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

April 29, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Apr-29 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 29 April 2009 Mercredi 29 avril 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TOXICS REDUCTION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DES TOXIQUES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONTROL

HEALTH CARE

INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONTROL

HOSPITAL FUNDING

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

CANCER TREATMENT

VOLUNTEERS

HOSPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE

TUITION

DRINKING AND DRIVING

HOSPITAL FUNDING

ONTARIO NORTHLAND

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NAIL AND SAIL

TOURISM

RENEWABLE ENERGY

RENEWABLE ENERGY

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

VAISAKHI

HOSPITAL FUNDING

SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL COLLEGIATE AND VOCATIONAL INSTITUTE

SHINHAN BANK

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TICKET SPECULATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE TRAFIC DES BILLETS

DE SPECTACLE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

CONSUMER PROTECTION /

PROTECTION DU CONSOMMATEUR

ENVIRONMENT INDUSTRY

CONSUMER PROTECTION

ENVIRONMENT INDUSTRY

CONSUMER PROTECTION

ENVIRONMENT INDUSTRY

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

HOSPITAL SERVICES

MULTIPLE MYELOMA

CEMETERIES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

HOSPITAL SERVICES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

AIR QUALITY

ONTARIO BUDGET

SCHOOL FUNDING

LONG-TERM CARE

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

OPPOSITION DAY

HOSPITAL SERVICES

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

HOSPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good morning. Please remain standing for the Lord's Prayer, followed by a moment of silence for inner thought and personal reflection.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TOXICS REDUCTION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DES TOXIQUES

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 28, 2009, on the motion for second reading of Bill 167,

An Act to promote reductions in the use and creation of toxic substances and to amend other Acts / Projet de loi 167, Loi visant à promouvoir une réduction de l'utilisation et de la création de substances toxiques et à modifier d'autres lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Further debate?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: It is indeed a good morning; the weather is beautiful. I'm pleased to stand in my place this morning to speak in support of Bill 167 for many different reasons. This bill, the Ontario toxics reduction strategy, is an important bill for the province of Ontario.

As you know, many people these days are concerned about their health. In North America, and especially in Canada, the Industrial Revolution created many different jobs and many different factories and companies in many different spots and locations in the province of Ontario. As a result of this revolution, those companies started using different chemicals to produce many different products for the people of Ontario. For some reason, those products contained some toxic elements, and as a result of this Industrial Revolution, we created a lot of toxic waste, whether we knew that or not.

But the most important thing is that those toxic wastes have never been dealt with in the province of Ontario.

I want to tell you something about my riding of London–Fanshawe. My riding is home to many different factories and companies, opened after the Second World War, like Westinghouse, GM, 3M and many other prominent companies. Those companies dealt with toxic waste and chemicals, and back then in the 1970s and 1960s nobody knew that those chemicals would harm people. I'll give you an example. Right now Westinghouse has the biggest warehouse for PCB toxic waste in the whole province of Ontario.

So back then, many workers, many employees, used to work in that factory, work in this company, and they told me they used to wash their hands in those PCBs because they thought it was a good substance to clean their hands. But they never knew those substances were toxic and not good for their health. Many years later, as more research was done in Ontario and worldwide, they determined that those substances were very toxic for human beings. Therefore they are banned from being used in many different companies and different factories across the province, maybe across North America.

Back then, the government of the day collected all the toxic waste at the site on Clarke Road and Huron Street in London, which has the biggest containers and the most toxic waste in the whole province of Ontario.

Our government, in the last budget—not this budget, but the budget before—determined that we have to clean up those sites. We invested more than $64 million, hired many different companies and specialists and experts in that field to clean it in a fashion to protect the population. I want to thank the minister and his staff for taking the lead in this matter.

So this is one component of the toxic waste stored in the province of Ontario. I learned while I was reading this bill that we have the most toxic waste in the whole country, as a matter of fact in the whole of North America. It's a bad image for Ontarians, especially at this time, when technology has improved a lot, when science and research and innovation have improved a lot. That's why this bill came: in order to reduce the toxic waste in this province and make it the cleanest province ever in the whole globe.

How can we do this? As you know, a couple of years ago our Premier stood in his place and said, "We want to introduce a bill to clean up toxic waste in this province. We want to introduce a progressive bill to be able to deal with this issue in a professional manner, without affecting the companies and in a way that we can protect the people of Ontario." That's why this bill is being introduced now. It has been in debate for many days and many hours; many people spoke on this bill. I heard my colleagues, the opposition party and the third party speak in different ways with different input on this bill.

This is a very important bill. After I read all the elements and listened to many people, I think it's important to support it and important to go forward in order to start cleaning up our province to make it the cleanest one in North America.

We invested more than $41 million to support companies, factories and industries that want to change their ways, go to a greener way in order to reduce toxic waste. Also, this bill requires all companies to notify people about the toxic waste in their products, and to list it, in order to prevent any problems from happening. Also, it's important to notify the public about the content, the substances in the products they use on a daily basis, because some people have allergies; they can't accept certain toxic waste substances.

Also, it's important to notify Ontarians about the warehouses where we house toxic waste in Ontario because we, the citizens of this province, have a right to know exactly where toxic waste is being stored and how we can deal with it on a regular basis.

So we put in a target. That target is a very progressive target. I listened to the member from Toronto—Danforth speaking yesterday morning on this bill, and he said it's not a progressive bill and that this bill doesn't fulfill our commitment toward toxic waste. But he forgot that this bill is very progressive. There's financial support tied to this bill to support factories, companies, to implement their strategies. There is a money component to many different factories and companies if they want to switch their ways from using toxic chemicals or components or substances in their products to greener, safe and environmentally good products.

As you know, our Minister of the Environment has introduced so many different steps over the last two years to reduce toxic waste in Ontario, starting from banning cosmetic pesticides on the lawns in Ontario, unifying the whole system in this province. Also, dealing with tires: As you know, tires have a substance, some kinds of chemicals. All these elements should be dealt with, and that's what we've done in Ontario.

It's also important to note at this time that it's our obligation and duty as a government to protect the people of Ontario. It is our duty and obligation to notify people who want to live in certain spots about the toxic chemicals being stored in those locations. So we set a target to deal with more than 45 substances—this is our priority in this first phase—and also to deal with almost 2,000 companies across the province of Ontario that have 10 people or more to fill out applications and notify the government about how they deal with their chemical waste and what to do with it.

Also, an element of this bill forces the company to notify people about the toxic elements and substances in their products. These steps would be implemented by the first and second phases, starting in 2009, if this bill passes, and would be finished by 2014. We are going to deal with 2,000 companies, and the first phase will be almost 1,200 companies across Ontario.

Many people, many stakeholders, came and commended the government on this approach. Many stakeholders in Ontario, from the Cancer Society to the doctors, the physicians, and many activists in this regard came, gave their proposals and raised their concerns about this bill. I know some companies—and the member from the opposition party spoke about this element—thought that if we introduce this bill, we'll be creating some kinds of barriers, we'll be creating obstacles for many different companies to compete nationally and internationally. But in the end, our health and our future are determined by how we can clean up this province and make sure that people live healthy in the province.

I heard the member from Toronto—Danforth speaking yesterday about the side effects of chemicals being stored near subdivisions, where people were exposed to those chemicals, and how it can affect births, their health and their attitude. So it's very important for all of us to make sure that our environment is safe.

It's important to note, too, that of the people in Ontario, almost 90% support the reduction of toxic waste. It's actually more popular than pollution in the water and talking about and dealing with climate change. This is a very important, fundamental base to start with. When you build your house, when you want go to a park, when you want to go to the sea, to a lake or to a river, you want to know for sure that those areas which are supposed to be public places, supposed to be attracting people—kids, young adults and seniors—to enjoy their day are free of chemicals and free of toxic waste.

This is what happened in my riding, London—Fanshawe. Pottersburg Creek was a place to release all the toxic chemicals for many years. That's why people complained about this, and that's why the government, back then, collected and cleaned up the creek in order to make it clean for people to enjoy again, because this creek starts in the north end of my riding and runs all the way to the south end, and goes through a lot of parks and a lot of subdivisions.

Many kids used to play in those creeks and many people built their homes and built parks around the creeks, because it was a good environment, a good location and a good place. That's why we want to make sure those places are clean and free from any toxic chemicals, products and substances, to make sure all the people who want to enjoy their days out can feel free, play and enjoy without concerns about their health or any problem they might face in the future. So I think it's important to start work on this bill. I'm looking forward to seeing all the members from both sides of the House supporting this bill.

I know we heard the member from Toronto—Danforth also say that this bill can create some duplications, because so many different bylaws in the province of Ontario are already implemented, have already been passed and are already being used, so why do we want to introduce this bill? Also, the opposition party said the federal government has some kind of jurisdiction. They've already passed law. They already have a guideline. Why do we want to interfere between the bylaws of the municipalities and also the federal laws?

I want to say we're not going to go duplicating the laws in the province of Ontario. We're not going to step on the jurisdictions of the municipalities or the federal government. We want to work together to create a safe environment. I think it's important for all of us, as a government in this province, to continue to work with municipalities, to continue working with the federal government to create a safe and clean environment to protect our future and to make sure our population lives in a safe place.

Thank you for allowing me to speak. I'm looking forward to seeing all the members of this House supporting this bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments.

Mr. John O'Toole: It's important to listen to the member from London—Fanshawe. He represents his riding and, I guess, the views of this bill. We've said consistently on this side that what the government has to do here first of all is to try to be consistent instead of just saying things that sound good and look good. Most of the things you hear are what the public is thinking. It's been road-tested. They probably polled it to see that this toxic waste strategy sounds good. But when you look deep below it, it really is a non-compliance piece of legislation. I'm suspicious at some of the wording with respect to the recourse of how enforcement officers can, without warrant, get on to property.

When I say "consistency," they've got to look at what is happening in other jurisdictions and specifically in Canadian jurisdictions. There should be a federal standard for toxic materials that could be imported or exported inter-provincially, either in vehicles moving from jurisdictions—so it's important to have a national standard. In fact the federal government, I think under Minister Tony Clement and previously under John Baird, spoke about it before. The Minister of Health and Minister of the Environment at the time were leading the way in Canada and maybe even in North America to come up with a solution and a strategy on toxic waste management.

Ontario—it's sort of like the Pesticides Act. Cosmetic pesticide now is having some problems because it's inconsistent with federal standards. I'm surprised, sometimes, when I hear the government saying all the things that sound good on the front page of the Toronto Star, but when you drill down or turn to page 9 or 10, into the detail, there's really nothing there.

I'm not at this point supportive of—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you.

