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

February 15, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-Feb-15 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 15 February 2006 Mercredi 15 février 2006

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HOSPITAL LABORATORY SERVICES

GREAT SKATE

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

TENANT PROTECTION

BUSINESS EXECUTIVES ORGANIZATION

FARM INCOME

POLICE ANTI-DRUG LABORATORY

OMERS PENSION FUND

LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

SOCIAL POLICY

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

JUSTICE POLICY

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LAND RIGHTS AND

RESPONSIBILITIES ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LES DROITS

ET RESPONSABILITÉS EN MATIÈRE

DE BIENS-FONDS

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT (INTERNET GAMING ADVERTISING), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DU CONSOMMATEUR (PUBLICITÉ DES JEUX SUR INTERNET)

VISITORS

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

UNIVERSITY RESEARCH

AND INNOVATION /

RECHERCHE ET INNOVATION

DANS LES UNIVERSITÉS

ORAL QUESTIONS

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

OMERS PENSION FUND

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

OMERS PENSION FUND

MINISTERIAL CONDUCT

LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR

THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

SALE OF FOREST LAND

EARTHQUAKE IN SOUTH ASIA

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY 26

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

OXFORD COUNTY LIBRARY BOARD

ONTARIO FARMERS

TENANT PROTECTION

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

AUTISM TREATMENT

REFUNDABLE CONTAINERS

ONTARIO FARMERS

HANDGUNS

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

CANCER TREATMENT

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

PROTECTION FOR

HEALTH CARE WORKERS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REPORT, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HOSPITAL LABORATORY SERVICES

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): There is a serious situation that could negatively affect health care for many of my constituents

living in the small town of Perth, and in many smaller eastern Ontario communities like Napanee. Since 1997, the Perth and Smiths Falls District Hospital and Hospitals In-Common Laboratories have

combined into a successful partnership. It is a pilot project that has provided the community with the best laboratory services possible with available resources, allowing residents to receive

accurate and timely lab services in their own community.

At the beginning, 75,000 tests were performed by nine doctors. Now eight other doctors have joined up and 140,000 tests are done annually. The problem is that

Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care has not recognized this increase in workload and not one cent of additional funding has been given to the hospital for this service in 11 years. Without an

adjustment to funding, I understand that this particular service will cease on June 1 of this year, not only in Perth but in many other small communities across Ontario.

By all accounts, this partnership has been very beneficial not only for patients but for the hospital, community doctors and the community as a whole. My

constituents feel that they rely on this lab. Those who are elderly need this service close to home. Today I call on the Minister of Health to provide the necessary funds to ensure that the people

of Perth and other small towns in Ontario continue to benefit from this partnership.

GREAT SKATE

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): I rise in the House today to bring everyone's attention to a wonderful event that will take place in

Ottawa and throughout the province this weekend. On Sunday, February 19, the Canadian Tire Foundation for Families will host Canada's biggest skating party, the Great Skate, in celebration of

physical activity. The Canadian Tire Foundation for Families has been involved in promoting healthy lifestyles across Ontario. In February 2005 they launched the Canadian Tire JumpStart, a

charitable program that aids children in financial need to participate in organized sports and recreation. Since the program was launched, Canadian Tire has helped give more than 21,000 kids a

sporting chance, and plans to help 25,000 children in 2006. In order to promote physical activity in children, Canadian Tire has also launched the Great Skate event to encourage a day of healthy

outdoor activity for children and their families.

Skaters who are interested in registering for this event may do so in the store, by phone or on the Canadian Tire website. Participants are invited to make a

voluntary donation, and Canadian Tire will match every donation dollar up to $500,000. The proceeds will go to Canadian Tire JumpStart to help support the program and to extend its scope for

children in need.

I encourage all Ontarians to come out and participate in this Sunday's event, support Canadian Tire's initiative and promote healthy, active lifestyles in

children and adults alike. Lace up your skates and join Minister Watson and all the Ottawa MPs on the Rideau Canal this Sunday. And, yes, there is ice on the Rideau Canal.

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): I rise today to renew my call to the McGuinty government and the Minister of Culture to help save Sir Frederick

Banting's homestead in Alliston, in the town of New Tecumseth.

As I've explained to this House before, Edward Banting, the last owner of the homestead, bequeathed the property to the Ontario Historical Society in 1999 on the

understanding that they would preserve and maintain it for the benefit of all Canadians. Unfortunately, they have failed to live up to that agreement and the home has been allowed to fall into ruin

over the last six years. It's time to repair the damage that six years of carelessness have caused, and it's time to restore those buildings and protect them and the property from potential

vandalism and further wearing away.

