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

May 17, 2005

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2005-May-17 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 17 May 2005 Mardi 17 mai 2005

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF

POLICE SERVICES BOARDS

CHET GERVAIS AND ADAM SINASAC

FARMERS AND RURAL ONTARIO

BURIAL OF INDIGENT PERSONS

NURSES

ONTARIO BUDGET

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GENERAL GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GREENBELT AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA CEINTURE DE VERDURE

HEALTH INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT (PSA TESTS FOR PROSTATE CANCER), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ (TEST PSA POUR LE DÉPISTAGE DU CANCER DE LA PROSTATE)

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

SUBVENTIONS DESTINÉES

À L'ÉDUCATION /

EDUCATION FUNDING

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

EDUCATION FUNDING

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

EDUCATION FUNDING

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO BUDGET

HOSPITAL FUNDING

CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

POLICE OFFICERS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

FOREST INDUSTRY

FEDERAL MEMBER

COMMITTEE

SCHEDULE

LANDFILL

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

REFINERY CLOSURE

NORTHERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

COMMITTEE

SCHEDULE

PETITIONS

ONTARIO FARMERS

HALTON RECYCLING PLANT

DRIVER PENALTIES

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

HIGHWAY 26

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

2005 ONTARIO BUDGET

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF

POLICE SERVICES BOARDS

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I rise in the House on behalf of John Tory and the PC caucus to welcome the Ontario Association of Police

Services Boards to Queen's Park.

The OAPSB met with John Tory and me this morning to explain their key issues in detail. We heard specific examples of how the lack of justices of the peace puts

additional pressures on municipal clerks and causes cases to be thrown out of court. We learned, to our great astonishment, that Elgin county doesn't even have a JP and requires video conferencing

to London for this service.

We learned that the OAPSB is concerned that Minister Kwinter has left too much up to regulations in his private security legislation, Bill 159. We also learned

of yet another Liberal broken promise to the public safety community: the McGuinty promise to allow for local bargaining of some aspects of the pension plan for police and other municipal

employees. Before this morning, I hadn't even heard of this Dalton McGuinty broken promise.

Anyone who has watched this House since October 2003 will know that I am fully aware of the McGuinty Liberals' broken promise to put 1,000 new police officers on

the streets for community policing. I wouldn't be surprised if the Liberals took advantage of Police Week to deliver some sort of joke reannouncement to make it look like they actually care about

keeping their word to police.

The other day we delivered a budget, and the words "police" and "community safety" were not even mentioned in the budget. Imagine how police stakeholders in this

province feel about that type of budget. I'm expecting that Mr. Kwinter will make an announcement tomorrow on community safety and policing. I suppose he will reannounce his September 24

announcement on hiring new police, or maybe it will be an expert advisory panel on community policing. Anyhow, we expect some kind of announcement.

CHET GERVAIS AND ADAM SINASAC

Mr. Bruce Crozier (Essex): I rise today to congratulate two very talented grade 11 students from Sandwich Secondary School in my riding, Chet

Gervais and Adam Sinasac. Using off-the-shelf hardware and software, these two students stunned scientists and engineers across Canada and across the world by developing a three-dimensional imaging

system that can reliably detect breast tumours without using MRIs or CT scans, and in a fraction of the time.

There is presently no medical imaging system commercially available in the world that can produce comparable co-registered mammography and high-resolution breast

ultrasound images. This medical device has significant patient care advantages, providing 100 times more breast ultrasound imaging information to the radiologist for review than during conventional

breast ultrasound imaging.

Competing against top teen scientists from around the world, this new medical device, dubbed the Matrix probe system, earned Chet Gervais a first award of $3,000

under the medicine and health category and an honourable mention for best use of photography to gather data at the recent International Science and Engineering Fair.

These two students prove beyond a doubt that there's nothing that can't be accomplished when you put your mind to it. Their ingenuity and imagination are an

inspiration. On behalf of everyone in my riding -- everyone in Ontario and Canada, for that matter -- I thank these students for their hard work and perseverance.

Congratulations, Chet and Adam.

FARMERS AND RURAL ONTARIO

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Yesterday in Ottawa, hundreds of Ontario farmers rolled on to Parliament Hill to deliver their

verdict on Liberal governments that have turned their backs on the people of rural Ontario. Many tractors carried signs that read, "No Farms, No Food, No Future." That's the reality many are facing

as they consider the only option this government gives them: selling out the family farm. That is the reality that faces all of us if this government continues the direction of ignoring the needs

of our rural families.

Take a look at the budget. No matter how you add it up, $613 million less in spending on agriculture compared to last year is another in a long line of refusals

by this government to address the challenges of our already struggling farmers and rural residents. I'll tell you, we will see a lot more tractors taking to city streets as the people we depend on

and rural Ontario become more desperate to find a way on to this Liberal government's agenda.

As organizer and Lanark Landowners' Association president Randy Hillier noted yesterday, "We found support from all parties -- except the Liberals." That is

because all parties except the Liberals understand that support for rural Ontario is essential to the success of the province as a whole. When are Liberals going to wake up and stop fiddling with

our future while the potential of rural Ontario burns?

BURIAL OF INDIGENT PERSONS

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Regional councillors down in Niagara are grappling with a provincial regulation that restricts them to paying

no more than $1,000 for a burial plot and burial costs for people on Ontario Works and other persons dying in abject poverty, when in fact municipalities across Niagara region regularly require

more than $1,000 for the burial plot, the average price being $1,318. Indeed, the regional municipality of Niagara spent $217,000 on the burial of indigent persons last year and has budgeted yet

$200,000 more this year.

I join them in their request, not just for clarification but in fact for updating the regulation to ensure that the costs that are allowed to be paid for the

burial of indigent persons accurately reflect what the realities are in terms of the cost of a municipal non-profit burial plot, among other things. Funeral homes are already co-operating by

providing significant discounts in their charges, but more significantly, the people of Niagara want to know why they are still having downloaded on to them almost a quarter of a million dollars a

year in a provincially mandated responsibility, the burial of indigent persons, when that cost should clearly be borne by the province of Ontario and not by property taxpayers in those good

municipalities across the regional municipality of Niagara.

The real issue here is for the government to pick up the tab and pick up its responsibility and pay these costs at the level where they should truly be

absorbed.

NURSES

Mr. Tony C. Wong (Markham): Last week I had the opportunity to see first-hand just how hard our Ontario nurses work every day. On May 13, as

part of Nursing Week's Take Your MPP to Work Day, I accompanied Markham nurse Janet Crozier on a patient home care visit.

Ontario nurses ensure the health and well-being of all Ontarians by providing compassionate and dedicated care. I would like to recognize those all too often

unsung heroes. The job of a nurse is a difficult one by nature, made all the more difficult by the drastic cuts in health care made by the previous government. Our government's May 11 budget

demonstrates a commitment to continue to change the conditions in health care left by the Tories. The Tories cut funding to hospitals by $557 million in their first two years in office but they did

not stop there. After spending nearly $400 million on firing 8,000 nurses in the province, they then spent hundreds of millions in a desperate attempt to rehire them, while at the same time

referring to nurses and other health care professionals as Hula Hoop workers. This is yet but another Tory legacy.

Our 2005 budget made record investments in home care funding. We will expand services to almost 50,000 additional Ontarians, including end-of-life care for 4,300

additional people. Our investments will result in more jobs for nurses, building on more than the 2,000 that have already been created.

The McGuinty government is committed to Ontario's nurses and the health of this province. We have made strides in cleaning up the mess left to us by the Tories.

Once again I thank Janet Crozier, Markham's Saint Elizabeth Health Care and all nurses for their dedication.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): Equal time, Mr. Speaker.

I know there are a few members here who were there. Wednesday's budget was a lot like David Peterson: déjà vu all over again -- big spending, a big

deficit and phase 2 of a record tax grab. Let's look at the facts.

Due to the tax hikes on working families and businesses and hydro rate hikes, they are raking in $13 billion more than the last PC government. Despite this

brazen tax grab -- and let's not forget about those broken promises -- they are still managing to run a deficit of some $3 billion. You talk about fiscal mismanagement; they have it in spades

across the floor. In fact, that is a pace of runaway spending that would make David Peterson gasp for air.

The Canadian Federation of Taxpayers pointed out that the spending per capita under the Dalton McGuinty government, some $6,578, adjusted for inflation, beats

Bob Rae and David Peterson without taking a breath.

The finance chair for the region of Niagara, the hard-working Councillor Doug Martin, is here today. I know he's going to be concerned that despite this record

rake-in in tax revenue, they are seeing cuts in important ministries for Niagara, like municipalities, tourism and agriculture.

When it comes to making tough choices on spending, I already talked about it being like David Peterson all over again. But to use another Yogi Berra metaphor,

when Dalton McGuinty comes to a fork in the road, he takes it.

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): Ontario's economy depends on the strength of its people. The people of Ontario depend on an infrastructure

that is modern, efficient and affordable. Children learn better in schools that are in good repair, and patients cope better in comfortable, up-to-date hospitals. Commuters need reliable public

transit and highway systems to travel from home to work. Business needs transportation networks to get the resources required to produce goods and services.

I rise in the House today not to lecture you or the people of Ontario on basic truths but to inform you and them of the investment this government made in the

2005 budget to make them possible. The McGuinty government is committed to a five-year, $30-billion infrastructure investment plan. This plan fulfills three key objectives: renewing infrastructure,

building new infrastructure and managing it better. The mayor of London, Anne Marie DeCicco, observed that the budget is focused on the priorities of Londoners: health care, education --

post-secondary education in particular -- and infrastructure needs. She thinks the budget is great news, that our message is clear, and the good news is being well received. The government cares

about the short- and long-term livelihood of our urban, rural and northern centres and communities and the businesses and people of this province who keep them running.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr. John Milloy (Kitchener Centre): I rise in the House today to talk about what our government is doing through our recently tabled budget to

improve the lives of children in this province. Not only does our budget propose a huge boost to postsecondary education in Ontario, but it also confirmed our investment in our youngest citizens'

education. Our government understands that the foundation for students' success begins in the early years. That's why we are so proud and excited about our Best Start program. Best Start will

significantly increase child care spaces for children in junior and senior kindergarten and make child care fee subsidies available to more families.

