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

June 1, 2005

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2005-Jun-01 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 1 June 2005 Mercredi 1 er juin 2005

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ST. WILLIAMS CROWN FOREST

INJURED WORKERS

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

ONTARIO'S GREATEST WOMAN

CLASS SIZE

ARCHIVES OF ONTARIO

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

ONTARIO GREENHOUSE ALLIANCE

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

JUSTICE POLICY

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

REPORT, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

VISITORS

WEARING OF T-SHIRT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES

RETIREMENT SYSTEM ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005

SUR LE RÉGIME DE RETRAITE

DES EMPLOYÉS MUNICIPAUX

DE L'ONTARIO

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

OMERS PENSION FUND

ACTIVE 2010

OMERS PENSION FUND

ACTIVE 2010

OMERS PENSION FUND

ACTIVE 2010

SENIORS' MONTH

ORAL QUESTIONS

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

SERVICES FOR DISABLED CHILDREN

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

INJURED WORKERS

FIREARMS SAFETY AND CONTROL

SERVICES FOR DISABLED CHILDREN

OMERS PENSION FUND

WATER QUALITY

RECREATIONAL VEHICLES

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

PETITIONS

PROPERTY TAXATION

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

JUSTICE SYSTEM

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

JUSTICE SYSTEM

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

HALTON RECYCLING PLANT

GASOLINE PRICES

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

OPPOSITION DAY

PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ST. WILLIAMS CROWN FOREST

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Last week, I attended the opening ceremonies of the St. Williams forestry station interpretive

centre, initiated by the Port Rowan/South Walsingham Heritage Association and ForestCare.

A bit of history: Lieutenant Colonel Arthur Pratt, MPP for Norfolk from 1905 to 1914, is considered the Father of Reforestation, as he was instrumental in

establishing St. Williams in 1908 as the first reforestation project in Canada. Together, MPP Pratt, lumberman and sawyer Walter McCall and Dr. E.J. Zavitz of the Ontario Agricultural College

planted the first trees at St. Williams.

Dr. Zavitz had a profound impact on forestry and reforestation. He was appointed the first Provincial Forester in 1912 and later Deputy Minister, Department of

Lands and Forests, from 1921 to 1934. Both he and his wife are buried in the nearby Forestville cemetery. MPP Pratt is buried by Dedrick's Creek at the St. Williams forestry station. To the north

and west of his grave are large red oak, white pine and maple. Inscribed on his tombstone are the words, "My memorial ... look around you."

Fast-forward to today. I'm very proud that St. Williams Crown Forest has been identified as one of 10 signature sites under Ontario's Living Legacy's Lands for

Life. I look forward to working with this government in continuing to explore the possibilities in the St. Williams area.

INJURED WORKERS

Ms. Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): I rise today in honour of Injured Workers' Day, a day on which we honour those who have been injured, who

have died or who have taken ill on the job. Last year alone, 100 people were killed and 273,905 people were injured on the job in Ontario alone. That is almost half the entire population of the

city of Hamilton. It is unacceptable.

My colleague the Minister of Labour, Chris Bentley, has made health and safety in the workplace a top priority. Today, the minister announced another step being

taken by the government to ensure workers are treated fairly. The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board is changing the way it factors Canada Pension Plan disability payments into its own benefit

calculations for disabled workers. This step is one that injured workers and their groups have long sought. It will put more money into the pockets of thousands of workers in this province.

Is it enough? No. Other changes to support injured workers must be made, and the minister has set a firm deadline of September 30, 2005, for the board to report

on reforms and a plan for implementation of those reforms. Today's announcement by the minister is welcome, and it is a move forward. We still have a way to go.

In a more symbolic vein, I want to let you know that the member for London-Fanshawe, my colleague, has reintroduced a private member's bill brought forward by

the late Dominic Agostino to erect a monument here at Queen's Park in honour of those who have died on the job.

I'd like to recognize in the members' gallery some people from the Hamilton and District Injured Workers' Group, Barry Cowells and Peter Paige and, up in the

public gallery, Karl Crevar. Thanks for being here.

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): I rise in the House today as the opposition energy critic to formally advise the Minister of Energy of a walkout

today in Barrie by members of the Society of Energy Professionals. These 200 engineers and mid-level managers work at Hydro One's main grid control centre. They are among 1,000 members of the

Society of Energy Professionals who have been without a contract since the beginning of the year. I realize this House is not the forum to negotiate labour agreements. However, this government must

also make every effort to keep the lights and the economy on in Ontario.

The members will be aware that summer is one of the heaviest periods of power consumption. That's why it's important that Hydro One have available the full

complement of engineers, IT specialists, supervisors and other skilled workers represented by the Society of Energy Professionals.

The Minister of Energy has said the best place to resolve differences between management and union is at the bargaining table, and we agree. However, a union

spokesman said today that the strike action was necessary because there have been no meaningful talks since April of this year. I rise in the House to ask that the Premier and this government take

action to protect Ontario's power supply by helping to bring both sides back to the negotiating table.

In completion, this is from the society: "This letter fulfills our ethical obligation as licensed professional engineers to warn of the potential lockout/strike

implications at Hydro One and hereby transfers all accountability and potential liability to ... the Premier of Ontario."

ONTARIO'S GREATEST WOMAN

Ms. Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): First of all, let me thank you, Mr. Speaker, for hosting the dinner for female MPPs last night. I really

enjoyed it, and I want to announce today that it's time to vote for Ontario's greatest woman. Over 80 amazing women were nominated for Ontario's Greatest Woman, which I announced --

Interjection.

Ms. Churley: I'm not on -- on International Women's Day. Some are names that you will recognize and others might not be, but virtually every

nomination was accompanied by a heartfelt explanation of why the candidate should be named Ontario's Greatest Woman. It was so inspiring to hear such thoughtful remarks that I included some of the

excerpts from the nominations, along with brief bios of them all.

The names that came up again and again in your e-mails have been compiled into a top 10 list. I'm inviting everybody now to vote for the candidate of their

choice before June 30, 2005. As promised, Ontario's Greatest Woman will be announced on Canada Day in Riverdale Park. I'm thrilled by the interest that people all across Ontario have shown,

including members from all parties in this Legislature.

I'm going to briefly read the top 10. They were awarded according to how many nominations they got, and it's quite a diverse mix: Maude Barlow, Marilyn Bell,

June Callwood, Ursula Franklin, Barbara Frum, Adelaide Hunter Hoodless, Agnes Macphail, Hazel McCallion, Alice Munro and Laura Secord. Those are the top 10. There are many others on my Web site,

www.marilynchurley.com. Thank you, and I urge everybody to get involved.

CLASS SIZE

Mr. Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Last Friday, I went back to school. I had the honour of visiting in Mrs. Whitley's class in St. Joseph

Central public school at Richards Landing. I dictated the spelling. Students Keighan and Joey did an excellent job. I also had the pleasure of attending Mr. Mason's grade 5 and 6 class, where I saw

their parliament in action as it decided important issues of local school significance. I am sure that all the teachers at St. Joseph's Central public school will agree that small class sizes are

crucial to ensuring that students get the individual attention they need to master the fundamentals of literacy and numeracy.

Last year, $90 million was invested to start to lower our class sizes. As a result, 1,100 new teachers were hired, reducing class sizes in the primary grades.

This year, $126 million will be invested to hire an additional 1,275 teachers and build more classroom space to support the smaller classes.

The government is also increasing funding to school boards across the province by $820 million this year. This means that the school boards serving

Algoma-Manitoulin will receive an additional $27 million in 2005-06 to help ensure the success of our students.

I would like to thank Principal Roman Peredun and all of the teachers and students I met at St. Joseph school. I look forward to my next visit.

ARCHIVES OF ONTARIO

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Members' statements.

Mrs. Julia Munro (York North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like first to echo the sentiments already given today about your generosity in

hosting us last night. It's certainly appreciated.

Today we read in the paper the latest

chapter in the story of our disintegrating provincial archives. The columns in the building are full of cracks, and the

engineers recommend that they be reinforced with steel collars. The engineers first thought that the columns could collapse, and then reversed themselves and said that the columns were safe. I

certainly hope that they are correct in their second analysis.

I have raised this question in the House before: last October, and less than two months ago, in April. I pointed out to the government both times that a report

several years ago said that the current space is unsafe and unhealthy, and the preservation of documents is at risk. The collections are starting to develop mould, and the second floor is sagging.

Historical documents and photos are at risk of theft or damage, and thefts have already been reported.

Our PC government had a plan to preserve the archives. The McGuinty Liberals cancelled the plan and have replaced it with nothing. It is time for this government

to stop dithering and save our archives. The staff at the archives work hard to preserve our heritage and history. The government must take action to give them a safe and secure space in which to

do their jobs.

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

Mr. Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): Yesterday a six-ton MRI magnet was installed at the Greater Niagara General Hospital, and I was there to

witness the installation of this MRI magnet. I will tell you, it was an awesome sight.

This MRI investment is a reflection of the real efforts to improve access to quality and timely health services for the people of Niagara. Wait times for MRI

scans in Niagara are currently more than 20 weeks. It is anticipated that the region's additional MRI will dramatically reduce the wait times by about 30%.

I want to take the opportunity to thank the Premier and the Minister of Health personally for their leadership in reducing wait times in Niagara. In the last

year we have received a new ambulance dispatch service, a new CT scanner, a new dialysis machine and a new emergency wing for the Greater Niagara General Hospital. Let nobody ever say this

government does not care about health.

The MRI unit is the newest technology available, featuring ultra-fast image acquisition and superb diagnostic detail. As a direct result, Dr. Tom Lee informed me

that he was able to attract three new doctors to the Greater Niagara General Hospital. This is really good news.

By increasing the number of MRI scans, we are delivering to Ontarians a big part of the government's overall wait-time strategy. This strategy is providing

people with faster access to better health services to reduce their pain and suffering and keep them healthier longer. This is exactly what good government is all about.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): A little over a year ago the McGuinty government, in partnership with the federal government, announced a $2.8-million

allocation to the city of Brantford and the county of Brant for the construction of rental units under the Canada-Ontario affordable housing program. Last week, I had the pleasure of attending a

groundbreaking event on this important initiative in my riding of Brant.

Our government knows that shelter is a basic human need and that it is critical to a caring and growing community. Thus, it is with great pride that I'm able to

say that 51 units of new affordable housing will soon be a reality for lower-income families, seniors and single persons in Brantford.

Safe and affordable shelter is especially crucial to the many households in this province that are trying to get by on lower incomes. The McGuinty government

understands this. We have recently signed a new Canada-Ontario affordable housing agreement, the first in 10 years, in which the province will provide $301 million to create more than 15,000 units

of affordable housing and to provide housing allowances to some 5,000 lower-income families in Ontario.

