groups of the policing sector.

Our partners from colleges, universities and municipalities also took part. We also met with union representatives. I'm pleased to say that the atmosphere during those meetings was very positive.

The ministry has built strong relationships with its partners in this industry. The goodwill generated by this positive partnership will help us develop strong and relevant regulations that will help us protect Ontarians. Our work with stakeholders will continue throughout the development of those regulations.

We are inviting key stakeholders to participate in the private investigative and security services advisory committee. Members will be announced soon, and the committee will begin its work in the coming weeks. Its mandate will be to provide key feedback and advice from all sectors involved in the private security industry. The committee will examine issues like training standards, and standards for uniforms, vehicles and equipment. The committee will assist with defining the act's accompanying regulations. We will make the committee permanent so that its members continue to provide advice and guidance to the ministry with respect to new and emerging issues in the industry.

There has been considerable interest expressed by groups, associations and individuals in serving on the committee, and I believe that we have achieved the right balance to reflect the concerns and issues of our partners. We will be announcing the makeup of the advisory committee very soon.

The committee will provide key advice on the critical components of the proposed legislation, issues such as setting standards via regulations for training and testing, code of conduct, uniforms, equipment and vehicles. I look forward to receiving this advice from the committee as we develop the regulations that will make the proposed act a more modern tool to regulate the private security industry in Ontario.

As I said earlier, we are building on the goodwill expressed by our partners during our consultations with the different sectors involved in the private security industry. Now, I don't think we will agree on everything, but we share the same objectives, and that is to make Ontario communities safer.

The introduction of the Private Security and Investigative Services Act, 2004, in December 2004 was well received by our partners. It's a good starting block to help us develop the regulations. One of our key stakeholders, the Association of Professional Security Agencies, said this through John Carter, its interim president: "APSA members have always been committed to the continuous improvement of the security industry, and as the principal organization representing the majority of the security industry in Ontario, we will continue to be available for consultation with the ministry."

The Council of Private Investigators of Ontario had this reaction to the introduction of Bill 159; here's what council President Bill Joynt said: "We support all changes designed to ensure a high level of professional service for the community at large, and we welcome the opportunity to participate in ensuring those changes are workable and accepted by the industry."

Bob Baltin, the president of the Police Association of Ontario, stated after the introduction of Bill 159: "Proper standards need to be in place. All employees and employers in the industry should be properly licensed and accountable. We look forward to working with the government on the accompanying regulations to give force and effect to this positive announcement."

Here's what the Ontario Provincial Police Association had to say, and I'm pleased to see that Brian Adkin, the president of the Ontario Provincial Police Association, is here: "The OPPA supports the changes in the Private Security and Investigative Services Act, 2004 ... because they will raise and set appropriate standards for private security services."

Brian Adkin, as I've just said, the president of the association, went even further. He is here, and he will back up that he says: "We support the government move to license and impose quality controls on private security organizations and individuals ... because it is clearly in the public interest."

The Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, the largest security practitioner organization in Canada, with over 17,000 employees, including 4,000 in Ontario, also supports the legislation. The commissionaires support the proposed act even though they are exempt from the current legislation's licensing requirements. They are doing so because they are confident in their own training and recognize the need to standardize training programs.

Here's some of what James Breithaupt, the chair of the commissionaires' Great Lakes region, said in a letter to me: "We are very proud of the superior level of our current training and fully support your initiative to improve the standard of training within the industry."

Finally, the Ontario Association of Police Services Boards has also restated its interest in the issue of modernizing the legislative framework for the private security industry. As the employers of a great number of police officers in the province, we welcome their comments. Mary Smiley, the president of the OAPSB, sent me a letter outlining her association's view on the proposed act: "The OAPSB welcomes the introduction of Bill 159, the Private Security and Investigative Services Act, 2004."

We will be moving ahead in the development of the regulations with the full involvement of our partners. They will be able to channel their views and comments through the advisory committee. We know that these views and comments will be forthcoming from many areas and sectors. Almost everyone recognizes the need to overhaul the legislative framework of the security industry in Ontario.