I'm proud that the budget is also making it easier for families to keep their children safe. Last December, Bill 73,

An Act to enhance the safety of children and

youth on Ontario's roads, was passed. Regulations under this act would make booster seats mandatory for children who are too big for child car seats, yet too small to be properly protected by seat

belts. The budget proposes an amendment to the Retail Sales Act. The amendment would ensure that families get a retail sales tax exemption for child car seats, including booster seats.

I am proud to say that these measures and others in our 2005 budget will go a long way to help keep our children safe and give them the best possible start in

life.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne (Don Valley West): In the leadup to this year's budget, my constituents made it clear to me that a key priority for

reinvestment this year was post-secondary education. I heard from many more constituents on that issue than on any other issue, and I want to share some examples with you.

A proud grandmother wrote to me, "We have the brains and the teachers. Let's give them the means."

A mother with children soon to graduate from high school said, "I support increased funding for universities, for the sake of my children's future and for the

future of our province."

Another constituent wrote, "If Ontario is to remain and/or become a leader in education, it is imperative that the recommendations of the Rae report receive the

attention and support of the Ontario government.... The students of Ontario deserve the opportunity to be the very best they can be, and that requires a commitment by the government."

With the largest investment in post-secondary education in 40 years, our budget came through on these constituents' desires, and it came through for the future

of Ontario.

My riding of Don Valley West is the proud home of Glendon College, Toronto's bilingual university. Glendon is important to my riding and to the province.

Locally, it gives students an excellent post-secondary option right in their backyard, and for the city it gives students a real opportunity to congregate in a bilingual environment right here in

Toronto. Glendon gives our students a great set of learning opportunities and the chance to benefit from the advantage of true bilingualism.

The additional funding we're providing to universities and colleges will only help Glendon to do a better job for my constituents and for Ontarians. Our

government's investment will build Ontario's economic and intellectual future.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

I empathize with the member from Don Valley West for having to shout over all the conversations going on in the House. Could you keep that down a bit.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Members may have observed, in the west gallery, Douglas Moffatt, member for Durham East in the 30th

Parliament, visiting us here today. Let's welcome him.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey (Brampton Centre): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on general government and move its

adoption.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Lisa Freedman): Mrs. Jeffrey from the standing committee on general government presents the committee's report as

follows and moves its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 155,

An Act to amend the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996 and to make consequential amendments to the Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 155, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1996 sur les obligations familiales et l'exécution des arriérés d'aliments et apportant des modifications

corrélatives à la Loi de 1997 sur la protection du poisson et de la faune.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GREENBELT AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA CEINTURE DE VERDURE

Mr. Hudak moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 200,

An Act to amend the Greenbelt Act, 2005 by establishing the Niagara Greenbelt Advisory Committee and the Holland Marsh Greenbelt Advisory

Committee / Projet de loi 200, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2005 sur la ceinture de verdure en créant le Comité consultatif de la ceinture de verdure du Niagara et le Comité

consultatif de la ceinture de verdure du marais Holland.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): This bill, if passed, would follow the advice that we heard at committee, that we create two advisory committees

to the minister for the two specialty crop areas outlined in the bill: one for the region of Niagara, and one for the Holland Marsh area.

HEALTH INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT (PSA TESTS FOR PROSTATE CANCER), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ASSURANCE-SANTÉ (TEST PSA POUR LE DÉPISTAGE DU CANCER DE LA PROSTATE)

Mr. Mauro moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 201,

An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act / Projet de loi 201, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'assurance-santé.

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

Mr. Bill Mauro (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): This bill would amend the Health Insurance Act to make PSA tests an insured service under OHIP. A PSA,

or prostate-specific antigen test, is a blood test to assist doctors in looking for prostate cancer.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

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

6:45 p.m. till 9:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 17, 2005, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): The government House leader has moved government notice of motion 372. Is it the pleasure of the House that

the motion carry?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I can always hear on the first sound.

All those in favour of the motion, please say "aye."

All those against, say "nay."

I think the ayes have it.

Call in the members. There will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1353 to 1358.

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

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Kennedy, Gerard

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Mauro, Bill

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Orazietti, David

Peters, Steve

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

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

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bisson, Gilles

Chudleigh, Ted

Dunlop, Garfield

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Miller, Norm

Murdoch, Bill

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

Runciman, Robert W.

Scott, Laurie

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tory, John

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 52; the nays are 27.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Hon. Mr. Duncan: I move that, pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 till 9:30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 18, 2005,

for the purpose of considering government business.

The Speaker: The government House leader has moved government notice of motion 373.

All those in favour of the motion, please say "aye."

All those against, please say "nay."

I think the ayes have it.

Call in the members. There will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1402 to 1407.

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

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Kennedy, Gerard

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Mauro, Bill

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Orazietti, David

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Gregory S.

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

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

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bisson, Gilles

Chudleigh, Ted

Dunlop, Garfield

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

Runciman, Robert W.

Scott, Laurie

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tory, John

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly: The ayes are 56; the nays are 28.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Hon. Mr. Duncan: I move that pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 p.m. till 9:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 19, 2005,

for the purpose of considering government business.

The Speaker: The government House leader has moved government notice of motion 374. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those against, please say "nay."

I think the ayes have it.

Call in the members. There will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1410 to 1415.

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

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Kennedy, Gerard

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Mauro, Bill

McMeekin, Ted

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Orazietti, David

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Gregory S.

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

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

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bisson, Gilles

Chudleigh, Ted

Churley, Marilyn

Dunlop, Garfield

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

Runciman, Robert W.

Scott, Laurie

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tory, John

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly: The ayes are 62; the nays are 29.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): In the Speaker's gallery is a good friend, Senator the Honourable A.J. Nicholson, Q.C., Attorney General and

Minister of Justice of Jamaica; the Honourable Mr. Justice Lensley Wolfe, C.J., Chief Justice of Jamaica; and Mrs. Carol Palmer, J.P., the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Justice, Jamaica.

Let's welcome them here today.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

SUBVENTIONS DESTINÉES

À L'ÉDUCATION /

EDUCATION FUNDING

L'hon. Gerard Kennedy (ministre de l'Éducation): Je me lève dans cette Assemblée législative pour exposer le plan du

gouvernement McGuinty visant à transformer nos écoles secondaires de sorte qu'elles soient équipées pour faire pleinement ressortir le potentiel de chaque élève.

Our government is well aware of the unacceptably high dropout rate. An estimated 30% of high school students may not graduate. That is why last June we

announced a comprehensive program to help struggling students, supported by a $100-million investment that meant student success leaders in every school board, resources for principals and teachers

to deliver local action plans to meet students' unique needs, revisions to the curriculum to offer more flexibility and options, and training for teachers.

That investment has begun delivering results for students, and progress is being made.

these students passed, compared to only 49% last year. That's a 27% increase in just the last year.

There is, though, much more work to do for all Ontario students. That is why this year's budget includes an $820-million boost for education overall. I am

pleased to outline the first details of that investment for members today.

C'est pourquoi le budget de cette année incluait un coup de pouce de 820 $ millions pour l'éducation en général, et j'ai le plaisir

d'exposer aujourd'hui aux membres les premiers détails de cet investissement.

In total, $158 million will be dedicated to expanding our concentrated student success program. This investment is part of our effort to fundamentally change

the focus of high schools and enable them to deliver a good outcome for every student in them. This funding increase is backed by a strategy to keep students in school, learning, and to prepare

them for their destination of choice, whether that is a job placement with learning, an apprenticeship, or a college or university. Our high school investment is about opportunities and it's about

results.

Of the $158 million, $89 million will provide for 1,300 new secondary teachers in our high schools September 1 of the next school year. More than 800 of these

will be dedicated to student success programs. The number of new teachers will rise to over 1,900 in the course of the next three years. In addition, another $25 million has been brought forward

for one-time funding, bringing the total to $45 million to expand technological education programs and to buy new equipment.

second language, and more resource teachers, such as librarians and guidance counsellors, who benefit all high school students. In addition, $23 million in special projects will support struggling

This year, $14.5 million has been set aside to purchase new textbooks, on top of existing budgets for our high school students, and $6 million has been

provided to replenish, through one-time funding, resource material for secondary school libraries.

Over 70% of parents expect that their students will attend university. In reality -- and our jurisdiction is the best at this particular outcome -- 33% of

students get there, to university, after graduation. For those students who do not go on to university, Ontario's high schools must provide an equal path to success. We believe that every student

should receive a good outcome from Ontario's public education system.

Nous pensons que chaque élève devrait obtenir de bons résultats dans le système d'éducation financé par les deniers publics de

l'Ontario. Aujourd'hui, nous honorons cet engagement.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): I rise in the Legislature today to

inform the House about yet another step the McGuinty government is taking to restore integrity to Ontario's social assistance program. Today is a giant step forward, a step that will help move

people from welfare to work by breaking down barriers that stand in their way and by providing the appropriate supports to get them to succeed, to help them take those first important steps to

getting back on their feet and getting out of the welfare trap.

Our changes recognize that social assistance clients are not just statistics; they are real people who are willing to work. They want to improve their lives

and the lives of their families. We think our welfare program should work too.

That's why I'm pleased today to announce that, beginning this August, we are implementing a host of changes that will help Ontario Works clients stop working

for welfare and start working for a living.

