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

March 28, 2007

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2007-Mar-28 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 28 March 2007 Mercredi 28 mars 2007

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PREMIER OF ONTARIO

GTA POOLING

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO

PREMIER OF ONTARIO

MINIMUM WAGE

PARLEMENT JEUNESSE FRANCOPHONE

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL

CORRECTION OF RECORD

VISITORS /

VISITEURS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

(CHILD ACTORS), 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI

(ENFANTS ACTEURS)

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

COMMODITY FUTURES LAWS REVIEW

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

COMMUNITY COLLEGES

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

PETITIONS

CONSENT TO TREATMENT

GTA POOLING

LAKERIDGE HEALTH

LONG-TERM CARE

MACULAR DEGENERATION

LONG-TERM CARE

NATURAL RESOURCES

PROGRAM FUNDING

LONG-TERM CARE

LAKERIDGE HEALTH

STEVENSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

LONG-TERM CARE

HEALTH PREMIUMS

LONG-TERM CARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT, 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 SUR LES ESPÈCES EN VOIE

DE DISPARITION

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PREMIER OF ONTARIO

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand–Norfolk—Brant): Dalton McGuinty's poor decision-making is a threat to our principle of responsible government. This is a principle that goes back to 1848, during the era of parliamentarian Robert Baldwin. Cabinet ministers must take responsibility for any inability to properly oversee their departments.

We're seeing a disturbing pattern of behaviour with this government when it comes to holding cabinet ministers responsible for their actions, or lack thereof. Last year I spoke out against Premier McGuinty keeping then-transportation minister Takhar in cabinet after he broke the law. Under McGuinty's regime, nothing, absolutely nothing, is serious enough to warrant a cabinet minister to step aside.

Minister Caplan is under a dark cloud for what I now consider egregiously reckless behaviour and for his ducking and weaving on the lottery scandal. David Caplan is responsible for Lottogate and its $100 million of stolen money. The buck should have stopped with him, and it didn't.

Minister Takhar broke the law and he sits in McGuinty's cabinet. Every day we are learning more about Minister Caplan's role in the $100-million Lottogate, yet he's still sitting at the cabinet table. This begs the question: What must a Dalton McGuinty minister do to get fired? It's time for Dalton McGuinty to show some leadership and fire David Caplan.

GTA POOLING

Mr. Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak about a very important issue in my riding of Thornhill, and that is the issue of GTA pooling. Since its inception by the previous Conservative government in 1998, municipalities in the region of York, Halton and Peel have been suffering under this tremendous financial burden. Since 1998, the region of York alone has paid $744.8 million for GTA pooling. It's a huge amount. In fact, in 2006, the region of York alone paid $90.8 million, which amounted to 14% of the total budget for the year, second only to the spending of the police services board.

With the introduction of our budget, our government has announced a plan to phase out GTA pooling, and that is fair, because it was highly unfair for the previous Conservative government to impose on three regions surrounding Toronto the cost of social services, which quite frankly do not belong to the regions. This money that had been taken out of our regions unfortunately has caused significant problems for us in transportation and social services that are needed for our constituency. Again, I'm very pleased that the Liberals have made a change that was necessary.

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I rise in the House today with a message for Ontario's Lottogate minister, David Caplan: Wake up and smell the coffee and read the press clippings. Maybe then you'll realize you're hanging on by a thread and you need to resign now.

The headline in today's Toronto Sun editorial by Christina Blizzard says it all: "Liberals Won't Face the Music: Caplan should take responsibility and McGuinty shouldn't run from the biggest scandal of his reign." Here are a few excerpts: "The big question is just what does it take for a Liberal cabinet minister to quit?" And, "I just don't know how you shame these Liberals into doing the right thing."

For those who might think the media favouring Caplan's resignation is confined to Toronto, think again. Today's Windsor Star doesn't mince words on the subject and ends, "Caplan must resign and a new minister must be appointed who cares more about cleaning up problems in Ontario's lottery system than ignoring them or covering them up."

David Caplan, it's time to come to terms with the harsh reality that the people of Ontario have lost faith and confidence in your ability as a minister and want you to resign and back away from the cabinet table. No one can spin you out of Lottogate, Minister. Do the honourable thing: Resign.

UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO

Mr. John Milloy (Kitchener Centre): Today at Queen's Park we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the University of Waterloo, one of three exceptional post-secondary institutions in my community. The University of Waterloo is one of Canada's most outstanding universities. For the past 15 years, U of W has been ranked most innovative in the country in the annual Maclean's university survey. For 13 of those 15 years, U of W also ranked best overall, and it boasts the largest post-secondary co-operative education program in the world.

U of W's presence extends beyond the city of Waterloo. Downtown Kitchener, for example—my hometown—will be home to the university's new health sciences campus, established through a partnership between the University of Waterloo, McMaster, the city of Kitchener and the region of Waterloo. The new campus will consist of the new U of W school of pharmacy, the new McMaster satellite medical school, and the U of W integrated primary care teaching clinic that will involve learners in medicine, pharmacy, optometry and other health disciplines working in a new integrated family health team atmosphere.

We are joined at Queen's Park today by a number of leaders from U of W, including its president, David Johnston. All members are invited to a special reception to celebrate this important milestone at 6 p.m. in the Humber Room of the Macdonald Block.

On behalf of my community and all members of this Legislature, I want to offer the University of Waterloo congratulations on 50 years of outstanding success and all the best for the future. You continue to be a source of pride for our region and for our province.

PREMIER OF ONTARIO

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke): Wiarton Willie now has competition from none other than ducking Dalton, the elusive Premier. As you know, the groundhog is quick to run for cover at the first sign of danger. Dalton McGuinty is doing the same. Instead of facing the Legislature yesterday, he ducked out to Peterborough and Cobourg to make announcements that would rarely warrant his presence. He was there because he didn't want to be here.

Ducking Dalton was no doubt disturbed to see his shadow there in the form of Haliburton—Victoria—Brock MPP Laurie Scott reminding him that spring can be tough on groundhogs. Ducking Dalton knows he's got problems here. He won't be able to hide much longer.

This morning at the cabinet scrum, he ducked into the safety of his burrow when the press showed their teeth. His defence of Minister Caplan has been lukewarm, to say the least. In fact, it looks like he's thrown him to the wolves to get them off his trail. That won't help, because with names like Kinsella and Warren surfacing, it's hard not to connect the dots. I can see the e-mail now: "Deeply disturbing: Detectives determine DNA Dalton's Davids. Devastating. Directive: Deny."

Oh, yes, spring is here. The wolves are hungry and groundhogs are nervous.

MINIMUM WAGE

Ms. Cheri DiNovo (Parkdale—High Park): Were it not for my Bill 150 calling for $10 an hour immediately, tabled last fall, and the subsequent labour council, OFL and CLC campaign involving thousands of Ontarians sending thousands of e-mails to this government, Dalton McGuinty's government would never have announced a raise in the minimum wage. The raise they announced spread over three years does not answer the demand in Bill 150 to have a minimum wage above the low-income cut-off.

Ontarians want $10 an hour now, not three years from now. Ontarians are not fooled by this public relations exercise masquerading as a budget, this fudge-it. They understand that this is a government that does not lead, but lags, a government whose deathbed conversion on poverty issues is simply transparent opportunism. Working families who work two jobs on minimum wage still have to use a food bank, are still working two jobs and having to use a food bank and always will if this government remains the government. Promises for the poorest and $40,000 for Dalton McGuinty: That's what Ontario heard in Dalton McGuinty's fudge-it.

At the International Women's Day march this year the chant was, "What do we want? $10. When do we want it? An hour." The minimum wage campaign continues. The need for $10 an hour now continues. Enough of the fudge-it. Ontarians have spoken. Pass Bill 150, the living wage bill, now.

PARLEMENT JEUNESSE FRANCOPHONE

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell): Il me fait plaisir de souhaiter la bienvenue à des élèves provenant des quatre coins de la province. Ces élèves représentent l'école secondaire de leur région respective. Ils vont participer au premier Parlement jeunesse francophone de l'Ontario qui se déroulera ici-même jeudi et vendredi de cette semaine.

Les trois objectifs de ce Parlement jeunesse sont de stimuler l'intérêt et l'engagement des élèves francophones envers la politique et le fonctionnement d'un gouvernement; de permettre aux élèves de débattre des idées, d'exprimer des opinions, de défendre une position tout en développant leur capacité de leadership; de favoriser la construction identitaire et inciter les élèves à s'impliquer dans leur communauté—axes d'intervention du domaine de l'aménagement linguistique.

Le Parlement jeunesse francophone de l'Ontario est un programme unique en son genre car il implique les jeunes dans le domaine de la politique, du journalisme et des organismes non-gouvernementaux. Je tiens à remercier le ministère de l'Éduction, la FESFO ainsi que mes employés.

Selon moi, ce Parlement jeunesse francophone de l'Ontario est une des meilleures façons d'assurer la relève politique. L'Ontario a besoin des jeunes énergétiques qui souhaitent se dévouer pour leur communauté et rien n'égalise la politique pour ce faire.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Wayne Arthurs (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge): I rise today, and I am pleased to do so to applaud the fine work being done by our government, Durham Region Transit and the Ontario Minister of Transportation, Minister Cansfield. At 8 a.m. today, 30 new buses were rolled into service in Durham region. Mr. McNeely, the parliamentary assistant to the minister, on her behalf, Durham regional chair Roger Anderson regional councillor Nester Pidwerbecki and I spoke at that unveiling in Whitby just a few hours ago. I was glad to be part of this great news.

The transit investment means that commuters in my region will have a cleaner and more convenient transit system. It means that passengers with wheelchairs will have an easier time boarding the buses. And, unlike specialized services, these new vehicles do not require passengers to call ahead and book a trip. This means that people with a disability in Durham region will have more independence.

These 30 new environmentally friendly, low-floor accessible buses with air-conditioning are equipped with 38 passenger seats. It was made possible by the provincial share of the Ontario gas tax revenue and a $10.6-million one-time transit vehicle funding package from our government as part of the 2006-07 budget.

Coupled with GO Transit service and infrastructure improvements since 2003, which included 1,200 additional parking spaces at GO Transit stations in Durham region, the government is actively addressing the transportation needs of our municipalities.

Once again I want to applaud the hard work of all those who have made this possible.

INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL

Mr. David Orazietti (Sault Ste. Marie): I'd like to comment on the progress the McGuinty government continues to make in repairing, replacing and building new infrastructure under our five-year, $30-billion ReNew Ontario plan after years of neglect.

In my riding of Sault Ste. Marie, ReNew Ontario has recently allowed us to break ground on two new buildings. Just last month, construction started on a new $7.8-million youth justice centre. The Conservatives closed Sault Ste. Marie's youth justice centre despite community outrage and, instead, chose to transport the area's youth to Sudbury, costing taxpayers over $500,000 a year. Our government is reversing this irresponsible decision by building a state-of-the-art facility to serve the needs of the Soo and area.