I am proud to be a member of a government that believes affordable housing is important and to be part of an initiative that affirms the collective values of

compassion and caring that Ontarians voted for 20 months ago.

I am so delighted to see that the city of Brantford shares our commitment to the development of affordable housing in our community. I want to congratulate Mayor

Mike Hancock, council, city staff and particularly Multani Custom Homes, who have worked so hard to make this development a reality for so many families. I thank this government. I appreciate

it.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Before I ask the member from Essex for his statement, could I have a bit of quiet, please? Everyone is making

their own members' statements, and I'd like to hear the statement from the member from Essex.

ONTARIO GREENHOUSE ALLIANCE

Mr. Bruce Crozier (Essex): I would like to welcome, in the members' west gallery, members of the Ontario Greenhouse Alliance who are visiting us

at the Legislature today. Formed in 2003, the alliance brings together three greenhouse organizations -- the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers, Ontario Pepper Growers and Flowers Canada --

forming a strong, united voice for greenhouse growers.

This industry makes up the second-largest farmgate income sector in agriculture, with sales of over $1.1 billion in 2004. In Ontario, there are over 1,200

greenhouse operations, most of which are concentrated in and around my riding of Essex, the riding of Chatham-Kent-Essex and the Niagara region. Together, greenhouse operations in Ontario employ

more than 18,000 people, bringing substantial benefit to rural economies like Essex.

Their members continue to build on an excellent safety record by working responsibly with organizations such as the Technical Standards and Safety Authority to

adapt new approaches and technologies to safety outcomes that are practical and economically sustainable.

The greenhouse industry is an export-driven industry whose competitive efficiency takes on the world marketplace and brings millions of new dollars to the

Ontario economy, enhanced by the fact that it is one of the few sectors of agriculture to experience consistent growth in the past decade.

Again, I welcome the Ontario Greenhouse Alliance to Queen's Park today and remind all members to stop by the legislative dining room this afternoon to meet some

of the members and pick up a sample of delicious vegetables and some beautiful plants.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

JUSTICE POLICY

Mr. Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on justice policy and move its

adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 128,

An Act to amend various Acts with respect to enforcement powers, penalties and the management of property forfeited, or that may be forfeited, to the

Crown in right of Ontario as a result of organized crime, marijuana growing and other unlawful activities / Projet de loi 128, Projet de loi 128, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne

les pouvoirs d'exécution, les pénalités et l'administration des biens confisqués ou pouvant être confisqués au profit de la Couronne du chef de l'Ontario par suite

d'activités de crime organisé et de culture de marijuana ainsi que d'autres activités illégales.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed. The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received the report on intended appointments dated June 1,

2005, of the standing committee on government agencies. Pursuant to standing order 106(e)9, the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

REPORT, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the report of the Integrity Commissioner

concerning his review of expense claims under the Cabinet Ministers' and Opposition Leaders' Expenses Review and Accountability Act, 2002, for the period April 1, 2004, to March 31, 2005.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): While I have the attention of everyone, we have with us in the Speaker's gallery today distinguished members

of the Ontario Association of Former Parliamentarians, led by their chairman, the Reverend Canon Derwyn Shea. The association is conducting its annual meeting at Queen's Park today. Please join me

in welcoming these distinguished former members.

WEARING OF T-SHIRT

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'd like to know whether or not we have a stranger in the House

sitting in the seat of the member for St. Catharines.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Is there a stranger in the House?

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am compelled to make a statement later on this

afternoon about a walking campaign and will have to ask permission of the House. It's been recommended by the member opposite who just spoke that I not do this but I ask for permission to wear this

particular shirt advertising the walking campaign.

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker: I think it would only be fair that the member from Nipissing, Ms.

Smith, be here to express her opinion on the attire chosen by Mr. Bradley today.

The Speaker: I understand that the member from St. Catharines is asking for unanimous consent to wear his T-shirt. Agreed. But he also

promised that he would be on his best behaviour while he wears that display.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES

RETIREMENT SYSTEM ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005

SUR LE RÉGIME DE RETRAITE

DES EMPLOYÉS MUNICIPAUX

DE L'ONTARIO

Mr. Gerretsen moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 206,

An Act to revise the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act / Projet de loi 206, Loi révisant la

Loi sur le régime de

retraite des employés municipaux de l'Ontario.

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

Mr. Gerretsen.

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): I'll wait until ministerial statements.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

OMERS PENSION FUND

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): Our Premier, when leader of the official

opposition, made a commitment that he would support governance devolution of the Ontario municipal employees retirement system, often referred to as OMERS. Today I am pleased to introduce

legislation that, if passed, will fulfill that commitment.

This bill, the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act, 2005, would relieve the Ontario government of its governance role in OMERS and would hand

that role to the municipal employees and employers who contribute to the plan.

For too long, the Ontario government has had the final say on decisions related to the OMERS plan. And remember, the Ontario government does not pay directly

into the OMERS plan. OMERS currently remains the only pension plan in Ontario where the government plays the sponsor's role without being a direct contributor to the plan. The bill I'm introducing

today, if passed, would correct that anomaly. But more than that, this bill would establish a framework in which OMERS can secure and enjoy continued fiscal sustainability in the years to come.

Our government is proposing a governance model for OMERS that builds upon the model recommended in the OMERS board report of 2002. This model was based on

broad input from both employers and employees.

On top of that, there are a number of features in this model that I would like to highlight at this time.

First, this model proposes a single base plan with potential supplemental benefit plans for different groups of employees and employers. This could lead to

improved pension plans for our police forces, for our firefighters and for all our other municipal sector employees, based upon local decisions.

Our model proposes a sponsors corporation, with subcommittees that could provide advice on the design of the supplemental plans.

Our model also includes an administration corporation, which would continue the current role of the OMERS board.

Our model proposes raising the accrual rate cap to 2.33 for public safety employees.

Our model features access to any supplemental plan benefits through local decision-making.

The final feature of our model that I would like to highlight is a dispute resolution mechanism proposed for the sponsors corporation that is similar to that

in the Ontario teachers' pension plan, which has mandatory mediation before arbitration.

I'm also pleased to point out that our approach will ensure that OMERS continues to be the exclusive provider of pension products for the municipal sector.

Our government has listened to OMERS stakeholders, and this model is our attempt to accommodate the views of employers and employees. But more than that, we

will listen further.

If the bill passes first reading today -- and it has passed first reading earlier today -- our government proposes that legislative committee hearings be held

immediately so that we may get even more stakeholder input.

The purpose of the legislation I'm introducing today is to provide a clear process for governance transition. However, we still want to hear from stakeholders

on the specifics of what they want from a new OMERS governance model. We want to hear how we can fine-tune our proposed legislation. We know that OMERS stakeholders care passionately about their

pension plans, and we want to give them an opportunity to help shape the governance of this plan from the outset. We are enabling stakeholders to determine what is best for their future.

Our goal is to give municipal employers and employees the power and the tools they need to create and maintain a quality of life that is second to none.

ACTIVE 2010

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): A recent report by Active Healthy Kids Canada indicated that only half of Canadian

children are active enough to ensure their optimal growth and development. Too many kids are spending too much time surfing the Internet, watching television or playing video games. The rest of the

population is not much better off. Studies indicate that more than half of the adults in Ontario are not active enough to prevent chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease. Obesity and

physical inactivity create problems for people and unnecessary burdens on our health care system. Inactivity profoundly affects the quality of life of the people we serve.

Our government is encouraging people to become more active. We are providing opportunities to participate in sport and recreational activities. We are doing it

through our Active 2010 strategy. The goal of the McGuinty government's Active 2010 strategy is to increase Ontario's sport participation and physical activity rate so that by the year 2010, at

least 55% of Ontarians are physically active.

We're doing that in a number of ways: by funding not-for-profit organizations in communities across the province to promote and provide sport and physical

activity services; by allocating the first funding increase in nine years to the province's amateur sports organizations to boost participation and excellence in sport; and by encouraging people to

become more active through our promotion and education campaign.

Our Active 2010 promotional strategy started last November with a campaign called Pause to Play, appealing to youth 10 to 14 years old. Pause to Play's transit

ads, school posters and Web site encourage kids to put their video games on pause and, instead, have fun playing and being active. But it's not just the youth of our province who need to be

persuaded to get moving. We have launched a province-wide adult walking campaign to encourage people to get off their chesterfields and take a walk on our sidewalks, trails, parks and beaches.

You may have already seen our posters created by For Better or For Worse cartoon artist Lynn Johnston. They are displayed on transit shelters, disposal bins

and in elevators, as well as in places like health centres, hospitals and libraries across the province. Our message is simple: Walking a total of 30 minutes a day is enough to keep you

healthy.

This morning, I met with Toronto city councillor Olivia Chow, the CEO of Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment, Richard Peddie, and hockey stars Darryl Sittler

and Wendel Clark. We were at the Air Canada Centre to kick-start Toronto's Get Your Move On campaign to encourage Toronto residents to become more physically active. There, on behalf of the

McGuinty government, I announced communities in action fund grants to help the city get tens of thousands of residents, many in low-income neighbourhoods, active and healthy.

This is the kind of activity we are seeing as organizations across Ontario partner with the province to promote increased participation in physical activity in

their communities. We want to make a real difference in the health and well-being of Ontarians in every region of the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Responses?

OMERS PENSION FUND

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I'm pleased to respond to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing upon the introduction of his bill today.

I welcome the presence of many police and firefighters, in addition to our colleagues the legislators, in the gallery here today.

I know police and firefighters, as the minister mentioned, have advocated for changes in OMERS governance and have spoken with members of our party as well.

The minister, as well, knows there are groups who will likely oppose the direction that this bill is taking. CUPE, for example, has some strong feelings about this bill. I know that municipalities

as well will have some strong feelings about the direction that this bill takes. There's no doubt, from what I understand, that a significant number of employee and employer groups have taken issue

with the approach, and there are some in favour of the direction as well. So I'm pleased to see that the minister is suggesting in his statement that we take this bill to committee after first

reading. I look forward to that process and hope there will be co-operation among all three parties, seeing that this is going to go for broad public consultation.

I wish they had used a similar process on first reading of a couple of other bills. For example, the greenbelt legislation would have been a much better piece

of legislation that would have taken into account the needs of farmers, municipalities and other stakeholders. In fact, I'll bet you would have had the science right if you had taken it out for

first reading and actually gotten input instead of the mad science you used that put junkyards and dump sites into the greenbelt. But I digress a bit. I just want to say that I'm pleased it's going

to first reading so we can hear from the police and firefighters, but also from CUPE, from AMO and other municipal employer and employee groups.