Recently, the Minister of Culture was in New Tecumseth, just a couple of kilometres away from the Sir Frederick Banting homestead, and she told the local papers

there that she hoped the parties involved would keep talking.

Once again, I want to remind the minister just how ill-informed she is and how indifferent she seems to this important issue. The parties, as I've reminded her

in this House many times, haven't spoken for over a year now, in fact for 14 months, yet she keeps telling the media locally, nationally and provincially that the parties are constantly meeting.

They're not meeting at all. In fact, while she waits for this issue to get resolved, she should know that the roof has now caved in on the main home and the octagonal drive shed won't last much

longer. So again I renew my effort.

Minister, please protect Ontario's culture, please protect this national historic site, and do what you can to make sure the parties do come together and save

Sir Frederick Banting's homestead.

TENANT PROTECTION

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): The Tenant Protection Act needs to be replaced.

In 2003, Mr. McGuinty promised "real protection for tenants at all times." Two years later, you still experience above-guideline rent increases based on utility

costs. Apartments throughout the city remain in disrepair and landlords still raise the rent by charging tenants the cost of repairs and upkeep year after year.

In a letter sent to the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations in 2003 by Monsieur McGuinty, he says, "We will repeal the Harris-Eves government's Tenant

Protection Act and we will bring back real rent control that protects tenants from excessive rent increases. We will get rid of vacancy decontrol which allows unlimited rent increases on a unit

when a tenant leaves." He adds that they will implement "other legislative changes, such as costs-no-longer-borne provisions to provincial tenant law." Two years and some odd months later, nothing

has happened. John Gerretsen, Ontario's housing minister, has said that a new law is needed to replace the Tenant Protection Act with fair and effective tenant and landlord protection. Two years

and some odd months later, close to the end of their mandate, they have done little.

I invite those tenants who are interested in making sure the Liberals keep their promise to go and voice their concerns and press Liberals by going to city hall

on Thursday, March 9. The meeting is at 7 p.m.

BUSINESS EXECUTIVES ORGANIZATION

Ms. Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): I am very proud to rise today and welcome the Business Executives Organization to Queen's Park. The BEO is

celebrating its 20th anniversary this year, having originated in 1986, by a group of local Hamilton business owners who believed that sharing opportunities would help each of them grow and prosper.

Each company is stronger by the support and mentoring of one another.

The BEO is made up of leaders from across the spectrum of business: retail, manufacturing and service. They meet weekly with the express purpose of increasing

business opportunity and building a stronger, connected community. These business leaders are often the foundation of many charities and represent the essence of our great city. They're hard

working, dedicated and work with integrity.

While time does not allow me to introduce them all by name, I would like to acknowledge Mr. Art Adams, honorary colonel and founder of the Credit Bureau of

Southern Ontario; Mr. Ralph Hayman, from one of Hamilton's oldest law firms, celebrating its 150th year in business; Mr. Dale McDonald, from the respected Ira McDonald Construction; and from a

great family business, Mr. Hank Gelderman, representing Jan Gelderman Landscaping. There are so many more, as you can see in the two galleries.

I am honoured to have been a past president of this fine organization. I wish them all continued success, and thank you for coming to Queen's Park today.

FARM INCOME

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Yesterday, tractors, tractor-trailers, farmers and media converged on Guelph for what I count as the

seventh large farm protest in the last 12 months, a protest to get this government to deal with the farm income crisis.

These agribusiness people don't want to have to keep doing this. Their humiliation has now turned to anger. Lots of signs: "Farmers Feed Cities," and one painted

on both sides of a huge tanker truck, "Equity with US Farmers." US farmers receive $123 an acre for their corn. I talked to a farmer yesterday; he gets $7. How do you compete on the Chicago market?

It's like sending David against Goliath without a slingshot. US farmers have had their best three years in 2003 to 2005. Ontario farmers have had their worst three years.

We've now had, as members opposite will know, two federal government announcements of assistance; nothing from Ontario. The line in the sand grows deeper each

day this government fails to act. Yesterday, farmers laid out an ultimatum. They want a risk management program by March 9.

Nearly all sectors are in crisis: obviously cash crop, beef, tobacco, horticulture, cull-cow, dairy heifers, deer and elk, even beekeepers. Another sign at the

rally: "Our governments are only good at three things: study, stall, study." Step up to the plate before it's too late.