The new facility will help ensure that young people receive the treatment, rehabilitation and programs they need closer to home, while creating 30 new jobs and helping to boost the local economy.

Also last month, I was joined by Minister Kwinter to announce the start of construction on a new $5.6-million OPP forensic identification unit being built as part of our government's $50-million investment in new facilities for front-line police officers. The new 12,000-square-foot building will give law enforcement professionals access to the modern equipment they need to serve our community more effectively.

I want to commend Minister Caplan who, as Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, has had the difficult but necessary task of helping to rebuild this province after two previous governments fell well short of fulfilling their responsibilities to Ontarians. The minister is overseeing a $5-billion capital expansion in health, the largest in the province's history, which will benefit countless Ontarians.

CORRECTION OF RECORD

Mr. Bruce Crozier (Essex): I rise on a point of order to correct the record in a statement I made yesterday in the Legislature. The Harris-Eves government did not have deficits in the years 1995-2003. They ran up $27 billion in deficits in an even shorter time, from 1995-99. They did have surpluses in three years, from 2000-03.

VISITORS /

VISITEURS

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound—Muskoka): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to point out that Joanne and David Brunton are down from Parry Sound today to visit and take advantage of lunch with their MPP that they bought in a fundraiser. They're here visiting and I'd like to welcome them to Queen's Park.

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): It's a great privilege for me today to introduce two special guests from Peterborough who are in the members' east gallery.

The first person I'd like to introduce is the Honourable Andy Mitchell, who served as the very distinguished member of Parliament for Parry Sound—Muskoka from 1993 to 2006. He is currently the new president and chief executive officer of the Greater Peterborough Area Economic Development Corp.

Secondly, the vice-president of the Greater Peterborough Area Economic Development Corp., Mr. Jay Amer, whose wife, Maureen, is a cousin of our Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

I'd like to welcome both of these gentlemen to Queen's Park this afternoon.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

(CHILD ACTORS), 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI

(ENFANTS ACTEURS)

Ms. DiNovo moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 191,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 with respect to child actors / Projet de loi 191, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2000 sur les normes d'emploi en ce qui a trait aux enfants acteurs.

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

The member may wish to make a brief statement.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo (Parkdale—High Park): This act introduces protection for child actors. It sets a maximum number of hours of work and days of work, limits late-night hours and time before the camera, ensures time off and the presence of qualified chaperones and allows for the protection of monies earned. We need protection for our most vulnerable in the entertainment industry.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

COMMODITY FUTURES LAWS REVIEW

Hon. Gerry Phillips (Minister of Government Services): I rise in the House today to table the report of the Commodity Futures Act review committee. This is a fine piece of work. This review committee was appointed as a requirement of the Commodity Futures Act to review Ontario's commodity futures laws and to make recommendations for legislative changes. The committee's report will now be referred to a legislative committee that will hear the opinions of interested parties and report back.

I, on behalf of the government, appointed this committee, composed of leading practitioners, lawyers and regulators, in May 2005 to undertake a comprehensive review of Ontario's commodity futures legislation. The committee was chaired by Carol Pennycook, a partner at Davies Ward Phillips and Vineberg and former chair of the Ontario Securities Commission's Commodity Futures Advisory Board. Other members included John Clark, chair, president and CEO of J.C.

Clark Ltd.; Stephen Elgee, president, Faversham Holdings Inc.; Margaret Grottenthaler, partner in Stikeman Elliott; Paul Moore, former vice-chair, Ontario Securities Commission; and Roger Warner, director of operations, Canadian Derivatives Clearing Corp.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if we might recognize the chair and Margaret, who are here with us today. I very much appreciate the work that they've put in. By the way, coincidentally, right behind Carol is David Johnston, who's the president of the University of Waterloo and an expert in Canada on securities law; he's written books about it and whatnot. It's just a coincidence that he's here, but he's certainly welcome.

Since the Commodity Futures Act was originally introduced in 1979, advances in technology together with the globalization of financial activities have dramatically changed the capital and commodities markets. The importance of keeping pace with these changes underscored the need to review and update the Commodity Futures Act at this time.

I want to thank all the committee members for the hard work and commitment that went into preparing this report. The report's recommendations, which will be carefully reviewed and considered, are designed to make our regulatory system more efficient and, importantly, to promote increased investor confidence and investor protection.

Some of the report's key recommendations include ensuring compatibility with regulatory regimes in other relevant jurisdictions; adopting a core principles approach to the regulation of exchanges and other market participants; and providing an appropriate level of regulation of contracts for transactions involving retail investors.

This report supports our government's commitment to vibrant capital markets underpinned by a regulatory system that promotes market efficiency and investor protection.

I would be remiss if I did not point out that this review and report comprise one, but only one, significant part of this government's overall plan to modernize business legislation and financial services regulation in Ontario.

A competitive regulatory framework supports a positive investment climate and a growing economy. That is why we continue to promote the establishment of a common securities regulator. Canada, as this Legislature knows, is the only major industrialized nation without a national securities regulator. We believe that this jeopardizes our international competitiveness and limits our full economic potential.

We've also moved in several other important areas:

We implemented civil liability for secondary market investors, and we were the first jurisdiction in Canada to do that—an important move;

This Legislature passed—unanimously, I might say—the most significant reforms to Ontario's corporate and commercial laws in 50 years;

We created a new legal framework to give legal certainty for investors holding securities in electronic format within the Securities Transfer Act, 2006, which came into force on January 1, 2007—a major piece of work; plus

We made other changes to rules to protect investors, coordinated with securities regulators in all provinces, to ensure more robust corporate and investment fund governance and enhanced financial reporting.

Modern regulation and commercial laws that protect the public interest on a cost-effective basis help companies start and grow. Armed with thorough reviews and solid recommendations such as those provided by the Commodity Futures Act committee, we can strongly advance Ontario's economic advantage.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Responses?

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie—Lincoln): I'm pleased to respond to the Minister of Government Services and his announcement about the Commodity Futures Act and that further process around it. I thank the minister for bringing this forward. I also want to congratulate Carol Pennycook and her committee for all the hard work they've done to date in bringing this before the Legislative Assembly today. We in the official opposition look forward to being part of the process on a go-forward basis.

On an associated matter, we wish the minister had greater success. The Progressive Conservative Party supports a single regulator for the entire country. I know the minister has been working with other ministers across the country, as well as the federal finance minister, Jim Flaherty, and we hope to see progress in that regard and are supportive of achieving that single regulator for our entire nation.

I also want to use this time to comment on some associated issues with respect to an important commodity in the province of Ontario, which is the mineral sector, and the diamond industry particularly. I want to express my concern to this minister and the Minister of Finance about the sudden new tax that has been imposed on the diamond industry in the De Beers project in Attawapiskat, outside of Timmins. The minister shakes his head that this was no surprise, but certainly proponents feel otherwise.

I'd refer him to the Timmins Daily Press story of Saturday, March 24, entitled "Province Hikes Diamond Mine Tax; De Beers Has Concerns With 13% Royalty." Tom Ormsby, a spokesman for De Beers, said,

"'We started this project under a certain tax model....

"'Now, it appears the tax regime we based our project on has changed'" dramatically.

There was similar coverage in the National Post: "'A new diamond-mine royalty proposed in the Ontario budget appears to be arbitrary and discriminatory, and was not discussed ahead of time with the diamond industry,' a spokeswoman for De Beers Canada Inc. said yesterday."

We all know that mineral investments are long-term, substantial investments. In fact, I think some $1 billion went toward the Victor mine. I wonder what kind of signal this sends to other potential proponents of similar projects in the province of Ontario, when at the last minute the Ministry of Finance pulls the rug from underneath these companies and imposes a brand new tax.

Certainly, the Progressive Conservative government previously worked very hard to raise Ontario to be the number one mining jurisdiction not only in Canada, but in North America. I have every confidence that the current minister of mines has raised his concerns about this new tax level. I'll support any initiatives that he brings forward to restore a proper tax regime and better treatment for companies that want to invest in projects and hopefully hire a significant number of individuals from First Nations in the area.

I also look forward to an opportunity to discuss with the minister, perhaps in debate, the $50-million surprise investment to Magna corporation. Certainly, at a time when average middle-class taxpayers receive nothing—zero—from the Dalton McGuinty government, that the minister would hand out a cheque for $50 million which was not even included in the budget speech, suddenly ad libbed—and when the minister was confronted with this the next day, he in fact had no details around the project. So one wonders what kind of negotiations took place when some $50 million are handed out, seemingly without any competitive process or due process.

I will also point out the irony that on the eve of Magna making a multibillion-dollar bid for Chrysler, $50 million has been allocated to the project. I would certainly think that the minister—

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. I would want to caution the Minister of Energy and the Minister of Economic Development that the member for Erie—Lincoln has the floor. I need to be able to hear him. Heckling is always out of order, and we need to be able to hear all members make their statements.

The member for Erie—Lincoln.

Mr. Hudak: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appear to have struck a nerve.

I have no doubt the Minister of Finance will be putting forward all details related to this project and explaining why this grant was given while others were not, and taxpayers got zero in the recent budget. This also brings up the question of why this is under the Ministry of Government Services in the first place. It relates to the previous issues the Minister of Finance had in his resignation.

It brings us to the important topic today, and that is that I thought the minister would be announcing that the current Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal had done the right thing and resigned, and that this minister would be taking over this file. After a barrage of newspaper stories and knowledge of this issue in advance by his top staff, the minister's hear-no-evil, see-no-evil, speak-no-evil sense just doesn't cut it. It's either incompetence or a cover-up. We had hoped that the minister would have done the honourable thing by now and resigned; and if not now, by the end of the day he should step down.

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches—East York): I rise to speak about the Commodity Futures Act and actually to commend the Minister of Government Services for bringing forward this act. I have read the act since this morning when his staff came forward, and I have to tell you, I can find nothing in the act that causes me any great difficulty. I would like to commend the people who have participated in the bringing together and the writing of this act, and working with government to make sure that commodities and commodity future trading in Ontario is at least put on a competitive level field with other jurisdictions in North America and around the world.

Would that I could say the same thing about the other regulations and the other acts that need to be brought forward, and which Minister Phillips promised some three long years ago would be brought forward in this Legislature and have yet to see the light of day.

I quote from the Globe and Mail of a couple of days ago—last Friday—about what I consider to be a cesspool of trading in Ontario. I'm quoting from the Globe and Mail, Report on Business, B5, John Kipphoff and Joe Schneider. In part, what the Globe and Mail reports—and I'd like to read it into the record with your permission:

"Daily trading for La Senza Corp., Canada's biggest retailer of women's undergarments, more than doubled, compared with its 12-month average, and the stock price arced toward a record high. On November 15, Limited Brands Inc. announced it would buy Toronto-based La Senza and pay shareholders a 48% premium.