Number one, we are introducing a new transitional health benefit that will provide six months of basic health coverage for such things as prescription drugs,

vision and dental care for people who are leaving Ontario Works for employment. We know from experience that many jobs such as temp work, contract work or self-employment don't provide health

benefits to employees, and those that do often have a wait time of six months before a new employee is eligible for coverage. Right now, the fear of losing basic health benefits is an enormous

barrier and disincentive to employment, especially for people who have children. We don't want the fear for a sick child to be that thing that keeps someone on welfare when that person can work and

wants to work.

Secondly, we are scrapping the complex and very confusing earning exemptions regime -- all those rules -- and replacing it with a very straight, simple, 50%

flat rate exemption. It is clear, it's understandable and clients will be able to see, without any complicated calculations or long explanations, exactly what they're earning and what they are

keeping. Finally, the financial benefits of working will be crystal clear.

Third, we are eliminating the two-year limit on the variable portion of the earnings exemption. If we want people to stay in the workforce, gain skills and

turn their lives around, why would we suddenly begin clawing back virtually all of their earnings after 24 months? What kind of message does that send to our clients? Ontario Works clients need to

see that working for a living is better than working for welfare.

Fourth, we are increasing the amount that Ontario Works clients can deduct for informal child care costs for the first time in 16 years. For 16 years, the

maximum deduction for informal child care expenses has been stuck at $390 per month, an amount that completely fails to acknowledge what a critical support informal care is for families who work

part-time, shift work or anything other than a 9-to-5 day. Beginning this August, we are increasing the maximum informal child care deduction amount to $600 per month. This increase will allow

parents working full-time to use informal care as needed.

Remember, thanks to our minister for children, this past year, $58.2 million was delivered for child care, creating more than 4,000 subsidized child care

spaces, and we've signed an historic agreement with the federal government that makes child care a top national priority, with a clear commitment to improve quantity and quality. We thank our

children's minister for that because this is the minister who delivered it for Ontario and for Ontario families.

Number five, we are introducing a new full-time employment benefit of up to $500 to help Ontario Works clients with the very real costs they face when starting

a full-time job. This will not only help them with things such as transportation costs, but it will provide an additional incentive for people to work hard to get back into that workforce.

When our government was elected, we said that we expect people to take responsibility for improving their lives, and in turn we will live up to our

responsibility for helping them get there. That's what our changes do. They're changes that make a real difference for those thousands who are Ontario's poorest citizens. They're changes that will

help thousands and thousands escape that welfare trap. They're changes that recognize that Ontario's people are its greatest resource -- and we've heard Premier McGuinty talk about that time and

time again. We must never stop finding ways to help them obtain a quality of life that is second to none, right here in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Responses?

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): Another photo op for the Minister of Education, another reannouncement of a former announcement. When will the

minister take seriously his responsibilities as the minister with responsibility for all schoolchildren across this province?

Do we support new funding of textbooks? Of course. But what I want to ask the minister is, what has he put in place to ensure that those dollars will in fact

go to purchasing textbooks and not to paying for the 10.5% increase he guaranteed for teachers' salaries over the next four years? Do we support lower class sizes? Of course we do. Would anyone

object to an announcement of additional resources for technological education programs and new equipment? Of course not; we're all in support of that. Few would object to these programs, because

they are positive.

But there is one group of parents who are left wondering how the minister can justify continuing to make multi-million dollar announcements for some students

and continue to ignore their children, and those are the parents of autistic children. Not only is the minister refusing to honour the Premier's written guarantee to provide funding for children

with autism over the age of six, he is dragging those parents through the courts, appealing a Superior Court decision ordering the government to provide those services. The minister and the Premier

continue to pronounce their empty catchphrase, "Every child in this province deserves an equal quality education."

Minister and Premier, why does that not apply to autistic children? When will you have a photo op and an announcement with those parents and those children who

are appealing to you, not for additional textbooks, not for additional technological equipment, but for the very basic skills of communication and mobility? I call on this minister and this Premier

to get their priorities straight and to honour their commitments to all children in this province.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Cameron Jackson (Burlington): I went through the budget, figuring we might find something in it that dealt with the issue of job training

for persons on social assistance in this province. I'm sad to report that there is none. So today I'm not surprised to hear the minister commenting about her changes, given the fact that she has

not made the kind of financial commitment to persons on social assistance to give them the training, the literacy and the other supports that are required in order for them to move off social

assistance.

What's very clear -- although it isn't clear on the face of the minister's comments, which is very much her stock-in-trade -- is that this is working on

welfare for life. When you take a person on social assistance who can have a part-time job for the next two years, at which point people, including municipalities, say, "Maybe it's time, if you

work an extra several hours, you can get off welfare," but the government has decided that it's OK to stay on welfare, to keep a part-time job and benefits for the rest of your life. You can gild

that lily any way you want, but the truth of the matter is, that's the effect. In our view, that's an admission that your steps to employment programs are not working.

Again, the minister failed to get any mention from the Treasurer in the budget. All there is is a reiteration of a commitment made a year ago about a couple of

pilot projects, with no progress report and no targeted number of new persons for employment.

The second issue: The minister underscores the notion that the $500 is new. Well, it's not new. What's new is that they're going to give $500 cash to people

and say, "I hope you'll go out and buy safety boots and safety glasses" -- whatever is needed. Under the previous government and under the system that exists until August, those expenses have to be

documented and are provided for through the municipalities in order to effect proper employment. If we're going to give them $500 cash with no questions asked, maybe this government assumes it will

be an easier way. But frankly, these are not steps to employment; this is a pause to employment.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): The most positive thing I could say about the Minister of Education's announcement is the following:

Should these promises come to fruition, it would be a good thing. But I frankly do not believe it or them, and I have no faith in this government.

I've got a couple of examples. Take the special education dollars. Last year, the Minister of Education announced in July, at the end of the school year, $100

million for special education, and then in August he swindles $100 million from the boards, claws back the same $100 million. So in the end, what do we have? No money for last year for special

education and no money for this year for special education, even though the minister claimed there would be $50 million available for boards to access that $100 million that was properly owed to

them the year before, and no processes in place and not one cent went back for special ed. That's one example.

The second example: the capital expenditure amortization fund. This minister last year announced that $200 million would be available for capital projects and

that would raise $3 billion, only to discover when he made this announcement four months ago that no money was ever spent. When the minister was asked about this, he said this was simply there so

boards would know that we would make another announcement a year later about this announcement that is made this year where $280 million is available and, good God, we will have available $4

billion. Next year, $6 billion will be available.

You get my drift? No money is ever spent. You have announcements and nothing gets spent, and then you reannounce. I can't tell a pronouncement from a

reannouncement from a non-announcement. We have no time frames. We have no tracking available to know what this minister or this government is spending. They are just plainly announcements.

That is why I urge the Minister of Education to fulfill the promise that he made prior to the election, and that is that we will have a standing committee on

education finance in order to be able to know where the money is and where it's going, where it's being spent, if promised. Minister, I urge you, set up the standing committee. It was your promise;

it was McGuinty's promise. Two years later, we still don't know where the money is. A good announcement, if ever we're going to see the money. I don't believe it.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): To the Minister of Comsoc, I looked at your bill; I listened to your speech. You talk about a few lucky

people who are on Ontario Works. There is not one word in your statement, not one word in your speech, about the tens of thousands of people who are on the Ontario disability support program. You

and your colleagues stand in this House and talk about the disabled, but when you bring forward a bill like this, you don't do a single thing for the disabled. You don't include them in this bill.

You don't talk about them at all.

You don't talk about all those people who are between 60 and 65 years of age that the previous government took out of the Ontario disability support program

and put into Ontario Works. You don't talk about them. How are they supposed to be finding jobs? How are they supposed to be making ends meet?

You and your government have done absolutely nothing in terms of the promises you made. I'd like to quote you in this very House, because what you say isn't

what you mean; what you promise isn't what you do.

In this very House on December 17, 2003, you stated, "I will repeat the McGuinty government commitment during the last campaign, which is what our party

campaigned on and what our party will deliver on, and that is an increase to the ODSP and welfare rates to match COLA." That is what you said back then. What do you do now? You do absolutely

nothing. You do nothing to help the people. You do nothing about the clawback. You continue to claw back the money from the poorest kids. You do nothing about welfare rates. You do nothing about

rent supplements. You do nothing for housing. You do nothing for the shelter allowance, which would help these people more than anything else I can think of.

You have promised a few things to a few people who might go out and find a job, and good luck to them. But for the overwhelming majority of the poor, you are a

disgrace.

VISITORS

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. I would like to hear this point of order, please.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Minister of Community and Social Services, I'd like to hear this point of order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I'm waiting until the member from Ottawa Centre --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. If I can't get any order, maybe today will be another naming day.

The member from Oak Ridges has a point of order.

Mr. Klees: Thank you, Speaker. I'm sure you will find this a point of order.

I want to draw your attention to the presence of regional councillor Mr. Barrow from the town of Richmond Hill, who is in the west gallery. I ask honourable

members to welcome him.

The Speaker: That is not a point of order, but we shall move to the next item on the agenda.

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'd like to draw attention to and welcome the chair of the Hamilton

Police Services Board and the representative for ward 3 in Hamilton, Mr. Bernie Morelli.

Mrs. Liz Sandals (Guelph-Wellington): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker --

The Speaker: If this is a point of order, will you draw attention to everyone here then, so I don't have to entertain any other points of

order like that any more?

Mrs. Sandals: This, in fact, was my intent, Speaker, to explain that we have a number of members from the Ontario Association of Police

Service Boards with us in the gallery, and I hope we would welcome all of them.

The Speaker: And that will take care of everyone here who's on the police services board.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier. On page 76 of last year's budget and on page 71 of this year's

budget, there are two charts showing the state of Ontario's finances for the next five years.

In only one year, your government has revised its five-year spending plan up by $13.4 billion, an incredible 25%. Meanwhile, you are only forecasting revenues

to grow by an extra $6 billion.

Can you tell us where this money is going to come from? Is it from borrowing or from taxes?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): It's all laid out in great detail in the budget, which, by the way, I

believe has been well received by the people of Ontario.