Secondly, when we're talking about OMERS, we have to remember as well that OMERS will likely be counted on to invest in public infrastructure. I say to the

Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal and his colleagues that the government has sent out tremendous mixed message on public-private partnerships. On the one hand you're opposed to them, and

then the next day you're in favour of them. In fact, investors are talking about what they call the Ontario premium caused by this uncertainty, meaning that if they're going to partner at all with

the Dalton McGuinty government, they're going to charge a higher rate of return to compensate for the uncertainty. Witness the process on the P3 hospitals, which they were against and then were for

them, MRIs and CT scans being nationalized, or the use of taxpayer dollars to attack companies in other countries.

Those are my comments, and I do look forward to this bill going to first reading hearings.

ACTIVE 2010

Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to respond on behalf of our Progressive Conservative Party, the

official opposition, to the statement by the Minister of Tourism and Recreation.

I first of all want to welcome the many former parliamentarians who are here today. It's good to see such a good turnout of our former colleagues.

Returning to the minister's statement, I think it goes without saying that our party is supportive of efforts to encourage the Ontario population to undertake

greater exercise. In fact, today I had an opportunity to go for a walk up to Bloor Street. My BlackBerry went off at quarter to 2 to tell me that there was a minister's statement, so I had to take

a cab back, unfortunately, and I didn't get the full benefit of my walk. But I think all of us would agree that it's worthwhile and beneficial to encourage people to walk a few minutes a day.

I must return to the other responsibility that the minister has as Minister of Tourism. We haven't seen him coming in here crowing about the provincial budget,

and for obvious reasons: His budget, as Minister of Tourism, was cut by 11.4%, some $21 million, in the most recent provincial budget. I know the minister would have advocated forcefully for an

expansion of his budget and done what he could. He is a well-respected minister within his caucus and within his government, but unfortunately, his colleagues weren't prepared to listen to him. I'm

disappointed about that. Certainly we need to do more in that area, and I would ask the government to continue to undertake efforts in that respect.

I want to leave some time for my colleague the member for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound to respond as well.

Mr. Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): As critic for everything over there, I'd like to say that I welcome Jim Bradley's speech today. I

wear my pedometer and I average about 8,000 steps a day.

Also, Mr. Gerretsen had a speech in here today. I'd like to mention in passing that I appreciate the money the ministry has put into our area, but I wonder if

it's the policy of this government not to inform the local members when they are bringing money into our area, not to let us know about things like that. Mr. Wilson and I both have been left

sitting on the sidelines as this government brings money into our riding and again forgets to tell the member. It must be an afterthought, I guess; they just forgot to tell us that we should have

been involved. Is this the policy of this open government that we have over here, Mr. Speaker? Maybe you can help me out on that.

OMERS PENSION FUND

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): I have to say first of all that it's really clear that we in the NDP have been agitating and trying to

convince this government for quite some time that there needs to be significant pension reform in the province of Ontario. Lo and behold, it's finally here. A small bit of it, anyway, has finally

arrived. I have to say there have been serious problems with the governance structure of OMERS --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): I'll give you your time. Will you stop the clock for me.

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): Stop the clock.

The Speaker: When the ministers were making their statements, I observed quiet respect from the opposition. Now I would also like the opposite

side to be quiet so I can hear this side too. I want to hear all sides.

As the member asked, the clock was stopped.

Now the member from Hamilton East with her response.

Ms. Horwath: There have been some very serious problems with the governing structure of OMERS for quite some time. At least at first glance,

this bill is an attempt to begin to tackle some of those problems. But the process, unfortunately, to get to this point of putting forward some legislation has been a seriously flawed process.

Everyone in this House has to know that all the OMERS stakeholders are very concerned. CUPE, OPSEU, CAW, IBEW, OSSTF, firefighters and police, all of these groups were pushing for a thorough review

of this particular governance situation.

The unfortunate thing is that this minister decided not to take an inclusive route in drafting this legislation and decided to ignore a number of those groups.

There are concerns coming up, particularly in regard to the way these changes are being based on a 2002 model that in fact was rejected by most stakeholders. It's unfortunate this legislation is

being based on that model. The government needs to set up an inclusive process, where all the stakeholders are invited to the table, where all of them can jointly meet together to talk about what

they need to do to make the governance work for them.

On top of that, there are a number of other reforms that need to happen in Ontario when it comes to Ontario pension systems. We need all kinds of different

changes. Some 60% of working Ontarians are not covered by pensions at all. We need to deal with the fact that even those who are covered by pensions in the private sector are facing situations

where their pensions are being eroded by inflation, because in Ontario there is no requirement to protect pensions from inflation.

We have to deal with the fact that the system that exists to protect workers when companies go bankrupt -- the pension benefits guarantee fund -- is thoroughly

underfunded, and even the backup amount people are allowed to access if their pension goes sour is only $1,000 a month, which might have been all right when it was instituted, but is nowhere near

enough now.

I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that Ontarians expect their government to deal with the pension problems in Ontario, and we look forward to the

opportunity to get this government to do something about it.

ACTIVE 2010

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): New Democrats endorse this campaign to get people physically active, and we are happy to see the

Minister of Tourism leading by example.

I can't help but think about people who are the working poor when you make these announcements. There is a connection for me in this regard. It might sound

negative, Jim, but I want to tell you this: How does it help -- I would like your opinion on this when you get an opportunity -- when we claw back the national child benefit? When we claw that

back, how do the working poor stay healthy when they have less money in their pockets? I think about those things, and I am convinced you do too. You must have an opinion in that regard.

I think as well that, yes, when we're talking about welfare rates you did something nice last year. The Tories cut it by 22% and you increased it by 3%. This

year they were frozen. I know there are a whole lot of working poor people who would love to stay healthy and eat healthy, and I'm not sure how they are going to get involved in this campaign when

they're worried about what they're going to eat, let alone go walk the dog. I know you understand what I'm saying.

The other problem we have is in dealing with the whole issue of smoking. Bill 164 is before us. Most of us are supportive of that bill; some may not be. When

people stop smoking, you know what they do, right? They eat and they become obese. So this campaign is particularly relevant, and I'm worried about your having lost about 11% of your budget. I know

it's got nothing to do with you and I know that you lobbied in your own ministry for more money to deal with the issues of obesity, but I'm really concerned at cutting 11% off your budget. People

cutting their smoking habit are going to roll up to the fridge and eat some more. Your ministry needs more money to promote these kinds of campaigns and to help out sports organizations. I'm

convinced that next year you'll be lobbying for more money to deal with issues of obesity and to get people walking. I'm looking forward to that day.

SENIORS' MONTH

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I believe we have unanimous consent for

each party to speak for up to five minutes in recognition of seniors' awareness month.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Do we have unanimous consent as requested by the government House leader? Agreed.

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): As Ontarians, we have the privilege and

good fortune of living in one of the best places in the world. As a way of recognizing those who have come before us and continue to shape Ontario, I encourage all Ontarians to join Seniors' Month

celebrations taking place in their communities in this month of June. I also encourage honourable members to both attend and organize activities as part of this month's celebrations.

Seniors' Month, which, as I stated before, begins today, is a much-loved tradition celebrating the province's older adults. Popular Seniors' Month events

include awards ceremonies, recognition events and social and senior information fairs. A time-honoured tradition in Ontario, it is a time when we make a special effort to recognize members of our

community who have helped shape and continue to shape our wonderful province.

Communities across this province were asked earlier this year to proclaim June as Seniors' Month and many have responded by officially proclaiming the month in

their communities. This year's theme is Active Living: It's for Life. It reminds us that keeping active is a lifelong affair. It is no secret that the health of Ontarians is a major priority for

this government. The link between active living and health is clear. Active living helps promote, maintain and improve our health. Ontario seniors deserve to live safely, with dignity and as

independently as possible with the supports they need.

One way to help them is to ensure that they have the information they need to access programs and services available to them and to which they are entitled.

This information is available in a variety of sources, including: public education and awareness events such as seniors' seminars, which provide seniors with valuable information on healthy aging

and healthy lifestyles; the toll-free seniors' info line, 1-888-910-1999, where callers can have their questions answered in dozens of different languages; a guide to programs and services for

seniors' portal network, www.seniorsinfo.ca, which brings together the three orders of government to provide information to seniors, their families and caregivers.

Collaboration is an important aspect of the work being done on the seniors' file. Various projects highlight these collaborative efforts, such as: the

collaborative seniors' portal that I mentioned earlier; the involvement of a stakeholder advisory committee for Seniors' Month, which brings together ministries and seniors' groups to help promote

the month; our current round table on Alzheimer disease and related dementias and inter-ministerial co-operation; stakeholder and interministerial involvement in the Elder Abuse Awareness Day; last

month's VE Day celebrations organized by the three orders of government, including our own, and with the participation of veterans' organizations and the Canadian military; provincial, federal and

territorial meetings of ministers responsible for seniors, such as the one I attended last week in Quebec City; and the round table on seniors with the city of Toronto and the federal

government.

Earlier I mentioned seniors' seminars. Seniors' Month provides an excellent opportunity to host a seniors' seminar. They are available on a number of different

topics, such as safe medication use; how to protect your money from schemes, scams and flimflams; advanced care planning; and safe driving.

To inquire about making arrangements for a Seniors' Month seminar in their communities, the members may contact my office or the Ontario Seniors' Secretariat

for further information. These seminars provide seniors with valuable information on healthy aging and healthy lifestyles, and they are made possible through partnerships.

Speaker, wishing you and particularly those former members who are joining us here today who may be older Ontarians all the best this month, Seniors' Month in

Ontario. Let's celebrate seniors. They deserve it. We owe our high standard of living to them.

Mr. Cameron Jackson (Burlington): I'm pleased, as I am every year, to stand and respond to the importance of Seniors' Month.

At the outset, let me just say it's unfortunate that the minister has already made a statement in the House today about OMERS, and not once did he mention

OMERS retirees. He's about to restructure OMERS. Did he put OMERS representatives, retirees, at the table? That is not in his announcement today, and it's something that --

Interjection.

Mr. Jackson: Well, the minister is yelling at me. He had an opportunity to demonstrate his support for seniors. It's something that our

government did when it put retired teachers at the table to deal with their pension plan, and we believe that is a principle that all governments should embrace.

But the importance of today's announcement of course is the growing number of seniors in our province who continue to live longer. By the year 2016, there will

be more seniors living in this province than persons under the age of 14, and by the year 2026, there will be over three million seniors living in our province. So we have some serious

challenges.

Good government is government that responds to the future needs of its province, and I'm proud to have been part of a government that established an entire

menu of services and programs which the minister very kindly enumerated for us.