"That unusual trading wasn't so unusual for the Canadian market. Aberrant trading patterns preceded 33 of the 52 Canadian mergers valued at more than $200 million last year, says a study by Measuredmarkets Inc. for Bloomberg News. Those patterns could indicate insider trading.

'"Insider trading goes on all the time,' says Stephen Jarislowsky, chief executive officer of Montreal-based Jarislowsky Fraser Ltd., which manages about $63 billion. "There's no real surveillance.'

"The rate of unusual trading found in Canada—63%—was higher than in the United States, where a Measuredmarkets study last year flagged 41% of comparable mergers. The London-based Financial Services Authority said on March 7 that insider trading may have preceded almost 25% of UK merger announcements in 2005.

'"If there's no publicly available news that might explain the stock's aberrant behaviour, then one might deem it suspicious,' says Measuredmarkets president Christopher Thomas, whose Port Hope, Ontario, company alerts subscribers to odd trading patterns.

'"It would appear that suspicious trading is more prevalent in Canada than the US.'

"The Ontario Securities Commission oversees the Toronto exchange, the nation's main bourse.

'"The tools available to regulators in Canada are not as strong as in the US.' ...

"Between April 1 and September 30, Canadian regulators imposed $7.7 million in fines to settle six cases of insider trading. Nearly all of that amount—$7.5 million—was paid by a unit of China National Petroleum Corp. to the Alberta Securities Commission....

"No one faced criminal charges in any of the six cases."

It goes on to talk about the United States of America. By comparison, last year the US Securities and Exchange Commission started 914 investigations in fiscal year 2006 and imposed a whopping US$3.3 billion in fines.

You have promised, Mr. Phillips—I quote you before the committee three years ago, when you said to the committee, upon the rendering of our report, "Congratulations. We will implement it."

You have not implemented it. You have not implemented the five-year rotating committee. You have not implemented effective security. You have not implemented committee oversight. You have not implemented the prosecutor-adjudicator role, which you promised to change. You have not implemented anything dealing with the SROs and their role in protecting the guilty. You have not done anything that Al Rosen suggested you do in terms of changing the traditional power structures, the Canada-wide enforcement or the penalties for abusers.

I offer you congratulations for what's in here, but what isn't in here is what you were supposed to have done these last—

The Speaker: Thank you.

On a point of order, the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke): Speaker, based on very recent observations, I'd like unanimous consent of the House to declare this Groundhog Day.

The Speaker: Mr. Yakabuski has asked for unanimous consent. I heard a no.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Does the Premier think it's appropriate that his Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal and the person in charge of the lottery corporation showed such weak leadership that he sat on his hands for at least six months, not asking a single question about the millions in rip-offs that were taking place of people who buy the tickets from the Ontario lottery corporation and allowing the integrity of the lottery corporation to be undermined from within? Do you think that's appropriate behaviour?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this matter in the House. First of all, I want to assure all Ontarians, but especially those people—and I think particularly seniors who line up to buy a little piece of hope, to put down their loonie or their toonie or what more they desire to spend. I want to assure them that we will continue to do our utmost to protect the integrity of Ontario Lottery and Gaming and to ensure that they can have confidence and faith.

It's one thing to understand that the odds may be long, but it's another thing to have doubt when it comes to the fairness of a game. I want to assure Ontarians that we will do everything possible to guarantee the integrity of the system and to ensure that the rules by which they play those games are absolutely fair and in their interests.

Mr. Tory: Of course, that was not an answer to the question, and the fact is you only thought of doing your utmost, to use your words, after your government got caught and after those very same senior citizens you talked about had been ripped off for millions—millions—of those loonies and toonies you talked about with such apparent caring.

The Premier's answer, or non-answer, says a lot about his leadership: Do nothing and duck anytime you can. Ignore the stark evidence that's swirling around—like an e-mail to Wilson Lee, the minister's chief of staff, about millions in stolen lottery prizes—and just hope it all goes away. Hope nobody notices. Hope that those poor senior citizens you talked about don't even notice that your government is sitting by, watching these games get fixed and doing absolutely nothing about it. But once it does break out, then, in the public domain, pretend that protecting the integrity of the system is your paramount concern. That's the Dalton McGuinty style of leadership.

Will you tell this House, did you have any briefings, any meetings with anybody from the lottery corporation, anybody from the board, with the minister, any memos or other correspondence at all before October—

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Premier.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: The other thing that I wanted to say today was that I want to thank the Ombudsman for his report. He, on the basis of a television show which raised some very legitimate concerns about the integrity of Ontario Lottery and Gaming, decided of his own volition to conduct an investigation, which he rightfully chose to do. He specifically cites an incident in 1993 and then another in 2001. He said that those gave rise to still more concerns on his part and he has produced a series of in-depth, legitimate, eminently doable, eminently reasonable recommendations which we intend to adopt wholeheartedly.

I understand that my good friend opposite has his own particular partisan perspective on this issue, but I intend to rely on the Ombudsman when it comes to upholding the public interest.

Mr. Tory: No, actually I'm just here on behalf of those very people you talked about. The fact is, the rip-offs reached the highest heights ever, new heights, under your leadership as Premier of this province and under your government. Weak leadership is what we have here, nothing but weak leadership and incompetence.

You see the problems all around, your minister sees the problems all around, and we're supposed to believe nobody has any meetings, there are no briefings, no questions are asked by anybody. You see and you read and you hear about this stuff and nobody does anything. The two of you sat on your duffs for months and months, and the people got ripped off in the meantime. You don't realize it would actually look better if you had asked a question or two, or if you could get up and say you had actually asked for a briefing from somebody about this.

Your minister, I say to the Premier, is not fit to stay in office. He ought to have known if he didn't know. I think he did know. Either way, he should be asked for his resignation. Are you going to show some strong leadership for once and get up and ask for his resignation until this entire matter gets cleared up and we can see exactly who knew what and when?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Again, I can appreciate that my friend has his own particular perspective on this. I think that what Ontarians are looking for is some objective, independent third party assessment of how we should be proceeding with respect to the concerns that have been raised. I think it's also important to understand what the Ombudsman said with respect to our government and the minister responsible, ultimately, for OLG. I quote from the Ombudsman.

He said: "This is the kind of support and commitment on behalf of government which is essential if we are to move forward to restore integrity and trust in the lottery system." He goes on to say: "I commend the minister and the government for its openness and responsiveness to my report and recommendations and for their immediate and resolute commitment to ensuring change."

The Speaker: New question, Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Tory: My question again is to the Premier. The Toronto Sun reports today that Jim Warren, your former director of communications, and Warren Kinsella, one of your chief political operatives, met four days after the CBC program aired to try to spin the scandal, as they put it. So these two partisan McGuinty operatives are having meetings to try to spin your way out of this scandal. The Premier's very own fingerprints are all over this. If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, then it's probably a cover-up.

One of them, Mr. Warren, has a very highly paid job, somewhere in the range of $200,000 a year, as vice-president of strategic relationships. You might well ask, what would he be doing spending one minute of his time, at public expense, sitting around trying to spin scandals and cover things up for you? That's not in any job description we ever saw. If he wasn't helping you cover up, then why else is someone in his job involved in this kind of thing? We know you turned tail and ran this morning when it came time for this question, but you can't hide here.

What were two partisan political operatives doing—one of them a public servant—involved in trying to cover this matter up for you at the lottery corporation?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Again, I would think that we would try to stick to the facts today as much as we possibly can. Here are a few, just to toss a few out. Mr. Warren began his full-time employment with Ontario Lottery and Gaming in February 2006, which was over a year again. The second interesting fact is that Mr. Kinsella, as the leader of the official opposition knows, is an independent businessman who represents from time to time many different clients, including the Ontario Hospital Association, the Toronto District School Board, and—

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I know they're going to want to wait for this one, Speaker—who also was a dedicated—

Interjections.

The Speaker: I need to be able to hear the Premier.

Interjections.

The Speaker: We're wasting time.

Premier.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I know that Mr. Tory would want to acknowledge that Mr. Kinsella was a dedicated volunteer in his bid for the mayoralty. I know he would want to acknowledge that.

One of the specific recommendations made by the Ombudsman was "that the OLG keep and analyze statistical information on the number of insiders winning its various lottery products, the playing habits of insiders, and on the win history of individual insiders." That is yet another eminently reasonable and doable recommendation on the part of the Ombudsman, and that too will be acted upon.

Mr. Tory: I should say, indeed, Mr. Kinsella did help me with my campaign and he helps the Premier cover up. That's the difference between you and me, as to what we would ask him to do.

Now, here we have—

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I would just urge all members to take care in their choice of words in this place.

Mr. Tory: The Premier's top political schemer and manipulator tries to spin a story that it is a total coincidence that insiders were winning more frequently because they played more frequently. It is clear that two of the top political advisers to the Premier—one of them supposedly in public service and out of partisan activity—were trying to rig a story and engineer a cover-up here, a story of incompetence and negligence that goes through the minister's office right to the Premier's office.

It's one more piece of evidence that you and your government don't care a hoot about the people who buy the tickets and the people who are getting ripped off here and you're just trying to protect your own hides. It's a reason why this minister has to go. Will you ask for the resignation of this minister, who has been so incompetent in handling this matter on behalf of your government?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I can appreciate why the leader of the official opposition is struggling to make much of this. But another interesting fact that he may want to consider is that in addition to Mr. Kinsella having been a dedicated and loyal volunteer—but apparently a persona non grata now—on behalf of Mr. Tory, Bob Reid, who used to work for Premier Harris, provided communications advice to Mr. Gough, who heads up OLG.

The important point here in all of this is that there has been independent assessment of these concerns which has been presented by the Ombudsman. There are specific recommendations flowing from that. Our intention is to adopt each and every one of those recommendations. Again, if the public is searching for some non-partisan, independent, objective advice, they need look no further than the Ombudsman.

Mr. Tory: What the Premier doesn't understand, because he really doesn't understand accountability, is that we're trying to talk here about the lack of leadership of your government long before the Ombudsman got involved. He got involved after you got caught. There were e-mails going back and forth to your government six months before the Ombudsman had anything to do with this file. That's when you and your minister were sitting on your duffs while people had their money stolen across this province. And so what we're saying here is, there was a complete lack of leadership and responsibility taken by you and your minister and your government.

I want to quote the Windsor Star from today. They say this: "Caplan must resign and a new minister must be appointed who cares more about cleaning up problems in Ontario's lottery system than ignoring them or covering them up." That is what the Windsor Star says today.