POLICE ANTI-DRUG LABORATORY

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): Last Thursday, I had the honour of joining my colleague the Honourable Monte Kwinter, Minister of

Community Safety and Correctional Services, for the opening of the new replica clandestine drug lab at the Ontario Police College in Aylmer. It is the result of our government's $230,000 investment

to both build and equip the replica drug lab.

The new training facility includes both a realistic marijuana grow operation and a kitchen-based crystal methamphetamine lab. It will be used by instructors at

our world-class police college to help both new recruits and experienced officers learn to identify and safely deal with these extremely dangerous illegal drug operations. This lab will give police

officers valuable skills in their fight against the scourge of illegal drugs and the violence that inevitably accompanies it.

This announcement is particularly welcome news in my riding of Perth-Middlesex, where crystal meth is a troubling problem for Perth county. Many of the 17 meth

lab busts in the province over the last two years have been in Perth county, due to the hard work of our brave police officers.

I applaud the McGuinty government for intensifying the fight by bringing additional training and resources to bear for our front-line police officers. This is in

addition to the crystal meth working group already created by Minister Kwinter in June 2005, which has been tasked with determining the extent of the problem in Ontario and recommending ways the

provincial government can assist communities.

Locally, I want to thank all of our many community leaders, including our mayors, who have come together with one common vision: to make Perth county a meth-free

zone.

OMERS PENSION FUND

Mr. David Orazietti (Sault Ste. Marie): I rise in the House today to acknowledge the work that police officers and firefighters do every day.

This is a group of people who, day in and day out, selflessly put their lives in danger to protect the public. When a firefighter runs into a burning building while everyone else is running out,

they have unique job challenges. When a police officer places his or her life on the line to keep our communities safe, they have unique job challenges.

The McGuinty government is recognizing their selflessness. We are allowing police officers and firefighters to negotiate supplemental benefits to the OMERS

pension plan that they belong to. We are doing this to ensure that the people who ensure public safety have a greater chance to retire in good health.

Unfortunately, the changes we are making have been subject to a campaign of misinformation and fearmongering, so I'd like to take this opportunity to set the

record straight. These supplemental benefits will be paid for on a 50-50 basis by the people who will benefit from them and the municipalities they work for. No one else in any other bargaining

group will have to put in a dime. That concept is enshrined in legislation. It is inaccurate for AMO to suggest they will have to increase municipal taxes, as municipalities and their local

bargaining groups will negotiate contract details, as they have always done. Bill 206 does not give pay increases to any group, as these are negotiated items.

Devolving the OMERS plan has been discussed for more than 10 years by every government, and transferring control to those who pay into it is the right thing to

do. I'm proud to be part of a government that's willing to recognize the sacrifices made by public safety workers. I'm also proud to say that we've done this in a fair way to all members.

LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): I rise to share some thoughts on the progress that has been made on local health integration networks. While

reviewing this legislation in committee, I came to appreciate first-hand the essential role LHINs will play in reshaping health care in our province. This government inherited a health care system

that had been abused and neglected for 12 years. The Tory hit list included hospitals, nurses, doctors and more. We knew the progress we had to deliver would involve a fundamentally different

approach.

As the minister said in committee, LHINs represent a radical change in the way health care is administered in Ontario. We are taking decision-making power away

from Queen's Park and putting it in our communities, because that is where health care decisions should be made: on the ground, by the people affected. This is not just a cosmetic change: We want

to give LHINs control of more than half of our health care budget -- that's over $21 billion.

LHINs help ensure that local health priorities are addressed in a transparent, accountable public forum. The health care needs of Ontarians are not necessarily

the same in Toronto as they are in Thunder Bay. Local communities and local health experts need real control over their local health care priorities, and that's what LHINs are all about.

This kind of radical change is not easy, but it is necessary. LHINs are an essential part of our plan for Ontario: transparent, efficient public health care.

VISITORS

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: We have some special guests in the Speaker's gallery, and by Speaker's

injunction, I am introducing them. The Learning Partnership and Canadian Association of Principals are sponsoring a multi-day gathering of Canada's outstanding principals. That's 30 principals from

across the country, representing every province and territory, obviously including a number of principals from Ontario.

Interjection: Do you know any?