We've been very clear about the kinds of choices we are making on behalf of the people of Ontario through this budget. One of the choices that the leader of

the official opposition will be called upon to make later today when we have a vote is whether or not he supports our unprecedented massive injection of funding into the post-secondary education

system in Ontario.

The people of Ontario know where we stand when it comes to better funding our post-secondary education system. I think they will be interested in learning

where Mr. Tory stands this afternoon.

Mr. Tory: I would say to the Premier, if he wants to separate out the funding for post-secondary education from the unprecedented breaking of

promises, the doubling of the health care tax, the huge increase in the debt, then maybe we could talk about it.

This year's plan, the fourth financial plan from the McGuinty Liberal government in two years, shows a huge gap in spending versus revenues.

Premier, do you think it's right that by 2007-08 you'll be adding an extra $1 billion a year to debt interest in this province? Do you think that's the right

thing to do?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Let's remember what we inherited and how far we've come in a relatively short period of time. We inherited close to a

$6-billion deficit. We have cut that nearly in half in one year. That's a sound accomplishment. We're bringing prudent and responsible financial management to the people's money. That is something

they've been longing for. At the same time, we are making desperately needed investments in better schools, better health care and more opportunity for all our young people through training

opportunities, college opportunities and university opportunities. We think that builds a strong foundation for a robust economy. Those are the kinds of choices we've made through the budget.

Again, the people of Ontario have perhaps at least a little bit of interest in learning where it is that Mr. Tory stands when it comes to this budget and the

investments we are making for Ontarians.

Mr. Tory: So, as part of this so-called prudent and responsible financial management, we have the debt going up by $15 billion over the term

of your government and we have debt interest charges up $1 billion a year by the end of the term -- $1 billion that will not be available for health care and education and all the things you talked

about. On top of all that, every single Ontarian will pay twice as much money in health taxes this year, thanks to you, as they did last year. You know how to tax and you know how to spend and you

know how to borrow, but you don't know how to save any money.

My question is this: Will you commit to tabling, right here, right now, the specific details of the so-called list of savings of $330 million referred to in

this House many times by your Minister of Finance so we can see if there are really any savings at all, or don't you know how to save any money?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: It's passing strange and a little bit rich that the leader of the official opposition, belonging to a party that added $48

billion to the debt in a time of strong economic growth, is now condemning us for trying to clean up their mess at the same time as we make desperately needed investments in better public

services.

We're proud of the choices we are making, I say again, but it's really hard to try to figure out where the leader of the official opposition is coming from on

these things. He tells us that we should spend more and that we should spend less, that we should balance the budget and that we should balance it sooner but not right now, and that we should cut

taxes notwithstanding the fact that we're running a deficit. That's how we ended up in the mess we find ourselves in. We will not go down that road again. We will bring strong and responsible

financial management to the people's money and we will make investments in better public services for all Ontarians.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): This question is for the Premier. It's obvious now that there is no list of $330 million in savings,

no list whatsoever. It's obvious there's no plan; it's obvious there's no interest in helping beleaguered taxpayers; just borrowing and spending and taxing.

The hospitals have on their books $330 million in deficits from the year just concluded. They will have to fund an upcoming wage settlement with nurses that

could cost as much as $100 million. When you factor out one-time money and capital spending, your government has provided hospitals with a 1% funding increase this year. That's according to the

Ontario Hospital Association. Will you force hospitals to cut services to balance their budgets, or will you let them run deficits this year? Which is it?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Better hang on, because we're all going to suffer from whiplash here.

This leader of the official opposition, a moment ago, was accusing us of spending too much money, running up deficits and adding to the debt over a long-term basis. Now he's telling us that we're

not spending enough on the hospitals. That's why the people of Ontario are frustrated in trying to figure out exactly where the leader of the official opposition stands on these issues. We are very

clear where we stand: We're for cleaning up their mess and investing in better public services.

Mr. Tory: The fact of the matter is I told the Premier no such thing. I simply asked you a question. I asked you a question, and I'll ask it

again, and the question --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. I'm having difficulty hearing the leader of the official opposition.

Mr. Tory: The question I asked was very simple. I made no statement of any kind whatsoever. What I asked was a question: In light of the fact

that you have allocated this 1% increase to the hospitals of Ontario, and in light of the fact that they have said this is not going to be enough to cover the pressures they're facing, therefore,

would you want them to be running deficits this year, or are you wanting them to cut services? You've left them with no other choice. I simply wanted to know, as I do now and I ask you again, which

of the two choices is it: Let them run a deficit this year, or have them cut services? Which will it be?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Again, we are investing half a billion new dollars in our hospitals this year through this budget. My friend opposite wants

to take $2.4 billion out of our health care system. So I fail to understand the philosophical foundation on which he presumes to stand when it comes to making these kinds of arguments.

We will continue to work with Ontario hospitals. More than 60% have now put themselves in a balanced budget position. We have worked with our hospitals in the

past; we will work with them into the future. We are providing a significant increase in funding, and we will find a way to balance those budgets so that we do not compromise the quality of

services we're delivering to Ontarians.

Mr. Tory: Of course, the Premier knows I have made absolutely no such statement whatsoever. He knows that. What I have said, just for example,

is that I would look for real savings and efficiencies in this government, and unlike the Minister of Finance, when I said I found $330 million or $450 million or $650 million in savings and

efficiencies in the government, I would come in with an actual list of dates, times and places, unlike this back-end-loaded bafflegab that is in the budget today. I talked about it in my

speech.

Let me just try one more time on the question. If, as the Ontario Hospital Association says, you are giving them 1% -- maybe I'll let you get the answer from

the Minister of Health here -- and that's not enough, I simply want to know, are you going to let them run deficits and encourage them to do that, or are you going to tell them they should cut

services? Which choice are you putting them in the position of making? Which one are you approving?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: The leader of the official opposition may be dismissive of a half-billion-dollar increase in hospital funding, but we

happen to believe that is very significant, and that's in addition to the hundreds of millions of new dollars in last year's budget.

As I said, we are also working with our hospitals to ensure they can manage this new funding increase. More than 60% of our hospitals have already found a way

to balance their budgets in a way that does not compromise the care they are offering to their patients. Beyond that, I am proud to say that, for the first time, we will shortly be announcing the

exact figures on a per-hospital basis, and I can say we are also putting in place, for the first time, multi-year funding, which our hospital administrators have been looking for for a long

time.

So hospital funding is going up in Ontario. We have a government that is committed to working with our hospitals on an individual basis so that we can do this

in a way that does not compromise quality of care, and more than that, we are providing multi-year funding. This is good news for Ontario hospitals and Ontario families.

CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. The courts ruled on Friday that a

class-action suit involving parents with children with special needs can go forward. These families allege that the government violates

section 30 of the Child and Family Services Act by refusing

to enter into special-needs agreements with them to provide the care their children need, and instead forces them to give up custody of the children in order to get the treatment their children

require. Minister, can you confirm today that the government will not appeal this decision, will not drag these parents through court, and instead will sit down with the families and negotiate a

settlement of their concerns?

Hon. Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children and Youth Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): The Attorney General.

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

any supplementary on the specifics of what our government is actually doing to improve conditions for special-needs children, to refer to the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

I'll just say that, with respect to the member's question regarding the finding by the court allowing the plaintiff's appeal to certify the action, we are

still in a period where we are reviewing the decision and determining whether or not to seek leave to appeal. As long as we are in that time -- obviously I can't comment on the matter before the

court -- I will say to the member that, on the subject of settlement issues and negotiations and so on, it has never been the practice of any Attorney General in this province or any officials in

the Ministry of the Attorney General to discuss those kinds of things, because all it ends up doing, really, is prejudicing all the litigants involved, and we don't want to do that.

So the matter is before the courts. The appeal is before the courts. An action was brought by some individuals against the government of Ontario, and I'll

continue to exercise independent judgment to determine what is in the interest of this action. In the interim, I'm happy to refer questions to the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Ms. Martel: My supplementary is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. I wonder when you're going to start taking the interests of

the families and these kids into account and making that a priority. You see, if you really wanted to help these families, you would announce today that you are not going to appeal the court

decision and that you are going to sit down with these families and negotiate a settlement to their concerns.

Since 1997, when the former government unilaterally decided not to enter into special-needs agreements, families have been forced to go to children's aid and

give up temporarily or permanently the custody of their children just to get the care they need. Your government has also refused to enter into special-needs agreements, and under your government,

families have also been forced to do the unthinkable: give up custody of their kids just to get the special care they need.

Minister, you could end this situation today by saying you will respect the law, you will enter into special-needs agreements and you will ensure that these

families get the services they need without giving up custody. Will you do that today?

Hon. Mr. Bryant: That's not a question with litigation, so I'll refer it back to the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Mrs. Bountrogianni: I obviously can't comment on the appeal, but I can say what we will be doing for these children. I welcome the

honourable member's concern. I know this has been very frustrating for the families. This is a situation that we inherited. The Ombudsman, as you know, sent me a report last week --

Interjections.

Hon. Mrs. Bountrogianni: The member for Nepean-Carleton is heckling me, when it was his government that cut funding to children's programs,

which is part of the cause of this problem. If he will allow me to, I will answer the other honourable member's question.

By the end of the week, I will be responding to the Ombudsman's report. In the meantime, even before we received the Ombudsman's report, we had begun to work

on this file. It's very complicated. Child protection is at stake, as well as special-needs children. I will be responding by the end of the week to the Ombudsman.

Ms. Martel: Minister, you could respond today. And with respect to your saying that this is a situation you inherited, I need to remind you

that your government as well has refused to enter into special-needs agreements, and your government, as well as a former Conservative government, has forced families to give up custody of their

children to get the special care they deserve. It's not just a problem that you inherited; it's a problem that you have reinforced.