The Alzheimer's strategy, which our party developed: We're still waiting for the government to do a multi-year financial commitment to continue that

outstanding -- world-leading, I might add -- work.

Elizabeth Podnieks and her work on the abuse strategy: Again, we are looking for the multi-year funding commitment that they received from the previous

government.

The Memory Project: I can say publicly that the minister has supported and continues to support it and they are expanding that wonderful program that was begun

a few years ago, and I thank him for that.

There are, however, some concerns on the medical front on which seniors are speaking to their government, and this needs to be covered. The chiropractic

are still long-term-care facilities that don't allow podiatrists in to provide those important services to seniors.

We have a recent study coming out on waiting times in our province that indicates that a disproportionate number of older women are put on longer waiting lists

for hip and knee surgery in this province than are men, and there seems to be no strategy to assist seniors in that.

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): That's ridiculous. That's absurd.

Mr. Jackson: I will give the minister the actual copy of the report from Sunnybrook hospital.

The minister may also be interested in knowing that his waiting time strategy will have some adverse effects for seniors. Yes, on the one hand there will be

greater access to hip and knee surgery, or in this instance cataract surgery, but I got a call last night from one of my senior citizens whose two-year wait for a cornea transplant, which will

affect her potential blindness, something her cataract surgery won't -- her cornea transplant has now been put on a three-year waiting list because of the government. The government didn't set out

to increase waiting times and cause this to happen. I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that when you don't consult with the OMA and don't consult with seniors' groups in this province, these

are the kinds of things that happen to the delivery of health care for seniors in our province.

On the issue of the drug plan, the budget and the minister have stated publicly that they have to engage in a cost-containment strategy for the Ontario drug

benefit plan, $3.3 billion annually. They have budgeted less than 10% this year, and yet the growth is between 14% and 15%. So the minister has a challenge, but hopefully that does not result in

reduced access to medications, something which Lillian Morgenthau and Bill Gleberzon and members of the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, 50-Plus, have been lobbying the government not to do

on behalf of seniors. The Ontario Pharmacists' Association has done that.

As you can see, there are many, many issues that are of concern to seniors. As the minister has suggested, I am also very pleased today to announce my 19th

annual seniors' seminar in Burlington. We get no fewer than 450 to 500 every single year to our seniors' seminar. Our MC again this year is Gordie Tapp, the Canadian and Ontario Award recipient. He

will be turning 84 years young on Saturday as the MC of our seniors' seminar. I encourage all members to engage in similar programs in their communities.

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I'm pleased on behalf of New Democrats to recognize seniors' awareness month in Ontario. New Democrats

salute seniors whose past working life and volunteer life have made and continue to make an enormous contribution to the social, economic and cultural fabric of Ontario. I think about veterans

whose enormous courage during World War II gave us the freedom that we enjoy today. I think about the miners, the steel and mill workers, forestry and construction workers and engineers who were

involved in the development of our transportation systems and public institutions; the health care professionals, educators, public servants and emergency service personnel who started our colleges

and universities, developed our health care and public services and put in place the protection and emergency services to respond to safety and crisis issues. I think about the painters, the

writers, the musicians, authors and filmmakers who've expressed what Ontario is to the world.

We are in debt to Ontario's seniors for their past accomplishments and for their current contributions in so many organizations across so many fields in

Ontario today, so the province is much richer as a result of their efforts.

Seniors, through their organizations, also advocate around issues which are important to them. I would be remiss today if I didn't talk about a brief that

Ontario seniors, through their organization United Senior Citizens of Ontario, gave to this government. I just want to focus on their health concerns in particular:

"

(1) Delisting of services: Delisting of services vital to seniors such as physiotherapy, audiology, chiropractic treatments and ... the frequency of eye exams

is detrimental to seniors' health. At a time when health care dollars are scarce, USCO feels this is a short-sighted policy and not a cost-effective way of managing health care. The USCO implores

the Ontario government to re-examine these issues.

"

(2) Over- and undermedicating: Over- and undermedicating continues to be a problem for many seniors. The USCO recommends that the Ontario government create a

task force to review current and previous research to devise a strategy to combat the inappropriate and unsafe use of medication.

"

(3) Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests: The Ontario government pays for mammograms to prevent breast abnormalities, as a preventive measure. Costs for PSA

should be covered for the same reason. At the present time, only PSA tests done at a hospital are covered by OHIP," and the wait lists are long. "The USCO again reminds the government that this is

an injustice that needs correcting....

"

(5) The ... Ontario health tax: The ... Ontario health tax is contrary to the health care benefits this province's seniors have received for many years. It is

unfairly imposed and mathematically incorrect. A lower-income earner pays a higher percentage of their income than a high-income earner does. The government must re-examine this tax. It is wrong,

and the USCO strongly urges the government to withdraw this undesirable tax....

"

(7) Macular degeneration: Macular degeneration is the leading cause of blindness in older adults. The USCO again strongly urges the Minister of Health to

finance the more aggressive and effective treatment available for `wet' macular degeneration: $7,000 to $10,000 per eye is a high price to pay and is beyond the means of most seniors to retain

their vision....

"

(10) Disabilities and in-home care: Some degree of independent living is preferable to residing in nursing homes wherever possible. The USCO encourages the

government to look closely at improved long-term, in-home care to accommodate individuals who need some degree of assistance but not the full care of a nursing home."

In that regard, this government should have long ago scrapped the current regulation in home care that ties homemaking services to personal care needs. It is

grossly unfair that a senior or disabled individual can only qualify for help with laundry and for housekeeping and for homemaking if they also have to require help with a bath. Many seniors don't

need and don't want help with a bath, but they certainly could use homemaking services to remain independent. This government should bring in a regulation to change that.

Where is this government's long-term-care legislation? The minister last November promised legislation early in the spring. We haven't seen any legislation; we

haven't heard about any legislation. We certainly haven't seen a timetable for introduction of a bill or for public hearings or for clause-by-clause -- nothing.

Where is this government's promise to reinstate minimum standards of care in long-term-care homes in this province? Before the last election, this government

promised it would reinstate the 2.25 hours of hands-on care per resident per day in long-term-care homes. Then, last October in the estimates committee, the minister said that his government had no

intention of doing that. I can tell him that those unions who work in long-term-care homes think that we need 3.5 hours of hands-on care per resident per day. Where is the government on this

important issue?

As we celebrate Seniors' Month, I remind the government that there are many issues before it that affect seniors. They should get down to the business of

dealing with those important issues.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. There are many small discussions going on, and I'm having extreme difficulty hearing members. So if we could reduce these

discussions. If it is necessary for you to have them, you may have them outside.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I want to return to the issue of

fundamental privacy concerns that exist with respect to your adoption legislation now before this House.

It is clear that this legislation is still evolving. You are still amending your bill, I guess as recently as yesterday's hearings. To me, together with the

concerns of the privacy commissioner, this underlines the need to make sure that we get this right, which you're trying to do, and so am I. Will you consent to working together with all parties to

ensure that your bill strikes the right balance between making it easier for adoptees and birth parents to get information while at the same time ensuring that privacy rights are respected where

desired?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): The Leader of the Opposition

probably will know that three weeks ago I approached the members from your side of the House and asked if in fact your members had any amendments to post for the bill. We did the same thing with

the NDP. This was well before they were due to go to committee. The member should also know that if we had received amendments in advance, it would have given us an opportunity to have our legal

department look at them. We wanted to take the time so that we could do it properly and take them seriously. I think the member's seatmate will recall our conversation around amendments. We have

been very happy to work with all members of the House.

The history on this issue is that in the last 10 years that I've been here, and five years before that, the majority of members from this House, at about 90%

of all parties, had supported the bill, which included retroactivity and a no-disclosure veto. We are prepared to work with all members of this House, and we have indicated that in the past.

Mr. Tory: I'm sure there's improvement that could happen on all sides here, because I would point out that on Monday, I think we got 40 pages

of amendments we'd never seen before, and it was in fact after the very same deadline that was imposed upon us. But that's not really the point here.

Today, a Globe and Mail editorial on this subject echoes the concerns raised by our caucus in the House and by the privacy commissioner, trying to get that

balance right. The editorial says, "As the Ontario government moves to strip the time-honoured privacy of women who gave their children up for adoption ... If those birth mothers beg, and plead,

and manage to convince a panel that they would be in real danger, they might, just might, be able to retain the privacy that they and others have relied upon for many decades."

Dealing with the most common example of a woman who gave up a child and was assured of confidentiality decades ago, do you think they should be forced to come

to a tribunal and beg for the privacy they were guaranteed, particularly when you have already stated in advance, in your comments to the press, that birth mothers seeking to preserve past secrecy

aren't the people who should be granted a veto by your proposed tribunal? Do you think that's right?

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: I need to read to you just an excerpt from a letter that I received: "In the 15 years that I have been involved in

reuniting others I have reunited mothers who were raped. All of the mothers that I have found in the last 15 years who were raped had a reunion with the exception of one....They neither chose rape

or adoption in the first place. They did not blame their baby for something that was not their fault. They were loving women who were able to embrace their now adult child in a reunion."

I would remind the leader that, in this instance, it was not with the help of the government. They were found by their own means with no protections such as a

contact veto.

"Further to this I have worked in incest cases where the two parties reunited. No, it was not easy and it required support....

"I take great exception to anyone promoting shame, fear and secrecy when it comes to rape. Research shows as far as domestic violence, rape and incest that in

fact secrecy and shame contribute to the trauma."

I read this for one express purpose. There are all sides on every piece of the issues that are being delivered today. Whatever the circumstances, there is more

than one opinion on this. That's why it has become difficult and we are taking the time we have taken.

Mr. Tory: I appreciate the fact that we're all taking the time. I guess it comes down to, as you said, making some choices.

I gave some examples yesterday to the Premier and the minister which I believe merit some consideration. For all the good this bill can achieve, there are

still some serious outstanding privacy concerns. Yesterday you mentioned that many of the details, including all the aspects of how your tribunal would work, will be left for people to figure out

in secret after your bill is passed. It will be done without the involvement of this House and out of the view of the public.

I would ask you now, Minister, will you take the time to get it right, and work with all of us on all the details as to how this tribunal will work in order to

ensure that the right balance is struck between those who wish information about their identity and those who wish to ensure their privacy is respected and maintained? Will you do that?

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: Let me give you another example. I'll quote from a letter I received.

"My birth mother was very receptive when first contacted even though the circumstances surrounding my birth were and remain very painful for her. She was

sexually assaulted and has still not dealt with the trauma after all this time. Was that the story I wanted to hear? Of course not. We are always warned" -- or were warned -- "by ... family and

friends: What if there is rape, incest or your birth father is an axe murderer? We expect the worst.