Mr. Paul Miller: I too share my colleague's concern, working in an industry which created a lot of chemical by-products. This bill falls real short of what's really needed in this country. There are literally thousands of chemicals in Lake Ontario alone of which they don't even know the effect on humans in combination with other chemicals.

I remember years ago, when I was fighting a landfill in the city of Stoney Creek, there were a lot of toxins in there. They even accepted toxins from Michigan which the state of Michigan wouldn't even accept. They had lots of piles and piles of stuff that they couldn't get at because they were put in there and there were investigations.

First of all, what's needed: They don't have enough inspectors; they don't inspect the sites. There are chemicals they don't even know what the effects of are. We need a federal and provincial body to oversee chemicals and the reactions on humans in this province.

This bill is just what I like to call another public publicity fluff bill. We've already got WHMIS. We've already got health inspectors. We've already got scientists and chemical engineers looking at these things. I don't see any of that in here. This is simply another thing to please the public, with no substance. Frankly, this bill is really below par, to say the least.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Jeff Leal: I always enjoy the comments of my colleague from London—Fanshawe, representing London, which is noted as the city of trees. I think it's appropriate that a member from London would talk about Bill 167, the Toxics Reduction Act.

The member from London—Fanshawe is truly the Ontario Canadian success story. The family came from Lebanon many years ago and settled in London, Ontario. I know the member from London—Fanshawe, a successful business person, decided to take that expertise to come into public life, and it's evident when he talks about his passion for a bill to reduce toxins and their use in the province of Ontario.

Just last Saturday I had the opportunity to attend the Green Expo in Peterborough. Wendy Mesley was the guest speaker—we all know her from CBC news. One of the things that was interesting about that is that there were a lot of people at this trade show who were providing products one can use in everyday living to reduce the toxins from many products we normally would pick off the shelf and use in our homes on a day-to-day basis, or in manufacturing or other business settings. I just want to compliment Swish Chemical, headquartered in Peterborough.

The Ambler family started many years ago in a basement in downtown Peterborough and now is one of the leading manufacturers of non-toxic cleaning products throughout Ontario; indeed, they have operations in the United States.

When you look at this bill, the government of Ontario will be providing some $24 million to help Ontario's industries comply with the new rules, transform their processes, find green chemistry alternatives and reduce the use of toxins in their operations. What an economic opportunity to transform some of these existing manufacturers in Ontario, move them into the new green era and provide new job opportunities for people in Ontario

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member from Haldimand—Norfolk.

Mr. Toby Barrett: To follow up on the presentation by the member from London—Fanshawe, we do support industry publishing these plans; we support industry putting together these plans in the first place to report on what substances they are using. This is not voluntary; this is a mandatory requirement. This was the model that was put forward 20 years ago by the Massachusetts legislation, which we put forward five months before you guys did.

What we are concerned about is that we do know that the publishing of these plans and creating the plans is part of the program, but there is no mention of assistance to industry—manufacturing, forestry, mining—and particularly small business to implement some of the remedial measures that would obviously be identified in these plans; no mention of tax breaks, interest-free loans, grants or things like this. We know that the implementation of these plans is voluntary—this is what we're told by the minister—but there's no incentive for industry to go forward on that.

The other thing we question: This legislation has gotten out of date rapidly, not only because of the changing economy, but also because of the tremendous work the federal has been doing in pulling together their lists identifying the high-priority, high-risk toxics that are the real danger. Sure, we can deal with all 23,000 identified substances within our industrial processes, but at some point we have to focus on the dangerous ones.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Member for London—Fanshawe, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I thank all the members who spoke for or against my comments. I want to tell the member from Durham that I agree with him: The federal government should come to the table. We have the Port Stanley site, and many people complain about it. We submitted a lot of applications operated by the federal govrnment, and the federal government so far didn't respond. This place would affect our water supply in the whole region.

Also, to the member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, we've started; we're not just waiting till this bill is fully passed in order to start to clean up the province of Ontario. I want to thank the Minister of the Environment for investing more than $64 million in my riding, London—Fanshawe, to decommission and clean up the Westinghouse site of PCBs. I think we are investing money and trying our best to clean up, and not just waiting for this bill to pass.

I want to thank the member from Peterborough for his comments and also for his commitment to a cleaner Ontario and to cleaning this beautiful province to make it fit for all people, especially future generations.

To the member for Haldimand—Norfolk: I agree with you. There has been continuous effort by many different governments in the past. We're not saying we are the best; we're not saying we are the only government of this province to embark on this project. But we said loudly and clearly that it's our obligation and duty.

Because this province has the highest levels of toxic waste in Canada and North America, it is our obligation and duty to start doing something to clean it up; to create some standards and targets; to notify the companies, factories and industries that want to operate in this province that they must comply with our conditions, label all their products, clean up their act and deal with it in a professional manner.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate.

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: I rise in the House today to share my constituents' concerns and opinions regarding Bill 167, the Toxics Reduction Act, 2009.

Our caucus is aware, and very supportive, of the need for a concerted effort that will reduce the impact of toxins on our citizens and also on our environment. We look forward to working, through this proposed legislation, toward an effective plan that will see the government and business work together to reduce toxins in our province.

It is important that we are mindful and diligent, wherever possible, to replace and eliminate the use of toxic substances and their related health and environmental hazards.

As in the case of the pesticide ban, we are seeing government decisions, legislation and regulations based on emotions and concern, as opposed to fact and science.

This legislation creates unnecessary duplication. The federal government has already developed what many consider to be a world-class chemical management plan or CMP. The CMP is governed by the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the CEPA, and has a well-known approach to deciding which chemicals need to be assessed and a rapid and aggressive timetable for doing those assessments and developing regulations as required.

Adhering to the federal CMP would ensure that the identification of toxics for potential reduction is based on sound science and risk-based process, while avoiding regulatory duplication and minimizing additional costs—money we don't have anyway.

In the process of following this provincial direction, we are duplicating work, and we're duplicating costs that would be more effectively utilized in other areas to deliver our toxic reduction goals.

Bill 167 should not be about growing the bureaucracy or creating additional unnecessary regulatory burdens on business. If this is just another form that leads to nowhere, Minister, let me tell you, our businesses are full up.

This bill fails to define what "toxic" means. Instead, it leaves that definition up to regulation. The public doesn't even know what you're talking about when you say "toxic."

The devil is always in the details. When the meat of the bill is determined in the regulatory phase, the resulting legislation becomes undemocratic. It's undemocratic because the substance of the bill will not be passed through the debate process, in front of the public, in the Legislature; and the government has a blank paper from which to draft rules and regulations that nobody has a chance to comment on or influence or change.

Finally, there is some debate today about the success of the Massachusetts TURA. Some attribute reduction in toxin use to businesses actually leaving the state as a direct result of the extra regulatory burden associated with that act.

We should also be mindful of the impact that the proposed inclusion of mining under this legislation will have on the mining sector as a whole.

While the results of the Massachusetts legislation model, upon which this bill is based, are well-known and tangible, the impact on mining is largely unknown, given the lack of mining opportunity in Massachusetts.

The McGuinty toxics legislation borrows heavily from our April 27 PC pre-election announcement, and it was called the "Made-in-Ontario plan to reduce toxins." We believe in a toxics reduction plan that uses both carrots and sticks to reduce and eliminate contaminants by:

—working in harmony with the federal government to utilize the federal list of toxic substances—the work has been done, Minister;

—requiring Ontario businesses that use a restricted chemical on the federal list to disclose the use of that chemical to the public;

—requiring businesses to prepare a plan evaluating all of their options for reducing or eliminating the use of these toxins;

—providing incentives for those to adopt their plans and reduce the use of these chemicals by establishing a toxin reduction fund, and through measures such as targeted tax measures;

—sharing best practices to help small businesses learn from others; and

—finally, while we agree on many of the goals of the plan, the timing of the introduction is questionable, given the current economic conditions in which business and industry find themselves.

The increased cost of doing business that this legislation will engender creates an even greater burden on reeling industry already being forced to cut their workforce or pull up stakes for more business-friendly environments like the western provinces.

I felt it was important to take this opportunity to speak to Bill 167 as a result of the Liberal government's perpetual disregard for stakeholders and the opinions of those who elected them in the first place. My constituents have given very well-thought-out positions on Bill 167. It may take some time, but I wish to read their entire correspondence into the record, as they deserve to be heard. One very concerned constituent writes:

"I am pleased the government is taking the first step towards reducing toxic chemicals in Ontario. As your constituent, I am concerned about toxic chemicals being used and released where I live, work and play. However, there are gaps that need to be filled in order to ensure the Toxics Reduction Act protects the health of Ontarians while moving towards a green economy.

"To ensure this legislation will integrate the best in health protection with a concern for a sustainable economy, a clean environment and good jobs, the following five recommendations need to be included in Bill 167," my constituent suggests to the minister.

"Reduce the release of toxic chemicals in places where people live, work and play by 50% within five years in Ontario to protect the public health. Bill 167 does not include numerical goals or targets for reducing toxic chemicals in Ontario.

"Replace toxic chemicals where safer alternatives exist. Bill 167 should make substitution a requirement where safer alternatives exist." It's silent on these things.

"Restrict the use of toxic chemicals that are still in use through guidance from the Ontario Toxic Use Reduction Institute," an institute that "was an important component to the success of Massachusetts's TUR legislation and is currently not part of the proposed legislation.

"Report annually"—this is a no-brainer—"on progress and monitor emissions, holding industry accountable to reduce their use of toxic substances through the development and enforcement of new regulations; setting targets and the development of an institute will help hold industry accountable by the government and" also by "the public." Let's not forget: We're doing this for the public.

"Reveal to all Ontarians the toxic chemicals in their workplace, communities and homes through an identifiable product label or symbol and access to a public database;

"Bill 167 should include a component for product labelling.

"I believe there should be a strong focus on community right to know because with more information about the toxic substances we are being exposed to, Ontarians can make better decisions about their health and the health of their families.

"The above recommendations are also supported by the Canadian Cancer Society, Canadian Environmental Law Association, Ontario Public Health Association, United Steelworkers, Toronto Cancer Prevention Coalition, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, Ontario College of Family Physicians, Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario, Ontario Lung Association, Prevent Cancer Now and Women's Healthy Environments Network." These are substantial organizations.

"How can you help ensure this legislation protects Ontarians?" says my constituent. "Also, as there are multiple amendments that need to be made to Bill 167 we recommend the Toxics Reduction Act be referred to a standing committee for further debate."

I hope the minister is listening carefully. The citizens of the province of Ontario are well up on this issue, and they are demanding the right to participate in a democratic process and share their recommendations and concerns with our Legislature on Bill 167. The meat of this bill is yet again in regulation, where it can be easily changed outside the scrutiny of this Legislature and outside the scrutiny of the public.