I say to the minister again, if you care about these families, don't wait until Friday. Announce today that you will respect

section 30 of the Family and Child

Services Act, that you will enter into special-needs agreements with the families so that the children can get the care they need, and you will do that so that these parents are not forced to give

up custody just to get the care they need. Will you do that on behalf of your government today, Minister?

Hon. Mrs. Bountrogianni: As the Attorney General stated, I can't comment on these particular families and this particular case, but I will say

that a solution to this complicated problem will be forthcoming very soon in my response to the Ombudsman's report.

POLICE OFFICERS

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): To the Premier: How many new police officers has your government funded since your announcement in October

last year?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): To the minister, Speaker.

Hon. Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): I'm pleased to respond. What we have done is carried out and

extended the community policing program, which funds 1,000 police officers. We've done that, and it's $30 million a year. We've made a commitment for another 1,000 police officers, that commitment

will stand, and in due course you will hear how that will work.

Mr. Kormos: Minister, we would like to hear numbers, because you and your government are like the Wizard of Oz when it comes to community

safety: When you pull back the drapes, there's nothing there.

You've told cash-strapped municipalities to hire 1,000 new cops, and you are going to pay a meagre fraction of the price of doing that. Those cities can't

afford to keep your promises for you. How many of the 1,000 new officers that you promised will be on the street by the end of this year?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: We have actually committed to provide the shared cost of 1,000 police officers. We will deliver those during the term of our

mandate. That was in our platform and that is what we will deliver. I can tell you that we are working with various community leaders, we are working with the stakeholders, to come up with the

formula. We will be making that announcement in due course.

Mr. Kormos: We know what your promises are, and we know that, rather than delivering on the promises, you've merely broken them. Your ministry

budget has been flat-lined, Minister. There's no new money. That means that the 1,000 new cops that you promised aren't going to be hired. We need those police across this province, in communities

big and small, to deal with dangerous offenders, guns, gangs, and to improve community safety.

It's your ministry that was flatlined. Why are you breaking your promise to improve community safety?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: For the member to say that we have broken our promise doesn't make any sense. If you take a look at the budget you will see

that the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services got an increase of $27 million year-over-year. You will also know -- and I'm sure you recognize -- that we made a promise to fund

firefighters. We did that, for $30 million. We made the announcement one week, and the next week the money was delivered. It was the first time since 1982 that any government has provided funding.

Not only that: When they did provide funding, they never delivered.

We made the commitment, and we did deliver. We made the commitment on the 1,000 officers, and we will deliver.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, hospitals are now preparing to cut nurses and other health

care providers because of your recent budget. The OHA has said that they'll be cutting core patient services and eliminating 4,000 nursing and essential medical staff.

In my riding of Durham, the Lakeridge Health system is struggling from last year's cuts in funding from you. This year they're facing even less -- less than 1%

of their budget while their operating cost pressures are 7% to 8%. You should know that. This is not to mention that the 905 residents are already underfunded by $544 million, less than the rest of

the provincial average. Minister, can you make -- no false promises; I just want you to tell us straight up that no nurses will be fired and no essential services will be cut from the hospitals in

Durham region.

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The member who himself spikes the question asks for the information straight

up. Well, I'll give it to him. The reality is that there is but one party represented in this Legislature that does not have in its history, in its legacy, cuts to hospitals. That is our party. In

two years of government, Lakeridge Health has received more than $13 million in additional funding. In the first two years of that party's responsibility for the provision of health care services,

Lakeridge Health's operating baseline budget was cut by $13 million. That is the reality.

I'm happy to tell the honourable member, building on the excellent answer that the Premier provided earlier, that very soon the very high-quality leadership of

Lakeridge Health will receive, from our government, notice not only of this year's allocation, which recognizes growth for the 905, but also two subsequent years of allocation, delivering on our

government's commitment of stable multi-year funding -- the first party in this House to deliver on that commitment --

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Thank you. Supplementary, the member from Oshawa.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): Minister, I need to bring forward another major challenge facing Lakeridge Health. The ministry's funding

formula still does not recognize the financial challenges and needs associated with multi-site facilities. As pointed out, Lakeridge has saved $15 million. It's doing its very best to balance its

budget. Minister, what steps are you taking to recognize and correct the funding for multi-site facilities such as Lakeridge Health?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: I appreciate the support and the long-standing commitment that this honourable member has shown to the issue of

multi-site funding. We recognize that in many of our hospital corporations in the province of Ontario there is more than one site operating. Our government, as far as I know, was the first, in

financing last year, that actually provided resources to hospitals in recognition of the special reality of multi-site. This is something that I continue to push for. I'm glad to see that it's a

position of your party, and I would ask for your continued work in putting pressure on organizations that help to shape the funding formula in the province of Ontario, because as much as I think

it's important to continue to work on the issue of multi-site, there is not a consensus on this point, and some people in the hospital environment continue to push for the flexibility that exists

if you're not targeting funding. But I believe that these multi-sites, often the smaller of these, are incredibly important and well connected in their communities, in places like Port Perry and

Picton, and I'll continue to be a supporter of recognition of the multi-site reality.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): My question is to the Premier. You know that the forestry industry in northern Ontario is in crisis as

we speak. We've already got mills that have closed down and other mills that are scheduled to close over the next short while, and we have, as you know, a significant problem in the industry. My

leader in this Legislature has been raising with you a number of times the need to put in place a forestry strategy to help reposition the industry, in order to protect the good-paying jobs that

industry provides.

Yesterday, Jamie Lim, President and CEO of the Ontario Forest Industries Association, put out a press release that I want to quote: "There are 12 forest

industry mills identified as being at risk in northern Ontario, and, should they close, the impacts on the entire province, including southern Ontario, will be significantly harsh. `We need

assistance from this government now. The forest industry is in crisis and the loss of our industry is a loss for the entire province'" she said.

Premier, when can we expect you work with us in northern Ontario to develop a forestry strategy to help secure those jobs in northern Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon. David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources): As the honourable member knows, I have received an interim report from my competitive

sector committee, and in that, there are some terrific recommendations as to how the government can step up to the plate and help the industry. I think the member is aware of the announcement of

the one plant in Ontario but also the many plants that are closed in Quebec as of today. This is a national problem, but we are working on it at the provincial level. I'm working on that with my

colleagues, and soon we'll have what the member wants.

Mr. Bisson: Premier, I'm not here to represent the province of Quebec; I'm here to talk about what's happening now in Ontario. We went through

this back in the early 1990s, when pulp and paper mills and sawmills across this province were in deep trouble. Our government stepped up to the plate, and we worked with communities --

Kapuskasing, Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay, Atikokan and many others -- in order to safeguard that employment. You have now been at the helm for almost two years, and all we've got is basically

this dog-and-pony show you've been travelling around northern Ontario, which has yet to do anything concrete to help those mills.

I ask you again: Rather than being part of the problem and closing down mills like you have in Opasatika, will you work with us to put in place what's

necessary in order to safeguard the jobs in that very important industry?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I would say to the member that he should be the last one to boast about his government's record when it comes to forestry.

There were thousands of jobs lost in that sector right across the north. My colleague the Minister of Northern Development and Mines reminds me that 11,000 jobs were lost. We don't have that.

I say to the member that he should know we're working not only with the industry; we're working with labour, we're working with communities and we're working

with the First Nations of the north so we can come up with a comprehensive plan. We have that comprehensive plan, and I say to the member, it's coming and the industry is going to be very happy

with what they're going to see.

FEDERAL MEMBER

Ms. Kathleen O. Wynne (Don Valley West): My question is for the Minister of Finance. Today we learned that former Conservative leadership

candidate Belinda Stronach has crossed the floor. She has now joined the federal Liberal government, and will be serving in cabinet. Minister, our Premier has been leading the campaign to narrow

the $23-billion gap for some time. He has gained the support of all parties in this House, of our hospitals, our chambers of commerce, boards of trade and average Ontarians. As we move forward with

our campaign for fairness, can you tell us how Belinda Stronach's new position will help Ontario narrow that gap?

Hon. Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): I can tell my friend from Don Valley West that although it's only a matter of two or three metres --

the aisle that divides one political party from another in a place like this Legislature or the House of Commons -- it takes a great deal of political courage to cross the floor and join another

party, and it's not without risks.

In my view, the good news here is that Ms. Stronach is very aware of the extent to which Ontario is at a disadvantage, as a result of the $23-billion gap,

which is the difference between the funding that Ontario pays to the federal government and receives back in services. I'm of the view that she will be a very strong advocate for Ontario on this

matter.

Ms. Wynne: I agree with you, Minister. I think it's great to have such a strong advocate for narrowing the gap at the cabinet table.

I was surprised to hear the comments of the member for Leeds-Grenville on this issue. When the going got tough, I understand that he resorted to offensive and

sexist comments. This is not a small thing in a society where women still have to struggle to increase representation in boardrooms and in our --

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order.

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Surely the member from Don Valley West doesn't have to descend to this kind of

level to get into cabinet.

The Speaker: Order.

Ms. Wynne: Any comment that diminishes women and diminishes politicians who aspire to represent women in Parliament diminishes the whole

office.

Mr. Hudak: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'll ask you to rule whether this question is in order and if it has to do with parliamentary

matters or matters with respect to the ministry. I suggest that this kind of question is not in order.

The Speaker: I didn't find anything out of order with the question that is coming forward.

The member from Don Valley West, you've got 10 seconds to wrap this up.

Ms. Wynne: I'd like the Minister of Finance to comment on the comments by the member for Leeds-Grenville, because it's a critical piece of our

going forward that respect for all members of Parliament be shown by this House.

Mr. John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Questions are to be addressed with respect to a responsibility of the

member of the executive council, not to solicit their personal views.

I also would note to you on page 20 of the standing orders, standing order numbers 23(

h) and 23(

i) state that the Speaker shall call the member to order if

they make "allegations against another member" or impute "false or unavowed motives to another member."

I'd like to ask you to rule on those three standing orders, Speaker, and whether this actually has to do with the conduct of the ministry that is governed by

the minister opposite.