If you want to act like a leader, if you don't want to duck, if you want to represent the people whose money was stolen, if you want them to know the rip-offs are really over, then ask this minister for his resignation so we can get a clean start. Will you do that?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Again, the specific incidents cited in the Ombudsman's report date from 1993 and 2001. The leader of the official opposition is going to want to have some questions of one of his colleagues, I'm sure, about that 2001 incident.

But in the interim, we will continue to act in the public interest. We'll continue to adopt each and every one of the recommendations put forward by the Ombudsman. In particular, there is one which I think is pre-eminent. The Ombudsman makes the very good point that it's simply inappropriate for the body which is responsible for the sale of tickets to somehow oversee those very same sales, and he recommends that that authority, that responsibility, be removed from the OLG, that it be given to another body, which is specifically what we intend to do. That, more than anything else, will ensure that we restore greater integrity and the ability of Ontarians to have faith in that system.

The Speaker: New question? Leader of the third party.

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora—Rainy River): To the Premier: Every week thousands of Ontarians put aside some of their hard-earned pay to buy a lottery ticket. Most of them know that they may not win, but they expect that their government, at the very least, if it's going to run a lottery, will ensure that it is a fair lottery and not one that is fraudulent. Your government, the McGuinty government, has failed to do that.

For months, your minister responsible for the lottery did nothing to protect the people of Ontario, in the face of increasing and repeated events that would have said to any reasonable person, "There's something wrong here." Premier, how do you justify keeping Mr. Caplan in his job when he has so obviously failed to protect the public over and over and over again?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I think it would be in the public interest that we take a look at the specific recommendations put forward by the Ombudsman. He specifically says that the government should implement a regulatory scheme for lotteries with the following characteristics: "(

a) a code of conduct for retailers, the breach of which would lead to sanctions up to and including termination of registration." By the way, this particular regulatory regime or regulatory scheme we're going to put in place will be headed up by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission.

It's interesting to note that when it comes to casinos in Ontario, it is not OLG which is responsible as the regulatory overseer; rather, it is the Alcohol and Gaming Commission. What we intend to do on behalf of Ontarians is ensure that they can have confidence in the lottery system by taking the responsibility of oversight away from the OLG and giving that to the Alcohol and Gaming commission, and that is in keeping with the recommendations of the Ombudsman.

Mr. Hampton: What the Ombudsman has to say is good and fine, but the question is this: What was your minister doing in the months and years prior to the Ombudsman's report? Ordinary Ontarians feel totally betrayed and they're wondering what is going on over there.

One woman who wrote to us said, "For every fraudulent winner, there is a corresponding loser, like the older gentleman in The Fifth Estate story. I am outraged."

Another woman writes, "I will not have any trust or faith in a government that allows a minister to continue working when he failed miserably."

Premier, at what point are you going to admit that your government failed in its duty to protect Ontario citizens? When are you going to fire this minister who obviously didn't do his job?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Our focus will remain where it should be, and in keeping with the public interest. Ontarians who may have concerns connected with the OLG want to know what we're going to do to ensure that we can restore their faith in the integrity of that very system. Again, there has been an independent, objective assessment made by the Ombudsman, but we've taken it beyond that. We've turned over all the information to the police and asked them to take a look at it as well.

I think the single most important recommendation arising from the Ombudsman's investigation is that we take responsibility for oversight, for regulation of those ticket sales, away from OLG and give it to an independent organization. That's exactly what we intend to do. We're going to give it to the Alcohol and Gaming Commission.

Some very legitimate concerns have been raised. The Ombudsman has provided us with some very sound advice and the best way to address those concerns, and we will continue to act on that advice.

Mr. Hampton: Once again, Premier, you want to talk about what you're going to do now after you got caught. But ordinary folks around Ontario who have been cheated out of millions of dollars want to know what the repercussions are for the person in charge who was supposed to protect them, who all the time said, "I see nothing, I hear nothing, I know nothing."

Today we learn that some of the highest-profile political advisers to you and your government, right after The Fifth Estate story was advanced, met to talk about, "How do we undermine this story about lottery fraud? How do we get this story below the radar screen?" And what does your minister say? He says, "I didn't know about that. I didn't hear about that. I didn't see anything about that."

I ask you again, Premier, at what point do you fire a minister who's apparently happy to say, "I don't see anything, I don't hear anything, I don't know anything," while thousands of innocent people were ripped off—

The Speaker: The question's been asked. Premier?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Again, I think it really is worthwhile for us to consider once again the independent, objective assessment of the minister and our government through this report. He says, and again I quote, "This is the kind of support and commitment on behalf of government which is essential if we are to move forward to restore integrity and trust in the lottery system. I commend the minister and the government for its openness and responsiveness to my report and recommendations and for their immediate and resolute commitment to ensuring change."

We're grateful for the Ombudsman's report. We intend to act on these recommendations, each and every one of them. And again, I say to the people of Ontario, we will do whatever we have to do to ensure that you can have faith in your Ontario lottery and gaming system.

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

Mr. Hampton: To the Premier: I want to talk about faith in the system. Last October, when people saw the CBC story, your minister said that he didn't know anything until then. But we learn today that almost immediately Warren Kinsella, one of your political fixers, and your former director of communications met to talk about a damage control plan. Your minister says, "I didn't know anything," but top Liberal fixers were already swinging into action to put this below the public radar screen.

Premier, do you expect the people of Ontario to believe a McGuinty government that says it saw nothing, heard nothing, knew nothing, when top Liberal fixers were already swinging into action to undermine the effect that this might have in terms of fraudulent lotteries?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I beg to differ with my friend. I don't think it's about my expectations of the people of Ontario; I think it's about their expectations of us. What are we going to do in light of this information and in light of the Ombudsman's report? I think they expect us to act on it. They expect our commitment to do everything specifically recommended within this report. They expect us to ensure that when they put their money down on the counter and buy a lottery ticket in Ontario, they can have faith in the system, that they can understand and honestly believe that the game is fair.

While the odds may be long, they are more than prepared to take on those risks, but they don't take on any risks associated with there being any weakness in the integrity of the system itself. That's the legitimate expectation on the part of the people of Ontario of this government. We intend to live up to that expectation. We will adopt every single recommendation found in this report.

Mr. Hampton: Premier, these are the legitimate expectations of those innocent people out there who buy lottery tickets: They expect that when the minister who's responsible hears that an innocent man, an 82-year-old man, is taking the lottery corporation to court over lottery fraud, the minister is going to have enough sense to ask some questions, "What's going on here?" Your minister didn't.

They expect that when e-mails come from reporters saying they want to know about possible other insider lottery fraud, something's going to twig in your minister's head, and he's going to say, "Maybe I'd better ask some questions here." Your minister didn't. Through all of this, while people were being ripped off and cheated, your minister was happy to sit there in the dark, not ask any questions, not raise any issues and not do anything to protect people.

Premier, don't you think that the people of Ontario deserve something better than a minister who says, "I see nothing, I hear nothing, I know nothing, and I'm not going to do anything to protect the public of Ontario"?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: What I do believe is that the people of Ontario deserve to have an Ontario lottery and gaming system in which they can have confidence, and I can understand if that confidence has been somewhat shaken of late. Something happened in 2001; something happened in 1993. That led to a very legitimate inquiry on the part of the Ombudsman. He has conducted, in a relatively short period of time, a very thorough investigation. He came up with some very substantive and specific recommendations.

We think that they are all eminently doable, reasonable and, for that matter, essential, so we will adopt each and every one of those recommendations. We intend, once again, to ensure that somebody who approaches an Ontario lottery and gaming counter at some convenience store or some kiosk in a mall—we intend to ensure that when they put that money down, whether it is a loonie or a toonie, while the odds may be long, they can have confidence in the game itself being fair. We intend to do that.

Mr. Hampton: The fact of the matter is, Premier, your government, for over two years, didn't do that. Here's what those innocent Ontarians see: a minister who sat there, and while the evidence accumulated which would have led any reasonable person to at least start asking questions, he did nothing. Then what they see is, when the information becomes public, your top Liberal Party fixer, Mr. Kinsella, and your former director of communications get together to hatch a plan to try to keep this off the public radar screen, to keep it away from the newscasts.

So, Premier, my question is this: Can you give the people of Ontario any reason why they should believe you and your minister now when he has obviously failed completely until now?

Hon. Mr.

McGuinty: Again, with a view to providing some assurances to Ontarians, particularly those who buy tickets through the lottery system, in addition to adopting these recommendations put forward by the Ombudsman and in addition to providing information to the police so that they can do with it as they feel is appropriate under the circumstances, I have also asked the minister to make inquiries with his counterparts in the Atlantic provinces and in British Columbia, where concerns have been raised in those jurisdiction as well, to find out how we can best share our best practices, to see if it might be in our interest to adopt, if not a formal one, then perhaps an informal national standard, so that we can continue to improve the quality of the Ontario lottery and gaming system on behalf of Ontarians.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs. Christine Elliott (Whitby—Ajax): My question is to the minister responsible for lotteries. Minister, it's not only a matter of public precedent but it's a question of integrity and accountability that when a minister's capability to serve the public's best interest is called into serious question, he or she will resign or step aside pending an investigation into the matter.

Members of our caucus have held themselves to this rigorous standard without delay and without reserve. Although they were later cleared of any wrongdoing, my colleagues from both Leeds—Grenville and Simcoe—Grey stood in their places and resigned because it was the right thing to do.

Minister, why is it you feel that you should be held to a different set of standards than ministers have been held to in the past?

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, Deputy Government House Leader): In fact, I understand that members opposite have their own partisan views on the way things work around here. I rely upon the unbiased, non-partisan, independent officer of this Legislature who says, and I know the member is very interested in this, "I commend the minister and the government for its openness and responsiveness to my report and recommendations and for their immediate and resolute commitment to ensuring change."

Now, the member would be very interested in the Ombudsman's press conference on Monday. He said, "I conclude that they"—the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp.—"put profits ahead of public service. I think there was a point, a crossroads, in" the year "2002.... At that point, the OLG could have gone two ways. It could have said, 'We'll apply the law and take the measures to act diligently. One month later, Bob Edmonds surfaced, and they pretended that binding law from the Supreme Court didn't apply.'"

The minister of the day was Norm Sterling, the member—

The Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary.

Mrs. Elliott: Minister, the fact of the matter is that my colleagues resigned their ministerial posts under what is described as, and I'm quoting from today's Sun, "clouds ... far less than this boondoggle at OLG." But since you insist on characterizing our calls for you to adhere to the fundamental principle of ministerial accountability as partisan, let's go back a little bit in time. The bottom line is that this precedent has been adhered to by parties on all sides of this House for years and years. Twenty years ago, on June 16, 1986, this standard was adhered to by a minister of your own party, one Elinor Caplan.