Again we see this government giving public and private citizens the powers of police. This bill not only provides for more provincial officers, but it gives them the authority to enter a premises without a warrant, the right to use force and the powers of police. What are we doing? Is this not the third time

an act is proposing something like this just in the short time this Legislature has been sitting? This Liberal government is taking liberties with our liberties, and it is unacceptable. My caucus colleagues and I will not sit quietly as this Liberal government continues to infringe on private rights.

I look forward to the opportunity to refer my constituents to the Clerk's office in order that they can have their democratic right and be able to speak to Bill 167.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: I'm very pleased to enter the debate on Bill 167. I did want to make comments on the member from Burlington. I've got to say—I probably shouldn't say it, but I just have to say it—when I hear comments like "Working in harmony with the federal government," I think about some of the things that we have done with the federal government and how much we are working hand in hand, understanding the economy, with stimulus and the harmonization of taxation—and I might add that that side of the House is repeatedly opposed to everything that is coming from the federal government as well as from our government. I did have to enter that into the record.

But more specifically, we understand that there has to be public input into it, and our track record speaks to that. Unlike the members from across the way, who did not support the committee system and going out and hearing from the people, that's something that this side of the House strongly supports. We have repeatedly gone out and brought our proposed legislation under public scrutiny time and time again and have made adjustments, and certainly the people can look to amendments that are made. By listening to the people, it's a stronger piece of legislation.

But let's talk about specifically the toxic reduction and what that means for our business community. The business community understands about mitigating risks and what they can do within their own business plans, and how going forward is so important. They know that by doing that we talk about reduction in insurance costs; we talk about reduction in man-hours dedicated to that.

Mr. Speaker, I will have another opportunity to speak to this, and I thank you.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): questions and comments?

Mr. Toby Barrett: I appreciated the presentation by the member from Burlington. She commenced her presentation talking about the importance, the necessity of having an effective plan, not only a plan from this government—and we know they're asking industry to provide plans, and we agree with that. But it has to be based on sound science and it has to be risk-based.

The member from Burlington highlighted again the concerns that we have with the unnecessary duplication with the federal government, the unnecessary duplication with respect to the work that the federal government is doing, especially in more recent years, and the unnecessary duplication of the taxpayer cost with respect to what the federal government is already doing with respect to toxics. The member for Burlington reiterated how important it is to work with the federal government and work with that federal toxics list that has been developed.

I know a member opposite indicated how this McGuinty government is working in harmony with the federal government and made mention of the harmonization of sales taxes, PST and GST. I don't know whether she talks about that very much in her home riding or whether she is doing much to publicize the 13% BST, the McGuinty combined sales and federal tax that people will be required to pay. We'll hear more about that in the next budget because, like a lot of things, it doesn't come along until the next budget.

The member from Burlington makes very clear the messages from her constituents. Many people don't understand what's being discussed here. Toxics aren't defined.

Mr. Paul Miller: I find the comments from the member from Huron—Bruce very interesting. I recall in the 1990s that I was fighting a landfill in the city of Stoney Creek. We had a citizen liaison committee that was supposed to get input from the community to the company, to the ministry. Well, isn't this interesting? The company decided they were getting too much pressure. We also found that they were bringing toxins in from Michigan. There were all kinds of violations going on and not enough inspections. We kept after the ministry; it fell on deaf ears.

Then the company decided to dispose of the citizen liaison committee and appoint their own puppet committee, which they did. We protested to the ministry; it fell on deaf ears and it continues to fall on deaf ears. It's still in the legal situation being addressed about reissuing the original CLC, which I was a member of, sitting for the city of Stoney Creek.

This ministry and the past ministries do not listen to the people. There are hundreds of reports in there that have not been addressed, handled poorly. They used to get a thousand trucks a week in there, and there would be one inspector for one or two trucks a week on a thousand. There is still stuff in that landfill above a city of hundreds of thousands of people. There have been leaks, there are things going on there that—they were supposed to put in a pumping station; they were supposed to put in an on-site treatment plant. They didn't do it. It was all show, all talk, and the ministry did absolutely nothing.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Hon. John Gerretsen: Let me first of all say I understand, having sat on the other side of the House, that when you're in opposition, you always have to, to some extent, criticize and try to make better a law that's being presented. So we look forward to working with the members of the opposition to actually strengthen this law.

But there have been a number of comments made, particularly by the critic for the official opposition, which I think need to be addressed at this point in time. He made the comment yesterday that he spoke to the Massachusetts Chemistry and Technology Alliance, which is a lobby group for the chemical industry in Massachusetts which basically said that nothing had changed at all. Well, I invite him to take a look at the actual report that was issued by the toxics use reduction committee in Massachusetts.

In their covering letter, which is dated May 25 of last year, to Governor Patrick of Massachusetts, in which the program and the body that has been set up under the act clearly states—and I'll just read this to you, the following:

"As a result" of the act having been passed some 20 years ago, "Massachusetts businesses now are using less toxic materials, employing more efficient production processes and conserving energy, water and other resources as never before." It goes on to say that "the program has helped the state's largest toxics users reduce use by 40%, waste by 71% and on-site releases of toxic chemicals by 91%." That has been the experience in Massachusetts. That's the kind of experience we want to bring here.

On the one hand, they're saying, "We would have passed a bill if we'd been in government." We are passing that bill right now. We are going to place our emphasis on the 45 most toxic materials and the 20 most carcinogenic materials that are around right now. Yes, they're being reported on federally, but there has been no planning requirement. That's what this act is intended to do, and Ontario will be the better for it.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Member for Burlington, you have two minutes to respond.

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: I would like to thank the members from Huron—Bruce, Haldimand—Norfolk, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek and the minister himself.

Who would oppose

an act creating a safer environment and encouraging chemical producers to act in a way that safeguards the public, which I think they do to a great extent today? First, I think what has to happen when you create

an act about toxics is, you have to define what toxics are. What are we talking about? That isn't going to happen until after it comes out of public scrutiny and debate in this House. I don't think that's fair to the public.

Riding on the coattails of the feds isn't a bad idea either because there have been some very good ideas that have come from the feds. But what this government seems to be doing is not building on that strong foundation but duplicating what has happened in the federal government. That's going to add costs, and my concern is, it's going to add confusion for the public about who's in charge of what.

I think that what we must focus on here is the science and the actual facts, and I don't see that happening in what we have read in Bill 167. Again, to leave any of that to regulation takes it away from the democratic debate in the House, and it sure takes it away from the people who voted for us to be here. They want to have their say, Minister, and they're not going to be able to because they don't have the information to base that on. I am really concerned that we are moving away from a democratic process. I encourage the minister to make this a democratic process and let the public have their say, with all the information they need to do so.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate?

Mr. Paul Miller: I must admit that I'm a little frustrated with the comments that have been going on here. I have carried the ball for the environment for a long time with other citizens in Stoney Creek, and I'll tell you, it has fallen short many times, dealing with the ministry and the companies.

Setting that aside, I'll get into the body of my notes. I'm pleased to rise today to talk about an issue which is fundamental to the health and well-being of Ontarians. The issue of toxics and the need for a tough toxic reduction strategy cannot be emphasized strongly enough. But is it enforced? Do they follow through, or is it just talk?

Across Canada, over 23,000 chemicals and substances are used in manufacturing the products we use every single day of our lives. These toxics, when combined with other chemicals—there are hundreds in our Great Lakes and other hazardous landfills—they have no idea what impact they have on the water tables and human population—and animals, for that matter. It's remarkable, the level of cancer in our province. In products such as building materials, toys, cars, food, medicine and entertainment products, we encounter chemical compounds used in the production industry every day of our lives.

Although these chemical substances proliferate, we know relatively little about them and their effect on human beings. Little data exists regarding their impact on human or environmental health. However, increasingly emerging research is starting to paint a concerning picture of the relationship between these toxins and the health outcomes of populations and the environment.

A 2006 study examined human tissue samples in a number of Ontarian families. The results found 46 industrial chemicals in the bodies of these people, chemicals like heavy metals, pesticides, PCBs and Teflon-related products. We also know that cancer, asthma, infertility, learning problems and birth defects are all being increaseingly linked to our exposure to toxic chemicals. In the Hamilton area, where I'm from, we had what they call cancer clusters. They showed up in industrial areas and around landfill sites—higher percentages in residential areas. That's got to tell you something.

Especially when it comes to health of our children, there is increased evidence for the need to take action. What I mean by action is not just to talk about it; it's to put inspectors in the field and remove toxins and protect the environment and the people. I can't see that happening overnight, and it sure isn't happening fast enough.

The Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario, in their 2007 submission to the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly regarding the Community Right to Know Act, stated: "Large margins of safety must be built in to accommodate for the much greater vulnerability of children to toxins, as they: are exposed to more toxins per body weight, absorb ingested substances differently, have developed fewer protections against toxins, face additional risks while undergoing development, face higher exposures due to activity and behaviour and have much longer to develop disease from toxins. In the case of toxins, a precautionary approach is appropriate."

As we are debating this bill, as we are evaluating whether it will fulfill its set purpose of improving the health of Ontarians and the environment, in this high standard, it is the health of our children which should be our greatest concern.

I spent over 30 years in a steel mill. I've been exposed to every toxin known to man. We used to knock asbestos off pipes like it was confetti, not knowing the effect of asbestosis. We were exposed to light oil products and by-products. As tradesmen, we used to wash our tools in benzene, which we now know causes several cancer diseases, especially leukemia. We had WHMIS programs at that time that didn't go far enough, and rarely saw a government inspector unless we phoned in a complaint. When they did come in, in most cases they ruled on the side of the company.

I really have grave concerns about the enforcement of this bill—boy. We know that every day, the research making the connection between toxic chemicals and health outcomes just grows and grows. As we learn more about the complex interaction of lifetime exposure to chemical compounds and our biology, the interplay of genes and the environment, it is the precautionary principle that must take precedence.

Prior to this election, the Premier was quoted on Toxic Nation, an Environmental Defence website, commenting on the need for this kind of legislation: a welcome comment, but how fast have they moved, how fast are they going to move, and will they enforce it? Mr. McGuinty comments on the need for "a tough new toxic reduction law and a carcinogen reduction strategy." He calls for a plan that puts Ontario at the forefront in North America on tackling these issues. I agree with him. Will it happen soon enough? Should it have happened 35 years ago? I think so. Did it? I don't think so.

Yet today, Bill 167 does not deliver on his promise. Sadly, the bill before us today fails to live up to the recommendations of the minister's Toxic Reduction Scientific Expert Panel—the people who know—and the expert opinion of groups like the Canadian Environmental Law Association. Over the years, I've had many discussions with scientists at Mac, especially Dr. Sorger, and if the general public really knew the height of things going on in our water systems and our ground systems, it would be extremely alarming.