Hon. Mr. Bryant: You will recognize them, I say to the MPPs in the room. I'm not going to recognize all 30 of them, but I am going to recognize

one of them. She's the principal for George Jay, name of Janine Roy. She's an outstanding principal and she's my sister.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): That's not a point of order, but nonetheless, we welcome you.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

SOCIAL POLICY

Mr. Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on social policy and move its adoption.

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

Bill 36,

An Act to provide for the integration of the local system for the delivery of health services / Projet de loi 36, Loi prévoyant

l'intégration du système local de prestation des services de santé.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Shall the report be received and adopted?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1351 to 1356.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please stand one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Balkissoon, Bas

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Craitor, Kim

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Gerretsen, John

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Kwinter, Monte

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Orazietti, David

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Gregory S.

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Deputy Speaker: All those who are opposed, please stand and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Barrett, Toby

Bisson, Gilles

Chudleigh, Ted

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Klees, Frank

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Prue, Michael

Runciman, Robert W.

Sterling, Norman W.

Tory, John

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 55; the nays are 19.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

JUSTICE POLICY

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on justice policy and move its adoption.

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

Bill 21,

An Act to enact the Energy Conservation Leadership Act, 2005 and to amend the Electricity Act, 1998, the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 and the

Conservation Authorities Act / Projet de loi 21, Loi édictant la Loi de 2005 sur le leadership en matière de conservation de l'énergie et apportant des modifications à la Loi de

1998 sur l'électricité, à la Loi de 1998 sur la Commission de l'énergie de l'Ontario et à la

Loi sur les offices de protection de la nature.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received the report on intended appointments dated

February 15, 2006, of the standing committee on government agencies.

Pursuant to standing order 106(e)9, the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LAND RIGHTS AND

RESPONSIBILITIES ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LES DROITS

ET RESPONSABILITÉS EN MATIÈRE

DE BIENS-FONDS

Mr. Barrett moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 57,

An Act to amend the Expropriations Act and the Human Rights Code with respect to land rights and responsibilities / Projet de loi 57, Loi

modifiant la

Loi sur l'expropriation et le Code des droits de la personne en ce qui a trait aux droits et responsabilités en matière de biens-fonds.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

Mr. Barrett, would you like to make a few comments?

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): This bill does amend the Expropriations Act and the Human Rights Code to enhance the protection

that Ontario law gives to owners of land and persons with respect to their homes. Under the Expropriations Act, an inquiry officer, on inquiry, is required to consider the merits of the objectives

of the expropriating authority and to add, as parties to an expropriation inquiry, the owners of all lands affected by the expropriation. The decision of an approving authority is subject to

judicial review. The amendments to the Human Rights Code recognize, subject to specific limitations in law, the right to peaceful enjoyment of one's land, the moral responsibility to maintain it,

and the right to freedom from search of one's property and home and from seizure of anything from it. Those rights have long been recognized in common law, but are largely missing from the Canadian

Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT (INTERNET GAMING ADVERTISING), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DU CONSOMMATEUR (PUBLICITÉ DES JEUX SUR INTERNET)

Mr. Leal moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 60,

An Act to amend the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 to regulate the promotion and advertising of Internet gaming in Ontario / Projet de loi 60, Loi

modifiant la Loi de 2002 sur la protection du consommateur afin de réglementer la promotion des jeux sur Internet en Ontario et la publicité qui en est faite.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr. Leal -- a few comments?

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): The purpose of the bill is to prohibit the advertising of website addresses of Internet gaming businesses unless

the person doing the advertising believes, in good faith, that the Internet gaming business has been properly authorized to operate and has in effect operated in accordance with Ontario and

Canadian law.

VISITORS

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want to welcome to the Legislative Assembly page Bourgeois's parents, Bernie

and Ann Bourgeois; his sister, Rebecca Bourgeois; and his grandparents, John and Marjorie Carter.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): It's not a point of order, but certainly we welcome you.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): I believe we have unanimous consent to

move a motion without notice regarding the standing committee on finance and economic affairs.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The government House leader has asked for unanimous consent that a motion be introduced without notice

regarding the standing committee on finance and economic affairs. Agreed? Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I move that, notwithstanding the order of the House dated Thursday, June 17, 2004, regarding the

schedule for committee

meetings, the following committee be authorized to meet as follows:

The standing committee on finance and economic affairs on Monday, February 20, and Tuesday, February 21, 2006, at the call of the Chair to no later than 6

p.m.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

UNIVERSITY RESEARCH

AND INNOVATION /

RECHERCHE ET INNOVATION

DANS LES UNIVERSITÉS

Hon. Christopher Bentley (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): We know that communities that invest in innovation, invest in the

creativity of people and market their ideas most effectively will become home to the most rewarding jobs, to the strongest economies and to the best quality of life. We know that when we can infuse

innovation into all aspects of our society, we will see more highly skilled people working in a more robust and productive economy. It means better jobs for more people.