Minister, this is a matter of integrity, responsibility and public interest. Why won't you follow the example set by your own mother and resign?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Caplan: I truly believe that taking responsibility means rolling up your sleeves and fixing the problem that others have left to you. That's exactly what I, as minister, am doing. That's what this government is doing. We've shone a light on the problems that existed and that, in fact, the members opposite were only too happy to sweep under the rug and keep in the dark corners in some closet. It has been this minister and this government who have called in KPMG, who have welcomed the Ombudsman's investigation and adopted his report and recommendations.

It has been this government, when the allegation of fraud came, that directed that the information the Ombudsman reviewed be passed along to the Ontario Provincial Police.

Those are the appropriate and responsible actions, unlike what we've seen in the year 2002 under Mr. Sterling, the member for Lanark—Carleton, unlike my friend, unfortunately, the member from Erie—Lincoln, who was also a minister of this corporation—

The Speaker: New question. Leader of the third party.

Mr. Hampton: A question to the Premier: The spin that was concocted by your former director of communications and by Warren Kinsella, the Liberal Party's political fixer, was that there really wasn't that much insider lottery fraud because, in fact, the retailers play the lottery more often. Now, the Ombudsman has said that that's false, that that whole thing was false and concocted.

My question is this: Why did your government allow an explanation to be put out to the public that the Ombudsman himself says was false and had absolutely no relevance and no integrity to it? Why would your government allow that kind of story to be put out by your Liberal fixers to try to undermine the issue of lottery fraud?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: In fact, the Ombudsman specifically addressed the concern connected with the absence of reliable data that the OLG should have been collecting. He provides a specific recommendation. He says, "I recommend that the OLG keep and analyze statistical information on the number of insiders winning its various lottery products, the playing habits of insiders, and on the win history of individual insiders."

Again, there was an issue, I gather, within OLG as to whether or not they should be keeping that kind of information. I think the Ombudsman has spoken on that very clearly, and the OLG has specifically said that they will adopt that recommendation, and they intend to put it in place very shortly. I think that's the issue that Ontarians have, that they're now collecting this kind of information so that they're aware of it and can act on it accordingly. In fact, they are now beginning that process.

Mr. Hampton: Premier, your Liberal Party fixers, your former director of communications and Warren Kinsella were doing this before the Ombudsman reported. These are about their activities long before the Ombudsman reported, and my question is: I would presume that the minister in charge knows something. I would presume that Mr. Kinsella and your former director of communications, Mr. Warren, were not acting somehow as independent agents from somewhere else. Who would have authorized these two high-profile Liberal Party fixers to spin such a story to the public that the Ombudsman says is false and had no foundation?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I think what my colleague is getting at is the statistical information that had been assembled by the expert used by The Fifth Estate, and the Ombudsman comments on that very specifically. He says, "For my office's investigation, we retained our own expert.... He echoed the comments of some of the others on the unreliability of the data on which Prof. Rosenthal's assessment was based." But specifically, he goes on to say, "In his view, the type of probability analysis carried out by Prof.

Rosenthal is useful and could signal to the corporation the need to take steps to prevent insider fraud." He then goes on specifically to recommend that the OLG connect to this kind of information on an ongoing basis. I think that's a very sound recommendation. The OLG has adopted that, and they intend to have that process in place very shortly.

COMMUNITY COLLEGES

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh): My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, parents across Ontario want the best for their children, and as such, encourage them to pursue higher education to expand their opportunities. This encouragement often directs young Ontarians towards Ontario's excellent universities, where students can pursue various fields of interest and build the skills they will need for jobs in a variety of sectors. Often overlooked, however, is the fact that there are good, high-paying jobs in the skilled trades sector.

Students should be made aware that a job in a trade is a possible career option. This is an issue that needs to be addressed. Minister, what is this government of Ontario doing to encourage students to look towards the trades and college trades programs as viable options for high school graduates?

Hon. Christopher Bentley (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): I'd like to thank my colleague from Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh for his advocacy on the part of his community and to make sure that we have a training system that meets the needs, not only of his community but of the province. We're working at all levels. First of all we're giving students in high school the opportunity to experience the trades through the Ontario youth apprenticeship program; almost 26,000 students this year, including many in his community, will have that chance.

We've developed new approaches to get into the trades with the co-op diploma program. I know St. Lawrence College, which has a very important Cornwall campus, received $1.6 million over the past year for co-op diploma programs that they put on.

We've also provided additional funds for the apprenticeship training spots, and again, St. Lawrence College, $1.5 million, so they can ensure that the apprentices get their training locally, in the Cornwall region, and of course we have the apprenticeship training tax credit to ensure that employers in areas such as Cornwall and his riding are able to hire apprentices and give them the training they need so they can become the skilled trades for the future. That's a plan at all levels, and it's working in all of Ontario, including his community.

Mr. Brownell: I certainly know of the great programs at St. Lawrence College in my riding of Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, and I will be there tomorrow afternoon to meet with the CEO and president of that college. The students who graduate from its programs do so with valuable skill sets that they can apply to work situations.

Ontario's colleges have a great deal to offer. Certainly, the support being given to encourage students to consider a college diploma is important. It is equally important that our colleges receive the supports they deserve to ensure that they remain competitive.

Minister, can you tell us what this government is doing in terms of financial supports and continuing support for the colleges across this province?

Hon. Mr. Bentley: Again, an excellent question—an excellent contrast between the McGuinty government and what went on before.

For about 12 years, college budgets were flatlined or worse, but beginning with the Reaching Higher investment plan, we're investing $6.2 billion, and the college budgets themselves, in about three years, will go up by 26% on average. The Tories spent their first year cutting the budgets by 20%.

St. Lawrence College, just over the past year, in the fall, in good part because of the advocacy of the honourable member, received $3.5 million from the fall economic statement, and will receive additional monies, which will be announced in due course, from the extra $105 million in the 2007 budget recently announced by my colleague the Minister of Finance.

The bottom line is that we're supporting colleges, as they had not been supported by the previous two governments, to ensure that the people throughout Ontario, and particularly, I would say, in Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, receive the excellent education locally that they need, not only so they can succeed but so that the economy of Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh—

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

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark—Carleton): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The minister of lotteries said that I was in charge of the OLG during 2002. That is not correct. I was not in charge of the—

The Speaker: That is not a point of order.

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds—Grenville): I have a question for the Premier, who today has been trying to deflect responsibility from his government and his minister for the scandal in the lottery system in Ontario.

I want to quote from page 20 of the Ombudsman's report: "It appears that 2004 was a banner year for controversial insider prize claims. It is mind-boggling that the corporation actually paid out millions of dollars in the circumstances it did."

You were the government in 2004, Premier. We did a search of the number of times you demanded the resignations of ministers of past governments during the time you were sitting in this chair as Leader of the Opposition—a mind-boggling number of times, for a variety of reasons, which don't stand up to comparison with respect to the responsibilities of the minister you're defending here today.

Can you give us a brief explanation of what kind of standards you expect from the ministers who serve in your cabinet?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): Again, on behalf of the public, I think it really is important to distinguish between the partisan perspective brought by my friends opposite—and I understand why they've got to do that. I spent 13 years in opposition, and I wish Mr. Tory 13 good years in opposition—very productive years, as well, I might say.

Our job over here now is to uphold the public interest and lend definition to that as well. In the circumstances, I believe the single most important thing we can do on behalf of Ontarians is to restore faith in the integrity of the Ontario lottery and gaming system by wholeheartedly adopting the recommendations contained within the Ombudsman's report. That's what we're doing and that's what we'll continue to do.

Mr. Runciman: The Premier says that when you're in opposition, you've got to do what you've got to do. I guess that means he didn't mean it when he said it over here, and it carried over to his election platform, because obviously he didn't care about the truth in that situation.

The reality is, this government, this minister knew many, many months ago about the problems and the challenges in the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. They knew about it and they did nothing. This minister sat on his hands. We know that it was made public by The Fifth Estate and CBC—very serious allegations, including the possibility of obstruction of justice. And we are to believe that he did nothing and he knew nothing? Now you've got your spinmeisters involved for political reasons to try to spin this to minimize the political damage.

Is that the kind of person you want serving in your cabinet? If you do, that says a great deal about your standards of integrity and your leadership.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: If we're looking for a non-partisan, dispassionate, objective, thoughtful, considered analysis of our government and its response and of the minister's activities, I again refer my friend opposite to the report the Ombudsman provided, where he specifically said, "This is the kind of support and commitment on behalf of government which is essential if we are to move forward to restore integrity and trust in the lottery system." He goes on to say, "I commend the minister and the government for its openness and responsiveness to my report and recommendations and for their immediate and resolute commitment to ensuring change."

We've got a great report from the Ombudsman, we wholeheartedly adopt and embrace that report, and we will move forward on each and every one of those recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): New question? Leader of the third party.

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora—Rainy River): To the Premier: Your minister responsible for lotteries says that while there was a lawsuit alleging fraud at the lottery corporation, he wasn't aware of that; while the lottery corporation spent $600,000 fighting an 82-year-old man and trying to silence him and keep the story out of the media, he wasn't aware of that. E-mails were coming in, asking about other potential lottery fraud situations; he wasn't aware of that. Your former communications assistant and high-profile Liberal fixer Warren Kinsella went to work right after the CBC story, trying to put together a spin plan to undermine the whole story. He says he wasn't aware of that.

Premier, how could these events happen and the minister not know anything? Is the lottery corporation a rogue agency that keeps your government deliberately in the dark? How could this happen and the minister responsible not know any of these things?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I always appreciate the colourfulness and creativity of my friend opposite in terms of his presentation of information. He's very creative. But one of the things that the OLG does, in case the leader of the NDP is now prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater, is in fact provide us with about $2.3 billion in revenue on an annual basis. That is very important by way of ensuring that we have the necessary financial support for our schools, our hospitals and our infrastructure. The Ontario lottery system has served us well in so many ways since first brought into being in 1975, I think, with the first Wintario lottery.

There are some problems of late. They have cropped up, not only in Ontario but in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and BC, and perhaps in some other jurisdictions as well here in Canada. Fortunately, we have an Ombudsman who has jumped into this. He has, in very short order, put forward some specific recommendations—

The Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr. Hampton: The Ombudsman says that your government was more interested in collecting the lottery money than it was in protecting the public.

But Premier, once again you try to avoid the question. You see, here is the scenario: If high-profile Liberal fixers like your former director of communications and Warren Kinsella can be hired to put together a spin story to undermine the whole issue of lottery fraud and your minister doesn't know about it, it suggests one of two things: Either your minister is completely incompetent or the lottery corporation is a rogue agency.

Now there is a way to clear this up. You can order the minister today to release his briefing books, his records and his e-mail files so that the people of Ontario will know whether the lottery corporation was a rogue agency or your minister was just completely incompetent. Will you order the minister to release the briefing books, the records and the e-mail files?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: The leader of the NDP does now know, because I've read it several times, that the minister was commended by the Ombudsman for his co-operation in his investigation. Any information to which the Ombudsman would have needed access was undoubtedly provided to him, and on the basis of all that information and after giving this matter some very careful consideration, he came up with some very specific recommendations. Those are designed not to advance the political interests of the leader of the NDP; they're designed to better uphold the public interest.