Current toxic situations in Ontario: In North America, Ontario is second only to Texas, one of the biggest oil-producing states in America, in the tonnes of toxic chemicals being released into the air, water and going into landfill sites. You can bury it, but it won't go away. It gets into your water tables, if the so-called liners in the landfill break. They told me when the Taro landfill was built that those liners would last for 300 years. I had specialists—a package showed up at my desk from environmentalists in New Jersey, with no return address.

I brought it in front of council at the time, I brought it in front of the liaison committee, and everything they had guaranteed was about one tenth of what really would happen. Even this plastic liner they were putting in the landfill was supposed to last 300 years—not. Even animals and growth could break through this liner. The "expert" that they brought in from Calgary and the States had to admit it to them, because I confronted him at council and said, "Can these things happen?

Yes or no?" He looked at the company, he looked at me, he looked at the mayor and said—remember, this is in front of the public—"The councillor is right, it can happen." Whoops. There go all the safeguards again.

This bill fails to live up to the expectations of environmentalists and the 90% of Ontarians who are concerned about this issue. The current toxics situation in Ontario—this is a shocking fact, and one that should underscore the need for a strong toxics reduction plan for this province—is not only that our level of emissions is high, it is also the kinds of toxins being released that are of great concern. Ontario's use of cancer-causing reproductive toxins is higher than in jurisdictions with similar emission levels.

In 2004, Ontario released three million kilograms of known or suspected carcinogens into the province's air, including trichloroethylene, ethylbenzene, styrene and formaldehyde—nasty stuff, all cancer-causing. This leaves Ontario as the fourth-highest emitter of carcinogenic chemicals in North America.

When it comes to reproductive toxins, Ontario ranks even worse. We are the second-highest emitter of reproductive toxins, second only to the state of Tennessee—and believe me, they don't have a lot of protection laws in Tennessee—releasing more than four million kilograms into the air in 2004. Ontario's industries account for 36% of total Canadian discharges of reportable chem.icals into the air and 50% of the discharges into our water.

Is it good that today we have an opportunity to take a step forward? We have an opportunity to protect the health of future generations, a chance to lower what is constantly rising: our cancer rate. But the question remains, will the opportunity before us today be fully realized? The reality is, as the bill is currently written, it is filled with holes and inadequacies. Bill 167 lacks the teeth necessary and fails to even define some of the most central objectives it purports to accomplish.

New Democrats strongly support government action when it comes to protecting the health of our environment and the health of Ontarians. We need a toxics reduction bill that has the strength needed to protect Ontarians. We are very concerned that this bill represents a wholly inadequate response to one of the most pressing and serious issues facing our generation and future generations. I'm sure we all want our grandkids to be safe.

I want to take some time outlining the failings of Bill 167 and contrasting the gaps to the suggestions offered by groups such as the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the Registered Nurses' Association and the minister's Toxic Reduction Scientific Expert Panel. I want to provide some context about the successes of other jurisdictions with similar bills and how Ontario's version is currently falling short.

New Democrats are enormously concerned about the bare bones nature of this bill. This bill provides a skeletal framework and fails to define the central aspects of the bill, including which facilities and toxic substances are to be regulated and the time period of implementation. These aspects are left to regulation to be defined at a later date. At a later date: We've been saying that for 45 years. These are not minor details. They are not issues which require more research. The ministry has been researching the issue for a year and has received exact and expert advice from leaders in their fields. So why has the government chosen to leave so much off the table?

Given the fact that there is so much absent in this bill, it makes it awfully hard to offer solid critique on the specific oversights and to suggest changes. The fact that the government has chosen to leave so much undefined is very concerning. The fact that the government has chosen to leave so much undefined is very concerning. The fact that they are playing politics rather than dedicating their energy to creating the toughest legislation possible is a great disappointment to Ontarians.

We are looking forward from the assumption that many of the regulations will follow the content procedure is worked out in the MOE's 2008 discussion paper. We would, of course, like to be basing our analysis on the content of the bill, but this government has made that impossible. However, we have much to say when it comes to what is concretely stated in the bill as well.

Starting from the very beginning of the bill, New Democrats are concerned with its stated purpose. Bill 167 reads, "The purposes of the bill are to prevent pollution and protect human health and the environment by reducing the use and creation of toxic substances, and to inform Ontarians about toxic substances."

The Canadian Environmental Law Association, a public interest group whose purpose is to use and improve laws to protect the public health and the environment, provided the Ministry of the Environment with a model bill during the MOE's consultation period on this issue. The model bill that CELA drafted provides stark contrast to what we're seeing today.

In this model bill, a multi-pronged and significantly expanded purpose

section can be found. This purpose of the bill reads:

"

(1) Protect human health and the environment by reducing the use of toxic substances;

"

(2) Promote the use of safer alternatives to such substances;

"

(3) Recognize the public's right to know the identity and amounts of toxic substances in their community from various facilities; and

"

(4) Apply the precautionary principle and principles of sustainable development to these issues."

Of these four principles, only the first one is included in Bill 167. The failures for Bill 167 start at the very beginning and unfortunately characterize what we find throughout this entire bill.

Targets: Bill 167 set no targets for toxic reductions and benchmarks regarding the success of this initiative. In the ministry-created minister's Toxic Reduction Scientific Expert Panel, the recommendation for targets is made twice.

On July 23, 2008, in a memorandum to the environment minister, the expert panel states, "Ontario's pollution prevention legislation should ... include clear, viable and progressive goals (i.e. a percentage reduction in toxics use and release in the province within a specified period of time); the statute should include renewable toxics reduction targets, and a mechanism for monitoring and public reporting on achievement of these targets. The panel notes that goals are not set in the current discussion paper and program."

Ontario's failure to create a set of targets for toxics reduction contravenes the most successful of toxic reductions legislation, like that in Massachusetts. By failing to create targets, Bill 167 is also ignoring the advice of CELA which recommended a 50% reduction of releases and a 20% reduction in use within five years of the first mandated reporting period. It's not there.

Sectors affected by the bill: No particular sectors are defined in Bill 167. If we are to assume that the MOE's 2008 discussion paper will form the basis for content, this is quite concerning. The MOE's discussion paper identified two sectors to be affected by a toxin reduction bill: manufacturing and mineral processing. Wow; that's interesting. Where's the chemical business here? I don't see it. That is all. Absent are waste water treatment plants and energy generating plants, some of the highest emitters of toxic substances.

There's some terrible reasoning in restricting two sectors rather than aiming a toxin reduction strategy at any—I repeat, any—facility that is endangering the health of Ontarians through the release of reportable substances. Other jurisdictions have done better and so should Ontario.

The fact of the matter is that with only two sectors likely to be included in this bill, Ontarians could continue to face many risks from hazardous substances. Bill 167 should be amended to include at minimum all sectors that report to the federal National Pollutant Release Inventory: manufacturing; mining; forestry; electrical utilities; hazardous waste treatment plants; landfills; insolvent recovery facilities; chemical wholesalers; petroleum bulk terminals; as well as the oil and gas sectors; sewage treatment plants; and incinerators. Boy, that's a long list of things that were left off.

Legislating mandatory reporting when it comes to these sectors would stand a chance of making a significant and helpful impact on toxin reductions in Ontario. Again, if we are to assume that the substances to be regulated will follow the MOE's discussion paper, New Democrats have their concerns. I'm glad to see that the minister is trying to listen, but he's being distracted.

In this discussion paper there are four categories of toxins divided into four schedules. Currently, the federal National Pollutant Release Inventory requires reporting on the pollutant releases, disposals and transfers of 320 substances of concern. The first

schedule contains 45 National Pollutant Release Inventory chemicals that have been identified as priority toxins. This first

schedule is set to become the first phase-in of Bill 167, with requirements for materials accounting, toxin reduction planning and reporting by 2010 or 2012.

The first phase would include

schedule 3. However,

schedule 3 would only be subject to reporting and not include a mandate for a toxin reduction planning strategy, a big omission. Included in

schedule 3 are 20 priority non-NPRI toxins; however, the action on these so-called priority toxins is weak at best.

The second

schedule contains an additional 275 substances, and this would maybe be phased in by 2014—maybe phased in by 2014—or 2016. These 270 substances make up the rest of the chemicals that must be reported by the NPRI.

I can't emphasize enough how many toxins are in our Great Lakes, and it's not just the toxins that are put in singularly, it's when they combine with other toxins and the effect that has on people. Our scientists have only just touched on it. There are thousands of combinations of chemicals where they don't even know what effect they has on humans.

Looks like I'm running down on time. All I can say is, I could go on for quite a long time.

I must say that I think the government genuinely wants to try, but I genuinely believe they're falling short. I don't believe they can enforce it. I don't think they've put down enough fines on companies that dump in our province. I think that they don't listen to the public, and I can verify that with my experiences with the CLC committee in the city of Stoney Creek. Who in their right mind would have put a landfill above a city of 500,000 people on fractured bedrock? I'm sorry, beep beep runs downhill. So why they would do that—and they have these so-called liners and so-called precautionary things.

They didn't even follow through on a plant that was supposed to treat the stuff right on there before it got down to the Woodward plant, which is 45 years old and can't treat it anyways—and then dump it into the lake so we can all drink it.

I'm telling you right now: They've got a long way to go and this bill doesn't cut it.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: I'm very pleased to rise and make a few comments this morning about Bill 167, the Toxics Reduction Act.

Firstly, I would like to applaud the Minister of the Environment. He is bringing forward a bill that is bold and it is necessary, and I appreciate that very much.

This government is moving ahead to bring in tough new toxics reduction legislation to make sure that we are reducing toxic emissions. If I could, Mr. Speaker, just to indulge me for a second: In Hamilton we have a lot of environmentalists, and one of the events that they put on this past weekend was called the ECO Film and Arts Festival. I had the opportunity to get up and speak about the ban on pesticides, and after that we watched a brilliant film called Silent Spring, from Rachel Carson. I just want to congratulate both Francesca Trifone and Leisha Dawson for their great organization of that event.

I also wanted to say, in regard to my colleague from Hamilton—Stoney Creek, that we are colleagues from the same place and most of the time I agree with him, but today I don't because he said a lot of things that I don't agree with. He talks about a party that cares about the environment. If this party cares about the environment, Mr. Speaker, I ask you a couple of questions: First, why did they vote against the Clean Water Act? Why did they cancel energy conservation programs and vote against them? Why did they vote against the cosmetic pesticides? Why did they cut the budget of the Ministry of the Environment? Why did they pledge zero emissions for toxic chemicals, but they never did it?

This is a good bill. I completely agree with it—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you. Questions and comments?