Le premier ministre McGuinty, qui fait aussi fonction de ministre de la Recherche et de l'Innovation, a indiqué que notre gouvernement élaborera une

stratégie à long terme en matière de recherche et d'innovation pour nous aider à réaliser notre objectif d'assurer le succès d'un plus grand nombre de personnes.

The Premier aims to build an Ontario where creativity is sustained, ingrained and developed in every sector and as part of everyone's job description. Our

government's goal is to foster a culture of innovation.

One of the cornerstones of innovation is research. Investment in innovative, high-calibre research helps to increase economic productivity and will unlock the

potential that is essential to our province's future.

Today, I am pleased to tell this House that we have taken another step to strengthen Ontario's economic advantage and create a culture of innovation in this

province. Our government will establish eight new research chairs at six universities. Each of the areas to be researched is critical to the future health and success of our province.

The universities that have been selected to receive endowments and the areas of research are: McMaster University, one chair in education policy and at-risk

students; Queen's University, one chair in bioethics; University of Toronto, three chairs -- one in post-secondary education policy and measurement, one in health policy and system design, and one

in biomarkers in disease management; University of Waterloo, one chair in environmental policy and renewable energy; University of Windsor, one chair in urban policy; and York University, one chair

in economics and cross-cultural studies.

With this announcement, we are both increasing the number of leading-edge researchers at our universities and ensuring that the next generation of graduate

students has the skills to help find innovative solutions to problems that affect all of us.

In last year's budget, our government provided $25 million to create new Ontario research chairs at universities across the province. We asked the Council of

Ontario Universities to partner with us and oversee this project. The council established a selection panel that developed criteria and made the decisions on which universities would receive the

endowments. The panel was chaired by David Strangway, the former president and CEO of the Canada Foundation for Innovation and past president and vice-chancellor of the University of British

Columbia. I want to thank Dr. Strangway and his panel for their exceptional work, and I want to thank the Council of Ontario Universities for partnering with us on this important initiative.

The universities that have received the endowments are now seeking out distinguished researchers to fill the chairs. Each of the Ontario research chairs will

be held by an outstanding researcher acknowledged by peers as a world leader in their field. The endowment for the research chairs is part of Reaching Higher, the McGuinty government plan for

post-secondary education. Through the plan, the government will invest $6.2 billion more in post-secondary education and training by 2009-10, the single largest infusion of funds in the sector in

40 years.

Part of that plan is to support today's research and to prepare for innovation in the coming years by supporting more students to continue on in their studies

as graduate students. These are the people who are the researchers of the future. You will be hearing more about our plans for increasing the number of graduate students in Ontario universities in

the future.

Our government is committed to research and innovation that will lead to exciting new products, policies and services, which will in turn create wealth, raise

our standard of living and enhance our shared quality of life. That means more opportunities for more Ontarians to build a better life for themselves and their families to reach their full

potential.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Response?

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): I applaud the minister's announcement today. I also want to thank the distinguished panel: Dr. Strangway, Dr. Art

May, Judith Maxwell, Harold Shapiro and Harry Swain for the work they've done. There were, I believe, 37 proposals, of which there were eight awards, and six universities participated. Clearly,

there's more to be done.

In the minister's remarks he commented on creating a culture of innovation. Innovation, as we all know, creates opportunities for people. Building the human

infrastructure in our universities and our economy is critical to our economy and our way of life. I might say for the record that it's important to recognize that creating this culture of

innovation started when we were in government by the creation of the first Ministry of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation.

For the record, it's important to note some of the contributions made by the academic researchers already today. We started the Cancer Research Institute of

Ontario in 2003 with a $1-billion commitment; the biotech commercialization centre fund; MaRS -- that's the Medical and Related Sciences discovery district -- was announced by our government in

February 2002; the biotech cluster innovation; also the Centre of Excellence for Electricity and Alternative Energy Technology.

Clearly you're building on the work that was started by our government. In that aspect, I contribute a compliment to the work that you're continuing.

Building innovation was started with the Ontario Innovation Trust, which is a $1-billion fund. The Ontario Research and Development Challenge Fund: $1.25

billion to date.