"But I have dealt with the truth. It is as much a part of me as the colour of my hair.... That is what adoptees seek. The truth about themselves...."

The reality is that we are prepared, with the amendments we have tabled, to strike a fair balance with this new law. We believe we have to make it as easy as

possible for everyone. We don't intend to bring harm to anyone, and we are striking a balance so that we will not. We are also following other jurisdictions where we have a record of experience

where the no contact has never been breached.

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

Mr. Tory: My question again is to the minister. The fact is we're not doing anything consistent with what others have done in this

country.

I have a copy of a letter that was sent to you two weeks ago from a birth mother. She was too frightened to reveal her name, but I want to read from the

letter:

"We gave up children for adoption decades ago with the promise that the files containing our identifying information would remain sealed. I was promised this

in a courtroom before a judge, represented by a lawyer, a frightened teenager who was still living the nightmare of an unwanted pregnancy."

She continues, "... we never would have dreamed that the government that we trusted to keep our past confidential would be the one so cavalierly opening up

these records."

I understand -- I think we all do -- what you are trying to do for the rights of those who want to know about their identity. Are you willing to extend the

same consideration to the people who want their privacy maintained, who were told their privacy would be maintained and who don't wanted to have to beg in order for their privacy to be respected

and maintained? Are you prepared to do that?

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: I think this member opposite will know that the bill that was tabled originally in this House included the opportunity for

adult adoptees to go forward to this board. The details of how the board would work we would lay out in regulation and we would do that very carefully with experts in this field and, in particular,

the same experts who helped us craft this bill, like the child advocate, like the Attorney General and their department that dealt with these issues.

Secondly, once it went to hearings, we were very clear: We are prepared to listen to all sides to ensure we have that safety valve, that caution for anything

and all that might happen. We have listened to that. We have now added to the opportunity at that board, for birth parents to attend, because we have heard there might be very extreme circumstances

or harm, and we don't want that. So we have added that amendment.

We said in the beginning that a large chunk of the work will be after the bill becomes law, and it really is important how we strike the work of that board,

who belongs to that board, how people go to the board, how we can make it easy for people so they don't incur additional trauma. We're prepared to do that work.

I would request of the Leader of the Opposition that if he has suggestions in that manner that he start to table them with us because we are very prepared to

take that information from him.

Mr. Tory: The minister outlines part of the problem here. She's just finished telling me, "We will do all that work. Just don't worry about a

thing. It'll all be out of sight of the public, it'll all be out of the Legislature and we'll have the experts in," whoever the experts are, when in fact we're sent here to help make those

decisions and to be involved in those kinds of discussions.

Another letter that I received, just sent in three days ago, states the case of two boys who were adopted from children's aid, both with special needs. The

younger of the two came from an extremely abusive situation, suffered from malnourishment, physical injuries and emotional scars. Your legislation, as it is currently written, would require one of

these two boys, on the occasion of his 19th birthday, to appear before your tribunal to beg that his privacy be respected so as to prevent his abusive birth parents from finding out personal

information about him. Do you honestly believe this is an appropriate way to deal with this kind of circumstance?

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: Let me say that in the several months that we have worked internally to craft the bill, from the very beginning, we have

looked at every single possible scenario, in particular from the eyes of the adult adoptee. This is why we created the bill that we tabled in the House.

I will also tell you that for every letter or e-mail we got in this kind of circumstance, we had 10 times the number from individuals who had a past that would

be extremely difficult who demand information themselves, who insist on the passage of this bill, who do not want to see any additional amendments and who want openness. They themselves have said,

"We demand information that for many years we have been denied." They call themselves second-class citizens.

We understand that, yes, it's difficult. Our intent here, and I hope that's what we have achieved, especially with the addition of the amendments, is to have a

very balanced approach to take care of the extreme situations and to do it well.

Mr. Tory: I will admit to having received more e-mails from people who want the situation opened up than those that who have a contrary view,

but the job we have to do here as legislators is to make sure everybody's rights, including those in particular of the minority, are respected.

The privacy commissioner, an officer of this Legislature, read letters, deeply personal letters, that she had received from people. Your amendments that were

tabled do not address their concerns. A woman who was the victim of sexual assault and had a child as a result will still have to beg to have her privacy maintained; for adoptees who came out of an

abusive situation, it's the same thing; and the more common instance of a woman who had a child out of marriage and had to give it up will still have to beg to maintain her privacy.

You can't tell us any details of how this will work because you've admitted -- you've been honest -- you don't have those details; you're going to work them

out in secret. For the sake of these people who will not or cannot speak up, I am asking you to work with us to address what I admit is a minority of the cases, but a minority whose rights deserve

to be protected and respected. Will you do that?

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will also acknowledge -- and I appreciate that even in his own caucus, like

probably many people out there, half of your members voted for the bill and half of them didn't. I understand that the half who opposed it do have issues. We believe we're addressing those. I also

can tell you, from my years in this Legislature, that when we create the law, there are many of those details that always appear in regulation, and that's where the lion's share of the work goes. I

appreciate, too, that the individuals we have worked with -- these experts in the field, the Ontario Children's Aid Society, the child advocate's office, the Attorney General, which works in these

areas -- worked diligently on this bill and understand the nature of what comes next in regulation.

Let's be clear: We have said from the outset that this is about the right to information, not the right to a relationship. We insist that finally, after many

years, adult adoptees finally have access to information. It is about time that someone respected their rights, because for many years they were not being respected.

SERVICES FOR DISABLED CHILDREN

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

"Unjust, oppressive and wrong": That is how the Ombudsman describes the McGuinty government's treatment of families with disabled children. He says that these

families are in crisis. Why? Because, as he says on the cover of his report, parents are forced to place their children with severe disabilities in the custody of children's aid societies to obtain

necessary care.

On Monday, you stood in the Legislature and you gave those parents a solemn guarantee. You promised to help; you promised to make things right. Then two hours

later, those parents discovered that the McGuinty government had filed court documents with the intention of continuing to oppose and fight those parents and their children.

Minister, why are you telling these parents and their disabled children one thing in public while behind closed doors you continue to do everything you can to

fight them and oppose them in court?

Hon. Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children and Youth Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): We are ready to reunite these

families. As I said two days ago, the children's aid societies are ready to make the calls and reunite these families. It is the families' lawyers who have some concerns about our government

contacting the families directly. I hope this is resolved very, very quickly, because we do have a plan to reunite the families and restore parental rights.

Mr. Hampton: Minister, you might like to know that the families' lawyer, Mr. Doug Elliott, is here today and he is quite willing to meet with

you or the Attorney General or anyone else who wants to say one thing in public and then do something else behind closed doors in court.

But I want to send you a letter. This is a letter that was sent to you just a couple of weeks ago by one of the parents, and it starts out,

"Dear Minister: ...

"When your [party] was in opposition, you supported our claims. We were pleased to see you form the government because of that support. No doubt many of our

families voted for your party...." The letter goes on to ask you -- no, it pleads with you -- for a meeting so that you can stop the court battle and you can settle.

Minister, you didn't even respond to this letter. You didn't respond; the Premier didn't respond; the Attorney General didn't respond. How can you say that the

parents and their advocates are holding this up, are stopping this, when they are pleading with you to settle the issues?

Hon. Mrs. Bountrogianni: The Attorney General.

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): Yes, we are

ready to go and ready to implement the direction that the minister indicated earlier this week. But I have to say to the member that I'm surprised. It is a truly unique former Attorney General who

brings counsel into a legislative chamber and tries to turn a matter that is before the courts into a matter that is before the Legislature.

I say to him, which is it to be, Mr. Hampton? Are we in this House going to determine how governments are to govern, or are we going to have that debate take

place in a courtroom? We say -- and your government said when you were in power, and the previous government before that and the one before that have always said -- that it is a democratically

elected Legislature that ought to determine how governments govern and how governments treat issues like how we serve parents of disabled children. We will certainly continue to stand for that

principle.

Mr. Hampton: It was this government that filed the court documents. It was this government that said, "We don't want to settle."

I want to read from this letter. This is from the mother of a disabled child.

"I ask of you, Minister, to meet with me face to face to review the issue and resolve the problem without further litigation. Clearly, if the political will

exists, the cruelty of forcing families to surrender custody to access services will end. We the Ontario families are now and always have been available to you to assist in identifying solutions to

the problems....

"On behalf of all families involved, I am requesting a meeting with you, our minister, to review the existing issues and to discuss possible resolutions that

will assist the families."

This doesn't sound to me like families who want to fight in court. This doesn't sound to me like families who are holding up a resolution. It was this

government, after telling these parents you were going to help them, that ran down to the courthouse at 4 o'clock and filed documents saying, "We'll see you in court." So don't try to tell these

parents one thing in public --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Bryant: The families, represented by counsel, brought an action against the government of Ontario. The Superior Court of Justice

ruled that in fact it was plain and obvious that the claim for damages and negligence could not succeed and confirmed that the court would not interfere with ministerial decisions with respect to

how the government would govern. Then the plaintiffs, represented by counsel, appealed that decision. They appealed that decision to the Divisional Court. The Divisional Court made a ruling. The

ruling is one that we are appealing in this court.

What are we doing as a government in terms of how we are assisting disabled children? The minister has stated exactly what we are doing. We are working toward

reuniting their families. I will say to you that I will hold up this government's record with respect to the treatment of children against that government's record any day.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr. Hampton: To the minister of Children and Youth Services: Minister, I want to send you two reports in the Globe and Mail. One is a report

from the front page that says the Ontario government is to settle a lawsuit with corporations for $63 million. The other is a press report that says, "Quick Return of Disabled Children in

Jeopardy." What it seems like is this: When it comes to settling with these poor corporations, like IBM Canada, Fujitsu Consulting (Canada), Teranet Enterprises and EDS Canada, and paying them $63

million, the McGuinty government can't move fast enough, but when it comes to disabled parents and their kids, you have been fighting them all the way for two years. That is why they went to the

child advocate, that's why they went to the Ombudsman, and that's why they went to court, because you have been fighting them and delaying them and blaming them all along. Minister, will the

McGuinty government stop blaming these parents and their advocates, and will you finally do the right thing?

Hon. Mrs. Bountrogianni: I have taken the advice of the child advocate and other experts in the field and, yes, of the Ombudsman, and we're

ready to go. We have a plan. We are ready to restore parental rights immediately. Children's aid societies are right by the phones waiting for the go. And we will be responding to the direction of

the Ombudsman's report in the next two weeks over the rest of his recommendations. We're ready to go, and just like the AG said, I'll put my record against that government's record any time when it

comes to children.