Mr. John O'Toole: I did listen the member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek because he does bring a great deal of industrial experience to it, both working for the side of safety in the workplace, as well as practical experience in an industrial setting. I think that's important—some of the points he brings up. It's important, if the government's intention is to make Ontario safer, greener and cleaner, that they should actually have some kind of leverage in the legislation now.

There are a couple of provisions, as I said before, that we're suspicious of, and one is that warrantless entry provision that's in the bill. If I look at the sections of bill that deal with that—section 42, and it's going on to 44, 45. There are some sections—for instance, if you look at the

section on fines, if there's non-compliance, there are significant fines in this thing. A first conviction is $25,000 per day. Fines for what? If these are in compliance with reporting—if it is about completing the paperwork, that is inappropriate. I think it should be working with industry to bring them into the new standards. I don't see that vision. If you want to have paperwork and documents, what you should be doing is looking to the federal government and saying, "Okay, let's have one form for this kind of offence"—a violation, an investigation.

Let's have consistency in it. Let's not invent a whole bunch of new red tape and paperwork that really pollutes the environment in a totally different way.

I think that the government has a good idea, and I don't think that they're executing it very well. That is really the way I've drawn the line here. I've looked at it. I consulted this morning with a couple of industries in my riding that deal with this on an ongoing basis. They want consistency. They want standards that are enforceable and consistent, especially when you look at interjurisdictional issues and the trucking of this kind of waste.

It's a good idea poorly executed. That's the final mark.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Hon. John Gerretsen: Let me first of all comment on the statements by the member from Hamilton East. I'm sure that he's very concerned about the environment, and he has probably lived all of the environmental degradation that has been happening over the last 35 years, particularly in a place like Hamilton, where we know they've got some very serious issues. I commend him for his attitude, as I commend the member from Hamilton Mountain, who feels just as passionate about the environmental issues not only in Hamilton but throughout the province of Ontario.

What this bill is really all about—it's not about duplication. A lot of these substances are already reported on federally. We want the companies to go one step further. We don't just want them to report the different substances that they're using. We want them to develop plans so that over time they can, in a voluntary fashion, reduce the amount of toxic materials that they're using. That has been the experience, as I indicated earlier, in Massachusetts.

Now, the NDP will say, "Well, make it mandatory." The problem is, if you tell companies to implement their plans in a mandatory fashion, what is that going to do to their plans? I can tell you right now that it's going to reduce their plans significantly. We would much prefer that companies come up with the most aggressive plans of reduction and then implement them on a voluntary basis, rather than make them do it when their plans, in effect, will be a lot weaker. That has been the experience in Massachusetts.

We took the advice, by the way, of Dr. Ken Geiser, who was a member of our expert panel, who was one of the authors of the Massachusetts toxics reduction act. He makes the comment that we should have started 35 years ago.

There is no question about it: This is a significant step in the right direction to take more toxic materials out of our environment, which is to the good of everyone.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Julia Munro: I just want to comment on the speech given to us by the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. Recognition of the importance of this initiative is something we all agree with. I think that the problems we have are in the implementation.

The minister and others, as well as the member, have made comments with regard to the role of the federal government. I think that it's very clear that the federal government has provided us with leadership on this. My concern with this bill is that the introduction of a great deal of red tape and a great deal of duplication of the general direction taken by the federal government is going to make further complications for people within the province because of the fact that, as the member from Durham mentioned, much of this commerce that comes from this is interjurisdictional.

So I think that that also has to be considered when you're looking at a bill such as this. On the question of expert advice, obviously the government, in its pesticide bill, ignored its own experts. So naturally, amongst those in opposition there's a bit of concern on the track record of the government in introducing bills such as this. It would appear to be one of those things that looks good on paper and not so good in implementation.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. Paul Miller: I'd like to thank my colleagues for their input—the member from Hamilton Mountain, the minister and the member from Durham. Obviously, from an ideological position, we are totally on separate ground. I appreciate the Liberal minister's comments on my 35 years in the steel industry. It did definitely open my eyes, and hopefully one of those toxins doesn't do me in in the next 10 years. There is a 25-year latency period, so I'm hoping one of them doesn't get me, but it may.

They believe that they're doing the right thing and I believe it is a start, but it doesn't go far enough. We've had many years of experience, through union safety and health organizations and many other scientists and other organizations, that have made it quite clear we've got to go a lot further. This bill falls short of those targets. Yes, I agree with the minister: It is a start.

It's probably one of the jurisdictions that is taking a healthy look at it—no pun intended—but I really believe that it should've had more input from opposition parties and people I know in the industry who could have brought a lot to the table. Once again, a bill is being rammed through without enough public consultation. You can go to the experts, and some of the experts may be even working for the companies they're representing, which is a little disconcerting, to say the least. I can say that in my case, in the Taro landfill, the company brought in experts who actually were working for the company.

So I'm not quite sure you get both sides of the fence on that one. It remains to be seen where this is going to go.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 8, this House is recessed until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1018 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I'd like to introduce three distinguished gentlemen in the west members' gallery to this House: Dr. Owen Slingerland, the former medical officer of health for York region and my predecessor in that role; Alan Wells, former chief administrative officer for York region and current chair of the Rouge Park Alliance, who had the difficult task of being my boss for 10 years; and Hershel Weinberg, the former commissioner of planning for York region and my husband.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I am pleased to welcome to the House, in the members' gallery, Paul Ankrett. He's going to view proceedings today. He will be job shadowing Amy Swanson in my office for today. We look forward and welcome him to Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Mr. Kim Craitor: I'm quite honoured to introduce some special guests here at Queen's Park today. First, I'd like to introduce the mayor of Fort Erie, Doug Martin—I thank Doug for coming up here. As well, the former mayor of Fort Erie, John Teal, is with us today. Finally, the mayor of Port Colborne, Vance Badawey, is here as well.

I thank them for coming up with many of their people from their riding regarding their health care concerns.

Mr. Norm Miller: I'm pleased to welcome Dick Smith, the mayor of Magnetawan, who is at Queen's Park today in the west members' gallery. He is down here concerned about the possible closure of the Burk's Falls health centre, along with a busload that will be arriving shortly.

Mr. Paul Miller: I'd like to welcome several young women from Glendale Secondary School, Green Acres elementary school and Delta Secondary School in my riding, who are at the Legislative Assembly to participate in the Equal Voice project.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I'd like to welcome—I think he's making his way to the gallery—Jason Corbett, my former assistant in my constituency office who now works at One Kids Place, our fabulous children's treatment centre in North Bay.

Hon. Gerry Phillips: I want to introduce seven students from a school—Mary Ward—in my constituency. They too are participating in the Equal Voice experience. This is a non-partisan organization that's dedicated to getting more women elected to office in this country, and I hope they have a positive experience here today.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I'd like to welcome Colonel Ribeiro da Silva and his spouse, as well as Mr. Henrique Santos and Dr. Manuel Tomas Ferreira, who are here joining us in the Legislature.

Mr. John O'Toole: I'm very pleased to introduce a constituent of mine who's a hard-working, professional person: Randy Arsenault, from the riding of Durham. Welcome, Randy.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I'd like to introduce David Ungar and Sara Hall from Parry Sound—Muskoka, who are here about the arts in Ontario.

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: I'd like to welcome in the gallery my friend Bob Redford.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I'd like to welcome the teachers and students from Westdale high school in my riding, who are here as part of the Equal Voice project today as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the member for Bramalea—Gore—Malton and page Zachary Crichton, I'd like to welcome his mother, Theresa, his dad, Bill, and his sister Mackenzie sitting in the members' gallery today.

On behalf of the member for Parkdale—High Park and page Lara Watson, I'd like to welcome her mother Natalie, her father Randy, her sister Leah and her grandmother Catherine Pilcow, sitting in the west members' gallery.

There being no further introductions, it is now time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONTROL

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is to the Premier. There's a saying that goes something like, "In order to react best, you need to be prepared for the worst." Dr. Donald Low is a highly respected infectious disease specialist at Mount Sinai. He's quoted today regarding swine flu, saying that it's "too late to contain the disease, and efforts have turned to mitigating the damage."

There is a protest taking place at the Legislature today with people from communities across Ontario who are concerned about cuts to local health services and staff, and the fact that facilities are at unmanageable capacity, facilities that now may be faced with the impacts of swine flu. Premier, what are you doing to ensure that you are prepared to meet the challenges that Dr. Low says are inevitable?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: One of the things that we continue to do, I say to my honourable colleague, is that we continue to increase our levels of funding for health care in Ontario. Notwithstanding the fact that inflation went up by about 11% since we first formed the government, we've increased funding for health care by about 45%. In this particular budget, notwithstanding the fact that we anticipate that the economy will shrink by 2.5%, we are increasing funding for health care by 4.7%.

It has been said that a budget is more than just a financial statement; it is a statement of our values. I think we are clearly demonstrating, through our budget, that we highly value health care for our families in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I remind the Premier that the former Conservative government increased health care spending by 60%, and he was highly critical.

The public accounts committee, in its February report on outbreak preparedness, asked the Minister of Health to report back on the number of public health units that have completed plans for establishing temporary influenza assessment treatment and referral centres. These flu centres are to be used by Ontarians when they think they may have flu symptoms and either they don't have a family doctor or their doctors' offices are overwhelmed. Premier, can you provide an update how many of the province's 36 local health units have currently developed plans for establishing flu centres?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know that all of our public health units have plans in place to deal with these kinds of issues. I know as well that we have increased funding for public health care since 2003. We nearly tripled it; it has gone from $233 million in 2003-04 to $680 million in 2008-09.

I think that we were all jolted into taking some really important steps forward because of the SARS experience. We have learned much from that. We have invested heavily in new resources, we have more expertise and we have a solid plan in place, and I want to commend all of our health care personnel, led by our public health officials, for the way that they're reacting calmly and efficiently to the swine flu.

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I asked a specific question about flu centres, and if the Premier can't answer it, he should refer it to the minister instead of more political rhetoric.

We're hearing this week that we're going to see the first surge of migrant workers coming into Ontario—15,000 of them arriving to work on farms and in other sectors. Many of them will be in smaller and rural communities such as Leamington.

The president of the Ontario Nurses' Association has said that residents of Leamington and the surrounding area will suffer from cuts to nursing: "Any ideas that management may have of simply shipping patients to Windsor for care simply won't work—Windsor hospitals are already at capacity, with backlogs in ER, and they simply can't safely cope with more patients."

Premier, most communities, especially those in rural Ontario, have hospitals and emergency facilities that are at capacity today. What are you doing right now to ensure that you will be able to meet the surge capacity related to the potential outfall of swine flu?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, there's a very comprehensive plan that is in place. There's one at the provincial level, and there are individual plans at the public health unit level.