The Speaker: You asked me before about the same point of order you're speaking on, and I've ruled on that before. I find the question quite

appropriate.

Minister?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I think my colleague the minister responsible for women's issues wants to comment.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): Mr. Speaker, I think I will speak

for most members in this House in answer to that question. The member from Leeds-Grenville was way out of line in that kind of discussion this afternoon. I think everyone in this House is going to

agree to unanimous consent for an apology in this House. Every single woman is diminished when we hear that kind of language. The truth is that that particular member well knows that MP to be

bright and intelligent and, thankfully, now in our party.

So let me just say that what it points to more is this: It speaks more to the leadership of the Conservative Party. I am demanding from the leader of the

Conservative Party --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Thank you. Order.

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would now ask you to rule on the content of the minister's response where

she calls, in this House, into question the honour of an honourable member. I ask that you consult with the table on this issue. It is very serious, and if you allow that kind of comment to be made

in this House by one member against another member, this place no longer deserves to be called an honourable place. Please, Speaker, I ask you to rule on that.

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to ask the House for unanimous consent to allow a member to

apologize to the House.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Let's quiet down a bit.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'd like some order in the House.

We'll take a five-minute break.

The House recessed from 1518 to 1523.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Please be seated.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'd like the members to show some respect to the Parliament too, as I speak on this matter.

I have been having great concern over a couple of days about the decorum and some of the questions that are being put that are not really relevant, sometimes,

to the minister, and some questions are put to ministers that are not relevant in his or her category. And I want to warn members that the tone itself has not been very good.

Also, as I listened to the questions today, and I reflect back on what was said in this last question, I think it was inappropriate, in a way, to have directed

a question and to have some concern about a member and some statement outside of the House, of which I have no knowledge and cannot rule on. I think that that comment is a bit out of order. We must

be cautious about that, when we talk about other members making statements outside of this House and bringing it inside this House.

At the same time, I've also watched as questions of the same nature come from the opposition side. But today it has accelerated to a point that we must be more

concerned and give more concern to the discipline of this Parliament. When that goes down, we all go down, in a sense, as to how the public sees us. I would ask and beseech you all that you conduct

yourselves in such a manner that we can call this a Parliament we can respect.

At this time, since I've got the floor, I would also say to many of the ministers that I expect some sort of concern and some discipline in the way they

listen, with the heckling that goes on even by ministers themselves when questions are being asked. I would ask you also to watch yourselves in that nature.

I'm going to move on to the next question. The leader of the official opposition.

COMMITTEE

SCHEDULE

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Premier. As the Premier will know, I sent across a letter to him at the

beginning of proceedings today when he came into the House which asked him to consult with his colleagues and allow for a real opportunity for the Information and Privacy Commissioner to fully

state her concerns regarding Bill 183, the adoption disclosure legislation currently before the committee.

As the Premier knows, the committee to which this bill has been referred, a committee that the Liberal government members control, has only allowed her 15

minutes to make her presentation, plus five minutes -- I believe I'm right -- for each party to ask questions of her. I think the Premier would also know that Ms. Cavoukian has very serious

concerns about the bill and has received volumes of correspondence from concerned people on both sides of the debate.

I've requested in my letter and I ask you now, are you willing to allow Ms. Cavoukian to have a total time of 120 minutes for her presentation and questions? I

think I suggested 90 minutes for her presentation and 30 minutes for questions, divided between parties. Could you help us to make sure this happens, so the voices of people who have communicated

with her can be heard?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm going to allow my House leader to speak to this because he has more

information.

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): The committee time allocations were outlined and agreed to at subcommittee

and then at full committee. Now, we are always prepared to negotiate these and other items. We're quite prepared to do that at House leaders'meetings, as we always have. I will, however, remind the

House that all three caucuses agreed to the times that were set up, the amount of time for delegations. I would welcome this representation to be made at a House leaders' meeting. We can discuss

that in the context of a number of legislative initiatives.

Those hearings were sent to committee. Committee hearings have been held on all our bills, something that didn't happen up until 2003, and we haven't had to

use time allocation. So I would suggest that if it is the desire of the opposition to discuss this at greater length, we can certainly talk about this issue in the context of a House leaders'

meeting.

Mr. Tory: The matter here is complicated because there were two different subcommittee reports. Actually, I voted in favour of the bill on

second reading, as the Premier and every other member of this House knows. But I think it is important that on a matter like this, where someone in a position of responsibility like the privacy

commissioner has expressed some concern and has letters from -- I won't say thousands -- many people across the province who find it difficult to appear in front of a committee, their voice should

be heard.

I gather there were two different subcommittee discussions, one of which the government members voted down, to allow for a longer period of time to have some

proper notice so people could come in and be heard. All I'm asking today is whether the Premier would agree that a 15-minute time period allocated to the privacy commissioner to represent all these

people is inadequate, and that we might simply give her a total of two hours: 90 minutes to make her presentation and half an hour for questions? That's all I'm asking. Yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: I understand the challenge the Leader of the Opposition has with his divided caucus on this issue. I'll remind him that his

caucus wouldn't even allow the minister to speak to this bill at this committee. So to the leader of the official opposition, this government has had more hearings on more bills than any

government. We'll be happy to discuss this issue at the House leaders' meeting. The commissioner has been heard already, and we look forward to the opportunity to have her back to the hearings as

well to discuss this bill.

Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The House leader has offered the House completely erroneous

information. He is completely --

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. You made some unparliamentary comment, and I would ask you to withdraw that.

Mr. Arnott: I made no unparliamentary remark, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. We know the procedures here. And I'm sure you also know the procedure, too.

Mr. Arnott: I do indeed, Mr. Speaker, and I show no disrespect to you by saying that the minister has offered the House completely erroneous

The Speaker: Order. I'll have to ask you if you choose to withdraw it or not.

Mr. John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): Point of order.

The Speaker: Order. I have a point of order on the -- you're always doing this, member from Nepean-Carleton. I'm dealing with a point of order

here.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Order. If you all want to run the clock, that's fine. Minister, would you come to order, please.

You do intend to withdraw?

Mr. Arnott: Mr. Speaker, I wish to show you absolutely no disrespect because of the high regard I hold you --

The Speaker: You know the rules. I don't need a speech.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I will regard that as a withdrawal.

New question.

LANDFILL

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. It's about an excavation that's taking place at the

Rennie landfill site in Hamilton.

Your Hamilton staff assured the CLC, the community liaison committee, that your ministry is testing materials that are going to the Taro landfill. The Taro

certificate of approval forbids domestic waste, as you may be aware, but we've learned that excavated material from the Rennie Street dump contains domestic waste like old newspapers, old shoes,

bottles of pickles, those kinds of things.

Minister, is your ministry allowing Taro to accept this prohibited domestic waste from Rennie? Further, at Taro, is the Ministry of the Environment inspecting

every load of waste that's coming from the Rennie Street dump? If so, will you release all test results to prove there is no illegal dumping occurring at Taro?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): I thank the honourable member for the question. Certainly the Ministry of the Environment

does prescribe, under the certificate of approval, specific conditions that must be followed. I would say that today, the best information that the Ministry of the Environment has is that the

appropriate conditions are being met. If the honourable member has information to the contrary, I would welcome her to send that to me directly. I will meet with her after this session here this

afternoon.

I think it's important to say to this House that the Ministry of the Environment wants to ensure that people in the community are protected. That is why we are

working with the community liaison committee. That's why we've established a community liaison committee. We take their issues very seriously, and I've indicated that I would be prepared to receive

any new information that the honourable member might send to me.

Ms. Horwath: Thank you, Madam Minister, but the information is not new. In fact, the CLC has been hearing about it for quite some time now. I

first asked you about this myself back in October 2004, and you've done nothing. As a result, the controversial Taro landfill site has once again become a major concern to the citizens of

Hamilton.

Minister, bottles of blood were found at the Rennie Street landfill, and as a result, the police had to be called, but you have been invisible from the

beginning in this process. Will you at least come to the table now? Will you finally investigate the Rennie excavation and the possibility of illegal dumping at the Taro site and provide the Rennie

community liaison committee with all of the test results and a full report, or do you not care at all if the Taro landfill is causing deep concern in Hamilton? Who do you think needs to be putting

these rules in force? It's your responsibility. The information is out there. It's not new; it's been told at the CLC, week after week. Will you do something about the illegal dumping in Taro, if

it exists?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): For the honourable member to suggest that this minister and this ministry have done

nothing -- I would like to remind the honourable member that I have met with these people, with her present in the room. We have talked about the responsibility the Ministry of the Environment has.

We have a community liaison committee. Staff from the Ministry of the Environment continue to work with community representatives.

I don't doubt that members of the community bring information forward. Ministry of the Environment staff have a responsibility to pursue that. I would suggest

that Ministry of the Environment staff are doing what they are required to do to ensure that the conditions of this activity are being met, and being met

safely. Again, I say to the honourable member that if she has concrete evidence to the contrary, she should bring that to me directly, and I commit to her that I will pursue that personally.

Ms. Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Last week, this Legislature took an

Ontario and their families. Minister, could you please explain for us why this act and its passing will make Ontario a world leader for people with disabilities?

Hon. Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children and Youth Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): I'd like to thank the honourable

alone made such a difference to people with disabilities in this province, the people we invited here that day to listen to and watch the proceedings. This legislation will create an accessible

society where every Ontarian will fulfill their potential.

significant because of its approach. It's built on collaboration, on the standards being developed with business, with the disability community, with government. We will see action in five years or

less, and those standards will also be enforceable. In other words, if business or the public sector does not comply, there will be fines.

Ms. Mossop: There is one area we need to clarify. Critics were saying that business would not go along with this, that they would push back.