Mr. Hampton: The reality is that the parents' lawyers are there to protect their rights. They're there to make sure that the McGuinty

government doesn't pull a fast one. Let me give you an example of a fast one. This is what I guess one expert had to say about this terrible situation: "You are breaking your own law, Premier. You

are failing these kids. Will you agree today to at least restore funding for special-needs agreements, or will your government continue to put corporate tax cuts ahead of the interests of our

special-needs children?" Do you know who that was? Do you know who said that? Michael Gravelle, chair of the McGuinty government caucus, said that. That's what he said.

Now, when these parents sent you a letter asking for a meeting, you wouldn't even meet with them.

The Speaker: Question?

Mr. Hampton: When they pleaded with you to meet with them, you wouldn't even respond.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. Member on the government side, could you come to order, please? I'm trying to hear the leader of the third party complete

his question -- in 10 seconds.

Mr. Hampton: You see, Minister, what these parents are puzzled by now is that before the election, you were all on their side. You've had two

years to do something about it, but it seems the only place you're willing to meet them now is in a courtroom. Tell me, Minister. You say you're ready to go. When are you going to settle?

Hon. Mrs. Bountrogianni: We're ready to go. We were ready to go to have parental rights restored by Friday. We're ready to go, within a few

weeks, to address the remaining of the Ombudsman's recommendations, as well as the advice from the child advocate and other experts.

I would like to remind the honourable member that he voted against taking those tax cuts away. He voted for the corporations. So it is a little bit -- I can't

say the word; it's non-parliamentary -- but it's a little bit rich that he would say that to us now.

As well, under those two former governments, children's services were cut. We put in $100 million in a year and a half for special-needs children, the biggest

increase for special-needs children in the history of this province, more than 15%. We're proud of our record.

Mr. Hampton: I want to tell the government that the budget I voted against is a budget that's going to give the banks a $1-billion capital tax

grab --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Can we get to the question now?

Mr. Hampton: The budget I voted against is a McGuinty budget that's going to give the banks a $1-billion capital tax cut over the next 10

years.

Minister, I want to read from this mother's letter again. She said, "We have been carrying on a lengthy and expensive court battle that has placed additional

strain on the families and government resources. We are hoping that you will work with us to come up with a humane solution. If you will not, we will continue our struggle. We believe that a direct

meeting is necessary in order to avoid many more years of this battle."

Minister, can you tell me, can you tell the people, did you meet with these people? Did you even respond to their letter?

Hon. Mrs. Bountrogianni: My response is action: By Friday, we were ready to have restored their parental rights; over $100 million in new

monies for special-needs students. Those actions speak louder than any words that the member opposite could take out of his mouth.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

Mr. Cameron Jackson (Burlington): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services, who's also responsible for women's issues.

My question is this: The privacy commissioner spoke with the minister's office regarding her Bill 183 many months ago. The minister has stood in this House on several occasions and said that she

has taken the advice of this commissioner. Yet on Monday, hours after the minister tabled her amendments, on the very day we were dealing with clause-by-clause movement of this bill, the

commissioner, Ann Cavoukian, indicated that the privacy rights were not protected with this amendment, as the minister has said.

Minister, there is a specific group of child victims who are adoptees in this province. They are predominantly women. They were in many cases raped; they were

sexually assaulted, physically abused, and in some cases were the victims of incest. Do you not believe that this unique group of adoptees, child victims, deserves to have an unfettered right to a

disclosure veto for their own personal protection?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): Let me say this: We have for many

months as a government and for many years as a House, on bills that have come before this House regarding adoption, consulted with the privacy commissioner. As a government, in our consultation

with the privacy commissioner, she has acknowledged that while her office does not have purview over adoption -- it is not part of her work -- we have wanted her advice regardless.

Moreover, she has stated repeatedly in letters to others in this House, and certainly to us, that this ultimately becomes a social policy decision of the

government. She's made that clear to us. We have asked her advice because we need to understand what it is that we do.

We also understand that her position has been one of no retroactivity and a disclosure veto. We have said again that were we to accept that, we simply wouldn't

have a bill before the House, because we do believe in the rights of children. We do believe, just as the United Nations found in their Convention on the Rights of the Child, in which they said

that the supreme right must be a child's right to information -- that in fact led to the development of our bill. We respect the myriad --

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr. Jackson: The United Nations does not support any notion that allows child victims of sexual assault and incest to be re-victimized by a

panel of adults sitting in decision on whether or not they suffered emotional harm in this province. That is why we have a Victims' Bill of Rights in this province that says you do not have to go

before a tribunal and prove that you suffered emotionally as a consequence of a tribunal decision. Minister, your veto in its current form is wrong for these individuals, for one simple reason:

Many of them don't even know they were sexually assaulted or that they were the victims of incest as small children and infants.

Will you, Minister, today agree, as I raised in committee yesterday, that upon reaching the age of majority, an adoptee has the right to have access to their

CAS files so they will then know if they wish to exercise their veto for disclosure, for their own personal protection. I remind you, these are mostly women who were victims of abuse as infants and

children. I ask you, how will they know how to make an appeal if they don't even know the circumstances of their abuse? Will you release the files and will you allow that to occur in

legislation?

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: Let me say what none of us in this House can do. None of us can pretend to speak with one voice on any of the

circumstances such as this member is describing today, because for every example we have also heard hundreds of others, children with their own histories, some of them terrible histories

admittedly, who are demanding that this bill pass and are demanding that it be passed quickly. They have been waiting for years for this.

I have to say that the goal of the government, and what I think we have struck in terms of balance with this bill, is that for those exceptional circumstances,

we will develop the easiest way for them to gain what they need by this board. But ultimately, we have said from the beginning that people have a right to information, not a right to a

relationship.

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

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: We have introduced a no-contact proviso in this that has worked in every jurisdiction in which it exists. We are standing

on that experience. We understand that there may be issues, and we are doing our due diligence --

The Speaker: Thank you.

INJURED WORKERS

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Minister, you know that today is Injured Workers' Day. You also

know that over the last decade, corporate bosses have done quite well: billions in rebates from experience rating and reduced WSIB premiums. In fact, WSIB officials have done quite well. The number

of WSIB officials receiving over a hundred grand a year has increased significantly in that decade. In view of that, is the government willing to commit today, on Injured Workers' Day, to

legislative changes to address the serious and critical matter of poverty among injured workers?

Hon. Christopher Bentley (Minister of Labour): I'd like to acknowledge on this day the presence of many of the injured workers I spoke to

outside, and I have spoken to injured workers on a number of occasions throughout the province.

The member is right that over the last 10 years, two previous governments, the one of which he was a part and the Tories who followed, took inflation

protection away from injured workers. For more than 10 years, money was taken out of the pockets of injured workers. They left this government and the board with a terrible mess to clean up.

Restoring fairness, dignity and respect to injured workers is what we intend to do. The board has been working very hard over the last 18 months on restoring

fiscal health. Today, they take some steps toward that greater fairness, because the board announced a change in the way it assesses benefits.

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

Hon. Mr. Bentley: It is ensuring that more money for workers who receive CPP benefits, as well as WSIB benefits, will end up in workers'

pockets, because they are not deducting all of the CPP benefits from the calculation. That's more money for injured workers --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Kormos: The wringing of hands and the "Oh, I feel your pain" speech does nothing to alleviate the poverty amongst injured workers. Injured

workers across Ontario have been signing petitions. If a couple of pages will come here, I'll send you some of them. They're addressed to the minister, saying that since 1996 the cumulative

increase in the cost of living is 22.7%. To the Minister of Labour, please, pages. During that time, the cumulative increase in benefits to injured workers has been only 2.5%. That means that these

injured workers have seen their benefits slashed by 20% in the last decade.

Before the last election, your party, the Liberals, promised to introduce a fair inflation factor to protect workers' benefits from inflation -- legislated

inflation protection. Today is Injured Workers' Day, a chance to keep your promise. When are you going to produce that legislation providing full cost-of-living protection for injured workers?

Hon. Mr. Bentley: These are interesting. It says "since 1996." Where was the "I feel your pain" speech from the member when his party reduced

inflation protection and took money out of the pockets of injured workers in 1994? Why has he only started in 1996, when he knows that he and his government were responsible for reducing inflation

protection?

We told injured workers during the campaign we'd help restore the damage. The first step is restoring the financial health of the board, because all workers in

the province depend on that board. We're doing that.

Today's CPP announcement was a good first step, but it's not all. We've heard the workers. We have given the board until September 30 so we can improve

return-to-work and labour market re-entry policies which they've spoken about. The decision-making process, the understandabililty of the process and restoring --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

FIREARMS SAFETY AND CONTROL

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey (Brampton Centre): My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. This past weekend,

Brampton suffered an appalling tragedy. A 21-year-old and a 17-year-old youth were shot while biking home from a basketball tournament. The 21-year-old-youth is currently recovering in the William

Osler Health Centre and 17-year-old Dwayne Lloyd was fatally wounded.

Minister, the citizens of my riding are concerned about the safety of their community and the safety of their children. What is our government doing to prevent

these gun crimes and protect our communities?

Hon. Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): I thank the member from Brampton Centre for her question. The

level of gun violence in Ontario over the last two years is worrying and unacceptable. I'm pleased to say that the work of the special anti-gun and gang unit, which was announced last year by my

colleague the Attorney General, is underway. This year, it is made up of senior police with expert knowledge.

Since this government was elected, 50 new crowns have been added and we have committed crown resources to the anti-gun and gang unit. There are currently 12

prosecutors in the Toronto region with specialized training in prosecution of firearm offences. We are taking a leadership role and we are working closely with the police and levels of government

to reduce gun-related crime and prosecute those responsible for the proliferation of firearms.

Mrs. Jeffrey: Minister, unfortunately this is not the first tragedy involving firearms that has affected my community. Last month, Livvette

Miller, a widow, a mother of four and a constituent of Brampton Centre, was killed when men armed with guns opened fire on a crowd of over 200 partygoers in a Toronto nightclub. Is our government

giving law enforcement officials the tools they need to fight crime?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The government continues to support the OPP's provincial weapons enforcement unit, which in 2004 was responsible for taking

over 1,800 guns off the streets and out of the hands of criminals. This government will continue to work with our municipal and police partners and support local strategies that help prevent and

fight crime.

We also announced, when we made our announcement about the 1,000 new police officers, that some of those will be dedicated to dealing with guns and gangs. We

also just yesterday passed a bill in this House that makes it mandatory to report gunshot wounds. This is something that the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, the Ontario Police Association,

the Ontario Medical Association and the Ontario Association of Police Services Boards have asked for because they need that as an added tool to help them deal with those people who are related to

gunshots.