My colleague makes a good point about people who are coming in as migrant workers to help our economy, help our employers here and, frankly, help our communities in Ontario. We're going to continue to work with the federal government to ensure that those individuals are properly screened before they get on an airplane coming into Ontario. We will also ensure that our public health units have all the resources they need to do the job as they're called upon to do it.

We are going to continue to work well and hard with all of our colleagues as we deal with swine flu. Again, I want to commend Ontarians as well for the role that they have taken on understanding the importance of washing their hands and, if they're sick, staying home.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: To the Premier: There's a tremendous amount of concern in this province about the lack of a plan when it comes to health care. In fact, we've got about 40 buses here today, with somewhere, it's anticipated, in the neighbourhood of 3,000 people coming. We now have the possibility of a swine flu outbreak. We have Dr. Tom Closson indicating that our health system is tight and our hospitals are running at 100% capacity. It's going to be difficult to deal with any outbreak that may happen. At the same time, we've got health cuts. That's why people are here today.

They're losing their emergency departments. They're losing their hospitals. They're losing their outpatient services. Your policies are contributing to cuts in beds and cuts in nurses.

I ask you today: We have an opposition day motion; will you allow your backbenchers to support it?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. David Caplan: Quite frankly, members will decide how they wish to vote on opposition day motions.

But in relation to a lot of the rhetoric and a lot of the comments by the member in the

preamble to her question, they're simply off base. The fact of the matter is that there really is only one party that has cut health care in the province of Ontario: the member opposite's party when she sat on this side of the House—a 5.5% cut immediately to health care. It was, in fact, members on this side of the House who have seen, so far, about a 45% increase to the health care budgets in the province of Ontario. In fact, in our most recent budget, the finance minister has increased health care 4.7%.

I would urge the member, if she truly does wish to support health care, to support the budgetary policies of this government and the actions that this government is taking in order to improve care throughout the province of Ontario. I did—

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I'm going to go to the Premier again, because I am tired of hearing the blame messages from the governing party. I would say to the Minister of Health, who seems to confuse the facts on a regular basis, we increased hospital funding by 41%. We increased health care funding by 60%. It's time that you stop it.

So I say to you today, we have a serious pandemic possibly facing us. We don't have the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I just ask the honourable members to come to order, please.

Please continue.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Premier, it's time for your government to be on the side of the people. We've had the nurses protesting. We've had protests outside of hospitals. Today, there are 3,000 people protesting. When are you going to stand up and stop cutting health services?

Hon. David Caplan: In fact, we've increased spending in hospitals. The member is simply wrong in her assertion. That member, as a part of the government, closed 28 hospitals in the province of Ontario. That member, as a part of the government, closed thousands of beds in this province. That member, as a part of the government, fired over 6,000 nurses in this province. The reality over the past five years has been quite a bit different.

Swine flu, and the potential that it has for our communities, is a very serious problem and a very serious challenge. That is why I'm very heartened when you have experts like Donald Low who say there has been a big shift and we really have come a long way. We had no way to respond to this six years ago. We didn't have the infrastructure; we didn't have the expertise; we didn't have the communication. Those are all there now—

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Well, it's probably time to give this Premier and this minister another lesson in fact. We opened five new cardiac centres, we opened the cancer treatment centres, we increased MRIs from 12 to 52 and we approved the replacement of 20 hospitals.

I would ask you today: Don't insult the people who are gathering on the front lawn. They're here for one reason and one reason only: You are cutting health services. They are concerned. They're losing beds; they're losing nurses; they're losing outpatient services and emergency rooms.

I ask you today: Are you suggesting that all these people out on that lawn are wrong for suggesting that your policies are responsible for these cuts?

Hon. David Caplan: I welcome anyone to Queen's Park. Unions and their supporters have a particular perspective. I don't share their perspective. We are on the side of patients in the province of Ontario.

The member provides factually incorrect information to this House, and I regret that she has done so. She was responsible, as a member of a government, for significant cuts to health care: the closure of 28 hospitals, the elimination of thousands of hospital beds, the firing of over 6,000 nurses. That's a sorry record of health care in the province of Ontario.

It has been because of this Premier and members on this side of the House that we have seen an increase of over 45% in health care spending in this province. We have seen an improvement in health care services. We have seen a lowering of wait times.

I'm very proud of the investments in public health, in community care, in long-term care and in our hospitals—

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

INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONTROL

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le premier ministre. Four Ontarians are now confirmed to have the swine flu. The acting chief medical officer of health said yesterday: "I know we're going to see a lot more cases. It's only a matter of time."

My question is this: As Ontarians brace for more confirmed cases, is our health care system prepared to handle a possible huge surge in patient volumes?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I can say that we have drawn many lessons from a painful experience that happened to all of us in 2003. I have tremendous confidence in our public health officials. I have tremendous confidence in our doctors and nurses, and I have tremendous confidence in Ontarians themselves to remain calm and to do our part, to help us manage our way through these circumstances.

We need to be honest as well: We are not immune to these new strains of flu as they develop in some part of the world. We'll continue to do everything we can, working with our provincial and federal counterparts at the same time. We will do everything that we can, and everything that we should, to protect Ontarians. I have confidence in our team of experts right across the province as they work away at this very moment.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Well, we didn't talk about a surge in volumes, did we?

Yesterday, the Ottawa Citizen reported on hospital capacity in the Ottawa area. They talked about it. A local health care official said this in response to whether there will be enough nurses, doctors and hospitals to treat an influenza surge: "It's the million-dollar question because hospitals are at the edge in terms of their capacity already."

Already, Ontario hospitals are often over 100% capacity, often at 100%, which experts say compromises patient safety and quality of care. How will these capacity issues be resolved in the case of a swine flu outbreak?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Capacity always remains an issue, and we will do everything that we can and must in order to manage that.

One of the things I want to draw to my colleague's attention, and I think it's worth noting, is that we appear to be experiencing only a milder variation of the swine flu, in terms of its impact on people, here in Ontario. That's not to say that we might not experience another form, but I can say, again, that as a result of our new investments, we are much better prepared than we have been in the past. We have now, for example, five rapid response teams which are available to be deployed anywhere in Ontario in the event of a serious outbreak in one particular community.

We have developed 14 regional infection control networks to better integrate infection prevention and control activities across the health care system. And we have now hired 166 hospital infection control practitioners, one for every 100 hospital beds. That's the best ratio in North America.

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

M me France Gélinas: New Democrats have long called for an adequate staffing of our hospitals, our public health units, our long-term-care facilities and our home care system, but this government's failure to properly staff and resource public health units means that Ontarians are at risk during an outbreak or a pandemic. Its failure to invest in long-term care and a functional home care system means our hospitals are overcrowded because of the ALC clients. Can the government assure Ontarians that our overburdened hospitals will be able to handle a pandemic if and when it happens?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I can say that I have confidence in the people working in our hospitals and our broader public health sector and all our doctors and all our nurses. Again, I want to remind my honourable colleague that we have made considerable new investments in health care, a 45% overall increase in health care funding, notwithstanding the fact that inflation only went up by 11%. When it comes to public health alone, we have nearly tripled funding levels, from $233 million to $680 million.

There's always more to be done, but we've got to live in the real world. The real world calls for us to demonstrate our continuing commitment to health care, and I think we've done that in a very measurable and demonstrable way.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le premier ministre. Today, people from rural and small-town Ontario are demonstrating on the front lawn of Queen's Park because of what's happening to their local hospitals. My question is simple: Can the Premier tell me why Ontario has small and rural hospitals?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. David Caplan: As I said, I welcome Ontarians to come. I understand that unions and their supporters will be here today, and I welcome them. I welcome all to this Legislature who wish to engage in these very important dialogues.

Change always brings anxiety. Any changes being made or proposed by hospitals or local health integration networks are focused on patient care. Sometimes that means shifting resources for the best benefit of patients. Every community is unique in terms of its location, its transportation infrastructure, its population or its access to care. We have launched a rural and northern health care review which brings experts together to advise the government on plans to further improve access to care in less populated areas.

Members on this side of the House value the care that is provided in rural and northern communities, and we'll continue to support them.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Well, I wouldn't say that it would fit as a thesis on rural and small hospitals, but I get from this that at least you are open and positive toward rural and small hospitals.

Yesterday in the Chatham Daily News, the Minister of Health said he will "establish the Northern and Rural Health Care Advisory Panel" to look into this matter. Rural and northern hospitals have been studied to death, I will say. They've been studied quite a bit. I can hold three reports from the last two years alone, the last one being on December 4, The Core Service Role of Small Hospitals in Ontario, Phase Three: The Future, prepared by JPPC. These reports were prepared for the Ministry of Health. Has the minister seen or read these reports, and if so, why is this government about to spend more time and money on a new advisory panel?

Hon. David Caplan: We want to ensure that we're supporting communities large and small across the province of Ontario. I am surprised that the member opposite doesn't share the commitment that members on this side do have.

In fact, the member leaves out quite conveniently, when she talks about Chatham, the Chatham-Kent Health Alliance and an investment of more than $10.8 million in base funding at the Public General Hospital Society, a 26% increase, I would hasten to add, opposed by members opposite; more than $3.2 million in base funding at St. Joseph's Health Services Association, a 13% increase opposed by members opposite; more than $2.7 million in base funding at the Sydenham District Hospital, a 17% increase opposed by members opposite.

We are going to continue to invest in small and rural—in fact, all hospitals in—

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

M me France Gélinas: I didn't get an answer to my question as to why he is establishing a northern and rural health care advisory panel, but I guess I'll keep on.

Mr. Paul Miller: Keep going.

M me France Gélinas: This is question period, not answer period, I realize.

From Wallaceburg to Fort Erie, the McGuinty government wants to close small and rural hospitals and emergency departments. Hospitals across the north are being forced to cut care and services in order to balance their books. Why doesn't this minister listen to the people outside on the front lawn and at least place a moratorium on the cutbacks and closures of small and rural hospitals?

Hon. David Caplan: I know the member is familiar with the fact that in October 2007 we spoke to Ontarians about the kind of plans that all of us had for the provision of health care in Ontario. One of the very clear commitments that Liberal Party members made was to have a review of rural and northern hospitals in the province of Ontario. This is another example of a promise made and a promise kept by this government.

The member opposite presents information which is factually incorrect. There are no closures of rural hospitals; in fact, there have only been enhanced resources and supports for them. I welcome any individuals who wish to come to Queen's Park today. I know that unions and their supporters are here, and I welcome them to this debate and to any other. They have an important perspective. It is not one that I share. I share a view where the patient comes first, and we are bound and determined and members—

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

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

Mr. Robert Bailey: My question is to the Minister of Health. A few months ago, a longtime resident of Sarnia—Lambton, Allister McCabe, needed an ultrasound-guided needle biopsy in order to confirm whether or not he had cancer. He was told that the procedure could be done immediately at St. Joseph's Health Care in London, but the hospital refused to see him and told him he needed to seek treatment at a hospital in his own area; in other words, his own local health integration network.