Hon. Mrs. Bountrogianni: Yes, a lot of people were saying that business would not go for this, but I'm honoured to say business actually

stepped up to the plate -- and we're very proud of Hamilton. Leaders in Hamilton, like Dofasco, were crucial in the development of this legislation, along with people with disabilities. We had the

first-ever in Canada formal meeting between people with disabilities and business at a round table about a year and a half ago. There was 95% agreement on virtually every issue. People with

disabilities understood the importance of business; people in business understood the human rights of people with disabilities. It was amazing to see what you can do if you do it the right way.

With an aging population, 20 years from now, one in five Ontarians is likely to be a person with a disability. Right now, people with disabilities have $25

billion a year in spending power. Imagine the potential for business, which of course would increase the tax base, which is good for programs for people in Ontario. This is a win-win all around for

people with disabilities, for business and for government.

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

Mrs. Julia Munro (York North): My question is to the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal. I noted with some surprise in the budget that

you are now including a role for the private sector in your infrastructure spending. This came as a shock, given your position in the election. Dalton McGuinty said in the middle of the campaign

that public-private partnerships were a waste of money. Since you promised one thing before the election and then did the exact opposite after the election, how will you persuade business to trust

you when you keep changing your position?

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal): Nothing of the sort has happened. In fact, the Premier said we would bring into

the public realm the former government's attempts to make private hospitals, which is precisely what we've done. In fact, hospitals, schools and our water systems, under our proposals, will always

remain in public hands. The most important thing, and I would really bring this home to the member opposite, is that our valuable public assets must always remain under public control. That was the

real flaw in the previous government's fire sale of Highway 407, where the government does own the rights of way on Highway 407, but we have completely lost control of a vital piece of

infrastructure, to the point where Ontarians in her riding are being gouged exorbitant rates because of a government which has sold out the users, which has sold out the owners, the people of

Ontario. We have taken a principle-based approach to getting the critical investment that we need in public infrastructure, and I would ask and encourage the member to join with us to realize that

kind of investment.

Mrs. Munro: Ontarians want to know that they can trust their leaders to keep their word. Dalton McGuinty very publicly opposed private funding

of infrastructure before the election. However, now the Minister of Finance has said in his speech that using private money to help finance public projects is an idea whose time has come. Your new

name for this is alternative finance and procurement, which you said in a speech is "a technique for encouraging investment by the private sector in public facilities." Minister, why did you change

your mind?

Hon. Mr. Caplan: I'm curious that the member is now opposed to seeking private investment in public infrastructure. In fact, the member would

be aware that back in July, I issued a government policy paper called Building a Better Tomorrow. It outlines five key principles under which we will gain the necessary investments in our

infrastructure. I want you to know that public interest will be paramount, that we will get appropriate value for dollars and have the kind of accountability that the previous government lacked. I

could go on with the others: appropriate public control and ownership, and fair, open and transparent processes. But one of the great stories of our budget was a $30-billion total investment in

infrastructure that had been lacking under both previous governments.

We reject the debt-laden method of the third party. We reject the privatization method of your government, I say to the member opposite. There's a third way,

there's a better way, a way that will gain the necessary investment that we desperately need in our infrastructure. I encourage you and other members --

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

REFINERY CLOSURE

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Premier, last Thursday Inco told its employees at the copper refinery that they were close to finalizing a

deal to ship raw copper out of Sudbury, to be refined in Quebec. If the deal goes through, Inco will shut down the refinery in seven months and some 160 good-paying union, management and technical

support staff jobs will be lost from the community. This is an urgent situation. That is why I called your office on Friday, May 6, requesting a meeting between you, myself and representatives of

the Steelworkers union to determine what you are going to do to save these jobs and the refinery. Despite calls from myself and from the Steelworkers to your office, we haven't been able to arrange

a meeting yet. Premier, will you have your staff arrange a meeting as soon as possible so that we will know what you're prepared to do to stop Inco from transferring these jobs to Quebec?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): To the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): This obviously is a very, very big concern in our community, and we as a

government continue to keep the door open to meetings. We've arranged meetings, we continue to communicate with both sides, and let's set the record straight with regard to what we as a government

have done. Inco has been very clear, because of their discussion with the union, because of their interaction with our government, that there will be no layoffs if the proposed closure of the

refinery goes through. In discussion with the union and in discussion with our government -- I'm very, very proud to say that the collaboration between union, company and government has resulted in

125 new union jobs being created since January and 17 new staff positions being created. The reality is that the door is open to communication. We want to bring the sides together. We want to

ensure --

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Supplementary?

Ms. Martel: To the Premier, to set the record straight: If raw copper is allowed to be processed in Quebec, our community will lose 160

good-paying jobs and our community can ill afford to lose 160 good-paying jobs. StatsCan just recently reported that the community lost 800 jobs in April alone.

Back to the Premier: Inco can afford to make the necessary renovations to make the refinery more efficient. Inco made $612 million last year. They made over

$300 million in the first quarter of 2005 alone, and $215 million of that came out of the Ontario division, which is essentially Sudbury. Inco has the money, and Inco should be told that they're

not going to be allowed to take raw copper out of our community to be refined in Quebec. Premier, I ask you again: We have asked for a meeting with you so that we can deal with this serious

situation. Are you prepared to meet with myself and the Steelworkers so we can know what you are prepared to do to stop this from happening?

Hon. Mr. Bartolucci: Stats Canada will also tell you that the unemployment rate in Sudbury was 7.4%, which was the lowest unemployment rate in

the last 15 years in Sudbury. So I think we should be very optimistic. Listen, the reality of this situation is that we are going to try to minimize any job reduction in the community. We are going

to work with the union; we are going to work with the company. We will bring collaboration to this issue. We want to ensure we maximize new job creation. We look not only at the short-term

situation, we look at the long-term situation. We want to create jobs both for the short term and the long term. We will do that by working with both sides.

NORTHERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

Mr. David Orazietti (Sault Ste. Marie): My question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. As you know, infrastructure is

vitally important to northern Ontario and to my community of Sault Ste. Marie. Under both former governments, we experienced devastating cuts to infrastructure spending and programs in northern

Ontario, particularly to our northern highways. The previous government made announcements about four-laning highways, but did nothing. We know there's a big difference between a Conservative IOU

and a Liberal bank deposit. Minister, please elaborate on what our government is doing to improve infrastructure in northern Ontario and what is different about our government's plan for northern

Ontario highways.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): The member from Sault Ste. Marie asks a very important question. This

government this year will invest $485 million in northern infrastructure, including an unprecedented investment of $297 million in northern roads rehabilitation and expansion. Never in the history

of our province has this much money been committed to northern roads by any government. I'm also pleased to announce that finally we have a plan and the dollars for completing the four-laning of

Highway 69. My colleague has asked about a very important distinction between former governments and the McGuinty government: The reality is, we're about action and they're about rhetoric.

Mr. Orazietti: Thank you for the response. This is very good news for northerners, but my constituents are also concerned about other

infrastructure projects and jobs in Sault Ste. Marie. We've seen the benefits of our northern prosperity plan in important projects in Sault Ste. Marie such as the new Flakeboard plant, the new

Sutherland Group centre, the Gateway project and the boardwalk project. Minister, can you reassure the constituents in my community that we'll continue to provide the tools necessary to improve

northern economic prosperity?

Hon. Mr. Bartolucci: The member from Sault Ste. Marie has worked very hard to bring job creation to his community of Sault Ste. Marie. The

budget is going to help him this year because it solidifies our government's commitment to the newly refocused northern Ontario heritage fund, with an annual contribution of $60 million. This

represents the largest annual commitment to the north, through the northern Ontario heritage fund. In addition to this significant contribution, in 2005-06 the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp.

will get an additional $55 million for commitments made under the old mandate. In addition to this, the Northern Ontario Grow Bonds Corp. will invest approximately $13 million from the successful

sale of grow bonds. We have laid the foundation for positive growth in northern Ontario.

COMMITTEE

SCHEDULE

Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): My question is to the Premier, and it concerns Bill 183, the adoption bill. Last Tuesday, the

subcommittee of the standing committee on social policy met to discuss how this bill would be handled, and the subcommittee developed a report that would have been recommended back to the full

committee. It would have allowed for a full public process, including advertising of the fact that the committee hearings were taking place so as to allow people who are interested in this bill to

have an opportunity to come forward and speak to it.

On May 12, two days later, another subcommittee meeting was called. At this subcommittee meeting, the member for Don Valley West brought forward new government

marching orders to compress the time frame for the hearings considerably from the previous subcommittee's tentative decision and to ensure that there would not be advertising of this bill.

My question to the Premier is this: Is he willing to use his influence as the head of government to ensure that there is a suitable public process on this

bill, so that everyone who has an interest in this bill is informed of it and is given an opportunity to present at the public hearings?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): This is a matter for the House leader.

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): As I indicated in my response to the member's first question, we will

certainly be happy to discuss this at the House leaders' meeting again.

I'll remind the member that in addition to the Information and Privacy Commissioner, who, I understand, is speaking this Thursday for 15 minutes, which, as I

understand it, is the amount of time allocated to each delegation, certain members of the committee wouldn't allow the minister to come and speak.

So I think we should talk about this at House leaders. My hope is that we can come to an amicable resolution of this situation.

I can say this, however: This government supports this bill, this government sees the importance of this bill, this government is united on this bill, and this

government will see this bill passed, regardless of whatever tricks you may try to use to stop passage of this bill.

PETITIONS

ONTARIO FARMERS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have a petition here signed by many of my constituents and constituents from neighbouring ridings. It's to the

Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas thousands of Ontario farmers have been forced to take their concerns directly to Queen's Park because of a lack of response from the Dalton McGuinty

government to farm issues; and

"Whereas farming in Ontario is in crisis because of the impacts of BSE, unfair subsidies from other jurisdictions, rising costs for energy and a crushing

regulatory burden on farmers; and

"Whereas current prices for farm products do not allow for sustainable agriculture in Canada, with a 10.7% decline in the number of Canadian farms reported

between 1996 and 2001;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, ask the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to consult with Ontario's farmers to develop a long-term strategy to ensure the

viability of agriculture in our province that protects our rural way of life, and to work in the short term to alleviate the farm income crisis and listen to the concerns of farmers about the

greenbelt."