SERVICES FOR DISABLED CHILDREN

Mr. John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. We learned from the Ombudsman's report

that troubled parents were required to relinquish custody of their severely disabled young children in order to get the care they need. I have a simple question: When did your senior officials

learn about this practice, Minister?

Hon. Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children and Youth Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): I actually knew in opposition

that this was occurring. What I didn't know was the extent to which it was occurring. The child advocate first brought that to my attention, and we've been working on this issue since then. The

Ombudsman, of course, brought much more evidence to light.

Mr. Baird: Minister, in supplementary, when this practice was brought to my attention in January 2001, it was immediately addressed. The

Ombudsman said, "These responses provided real solutions ... and are to be applauded on that account alone." Minister, I want to know when you and your senior officials learned about this repugnant

practice of requiring parents to give up custody of their severely disabled children for them to get the help they needed. When did you learn about this practice and when did your officials learn

about it?

Hon. Mrs. Bountrogianni: It's really interesting. I can almost accept the questions from the NDP, but from the Conservatives, the party that

cut services to children, that cut mental health services to children, that wouldn't even allow the officials to say the words "poverty" or "child care" or "research"? That's what they did. We've

put in over $100 million for special-needs children alone. We have increased child care like never before. We are, for the first time, going to be doing research so that we can, for the first time

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): I hope you want the answer to the question, member from Nepean-Carleton, but shouting at the minister is not

the way.

Hon. Mrs. Bountrogianni: For the first time, part of the ministry of children services will have a research line so that we can begin to

collect the data we need so that we can do our job. You were more interested in cutting taxes than in increasing services for children. We're interested in increasing services for children, and you

know it.

OMERS PENSION FUND

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. For far too long, there have been serious

problems with the governance structure in OMERS. In fact, from the first day your government was elected, OMERS stakeholders have been pushing you to try to make some reforms. All of them together

-- CUPE, OPSEU, CAW, IBEW, OSSTF and firefighters -- have been doing so, but you didn't take them seriously and you didn't take an inclusive route. Instead, you sat down with one group and ignored

the concerns of all the rest. Your process was all wrong, Minister, but you still have a chance to fix it. Will you finally do the right thing and set up an inclusive table where all the

stakeholders who are involved with OMERS can come up with a governance solution that meets all their needs, not just those of one small group?

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): Let me first of all say that we're the

first government to do anything about this particular situation that the municipal employees in this province have been crying out for for at least the last 10 or 15 years. Certainly the NDP didn't

do anything about it while they were in power, and during the Conservative years absolutely nothing was done about it. We've basically taken this step, in part, to implement the OMERS board report

that was done in 2002. During that period of time, I've met with a number of different individuals. I will continue to meet with them. I've met with CUPE on at least two occasions.

The bill has been given first reading, and the reason why it has been given first reading is so that it can now go to a legislative committee so that all

representations can be made by all those interested parties, both on the employer and the employee side.

Ms. Horwath: Minister, we're not talking about what's in the bill. We're talking about the process and what was left out of the bill.

Unfortunately, you had a very bad process. It ignored the concerns of the majority of plan members, CUPE members, who alone represent 44% of all plan members.

As I said, you've made the mistake, but there's time to fix it now. You can finally do the right thing and set a table where all the stakeholders can jointly

discuss and come up with a plan that meets all of their needs, not just the needs of one small group. Will you do that, Minister?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: Let me just say that I totally agree with the member who said that the New Democratic Party fully supports OMERS autonomy.

Who said that? The leader of the third party, Howard Hampton. I am with Howard Hampton on that.

We are the first government to take this step. It has taken us 18 months to get there, but the other governments that were in power before us did absolutely

nothing on this situation, even though the OMERS board and the various stakeholders within OMERS, both on the employer and the employee side, have been calling for this kind of action. We're

starting a process that will be an open process, and it will be done by a legislative committee. We hope that all of the various stakeholders will come before the committee and set out their

position so that we can come up with the best kind of law that's possible.

WATER QUALITY

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. As you know, water quality is a very important issue

for the people in my riding of Huron-Bruce. Not only is good water quality important for households, but it's also very important to the farmers who use it to keep their crops and livestock

healthy. I'm very pleased that our government is committed to clean water.

On May 19, 2005, in a statement to this assembly, you acknowledged the five-year anniversary of the Walkerton tragedy. Five years ago, seven Walkerton

residents died and over 2,000 others became ill as a result of water contaminated with E. coli.

Minister, yesterday you were in Walkerton. Could you please tell this House what you brought there and update the House on how this town is coping after the

tragic event five years ago?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): I'm very happy to have the opportunity to say that I brought much more away from

Walkerton than I brought to Walkerton, although the people there are always very happy when a minister of this government comes to support them in their initiatives.

The people of Walkerton have done a tremendous job on the five-year anniversary of the tragedy. There were events yesterday that were designed to commemorate

that event. There was a memorial garden in memory of the victims established at Mother Teresa school. I was able to be at that ceremony.

The citizens concerned from Walkerton had arranged for a water and health symposium, and people from across North America came to talk about water quality

issues and how we can ensure that water is safe in communities across North America. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was present last night to give a resounding address that very clearly indicates why we

must be vigilant about protecting our environment.

Yesterday I opened the Walkerton Clean Water Centre. This is a tremendous turnaround point for the people of Walkerton. They want their community to be

associated with clean water in the province of Ontario.

Mrs. Mitchell: I can't say it enough: Clean water is so important. Your presence in Walkerton really made a difference to that community,

Minister.

Most of us take water for granted in this country because we are blessed with an abundant source of fresh water. Water is our most precious resource, and we

should do everything that we can to protect it. Clean water means a healthy Ontario.

Yesterday, the chief drinking water inspector released his report. I don't need to remind you that we campaigned on a platform that promised Ontarians water

that they could trust, water that would be protected from stream to tap. Minister, what progress have we made on clean water standards since we were elected to ensure that Ontarians can trust their

water?

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: I think it's very important that we do take some time in this House to talk about the report of the chief drinking water

inspector and the information that he has made public for all the people of Ontario to know about water systems in their communities. I think it is important to note that there are declining

numbers of orders that are being issued to municipalities; however, I will not be satisfied until we have zero orders issued for municipal drinking water systems.

To that end, and for that reason, I have asked the chief drinking water inspector to work with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and also the

Ontario Water Works Association to assist them to achieve our goal of no violations of the 130 regulations that are in place for water system operations to meet. I'm very pleased to report that now

Ontario has a chief drinking water inspector, public reporting of the performance of drinking water systems, an advisory council to recommend improvements of drinking water, increased numbers of

drinking water inspectors and the strictest training and certification regimen for operators in North America.

RECREATIONAL VEHICLES

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Tourism is one of Ontario's major industries.

Recreation vehicles, or RVs, allow people to travel the country in comfort, as you know. Parks to accommodate these vehicles are springing up all over the world. Unfortunately, your ministry has

created vehicle registration policies that are punitive to RV owners and financially crippling to RV dealers. It may indeed fly in the face of free trade regulators. Minister, why do you feel it's

proper for your ministry to arbitrarily change the accepted date of manufacture of RVs when registering these vehicles?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): I will take this question under advisement. I would be more than pleased to get back to

the member on this issue.

Mr. Runciman: This shouldn't be a mystery to the minister. We spoke to officials in his office several times over a month and a half ago. We

asked your staff at the time for an explanation of your RV registration policies and we're still waiting. Clearly you haven't even been advised. I guess that's the way you respect the opposition

members of this House, apparently.

Back in 1979, the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration established that with vehicles manufactured in more than one stage, registration reflects

the year when the final product is completed, and the same rule applies to other Canadian provinces. But in Ontario, your ministry ignores this policy and dates a vehicle based on when the chassis

was manufactured. Therefore, a 2005 RV instantly becomes a 2004 RV with the resulting loss of value. Minister, why does your government have a policy that runs counter to every other jurisdiction

in North America?

Hon. Mr. Takhar: All I can say on this issue is that this is the policy that was set by the previous government and your colleague --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. Minister, just allow your other minister to respond without interruption.

Hon. Mr. Takhar: The member on the opposite side says he wants the right answer, not a cheap shot. I said I will take that under advisement

and will get back to the member. If that is not acceptable, I mean, what else can I say on this issue?

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): A question to the Minister of Labour: On June 30, Midtronics Canada is going to be closing their North Bay

operation, putting their employees out of work and sending those jobs, as it is, to China. It's bad enough that these workers are losing their jobs, but Midtronics is also refusing to pay severance

wages. Many of these workers will have been with the company for over a decade. They don't know what they're going to do. Minister, what are you going to do to help these working women and men get

the severance they deserve?

Hon. Christopher Bentley (Minister of Labour): As the member would know, the first thing that should be done is that the workers should

contact the Ministry of Labour office and ensure the employment standards inspectors know what the issue is. The fact of the matter is that, for many years, employment standards in this province

were not being enforced. In fact, there were a total of 97 prosecutions of employment standards vioations between 1990 and 2003. In the past year, we decided we would increase enforcement and we

more than doubled the number. There are almost 250 prosecutions instituted. But that's not all, because a special collection unit that was set up, under the previous administration, as a test

pilot, has been expanded throughout to cover all matters in the province. So where monies are owing, we're much more effective at collecting them. I'm looking forward to the member making sure the

ministry has details of this issue, so that if there are violations of the act, it can be properly dealt with.

Mr. Kormos: Minister, Midtronics Canada -- and you really should know this -- is a boss that has shown contempt for working women and men and

for the laws that are supposed to protect them. This company has refused to give its employees their due vacation time so that those workers can look for new work. They've also exploited the

60-hour workweek, the one that you've kept alive, so they could keep production up at the same time as they're planning to shut operations down. They've whittled the workforce down to 45 jobs, and

now they claim that they don't have to pay severance.

Minister, these workers deserve far better. The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers has asked you to close the loopholes in

employment standards laws that permit this boss to deny these workers their severance. Will you at least do that?

Hon. Mr. Bentley: The member would know that the most effective way to help workers in situations such as this is to make sure that they

immediately contact the local office to make sure that the government protections which exist through the act are immediately brought to bear. Legislation and regulation is great, but that doesn't

sound like it's going to address the type of situation that he outlines. So if it is real concern about the workers, get their claim into the local ministry office. It can be investigated and

worker protections can be extended.

The fact of the matter is, we rolled back the 60-hour workweek, which their party objected to and voted against. We brought in family medical leave. We're

enforcing the act. We're inspecting as never before. The Employment Standards Act and protections for vulnerable workers are being protected as never before. We're proud of that record.

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

Mr. Wayne Arthurs (Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge): My question today is for the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, and I know the minister

has been ignored today by the opposition, so he's looking forward to the opportunity.