That's what this report is specifically designed to do. It contains some very solid and strong recommendations. We embrace this report wholeheartedly. We will act on each and every one of those recommendations.

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

Mr. Ted McMeekin (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot): My question is for my good friend the Minister of Culture. Normally I would just lean over and ask her this question, but it's such a good question, I'm sure she wants to provide a good answer.

Minister, my riding is host to many talented artists, as you know, who do amazing work that enriches our local communities and enhances the quality of life. Artists in our province, we know from the recent visit to our riding by yourself, have felt unrecognized and unappreciated by previous governments.

I know through your council for the arts and culture, you undertook an extensive consultation with over 4,000 individual artists and organizations. Can you share with this House what steps you are taking to support our artists and creators throughout the province?

Hon. Caroline Di Cocco (Minister of Culture): I want to thank the member from Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot for his support of artists. It was a pleasure for me to be at the Potter's Café and meet a number of artists in his riding. Artists, as creators, express and mirror the spirit and dreams of a society. They tell our stories and give vitality to our society, but beyond this, they enhance and strengthen our province's creative and innovative economic development.

As a result, we have introduced the Status of Ontario's Artists Act with this year's budget bill. Should this act become law, artists will finally, after nine years of being treated as irrelevant by the Progressive Conservative government and after five years of the NDP sitting on three reports—we have moved forward on this legislation.

Mr. McMeekin: That's wonderful news. You're doing a wonderful job. I know that the arts' organizations across Ontario are going to be excited to hear about this new legislation.

Minister, you and I and all members of the government on this side of the House appreciate our artists. You referenced the hopeful passage of the status of Ontario artists legislation. I know that's just a start. I know you've got many other wonderful and clever things that you're about as Minister of Culture, but I wonder if you'd take just a moment to share those other wonderful things with members of the House.

Hon. Ms. Di Cocco: All told, the investments in culture in this year's proposed budget total almost $77 million more. Coupled with our status of Ontario artists legislation, this support is a clear statement of my government's commitment to arts and culture. The Ontario Trillium Foundation will benefit from $20 million more in annual funding. The Ontario Arts Council, an important source of funding for individuals and organizations, will see a 38% increase. The arts endowment fund will receive $10 million; the Ontario Media Development Corp., an added $5 million.

Public libraries will see $5 million more, and we're providing museums with $2.3 million more in operating funds, as was quoted by the—

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

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke): My question is for the Premier. In spite of the fact that all evidence, including e-mails exchanged between senior members of staff and e-mails to senior members of staff—in spite of the fact that all of that points to the minister knowing full well about this investigation and the problems at OLG fully six months before the CBC investigation—he continues to fall back on a famous Liberal tactic: deny, deny, deny. The fact that he continues to deny does not make that denial any more credible or believable. People do not believe it.

It is time for him to accept responsibility and step aside so that a complete, impartial investigation can take place.

Premier, will you not, for the sake of the integrity of the system in this province, and on behalf of all Ontarians, ask your minister to do the right thing, once and for all, and please resign?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): To the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal.

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, Deputy Government House Leader): We do have an independent, impartial officer of this Legislature who did a thorough investigation of this matter. In fact, he said at his press conference on Monday—I don't know if the full quote got in, so I want to quote it for this member:

"I conclude that they," the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp., "put profits ahead of public service. I think there was a point, a crossroads, in" the year "2002. At that point, the OLG could have gone two ways. It could have said, 'We'll apply the law and take the measures to act diligently.' One month later, Bob Edmonds surfaced, and they pretended that binding law from the Supreme Court didn't apply. Then it became a slippery slope."

I have checked with the legislative library. Contrary to what we've heard from the member from Lanark—Carleton, he was installed as the minister in 2002 through to 2003. These are the facts of the matter. They were swept under the rug. They were put in a closet. This government has shone a light on it. This government has acted to protect the public interest.

Mr. Yakabuski: Premier, the minister denies; you deflect. I'm not surprised. That seems to be your tactic as well.

Every member of this House, on both sides, every member of that press gallery, and I believe every citizen in the province of Ontario who has been following this does not believe the minister when he says that he did not know about this investigation or the problems at OLG prior to October 2006. Every member of this House believes that he knew, and the people believe it. In fact, the Windsor Star believes it so much that they've called for his resignation. To protect the integrity of this House, he should resign.

Premier, I'm going ask you: Under the cloud that this minister is living under, will you not, for the sake of the integrity of this system across this province, so that we can get on with the other important matters in this House, ask this minister to step aside so that we can get to bottom of this—

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Thank you. Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal?

Hon. Mr. Caplan: In fact, an unbiased, independent officer of this Legislature, the Ombudsman—non-partisan—did in fact comment on the conduct of myself and the government. He says in his report, and I'll quote page 68 for the purposes of the member: "I commend the minister and the government for its openness and responsiveness to my report and recommendations and for their immediate and resolute commitment to ensuring change."

The Ombudsman is quite correct. This government has set a new standard for openness and transparency, for taking action where others swept it under the rug, for making sure that public accountability is maintained and the public trust and confidence is put first. I'm very proud of those actions. I can share with the member as well that I have directed that all materials that were reviewed by the Ombudsman be forwarded to the Ontario Provincial Police for their review, and they will decide the appropriate—

The Speaker: Thank you. New question. The leader of the third party.

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora—Rainy River): Premier, your minister continues to claim that over a two-year period he heard nothing, he saw nothing, he knew nothing, but his chief of staff, Wilson Lee, told the Globe and Mail that he was aware of some problems. When e-mails started arriving from the lottery corporation advising of media requests for information in April 2006, Mr. Lee told the Globe and Mail that the lottery corporation was steadfast that the insider policy was sound and that there were no real problems.

He now says, "We now know in hindsight that there were significant concerns." Premier, this raises the issue: Was Mr. Lee, the chief of staff to your minister, fed misleading information by the lottery corporation or, like the minister, was he asleep?

There's a way to settle this. Release the minister's e-mails, records—

The Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: To the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal.

Hon. Mr. Caplan: The member, of course, refers to a freedom-of-information request, and the information that was requested by the media outlet was provided. They did their analysis—

Interjection.

The Speaker: I'd ask the member from Niagara Centre to withdraw that comment.

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Withdrawn.

Hon. Mr. Caplan: The freedom-of-information and protection of privacy legislation, which all members of this House have worked under, was adhered to and the information was provided. The Ombudsman, in his report, says quite clearly that Ontario Lottery and Gaming did not provide a proper response to the CBC; they did not treat the matter with the utmost seriousness that it deserved. He indicated that they treated it as a public relations exercise, as opposed to dealing with the substantive matters raised in the report. I agree. I agree with the Ombudsman's findings.

That's why I agree with his recommendations, and I'm working diligently with my colleagues to implement the solution. That's the response.

Mr. Hampton: Premier, these are all events that happened before the Ombudsman's report. Mr. Lee, now chief of staff to your minister, seems to be indicating that he was misled by the lottery corporation in April and May of 2006. He seems to be indicating that he now knows that the information that was given to him by the lottery corporation in April and May of 2006 was false.

Not only that, but when the CBC story was put out, your minister said, "The Insider Win policy provides the utmost integrity of the OLG in the conduct of lottery games by ensuring that there is no perception of an unfair advantage…." So even your minister was apparently being fed misleading information during this period.

There is a way to clear this up, Premier. You should ask the minister to release his e-mails, his briefing books and his own records. Then we will know if—

The Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Caplan: The Ombudsman is very clear, when he analyzes and goes over the facts, that OLG certainly did not provide the proper understanding and seriousness. He says quite clearly in his report that such statistical analysis as was done by CBC's Fifth Estate was not done, there were no records kept and they should have been. The Ombudsman has recommended that, going forward, Ontario Lottery and Gaming keep such statistics, provide that analysis and have the baseline for comparison so that they can do the work and make sure that the public is safeguarded.

I accept that recommendation, and we are working to implement it along with the 60 other recommendations from both the Ombudsman and KPMG. Seventeen have already been implemented, 25 will be complete by the end of June and the other 18 have begun and are ongoing. I look forward to reporting to the Ombudsman and to this House, quite frankly, about all the work we have done to—

The Speaker: Thank you. Petitions.

PETITIONS

CONSENT TO TREATMENT

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): "Petition to the government of Ontario in Parliament assembled.

"We, the undersigned, draw the attention of the House to the following:

"Whereas the Health Care Consent Act of Ontario gives to all health practitioners, indiscriminately, the sole authority to determine whether or not a child of any age has the capacity to give or refuse consent to treatment proposed for him and her; and

"Whereas many of the health care practitioners who are required to make such judgments have neither the training nor the knowledge of child development such that their judgments could be considered informed; and

"Whereas health care practitioners in the family planning industry are notoriously biased in their approach to supplying abortions and chemical contraceptives/abortifacients to minors; and

"Whereas the HCCA is unconstitutional as it provides no opportunity for parents to prevent health care practitioners from providing inappropriate treatment to their child before it is administered, nor any mechanism for redress afterwards;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to amend the Health Care Consent Act to prohibit health care practitioners from administering a plan of treatment proposed for a child who lives under the care and control of a custodial parent without the prior consent of the custodial parent, whether or not the health care practitioner is of the opinion that the child is capable with respect to the plan of treatment."

As required by the rules of order, I affix my name thereto.

GTA POOLING

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly. It's titled very simply "End GTA Pooling: Pass Ontario Budget." It reads as follows:

"Whereas the city of Mississauga faces a long-term labour shortage, resulting in some 60,000 more people commuting into the city of Mississauga than leave Mississauga to earn their living and support their families each and every day; and

"Whereas 10 years ago the Ontario government of that day introduced the concept of GTA pooling, whereby funds are taken from the municipalities surrounding the city of Toronto and channelled into the city of Toronto without benefit or accountability to the taxpayers of those fast-growing cities, which face big-city needs and issues of their own; and

"Whereas GTA pooling places an additional tax burden on the municipal property tax bases of some $40 million each and every year to the city of Mississauga; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario in its 2007-08 budget proposes to completely eliminate GTA pooling during a seven-year span beginning in fiscal year 2007-08, and that as pooling is phased out, Ontario will take responsibility for social assistance and social housing costs currently funded by GTA pooling;

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

"That all parties within the government of Ontario support the swift passage of the 2007-08 Ontario budget and ensure that its provisions ending GTA pooling are implemented."

On behalf of the people of western Mississauga, I'm pleased to affix my signature to this petition and ask page Ryan to carry it for me.