Sarnia and London, for the minister's information, are not in the same LHIN, and the procedure needed was not quickly available in his home LHIN. We all know that with cancer, earlier detection means a better chance of survival. Unfortunately, Mr. McCabe has since passed away.

Minister, is it now government policy that patients can only receive treatment at hospitals within the boundaries of the LHIN in which they reside?

Hon. David Caplan: I want to thank the member for the question. I certainly can't speak to the specifics of the case, but I can tell you that local health integration networks are part of our government's plan to transform the health care system to make it more patient-centred, efficient and accountable. They serve all Ontarians. Our health care system has no borders and no boundaries. For example, a woman from Sudbury or from Sarnia should be able to get care in Ottawa or in London, and a man in Ottawa should be able to get care in Sarnia or Sudbury.

The goal of local health integration networks is community-based care, reflecting the needs of the community, planned, coordinated and funded, but in an integrated manner, building a health care system around the needs of patients and communities. But ultimately, they serve all Ontarians.

I've answered the member's question directly. There are no borders and no boundaries when it comes to patient care in the province of Ontario—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert Bailey: Minister, St. Joseph's Health Care in London has admitted in writing to the McCabe family that patients are to seek treatment in the LHIN in which they reside. Repatriation does, in fact, exist. In some cases, those treatments or procedures are not available closer to home, leaving these patients with little choice. This case falls on the heels of London Health Sciences refusing to take patients from Sarnia altogether unless they are near death.

Minister, you should admit the LHINs are a disaster. Hospitals clearly think geographic boundaries do exist when it comes to health care delivery. Instead of coordinating services, the LHINs are causing confusion, which is resulting in fatal consequences for patients. Will you act to fix the problems with the LHINs that do exist?

Hon. David Caplan: As I said, there are no borders and there are no boundaries. We have a permeable system across the province where people can experience the kind of care and the kind of support they need.

I want to quote Gary Switzer, the CEO of the Erie St. Clair Local Health Integration Network. He says, "What we really want is the best access for ... care in a timely fashion. If a procedure is available somewhere else, we need to get that point across to the referring physicians." Ralph Ganter of the Erie St. Clair LHIN said that there are no policies that would have caused the hospital to refuse care to someone from outside the LHIN. He says, "We're supposed to be a seamless, borderless health care system. We're not trying to put fences up around care"—and in fact, we don't.

We encourage quick, seamless and the efficient delivery of care for anyone, anywhere in the province. That's what LHINs are doing, that's what—

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

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Peter Kormos: This question's to the Premier. Why is this Liberal government shutting down the emergency rooms in the hospitals in Port Colborne and Fort Erie?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague will know that that is not in fact what we are doing. We have been motivated at all times when it comes to health care to bring about ever-improving quality of care.

There have been considerable increases in funding levels—I think it's 38% for the Niagara Health System—and we will continue to find more ways to provide more funding. I want to assure the people living in those communities that any changes that are being made are not driven by the dollars; they're driven by our desire, working with the local community, to improve the quality of care that is available to all those families.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Give your head a shake. How does locking the doors to an emergency room in Port Colborne or in Fort Erie improve the quality of health care for the folks who live in those communities?

This Premier hides behind a LHIN that is unelected, unaccountable, largely anonymous, arrogant and unresponsive to the communities it supposes to represent. Why won't this Premier explain to the people of Port Colborne and Fort Erie—and there are thousands of them out there right now—why he's shutting down their emergency rooms?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: A few things: First of all, I think it's important for us to work with the LHINs. They are the people who we recognize in the communities who are to provide leadership, and LHINs shape the local decision-making. We think it's important to work with those people.

As well, I think it's important to understand that when it comes to the two hospitals in question, at present, if you were suffering from severe trauma or a heart attack or a stroke and found yourself in an ambulance, the ambulances would drive by those two hospitals to larger centres. In fact, they're driving to larger centres because the larger centres have more equipment and they have a specialist on site.

This is all about ensuring that we're bringing home to people, in the closest possible way, the best quality of care. That's what's motivating this decision-making. I understand it's controversial, I understand it's very emotional for the folks there, but I want them to understand it's about improving quality of care.

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

Mr. Jeff Leal: My question is to the Minister of Research and Innovation. Minister, in last month's Toronto Star, we read about a $4.7-million investment through the Minister of Research and Innovation's Ontario Research Fund to a Toronto lab run by Dr. Aled Edwards. Open Access Science is an approach to research and commercialization used by Dr. Edwards in the Structural Genomics Consortium, which is based in the University of Toronto and is dedicated to advancing global biomedical research.

The Structural Genomics Consortium is a not-for-profit organization that aims to determine the three-dimensional structures of proteins of medical relevance and place them in the public domain without restriction. It operates in the Universities of Oxford and Toronto, and the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm. As a top researcher and thought-leader, Dr. Edwards continues to attract brilliant young researchers from around the world. That means a competitive Ontario, a more vibrant research community and the development of new jobs and industries.

What is the Minister of Research and Innovation doing—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank my friend for the question. I think it's something that all of us in this House can be proud of. The Ontario Research Fund, funded through the Ministry of Research and Innovation, just made an investment of some $4.7 million, but that is in addition to the investments that have been made by our government and previous governments in the globally significant research that's being led by Dr. Aled Edwards at the University of Toronto.

He is working with top researchers at Oxford University in England and the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden, unlocking not the genome but the body's ability to take the information that's contained in our genome and create proteins, and actually to have three-dimensional pictures of those proteins. If we can do that, if we can unlock that, it means that when it comes to medicines, we're going to be able to tailor-make the types of medicines we need in our communities to alleviate human suffering.

It's something we're very proud of. This open-access concept that Dr. Aled Edwards has is globally significant, and we're proud of his—

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

Mr. Jeff Leal: Trent University, located in the great riding of Peterborough, has established a reputation on the international stage for its groundbreaking research. Trent has six strategic research clusters: biological and forensic sciences; Canadian and indigenous studies; cultural studies and the humanities; education, health and sustainability; environmental science, material science and quantitative modelling; and, finally, understanding people, communities and institutions.

The quality of the research can be seen in the number of research chairs who call Trent their home. These research chairs aim to strengthen research excellence in Canada, improve the training of the highly qualified personnel through research, and improve universities' capacity to generate and apply new knowledge.

What is the Ministry of Research and Innovation doing to ensure research chairs such as these continue to conduct research at Trent and across the province of Ontario?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank the MPP for Trent University for the question. We've made an investment of some $8 million into a number of cutting-edge labs in Trent, but I want to talk about our $2-million investment in the International Consortium on Anti-Virals.

The world today is trying to get ahead of Mother Nature. Mother Nature has introduced a new virus into this world and it's our researchers who are working in the field of anti-virals who will come up with vaccines and a solution to that challenge that Mother Nature is presenting us.

Now, more than ever, it is important for our scientists to be able to do this type of work. It is something that we're all expecting our scientists to do, and we're particularly proud that at Trent University, this International Consortium on Anti-Virals is leading the world in our response to this new threat provided by Mother Nature. That's why that type of research, which is going on in your home community, is so important—

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

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Norm Miller: I have a question for the Minister of Health. A busload of Almaguin residents are here at Queen's Park today, gravely concerned that you're going to shut down the Burk's Falls health centre. We have leaders in the community here. We have the mayor of Magnetawan here, Dick Smith; the reeve of Burk's Falls, Cathy Still; the reeve of Ryerson township, Glen Miller; and Bruce Campbell, councillor for Burk's Falls.

Can you assure the residents and the community leaders that you will not be reducing health services in the Almaguin area and that the Burk's Falls health centre will be kept open?

Hon. David Caplan: I can assure the members opposite and the people who are visiting here today that we're going to continue what we're doing, which is expanding the amount of resources available to hospitals in the province of Ontario. In fact, this is what we have seen in this province since the year 2003.

I note, for the member opposite, that he supports a leadership candidate, I understand, who is a frontrunner for their party who supports cutting and reopening the deal on physicians' salaries and nurses' salaries and has further proposed the elimination of the Ontario health premium, which would amount to a $3-billion cut to health care.

This member can speak and articulate now that he does not support those kinds of measures because of the damage that that would do to our health care system. Members on this side of the House will stand up for health care, will stand up for those communities—

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

Mr. Norm Miller: I asked a very straightforward question and you decided to give me a partisan answer, which is not very much appreciated.

In the Almaguin Highlands-Burk's Falls area, we have an aging population. We have a population that swells greatly in the summer months, beyond the health care centre's capacity in the summer months. In addition, other hospitals in the area are often at or over capacity, and they're full of individuals who could be better cared for in other parts of the health care system; those are the ALC patients. This signals a larger crisis in our health care system which this minister fails to address.

Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare has been asking for funding for years. Not only does the Burk's Falls health centre need to stay open, it needs funds to successfully meet the needs of the community. Will you give your word to the concerned Almaguin residents that the funding they've been pushing for, and that I've been presenting petitions daily on, will be coming forward to help sustain the Burk's—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. David Caplan: The member opposite wants to cut health care spending, yet asks, "Will you continue to spend more?" The member's got to figure out whose side he is on here.

The member mentions ALC. Alternative level of care is a tremendous challenge in the province of Ontario; I acknowledge that. We are working on developing strategies like our aging-at-home strategy—$1.1 billion over four years—to be able to build the kind of community capacity and to be able to support communities. On top of that, so far, we have invested an additional $1 billion in long-term care, fully a 50% increase.

I do say to the member: He will have some explaining to do. He supports a leader for their party who wishes to cut $3 billion in health care. He supports a leader for his party who wants to reopen the agreements for our nurses and doctors—

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

CANCER TREATMENT

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. The new report by the Cancer Quality Council of Ontario and Cancer Care Ontario says that wait times for chemotherapy in Ontario are growing longer. Last year, the wait times for 90% of the patients averaged 73 days. Cancer Care Ontario recommends waiting no longer than 28 days before you start your treatment. Why are Ontarians with cancer being forced to wait nearly three times longer than they should for life-saving treatment?

Hon. David Caplan: I want to thank the member for the question, and I want to thank Cancer Care Ontario for the report.

Dr. Terry Sullivan, the president and CEO of Cancer Care Ontario, said, "We're a victim of our own success with chemotherapy ... we have more people living longer and being re-treated ... which means busier and more crowded (chemotherapy) suites in hospital cancer centres."