Many Ontarians interact daily with security practitioners. We all walk by and deal with security practitioners in our workplace or when we go to a sporting event, see a movie, shop or go to a concert. Ontarians want to know that those who help keep them safe have the necessary training and background to do so. In a world of many challenges and unseen dangers, that's more relevant than ever before. Ontarians want their government to ensure basic standards, and clearly we owe it to Ontarians to improve the professionalism of the industry. That is why we introduced Bill 159 in December, and why we will continue to listen to the advice of our partners.

The feedback from the 2003 consultation paper and our briefings with stakeholders earlier this year have helped us reach general agreement on the key aspects of the proposed legislation.

Licensing requirements should be universal and based on more rigorous standards. Individual licensed security practitioners should be able to keep their licence when they change employers. Job-related skills, such as report writing and first aid, should be part of the approved training programs, and these training programs should also cover knowledge of relevant legislation and public interaction skills.

These key points of convergence have helped us draft our proposed legislation and will constitute the principles under which the regulations are developed.

Bill 159 would make it mandatory for those offering security services to be properly licensed, trained and equipped. The proposed act will make training mandatory for obtaining a licence for new security personnel, while existing personnel will be required to pass a standardized test.

The proposed act will also level the playing field. Removing most current exemptions in the existing act will help ensure that most individuals who provide direct security or investigative services are regulated by the act and meet the same standards, so we will be able to correct the current situation where approximately 20,000 individuals providing security services in Ontario are exempt from the existing legislation. It's fair to all practitioners and it will make Ontarians safer.

It's clear to our government that Ontario residents must be protected, and those offering that protection, in any capacity, must be properly licensed, trained and equipped. The proposed legislative changes are necessary to better protect Ontarians, including security personnel themselves, and to reflect the roles and growing numbers of security practitioners in our communities.

The number of licensed security practitioners in Ontario has increased by more than 700% since 1966, the year the current act was introduced. An entire generation of workers has come and gone since the current legislation was adopted. The proposed act would bring fundamental changes to the industry. Mandatory and standardized basic training requirements, portable licences and new standards for uniforms, vehicles and equipment would help bring the entire industry into the 21st century.

We have the support of our stakeholders because our proposed changes would bring new respect and professionalism for the entire industry and make Ontario safer. We expect this legislation will be passed and that its accompanying regulations will be in place by 2007. We will work with our partners to develop the standardized training programs and tests, and give the industry enough time to adapt to the new legislative reality.

Our goal is to give Ontario the most effective and modern legislation and regulations covering the private security industry in Canada. The public supports this initiative to make the province a safer place. The policing community favours the proposed changes to professionalize the security industry, while the industry itself recognizes the need for change and modernization.

The Private Security and Investigative Services Act is the right kind of legislation for today's Ontario. It will help make Ontario a safer, stronger and more prosperous place for all of us.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs. Liz Sandals (Guelph-Wellington): I'm pleased to rise and add my support for this important piece of legislation. The Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services spoke eloquently about the need for Bill 159, the Private Security and Investigative Services Act. The changing face of Ontario society makes the overhaul of the legislative framework of the security industry a necessity. The minister also commented about the great level of support from our stakeholders and the key role they will play in helping us develop effective regulations. I would like to add my voice to those who support this initiative that will make Ontarians safer.

I will speak on particular aspects of the proposed act to illustrate the changes it would bring and the higher degree of professionalism it would create in the security industry. The private investigative and security services advisory committee will be at the very heart of the process to develop those regulations. Our partners will have a direct channel to express their views and suggestions as we work together to put in place regulations by 2007.

The main issues addressed in the proposed legislation will fundamentally change the industry in Ontario. We will implement measures that will professionalize the security industry and make Ontarians safer in the process.

We have addressed the seven following key areas: mandatory licensing for most security practitioners; licence portability; a revised licence appeals process; a public complaints process; standards set by regulations for training and testing, code of conduct, uniforms, equipment and vehicles; insurance requirements; and increased fines and enforcement measures.

First, on the topic of mandatory licensing, the proposed act will level the playing field. Currently, an estimated 20,000 individuals who provide security services in Ontario are actually exempt from the existing legislation. The Private Security and Investigative Services Act will remove most of those exemptions. The act