LAKERIDGE HEALTH

Mrs. Christine Elliott (Whitby—Ajax): I have a petition arising out of a community issue organized by Mr. Paul Taylor.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe that Lakeridge Health should have full funding and not be facing an $8-million shortfall;

"Whereas this would affect many programs, including the mental health program at Lakeridge Health;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to fully fund the $8-million shortfall for Lakeridge Health."

I'm pleased to sign this in support.

LONG-TERM CARE

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

"Whereas Ontario will not meet the needs of its aging population and ensure access to hospital services unless long-term-care homes can provide the care and services that residents need; and

"Whereas staff are now run off their feet trying to keep up and homes are unable to provide the full range of care and programs that residents need or the menu choices that meet their expectations; and

"Whereas dietary, housekeeping and other services that residents and their families value are being put at risk by increasing operating costs; and

"Whereas some 35,000 residents still live in older homes, many with three- and four-bed ward rooms and wheelchair-inaccessible washrooms; and

"Whereas, on November 23, 2006, this Legislature unanimously passed a private member's motion asking the government to introduce a capital renewal program for B and C homes; and

"Whereas such a program is required to support the limited-term licensing provisions in the proposed new Long-Term Care Homes Act;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to increase long-term-care operating funding by $390 million in 2007 and $214 million in 2008 to provide an additional 30 minutes of resident care, enhance programs and meal menus and address other operating cost pressures, and introduce a capital renewal and retrofit program for all B and C homes, beginning with committing to provide $9.5 million this year to renew the first 2,500 beds."

I want to thank Karen Milligan, administrator at Bay Haven Nursing Home in Collingwood, for sending me that. I agree with the petition, and I have signed it.

MACULAR DEGENERATION

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I have a petition that reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario's health insurance plan covers treatments for one form of macular degeneration (wet), and there are other forms of macular degeneration (dry) that are not covered,

"Therefore

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

"There are thousands of Ontarians who suffer from macular degeneration, resulting in loss of sight if treatment is not pursued. Treatment costs for this disease are astronomical for most individuals and add a financial burden to their lives. Their only alternative is loss of sight. We believe the government of Ontario should cover treatment for all forms of macular degeneration through the Ontario health insurance program."

I affix my name in full support.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): It's rare opportunity that I get to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of the riding of Durham. I have so many of them here. The one I chose reads as follows:

"Whereas Ontario will not meet the needs of its aging population and ensure access to hospital services unless long-term-care homes can provide the care and services that residents need; and

"Whereas staff are now run off their feet trying to keep up and homes are unable to provide the full range of care and programs that residents need or the menu choices that meet their expectations; and

"Whereas dietary, housekeeping and other services that residents and their families value are being put at risk by increasing operating costs; and

"Whereas some 35,000 residents still live in older homes, many with three- and four-bed ward rooms and wheelchair-inaccessible washrooms; and

"Whereas, on November 23, 2006, this Legislature unanimously passed a private member's motion asking the government to introduce a capital renewal program for B and C homes; and

"Whereas such a program is required to support the limited-term licensing provisions in the proposed new Long-Term Care Homes Act;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to increase long-term-care operating funding by $390 million in 2007 and $214 million in 2008 to provide an additional 30 minutes of resident care, enhance programs and meal menus and address other operating cost pressures, and introduce a capital renewal and retrofit program for all B and C homes, beginning with committing to provide $9.5 million this year to renew the first 2,500 beds."

I'm pleased to present this petition to Jenalle from Elgin—Middlesex—London, and I sign it on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Durham.

NATURAL RESOURCES

PROGRAM FUNDING

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I have a petition that reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Natural Resources plays a vital role in the conservation and management of the natural resources that belong to all Ontarians; and

"Whereas the MNR budget for 2006-07 is 24% less, in real terms, than it was in 1992-93; and

"Whereas vital programs relating to fish and wildlife, provincial parks, enforcement, forestry, and other MNR activities continue to be cut back; and

"Whereas the aesthetic, economic, educational, environmental, recreational and social value of our natural resources far exceeds the cost of protecting and managing them;

"Therefore,

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

"That funding of the Ministry of Natural Resources be increased to a level that will enable it to stop cutting existing programs and provide full funding to all existing programs as well as any new programs that may be required to ensure the effective protection and management of Ontario's natural resources."

I fix my name in full support.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell): I have a petition here that is identical to the one read by the member for Durham, which I don't have to read again. It comes from Alexandria and Dalkeith area and all the community around that area. I will give that to Jordan, and he will present that to the Clerk.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Michael Prue): Petitions, the member from Durham.

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): Speaker, I prefer to default to the member from Burlington because she has a petition as well.

LAKERIDGE HEALTH

Mrs. Joyce Savoline (Burlington): I have a petition regarding Lakeridge Health.

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe that Lakeridge Health should have full funding and not be facing an $8-million shortfall;

"Whereas this would affect many programs, including" and especially "the mental health program at Lakeridge Health;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to fully fund the $8-million shortfall for Lakeridge Health."

I'm happy to sign my name.

STEVENSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

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

"Whereas Stevenson Memorial Hospital needs $1.4 million in new funding over the next three years to get its birthing unit reopened and to ensure that they can recruit enough obstetricians and health care providers to supply a stable and ongoing service for expectant mothers in our area; and

"Whereas forcing expectant mothers to drive to Newmarket, Barrie or Orangeville to give birth is not only unacceptable, it is a potential safety hazard; and

"Whereas Stevenson Memorial Hospital cannot reopen the unit under its current budget and the McGuinty government has been unresponsive to repeated requests for new funding;

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

"That the McGuinty Liberal government immediately provide the required $1.4 million in new funding to Stevenson Memorial Hospital so that the local birthing unit can reopen and so that mothers can give birth in Alliston."

Obviously, I agree with this petition and I will sign it.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): It's a pleasure once again to read a petition. I literally get thousands of these and they are important. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Ontario will not meet the needs of its aging population and ensure access to hospital services unless long-term-care homes can provide the care and services that residents need; and

"Whereas staff are now run off their feet trying to keep up and homes are unable to provide the full range of care and programs that residents need" and deserve "or the menu choices that meet their expectations; and

"Whereas dietary, housekeeping and other services that residents and their families value are being put at risk by increasing operating costs; and

"Whereas some 35,000 residents still live in older homes, many with three- and four-bed ward rooms and wheelchair-inaccessible washrooms; and

"Whereas, on November 23, 2006, this Legislature unanimously passed a private member's motion asking the government to introduce a capital renewal program for B and C homes; and

"Whereas such a program is required to support the limited-term licensing provisions in the proposed new Long-Term Care Homes Act;

Therefore "we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to increase long-term-care operating funding by $390 million in 2007"—there's nothing in the budget, really—"and $214 million in 2008 to provide an additional 30 minutes of resident care, enhance programs and meal menus and address other operating cost pressures, and introduce a capital renewal and retrofit program for all B and C homes, beginning with" a commitment of "$9.5 million this year to renew the first 2,500 beds."

I'm pleased to present this petition to Cody from the riding of Mississauga South and sign this on behalf of my constituents in Durham.

HEALTH PREMIUMS

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I have a petition. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas, according to the Department of National Defence, there are over 30,000 serving military personnel calling Ontario home; and

"Whereas, according to the most recent census data, there are more than 1.6 million senior citizens over the age of 65 living in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario plans on eliminating this illegitimate health tax for all Ontarians after it forms the government; and

"Whereas, as an interim measure, the illegitimate health tax should be removed from those who protect Canada and those who have built Ontario;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately eliminate the illegitimate health tax, beginning with serving military personnel and senior citizens."

I affix my name in full support.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound—Muskoka): I have a petition for Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare funding. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas demand for health services is expected to continue to rise with a growing retirement population in Muskoka-East Parry Sound; and

"Whereas studies indicate that overcrowded emergency rooms result in higher mortality rates; and

"Whereas growing demand and lack of availability of long-term-care beds place increased pressure on acute care beds; and

"Whereas the operating budget for MAHC must reflect the growing demand for service in the communities of Muskoka-East Parry Sound;

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

"That the McGuinty government and the Minister of Health provide adequate increases in the operating budget of Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare to maintain current health services for the people of Muskoka-East Parry Sound and allocate more long-term-care beds for Muskoka-East Parry Sound."

I support this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT, 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 SUR LES ESPÈCES EN VOIE

DE DISPARITION

Mr. Ramsay moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 184,

An Act to protect species at risk and to make related changes to other Acts / Projet de loi 184, Loi visant à protéger les espèces en péril et à apporter des modifications connexes à d'autres lois.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Michael Prue): Mr. Ramsay.

Hon. David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources, minister responsible for aboriginal affairs): It's a pleasure for me to rise in my place today to lead off second reading of a piece of legislation that I and the McGuinty government are very proud of. I'd like to just notify the House that I will be sharing my time with my parliamentary assistant, the member from Sault Ste. Marie.

If passed, this legislation would represent a milestone in the protection and recovery of Ontario's species at risk and establish a benchmark for the rest of North America. By extending protection for species and their habitats, the new act would also help ensure that future generations of Ontarians will enjoy the benefits of a healthy, abundant and biologically diverse natural environment.

Biological diversity is one of the greatest treasures of our planet. Unfortunately, throughout the world, species of animals, plants and other organisms are being lost forever at an alarming rate.

Right now in Ontario, more than 175 of the province's 30,000 species are identified as being at risk. This means they may disappear from our province if their current rate of decline continues, lending urgency to our task here today. The proposed legislation I am presenting for second reading today would help us reverse that rate of decline in Ontario by providing more effective protection provisions for native species and their habitats.

The proposed legislation also includes a stronger commitment to implement species recovery measures, and it provides more support for volunteer stewardship from private landowners, resource users, stakeholders and partners who want to do their

part in protecting or restoring essential habitat.

It's important to note that the proposed legislation is the outcome of a very extensive public review of the current Endangered Species Act that I launched last May. An impressive amount of work was undertaken during this review to ensure that we have properly identified and addressed the measures needed for optimum protection and recovery of species and their habitats.

The ministry met with a wide range of stakeholders to discuss ideas for the proposed legislative changes. These groups include farmers, rural landowners, land developers, environmentalists, rural communities, municipalities and representatives of resource industries, including forestry and mining.

We are also grateful for the contributions of an advisory panel that was made up of individuals with experience and expertise related to species-at-risk protection and recovery planning. The members of the advisory planning worked with my ministry and provided input into proposals for a discussion paper that was used in the public consultation sessions that took place between May and July of last year. As part of the consultation process, the discussion paper was posted on Ontario's Environmental Registry, and we received more than 300 responses. A separate process involving consultation with aboriginal communities and organizations is still ongoing.

The individuals, organizations, stakeholders and aboriginal representatives we heard from throughout the consultation process strongly supported improved legislation for species at risk. So we will continue to consult with interested groups and organizations as we develop guidelines and policies for implementation of the proposed legislation.