I affix my signature, as I agree with the petition.

HALTON RECYCLING PLANT

Mrs. Julia Munro (York North): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas noxious odours from the Halton Recycling plant in Newmarket are adversely affecting the health and quality of life of residents and working people in

Newmarket; and

"Whereas local families have lost the enjoyment of their properties for themselves and their children, face threats to their health and well-being, and risk a

decline in the value of their homes; and

"Whereas for the 300 members of the nearby main RCMP detachment, as well as other workers in the area, the odours are making their working conditions

intolerable;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, demand that the Minister of the Environment take immediate action to halt all noxious emissions and odours from the Halton

Recycling plant, and take all steps necessary to force Halton Recycling to comply with environmental rules, including closing the plant if the odour problems continue."

I will affix my signature to this, as I am in complete agreement, and give it to Elizabeth.

DRIVER PENALTIES

Mr. Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a number of petitions that were collected by an organization in the constituency.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there currently exists an inequity in penalties under the Highway Traffic Act whereby a driver causing death or grievous harm to another, due to

unsafe turn or other act, may only see a maximum $500 fine, and such is an inadequate penalty;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to pass into law the Highway Traffic Act amendment, as proposed by the Bikers Rights

Organization, which calls for stiffer penalties for drivers involved in fatal accidents where their error caused the fatality."

This is signed by a number of people from Massey, Espanola, Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury etc. They've attended my office on a number of occasions, and I have met

with them on eight.

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): "Physicians Needed in Small Ontario Communities:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Our community is facing an immediate, critical situation in accessing physician services.

"While the recruitment and retention of physicians has been a concern for many years, it is now reaching crisis proportions.

"Training more physicians in Ontario is certainly the best response to this problem in the longer term. We are, however, in urgent need of support for

immediate short-term solutions that will allow our community both to retain our current physicians and recruit new family doctors and specialists in seriously understaffed areas. Foreign-trained

physicians may help us to respond to this need.

"Therefore we, as the residents of Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, urge you to respond to our community's and our region's critical and immediate needs. For us,

this is truly a matter of life and death."

I agree with this and sign with many people from my constituency.

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I have a petition here from a number of residents of Erin Mills. It's to the Legislative Assembly of

Ontario and reads as follows:

"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'd also like to mention one other doctor I know, and that's my sister, and wish her the best on her 50th birthday.

HIGHWAY 26

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

"Whereas the redevelopment of Highway 26 was approved by MPP Jim Wilson and the previous PC government in 2000; and

"Whereas a number of horrific fatalities and accidents have occurred on the old stretch of Highway 26; and

"Whereas the redevelopment of Highway 26 is critical to economic development and job creation in Simcoe-Grey;

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

"That the Liberal government stop the delay of the Highway 26 redevelopment and act immediately to ensure that the project is finished on schedule, to improve

safety for area residents and provide economic development opportunities and job creation in Simcoe-Grey."

Obviously, I've signed that petition and I agree with it.

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly from Chantal Murray of Derry Road in Meadowvale, and

Jennifer Fyffe of Loyalist Drive in Erin Mills, Mississauga. 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 wholeheartedly agree with this petition. I've affixed my signature to it and ask Sean to carry it for me.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Pursuant to standing order 30(b), it now being 4 o'clock, I am required to call orders of the day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

2005 ONTARIO BUDGET

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 16, 2005, on the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): The member for Nickel Belt has the floor if she chooses to continue the debate.

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker. I want to deal with two other matters in the time that I have remaining. The first

has to do with the lack of any strategy in the budget at all with respect to the forestry sector in northern Ontario. The best that the government could do with respect to the forestry sector was

to say, "We are working on ways to strengthen the forest products sector. It's a very important industry for Ontario -- it employs almost 30,000 people in the north." Well, we know that, and we

know that what is happening right now is that, as a result of this government's policy of high hydro rates, many of the mills, many of the pulp and paper operations are now at risk because the

hydroelectricity costs are such a critical and such a large part of their operating budgets that they are consciously making decisions to shut down and move these operations somewhere else.

It's interesting that yesterday the Ontario Forest Industries Association weighed in on this matter and repeated what my party and our leader has said for some

time, that if the government can do something about the film industry, if the government can do something about casinos, if the government can do something about the auto sector, then this

government can do something now about the forestry sector that is taking a beating in our part of province.

Here is what Jamie Lim, who is the CEO for Ontario Forest Industries Association, had to say about this matter yesterday: "There are 12 forest industry mills

identified as being at risk in northern Ontario, and should they close" --

Mr. John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Could I get some guidance from the Chair? Is the word "erroneous"

unparliamentary?

The Acting Speaker: It depends on the context. I return to the member for Nickel Belt.

Ms. Martel: -- "the impact on the entire province, including southern Ontario, will be significantly harsh. `We need the assistance of the

government now. The forest industry is in crisis and the loss of our industry is a loss for the entire province,' said president and CEO of the Ontario Forest Industries Association Jamie Lim.

"Ms. Lim notes financial analysis has shown the closure of the 12 high-risk mills will result in 7,500 direct job losses in the north, 17,500 indirect job

losses in the north and a further 13,000 indirect job losses in southern Ontario. `The forest industry is second only to the automotive sector in its $8-billion contribution to the province's

balance of trade. Unquestionably, the loss of 12 mills will have severe social and economic impacts, not only on individuals, families and communities that have lost jobs, but to the province as a

whole. Just consider the loss in tax revenue,' adds Lim.

"`Ontario's forest industries do not want a handout, we want a hand up, and we are asking the provincial government to offer assistance, as it has for the

automotive sector and the film industry,' stated Lim."

I contrast the complete lack of action by the government today on this important matter with the investments that we made in the forest industry sector when we

were the government. When I was chair of the northern Ontario heritage fund, we invested over $34 million alone in a number of sawmills and forest product operations that were having a very

difficult time during the recession, when many of the banks they borrowed money from were pulling out of those operations and out of those communities: over $34 million invested in a number of

small mills and small forestry operations in the province -- that doesn't include the very significant investment that we made in Kapuskasing at Spruce Falls, for example, in partnership with

Ontario Hydro, where we brought in worker ownership legislation so that the workers themselves could purchase that mill, and then, working with Tembec, make it profitable again; the significant

investment that we made in Provincial Papers in Thunder Bay to allow that mill to restructure; the very significant investment we made in Sault Ste. Marie as well, at St. Marys Paper, when we

provided the funding to allow that operation to restructure.

It was at least $34 million for small mills in Field, Atikokan, Dubreuilville, New Liskeard, Levack, Monetville, Hearst, Manitouwadge, Upsala, Panet, Haig,

Thessalon, Timmins, Bucke etc. All of those investments were made, along with very significant and substantial financial investments to allow some of the very big companies to restructure and some

of those communities to be safe.

I say to the government, what are you waiting for? How many more mills do you want to close? How many more communities do you want to devastate by refusing to

acknowledge that there is a serious crisis facing the forestry industry? You need to do something about that today. We did. Where are you, and how many jobs are you prepared to lose by your

inaction? How many communities are you prepared to see go down the drain in northern Ontario because, 19 months into your mandate, you have done nothing to respond to these serious concerns?

As I pointed out, it's not just New Democrats who have been calling on this government to react. Yesterday the head of the Ontario Forest Industries

Association made it very clear that they need help, and they need help now. There was nothing in the budget to point out that this government is going to provide any investment, provide for any

stability in this particular sector and certainly no indication of, if they were going to do something, when that might actually occur.

The last point I want to dwell on happens to be northern highways. We've had some fun looking at what is actually in the budget with respect to northern

highways and what the Minister of Northern Development and Mines announced that isn't in the budget at all.

Last Thursday morning the Minister of Northern Development and Mines was in Sudbury, speaking to the Rotary Club. He said very clearly that the four-laning of

Highway 69 was guaranteed, that the money was fully committed, that the money was in the 2005 budget to fully four-lane Highway 69 over the next 12 years. Well, I had a chance to review both the

budget and the background budget papers, and I can tell you that there is no specific money set aside for the construction of Highway 69 at all -- not in this fiscal year and certainly not in the

next 12. Nowhere is there any specific reference whatsoever to a specific amount of money for the four-laning of Highway 69 this year or over the next 12.

My colleague Mr. Bisson and I put out a press release on Friday, and we said that it was completely wrong for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines to

claim, as he did last Thursday, that the money for this important project is in the budget. I wish it were, but it isn't. The minister responded on the weekend by saying, "There's no question about

it. This year's funding is outlined in the budget on page 76." I've got page 76 of the budget and I can tell you that nowhere on page 76, not anywhere, is there any reference at all to a specific

amount of money for the four-laning of Highway 69 this year. The only thing that appears in the budget under "Plan 2005-06" is the amount of money that the government intends to spend on all

highways in the province. I assume that that's what the figure is. I'll tell you again that nowhere on page 76, not anywhere, is there any type of reference to a specific amount of funding for

Highway 69, certainly not this year and not for the next 12.

The minister also went ahead and said, "Oh, on page 123 there is a commitment to pave the highway in 12 years." That is true. It's interesting to note that the

12-year completion date is two years longer than was promised by the Conservatives when they were in government. When the Conservatives announced it would take ten years to four-lane Highway 69,

the MPP from Sudbury, now the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, was hanging from the chandeliers in this place, on and on about how this was a highway of death, that it was far too long

to deal with the carnage on the highway, that it was far too long to the deal with the significant safety issues. Now this minister comes forward and says his government is going to take two years

longer to complete the project than the period of time he was so critical about when the Conservatives were in government.

What is happening here? How come the Minister of Northern Development and Mines was so critical of the former government for a 10-year time frame to complete

the four-lan