Overall, cancer surgery wait times are down by 30%. We've invested $600 million annually to Cancer Care Ontario, the ministry's primary adviser on adult cancer services. We are working closely with Cancer Care Ontario to develop a regional systemic treatment plan to improve quality chemotherapy services for people as close to home as possible.

I think I've answered that question. Dr. Sullivan says we've been tremendously successful, and we are victims of it. The members opposite may not like—

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

M me France Gélinas: So we are to get from this that we wait longer because we live longer. If nobody knew that people in Ontario were living longer—I think everybody knew that, and I sure hope our Minister of Health would know that also.

The cancer treatment report also found that in some areas, people had to wait for 117 days. That's four times the recommended wait time. Those are long days when you are worried about dying of cancer and you cannot get access to treatment that may save your life.

The McGuinty government has reportedly boasted about reducing wait times, but cancer treatment wait times are increasing. What will the government do to reverse this trend?

Hon. David Caplan: In fact, the member is incorrect: Cancer wait times are down 30%. In fact, the government is working with Cancer Care Ontario and putting the resources that we have, so that we expect to see further advances.

For example, we launched Canada's first province-wide colorectal cancer screening program: some 34,000 more colonoscopies in Ontario and funding approximately 130,000 more over five years. We introduced free vaccines to protect young women against the human papilloma virus. That means 40,000 girls in grade 8 will have protection against the two most high-risk types of cancer. We've extended the breast cancer screening program by adding 100,000 more scans per year and 34 new breast cancer screening sites in Ontario. We've expanded access to cancer testing by funding the PSA test for the first time in the province of Ontario. And since 2006, we've added 21—

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

VOLUNTEERS

Mrs. Liz Sandals: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Minister, as many in this Legislature are aware, last week was an important week in Ontario and indeed in Canada: National Volunteer Week.

I, like many members in this Legislature, am keenly aware of the impact that volunteers have in our community. In fact, Minister, we were pleased to welcome you to Kitchener for the Wellington-Waterloo awards, as well as your parliamentary assistant on one of the other evenings.

One of the groups that we honoured there were students from my hometown, from the University of Guelph, who have a food program that has been recognized provincially. One of their signature events is Halloween evening, when they borrow grocery carts from the local grocery store and collect food for a local food bank.

Minister, can you please tell the Legislature about some of the other activities that took place during National Volunteer Week?

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to thank the honourable member for her question. She is correct: Volunteers do build communities. During National Volunteer Week, the government of Ontario is pleased to recognize the contributions of volunteers from all over the province.

On April 20, I had the pleasure of joining the Lieutenant Governor for the presentation of the Ontario Medal for Young Volunteers. Eight outstanding Ontario youths, including Miles Hoffman, from Pickle Lake, in northwestern Ontario, were recognized for their exceptional contributions to the province of Ontario. Miles was recognized for being the go-to person for just about any and every volunteer task you can imagine, all the while being the only volunteer on the Pickle Lake recreation committee.

Volunteerism is working wonderfully in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Liz Sandals: One statistic that never ceases to amaze me is the youth volunteerism rate here in Ontario. The volunteerism rate for youth in Ontario between the ages of 15 and 24 is 63%, the highest level in Canada. In fact, Ontario youth have the highest-percentage volunteerism rate of any group in Canada, and contribute, on average, 138 volunteer hours per year.

Minister, the ChangeTheWorld Ontario Youth Volunteer Challenge is in its second year. On Saturday, I was pleased to visit the Guelph program, where the student volunteers were just returning from experiences like the humane society and children's camps and tree nurseries, and had a great day.

Minister, can you please share some information with the Legislature about the government's efforts to support youth volunteerism in Ontario?

Hon. Michael Chan: Again, I want to thank the honourable member for her question.

This year, interest in the ChangeTheWorld Ontario Youth Volunteer Challenge has been higher than ever. My ministry, working with volunteer centres in 19 communities around Ontario, challenged 10,000 Ontario youths to donate five hours of their time during National Volunteer Week. I'm pleased to say that, from the preliminary data, Ontario's youth have responded.

After a very successful launch event in the member's home municipality, interest in the youth challenge has exploded. Hundreds of youths have joined the ChangeTheWorld Facebook group, and well over 10,000 unique hits have been counted on my ministry's website.

Together, we have reached thousands of youths through the ChangeTheWorld Ontario Youth Volunteer Challenge.

HOSPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, you have done nothing to ensure that the physical structures of most aging hospitals are ready for a pandemic.

The Sault Ste. Marie hospital's coroner's report on the C. difficile outbreak sat on the health minister's desk for over a year. This report clearly identified aging infrastructure as one of the key contributors to the severity of the outbreak.

Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital in Burlington has outdated infrastructure, Minister, a point you are clearly aware of. This may have contributed to the severity of the C. diff outbreak in Burlington.

Minister, how can you reassure the residents of Burlington, and all Ontarians in communities with aging hospitals, that you are ready for a pandemic, when you have done nothing to address this critical underlying issue?

Hon. David Caplan: I've got to tell you, the member asks a rather odd question, given the fact that Ontario has undertaken over 100 health care capital projects in communities right across this province.

I do acknowledge that there is more to do, and Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital is one that is very much on our radar. But I think the member's rhetoric that nothing has happened is not in keeping with the facts as we are seeing them across the province of Ontario. I know the member would want to acknowledge the work that my colleague and Infrastructure Ontario have done on generic output specs, for the very first time, where we have identified infectious disease control as a part of hospital design. It did not exist previously.

The member should get her facts right, because she clearly does not know what she's talking about. She should go to the two dozen different—

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

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: I do have my facts right. The people of Burlington have sent over $600 million to this province and they have received $17 million back. You do the math. Our aging infrastructure is not fixed.

I walked past tourists today on the sidewalk of this Legislature. They were taking photos and had their masks on. People are doing what is within their control to avoid getting sick.

Minister, this is not just about a pandemic plan. You have the responsibility, the authority and the control to ensure that our aging hospitals are ready to deal with any pandemic. If you are to continue to claim that your ministry and our hospitals are fully ready to deal with a pandemic, then will you commit to making the necessary investments in our aging physical infrastructure in communities across Ontario to enable them to fight this with effective tools? Will you allocate staff and resources to the aging, at-risk hospitals?

Hon. David Caplan: The member and her party have consistently opposed all of the actions that we have taken to modernize and invest in the infrastructure of the province of Ontario. We have projects right across this province, over 100 in size and scope, to be able to address precisely these issues.

There is nothing less than an infrastructure renaissance that is taking place in this province when it comes to the health care infrastructure that we have. This member is out to lunch. She just does not get it. She does not get the extraordinary steps that this government has taken when it comes to making these kinds of investments.

I do acknowledge that there is more to be done. That is why I am working with my colleague the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure on developing the plans for additional—

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

TUITION

Mr. Rosario Marchese: To the Minister of Training: This week, the University of Toronto's business board approved a plan to charge students in the arts and sciences tuition fees for five courses even when they take three or four. The hundreds of students I spoke to on Monday oppose it, New Democrats oppose it, and the public believes it's unfair. Why is the minister allowing a flat fee?

Hon. John Milloy: I'm of course aware that the University of Toronto is looking into the possibility of a flat fee. I understand that no decision has been made.

But I should remind the member that universities have been able to charge tuition fees for students on a program or flat-fee basis for many years. In fact, I understand the University of Toronto has some courses where that already exists. The policy has been in place for decades. Carleton University, my alma mater, has been charging flat fees for the past 25 years.

What is important is that any change of this nature, which may ultimately come from the University of Toronto, corresponds with the province's tuition fee framework, which not only limits tuition fees but also mandates universities to provide students with assistance to make sure that finances are never an obstacle.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: If the source of the students' grief at the University of Toronto is this government's tuition fee framework, then it's time to change the framework.

It's 2009, and this government's lack of leadership and vision has left students burdened with debt and without job prospects. Today, the students are carrying the burden of the economy on their shoulders. Today, they tell you that they can't pay for five courses when they take three.

Will this government bring fairness to post-secondary education or will it continue to allow a flat fee that leaves students flat on their backs?

Hon. John Milloy: It's a little bit rich, coming from the New Democratic Party. How dare he stand up and say we don't have a vision when it comes to student assistance in this province. Since we took office, we have more than doubled the rate of student assistance for students in the province of Ontario. Ontario students currently receive the highest level of non-repayable assistance ever. OSAP loan default rates are the lowest they've ever been since measurement began: 8.4% this year.

Let me share more statistics. We've tripled the number of grants available to students. In fact, one in four students—approximately 120,000 Ontario students—receive non-repayable grants. Does the member remember non-repayable, upfront grants? His government cancelled them.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr. Khalil Ramal: My question is for the Minister of Transportation.

Interjections.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I have a good question here; you have to listen.

Minister, road safety is important—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would appreciate some quiet all around. It would be most beneficial, especially for our guests here, who like to hear these very important questions that are being asked.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: Road safety in this province is very important for all of us, especially for people like us who drive on a regular basis from our constituency to this place. Helping to keep Ontario roads safe is every Ontarian's responsibility. Minister, it's so frustrating when you read the newspaper and watch the news and you see a lot of accidents because people choose to drink and drive, which causes a lot of injuries and also costs the taxpayers a lot of money—close to billions of dollars on a regular basis.

Minister, I understand that there are measures being implemented shortly to help—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Good question. The member is correct: Not only is the financial cost to Ontario estimated at $3 billion annually; drunk driving still accounts for 25% of all fatalities on Ontario roads. We would all agree that that's completely unacceptable. These are just some of the reasons that we have moved forward with new measures for those who are caught driving in the "warn" range, meaning a blood-alcohol concentration between 0.05 and 0.08.

Effective May 1, 2009, the current 12-hour licence suspensions for drivers who blow in the "warn" range will increase to three days for a first occurrence; seven days plus enrolment in a remedial alcohol education program for a second occurrence; and for a third occurrence, 30 days, a remedial alcohol treatment program and an ignition interlock condition on the driver's licence for a minimum of six months.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: Thank you, Minister, for this important news. I'm going to share this information with my constituents. Minister, I believe our partners will also be happy, especially the police, who work very hard and closely with your ministry to implement those measures in order to create safety for the people of this province.

But, Minister, I'm a little bit confused about the escalation sanctions which you're implementing. What's the difference between the sanctions already in place and the ones you will implement May 1? Can you tell this House and tell me in detail what that is going to mean to the people of Ontario?

Hon. James J. Bradley: We heard from our police and road safety partners that more needed to be done. That's why we passed Bill 203, the Safer Roads for a Safer Ontario Act, and are putting in place escalating sanctions for those caught driving in the "warn" range. Almost 17% of drinking drivers killed in Ontario had a blood-alcohol concentration of less than 0.08, the legal limit. Those driving in the "warn" range are seven times more likely to be involved in a fatal co