If this legislation is passed, I also look forward to acting on one of the provisions that would allow establishment of a permanent advisory committee. I would make this a priority. This advisory committee is intended to represent a cross-section of interests and expertise, and would contribute to our objectives of greater accountability and transparency.

The committee's role would be to make recommendations to the Minister of Natural Resources on matters related to implementing the act. These matters would include development and delivery of stewardship programs, development and promotion of best management practices for protection and recovery, and development and delivery of public education and outreach programs. The committee would also advise on approaches that may be under the act to promote sustainable social and economic activities that assist in the protection or recovery of species.

One of the things we heard throughout the consultation process was that people want to be more involved and want to work together with us to proceed with the important task of recovering species at risk. Overwhelmingly, there was a demand for effective programs to support implementation of the act and a package of stewardship incentives that support landowners in their efforts to protect and recover species at risk. We are, subsequently, proceeding with a three-part approach to species recovery and protection: updated legislation, policies for implementation and enhanced stewardship programs.

I would also like to acknowledge the contribution of other provincial ministers in developing the proposed legislation. If this legislation is passed, I look forward to working co-operatively with other ministries and stakeholders as we move ahead with the implementation.

There are a number of provisions in the proposed legislation that would fundamentally change Ontario's approach to implementing protection for species at risk. Right now in Ontario, no species is protected until the government decides to do so, and then regulates that species under the Endangered Species Act. This cumbersome process has been a hindrance to providing adequate species-at-risk protection.

By comparison, the new legislation stipulates that all species that have been scientifically assessed as being at risk would be protected automatically. This automatic protection would also be extended to their habitats.

This is what we call presumption of protection. It represents a very different approach and a very different starting point from the current act. From that starting point, another key difference between the two acts comes into play, and that difference is flexibility. Under the current act, once a species is regulated, the legislation allows no flexibility regarding how protection measures for that species are carried out. In many situations, this inflexibility has prevented the application of practical and sensible approaches that would benefit both the species and the landowners.

By comparison, the proposed legislation would allow the government to consider a variety of factors in deciding how protection should be applied in individual cases and if exceptions should be made.

I'll give you a quick example of how this would work. One of the species protected under the Endangered Species Act is the butternut tree. A major reason the butternut tree is in danger is due to serious disease affecting the species. Under the terms of the existing act, a butternut tree cannot be cut down under any circumstances, even if it is diseased. Under the proposed act a landowner would be allowed to cut down a diseased butternut tree to prevent the spread of the disease and would be encouraged to plant a healthy one through stewardship incentives.

You can see from this example how flexibility would remove current impediments to protection and recovery. It would also encourage and support greater and more effective stewardship by our private landowners.

The proposed legislation would also allow the government to make decisions that would accommodate compatible land use activities and, at the same time, support sustainable social and economic development. The goal would be an overall outcome that ultimately benefits the species and its habitat.

An example of this would be if a pit or quarry wants to expand its operations but, in doing so, would encroach on a habitat for an endangered species. The old act would not allow the expansion. The proposed act, though, would let us determine whether it's possible or feasible for the quarry owners to provide other adjacent land of equal or greater habitat value for the species in question in exchange for a permit to expand the operations. This could be a win-win for all of us.

If it turned out to be possible, the outcome would be a net gain for the habitat for that particular endangered species and an economic gain for the community. This is the kind of effective species-at-risk legislation that Ontario needs now: legislation that provides stronger and better protection for our unique natural heritage and rich biodiversity and at the same time has the capacity and flexibility to take into consideration the social and economic needs and well-being of our citizens and all of our communities. Regardless of how we go about it, helping species to recover can be costly and complex.

The best course of action is always to prevent species from declining in the first place through responsible land and stewardship practices.

Many of our province's species that need protection are found on private land. This makes voluntary stewardship activities essential and the primary approach to achieving any kind of success in reversing the rate of species decline that is now happening in Ontario. Stewardship is not just a responsibility for government. The agricultural community, rural landowners, the land use and resource management sectors, municipalities and the general public all have an important role to play in protecting and restoring our habitats.

We already owe a great deal to the farmers and landowners who have been volunteering for years now to help with recovery programs on their lands. There are also many environmental, agricultural, business and community organizations that have voluntarily taken on important stewardship roles to protect essential habitat and green space.

We've made sure that the proposed legislation includes new provisions that would provide even stronger support and facilitation for private land stewardship. One of these provisions stipulates the creation of the species-at-risk-in-Ontario stewardship program to promote stewardship and other related activities. This program would recognize the leadership and contribution of landowners, the agricultural community, the land and resource use sectors, aboriginal people and the general public in the protection and recovery of species at risk.

The stewardship program would work in conjunction with existing stewardship agencies and other partners. The program would support province-wide stewardship and recovery of species at risk, embrace new scientific information and be responsive to changing environmental, social and economic conditions.

As I stated in the House last week when presenting Bill 184 for first reading, the government proposes to back up this commitment to enhanced stewardship with funding of $18 million over four years to support public stewardship efforts. A species-at-risk-in-Ontario stewardship fund would be established under the proposed legislation to promote public stewardship. The fund would provide incentives to landowners, farmers, aboriginal peoples, research institutions, industries, conservation organizations and many others to encourage activities that support the protection and recovery of these species at risk.

Ontario has had many successes regarding species protection and recovery. In 2006, we were pleased to announce progress in the recovery of both the peregrine falcon and the bald eagle. In the 1960s and 1970s, pesticide contamination nearly wiped out peregrines in Ontario and drastically reduced the provincial population of bald eagles. The combination of bans on DDT and other pesticides and aggressive recovery efforts on the part of government staff and partners allowed both species to make significant recoveries.

Local grassroots partnerships of volunteers, naturalist groups and corporations have also been a big part of our success to date in bringing back these species. In June 2006, the status of the peregrine falcon was changed from endangered to threatened, a lower-risk category. The status of the bald eagle in northern Ontario, where its recovery has been most significant, was changed from endangered to that of special concern, an even lower-risk category. The recovery of the bald eagle in southern Ontario is also well underway.

Both of these species will continue to receive the protection they need to achieve further recovery under the proposed Endangered Species Act, 2007.

The wild turkey was once common in parts of southern Ontario but was extirpated in the early 1900s due to a combination of habitat laws and overharvesting. An Ontario restoration program was initiated in 1984 in co-operation with a number of stakeholder organizations. From 1984 to 1987, wild-caught birds were taken from several parts of the United States and released in southern Ontario. Populations were successfully established and have spread to other areas through both natural dispersal and trap-and-transfer operations.

The wild turkey population is now thriving throughout much of southern Ontario and the provincial population of this species is now estimated to exceed 70,000 birds. These are tremendous success stories.

The proposed Endangered Species Act, 2007, would give us the means to build on our achievements to date and continue to work with our conservation partners to ensure even greater accomplishments in the future. It would allow for compatible land use and recreational activities that in some cases would support further recovery efforts. There are more than 175 species in our province that need our attention and help, and it is up to us to act now and work to shorten that list before handing it over to the next generation.

The current Endangered Species Act is 36 years old. It is out of date, it is rigid and it doesn't provide the kinds of effective protection tools that we need in the 21st century. The proposed legislation this government is putting forward is the first step in a new era of species-at-risk protection for Ontario. We have the advantage today of a broad range of tools that we just didn't have in 1971. We have knowledge and technology that allow us to better understand the natural world and our impact upon it. We have concerned citizens who are eager to get involved in public stewardship initiatives.

We are indeed fortunate to live in a province with such an abundance and variety of natural plants, animals and habitats.

As I said earlier, the people of Ontario deserve the benefits that come from conserving this unique natural heritage and our rich biodiversity. I believe we have succeeded in developing progressive, precedent-setting legislation that would offer optimum protection for Ontario species at risk, while at the same time supporting the overall social and economic well-being of our citizens.

Mr. David Orazietti (Sault Ste. Marie): It's a pleasure to rise in the House today to support Bill 184. Certainly, I want to commend the minister on his leadership on this bill. It was in 1971 that the Endangered Species Act was passed and it has not been updated since that time, as he indicated—36 long years. We need to do this for those habitats and species in this province and for future generations of Ontarians so that they can appreciate what is natural to this province.

So I'm pleased to rise in the House today to support the Minister of Natural Resources on second reading of Bill 184, the Endangered Species Act, 2007. By introducing this legislation, the McGuinty government is acting on its commitment to provide stronger and more effective protection and recovery measures for Ontario's native species at risk. In doing so, we recognize the direct link between a healthy, sustainable environment and a healthy, sustainable economy.

The time to take this action is long overdue, for many reasons that I will outline in my comments, and perhaps in the two-minute wrap-up I'll have an opportunity to also make comments on some of the feedback from various media and organizations throughout the province that have responded very positively to this piece of legislation.

First and foremost, Ontario's current Endangered Species Act is now 36 years old, and only 42 of more than 176 endangered species are protected. That gap is largely due to the cumbersome and inflexible process required by the existing legislation. During the extensive public consultation process to develop the proposed legislation, we heard general agreement that the existing act is rigid, outdated and limited in its scope in terms of the protection it affords species at risk and their habitat.

The current act is also out of step with the protection provided by other provinces and Ontario's commitment under the accord for the protection of species at risk in Canada. Ontario, along with other provinces and territories, signed the 1996 accord for the protection of species at risk in Canada and thereby committed to having an effective legislative framework to protect endangered and threatened species. This commitment has not yet been fulfilled. Most other provinces have updated or are updating their legislation for species at risk.

The federal Species at Risk Act came into full effect in 2004. While the federal act applies primarily to federal lands, it can be applied to provincial crown or private land if the federal minister determines that provincial laws and programs do not adequately provide for the protection and recovery of species at risk. As written, Ontario's current Endangered Species Act does not satisfy the national accord, and it may be argued that it is not consistent with the federal act at all.

As well as being outdated, Ontario's current act also allows no flexibility to accommodate social and economic considerations or innovative solutions. For example, there is no allowance for the destruction or interference with the habitat of a protected species even if the final outcome would be for the overall benefit of the species in question. You've heard Minister Ramsay describe the situation where the current act prevents a landowner from cutting down a diseased butternut tree, as an example, even for the purpose of preventing the disease from spreading to healthy trees.

This lack of flexibility has been a real impediment in achieving the necessary balance of protection and recovery of species within the context of sustainable development.

We anticipate that population of the greater Golden Horseshoe will increase from the current 7.5 million to 11.2 million over the next 25 years. Ontario needs species-at-risk legislation that would address that unprecedented growth here in Ontario and effectively complement existing provincial direction such as the provincial policy statement, the greenbelt plan and the Places to Grow Act, and to provide necessary stewardship tools to support their implementation.

In developing Bill 184, the government was mindful of a number of key challenges, and I just want to highlight