As you are aware, the previous government for years made promises but failed to deliver on much-needed infrastructure investments in areas such as health,

education, transit, transportation and justice in this province, even though these are important areas of investments within my riding of Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge.

Last week, Minister, you took the opportunity to announce ReNew Ontario, a five-year, $30-billion infrastructure plan to help increase investment in Ontario's

public infrastructure, and specifically those same areas that were neglected for far too long.

My constituents hold these areas in very high regard and are interested in knowing what this government is doing to help modernize and replace infrastructure

assets in many areas in these sectors. In particular, they remain interested in the Durham consolidated courthouse, promised by two previous governments but not delivered --

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): The Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal.

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal): I want to thank the member from Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge for the question. The

member is quite correct: Both previous governments neglected Ontario's infrastructure for far too long. The contrast is that our government has set out a vision and a realistic plan that focuses on

the priorities that Ontarians have set for us.

Ontarians have told us that health care, education and economic prosperity are important priorities for this province. Unlike the last government, we listen to

Ontarians. Under ReNew Ontario, our five-year, $30-billion plan to increase investments in Ontario's public infrastructure, our government will ensure that these investments are made in key

priority areas. We need to build our infrastructure better, smarter and faster, and to do this, we have a made-in-Ontario approach that puts the public interest first. ReNew Ontario will invest in

the areas that matter most to Ontarians, while accommodating growth --

The Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Arthurs: I'm pleased that we as a government have the courage to invest in the future of this province to ensure that the high-quality

services Ontarians need and deserve will be there for them when they really need them.

Now that they know the government cares about their future and is listening to their priorities in health, education and economic prosperity, they'd like to

know the kinds of investments we're considering in each of these various areas. Within ReNew Ontario, what is the McGuinty government doing to ensure the province's hospitals and schools, its

post-secondary education, its roads, its transit and its water systems are ready for the future and for the anticipated growth in fast-growing areas such as Durham region?

Hon. Mr. Caplan: I know all members of this House will be interested and will want to listen to the answer. If we want to meet the needs of a

growing and aging population, if we want to help our economy grow strong, the status quo simply isn't going to work. The government and its partners will invest more than $30 billion in Ontario's

infrastructure. We're going to encourage our pension plans, like our teachers' pension plan and OMERS, to invest in Ontario's infrastructure.

Working together, we will invest -- and I want members to pay particular attention -- $5 billion in health care and hospitals by 2010; more than $10 billion in

schools, universities and colleges; $11.4 billion in public transit, highways and borders and other transportation; more than $600 million in affordable housing; more than $1 billion in the justice

sector. Our first such project, as the member pointed out, will be the Durham consolidated courthouse. Of the $30 billion --

The Speaker: I'm sure you can do that tomorrow.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): Thank you for that consideration, Speaker. I do appreciate it.

My question is to the Minister of Energy. Minister, you would know that today in Barrie the Society of Energy Professionals is bringing to your attention the

great risk that's in the transmission grid in Ontario. In fact, they made announcements last week about the May 27 situation, which was a massive short circuit at the Milton switching station. You

should also know that that 2,000-megawatt blip had consequences to our economy and to the safety of people in Ontario. For instance, the cost to NOVA Chemicals could be in the neighbourhood of $25

million, and there were others. I'm certain you would know that.

But what the energy professionals really want to know and to bring to your attention -- they're very concerned that you don't have a contingency plan in the

event of a power interruption in Ontario. Minister, my question to you is very simple: What is your government doing to ensure that the citizens and indeed the economy of Ontario are being

protected during any interruption, and what are your contingency plans?

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): What we're doing, first of all, is undoing everything the Tories did in the

last eight years. Let's review that record. Is there a contingency plan in place? Yes, there is. Even the society themselves -- let me quote what they said yesterday. They said: "I'm not willing to

go as far as to say that it would have been avoided if we were there, because I believe that's an overstatement."

I'd urge you and everyone else to turn down the rhetoric. Both parties should get to the table. This economy was not threatened and the blip was not caused by

that. There is a robust contingency plan in place in the event of a strike. I hope that won't occur. I don't believe it will at this point, but let's see what happens.

I'll further say to the member opposite that that type of allegation -- that somehow that blip was caused -- is nothing but pure fearmongering. It's not

supported by the facts; it's not supported by the reality. The reality is that when the blip happened, it got fixed immediately, and it was only a blip. What could have happened didn't happen. What

should have happened did happen. The system worked, it responded, in spite of the mess you left public hydro in.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): I'm urged to give another supplementary, but it's the end of question period.

PETITIONS

PROPERTY TAXATION

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

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas many owners of seasonal trailers kept at campgrounds have raised their concerns over the impact of property taxes on seasonal trailers and the

unfairness of imposing a new tax on persons who use minimal municipal services;

"Whereas this new tax will discourage business and tourism opportunities in Ontario and will cause many families to give up their vacation trailers

altogether;

"Whereas the administration of this tax will require a substantial investment in staff, time and resources across the province of Ontario;

"Whereas some representatives of the recreational vehicle industry, campground proprietors, and trailer owners have suggested an alternative sticker or tag

system to establish fees for seasonal trailers;

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

"That the Parliament of Ontario immediately abandon the assessment and taxation of recreational trailers used on a seasonal basis in 2004; and that the

government of Ontario consult with all stakeholders regarding the development of a fair and reasonable sticker or tag fee that would apply to recreational trailers used on a seasonal basis."

I affix my name in full support.

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario regarding the Credit Valley Hospital

capital improvements.

"Whereas some 20,000 people each year choose to make their home in Mississauga, and a Halton-Peel District Health Council capacity study stated that the Credit

Valley Hospital should be operating 435 beds by now, and 514 beds by 2016; and

"Whereas the Credit Valley Hospital bed count has remained constant at 365 beds since its opening in November 1985, even though some 4,800 babies are delivered

each year at the Credit Valley Hospital in a facility designed to handle 2,700 births annually; and

"Whereas donors in Mississauga and the regional municipalities served by the Credit Valley Hospital have contributed more than $41 million of a $50-million

fundraising objective, the most ambitious of any community hospital in the country, to support the construction of an expanded facility able to meet the needs of our community;

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

"That the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care undertake specific measures to ensure the allocation of capital funds for the construction of A and H block at

Credit Valley Hospital to ensure the ongoing acute care needs of the patients and families served by the hospital are met in a timely and professional manner, to reduce wait times for patients in

the hospital emergency department, and to better serve patients and the community in Halton and Peel regions by reducing severe overcrowding in the labour and delivery suite."

I send this to you via page Emma.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

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

"Whereas the Honourable Michael Bryant is minister responsible for democratic renewal; and

"Whereas the Honourable Michael Bryant, Attorney General of Ontario, is elected to safeguard our justice system on behalf of the people of Ontario; and

"Whereas the ministry of our Attorney General may not be aware of the serious and important issues facing individuals involved in areas of the justice system

even though the Attorney General's ministry is continually monitoring;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, ask the Honourable Michael Bryant, Attorney General, for his in-depth investigation of the Ontario judicial system and [to]

make the public aware of his findings immediately."

I've also signed this.

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I have a petition here, and I'd like to thank Deanna Gopie of Castlebridge Drive in Mississauga for

sending it to me. It's to the Ontario Legislative Assembly, and it's about banning smoking in public places in Ontario. It reads as follows:

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

"Whereas some 16,000 Ontarians each year die of tobacco-related causes; and

"Whereas the inhalation of direct and second-hand tobacco smoke both lead to health hazards that can and do cause preventable death; and

"Whereas more than four out of every five Ontarians do not smoke, and this large majority desires that enclosed public places in Ontario be smoke-free at all

times; and

"Whereas preventing the sale of tobacco products, especially to young people, and banning the use of tobacco products in public and gathering places of all

types will lower the incidence of smoking among Ontarians, and decrease preventable deaths;

"Be it therefore resolved that the Ontario Legislative Assembly enact Bill 164, and that the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care aggressively

implement measures to restrict the sale and supply of tobacco to those under 25; that the display of tobacco products in retail settings be banned; that smoking be banned in enclosed public places

or in workplaces, and banned on or near the grounds of public and private schools, hospitals and day nurseries; that designated smoking areas or rooms in public places be banned, and that penalties

for violations of smoking laws be substantially increased."

I support this petition. I affix my signature to it, and I'll ask Alexander to carry it for me.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): It's my pleasure to present a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Honourable Michael Bryant is minister responsible for democratic renewal; and

"Whereas the Honourable Michael Bryant, Attorney General of Ontario, is elected to safeguard our justice system on behalf of the people of Ontario; and

"Whereas the ministry of our Attorney General may not be aware of the serious and important issues facing individuals involved in areas of the justice system

even though the Attorney General's ministry is continually monitoring;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, ask the Honourable Michael Bryant, Attorney General, for his in-depth investigation of the Ontario judicial system and [to]

make the public aware of his findings immediately."

I'm pleased to sign and endorse this on behalf of Bert Werry and Peter O'Brien from my riding.

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I have a petition here, and I'd like to especially thank four people for sending it to me: Meg Hughes of

Forest Bluff in Lisgar, Yvonne Link of the Collegeway in Erin Mills, Kay Dryden of Falconer Drive in Meadowvale, and Mary De Almeida of Snowflake Lane in Trelawny.

It's to the Ontario Legislative Assembly with regard to the Credit Valley Hospital's capital improvement campaign, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas some 20,000 people each year choose to make their home in Mississauga, and a Halton-Peel District Health Council capacity study stated that the Credit

Valley Hospital should be operating 435 beds by now, and 514 beds by 2016; and

"Whereas the Credit Valley Hospital bed count has remained constant at 365 beds since its opening in November 1985, even though some 4,800 babies are delivered

each year at the Credit Valley Hospital in a facility designed to handle 2,700 births annually; and

"Whereas donors in Mississauga and the regional municipalities served by the Credit Valley Hospital have contributed more than $41 million of a $50-million

fundraising objective, the most ambitious of any community hospital in the country, to support the construction of an expanded facility able to meet the needs of our community;

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

"That the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care undertake specific measures to ensure the allocation of capital funds for the construction of A and H block at

Credit Valley Hospital to ensure the ongoing acute care needs of the patients and families served by the hospital are met in a timely and professional manner, to reduce wait times for patients in

the hospital emergency department, and to better serve patients and the community in Halton and Peel regions by reducing severe overcrowding in the labour and delivery suite."

This is my home hospital. I support this position, and I'll ask page Graeme to carry it for me.

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I wasn't sure we'd get a chance to do this petition. The member from Mississauga looked like

he had a speech going there.

A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the Minister of