There is clearly more work to be done, but I think it's important to link prosperity to having the culture of innovation and also incenting a competitive

economy.

This comes to mind when you look at the economy today. I think there's more work to be done. Certainly I look to the University of Waterloo. They can work with

our Minister of Energy today. There seem to be, in my view, very few plans. They need more help from the research group at the University of Waterloo looking at renewable energies. I would

encourage the minister to work with them on that file.

But on many fronts, this competitiveness starts with the government itself. The innovation in health care that's required started with their increasing the tax

on health care in this province -- over $2 billion.

I commend building a strong economy, building a strong culture, building a strong quality of life -- the quality of life we've come to expect and have seen

little of from this government. For today's announcement, I think what it means to me is that students and researchers in our universities will have the resources they need, the encouragement they

need, and clearly there's more to be done.

At the same time, in the limited time I have left, I've met with the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, which is Canada's newest university. They

are the first university in Canada to have a department directed toward nuclear engineering. In fact, they've just received a Premier's Research Excellence Award in fuel cell technology. I was

pleased to attend and show respect to that academic community for the great work they're doing.

I know that this party, under our leadership of John Tory, will keep a close eye and a close watch on the investments this government makes to keep Ontario

competitive and our economy prosperous so we can sustain the quality of life that we all expect and deserve.

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): New Democrats want to acknowledge that the creation of eight new research chairs is a positive

development. We also note that there's general support in society and acknowledgement by the business sector that investing in research and innovation is key to our ability as a province and as a

country to be able to be competitive with other countries in the world.

When this announcement was made last September, I had a criticism of it that I don't believe has been corrected. The criticism of this announcement was that

Ontario academics could not apply for these positions as research chairs. Requests for proposals issued to universities indicated that people coded by the universities for those jobs "must not

currently be working in an Ontario university." We believe this is disgraceful. Having noted the criticism, I have not seen Monsieur Bentley deal with that criticism. In fact, Michael Doucet,

president of the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations, said that the restriction could be seen as a backhanded swat at home-grown academics. Rosario Marchese of the NDP says it

is a backhanded swat at home-grown academics. It offends all of Ontario academics and researchers. It suggests, and not so subtly, that our own Ontario academics and researchers are neither

eligible nor brilliant. I suggest to you that this is an egregious error that the minister is clearly aware of, and he hasn't made any effort to correct it. I point this out because it merits

repetition.

I also want to raise another objection, a concern and a worry that has been raised as well by the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations,

which says:

"Ontario academics are also concerned about provincial government funding for basic research, which dropped from 20% to 15% over the last decade. The Premier's

enthusiasm to fund commercialized research, while welcome, raises new concerns that funding will be diverted from basic research in the social sciences and humanities -- both of which are critical

to the economic and social development of our province. There needs to be a comprehensive and balanced approach to provincial research support, including the need to fund both basic and applied

research in the sciences, social sciences and humanities."

If there are ministers on the other side who believe that this is not true, they could prove it by making announcements that deal with the concerns that OCUFA

and I are raising here today.

The third point I want to raise is that the government says they will be spending $6.2 billion by 2009-10. I raise this as a concern, and I raise it each time

it comes up, because so far the government has spent little or next to nothing based on the promises they have made and the announcements they made last year. As of today, based on all indicators,

we are last when it comes to the contribution of government to our post-secondary institutions for universities and colleges. It speaks badly of this Liberal government unless they address it. We

still remain last on all indicators. I urge the ministers who are smiling on the other side or who perhaps don't want to believe that this is the case to do a little research of their own or maybe

consult Monsieur Bentley as a way of correcting this problemo. I suggest to you it's a big problem.

They're coming near the end of their third year, and very little money has flowed to our universities. We're coming to the end of this regime where they are

about to retire and/or be retired, and we will have seen very little or no money come to the university sector. I suggest to you that you'd better deliver some money quick and you'd better deliver

some money by the end of your mandate, so people can say, "Finally, after four years the Liberal government produces some kind of financial contribution that makes our universities and colleges

competitive across Canada and the world."

Monsieur Bentley, I await for your promises to come through within your mandate. Can't wait. Thank you.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. I hope you've had an opportunity to read Bill 36, the LHIN

legislation. Can you explain to us why you thought it was necessary to significantly expand the power your minister has to close or amalgamate hospitals without any oversight or limitation? You

have said, and your minister has said, that this bill is all about expanding power at the local level and giving people more local responsibility. Why does he need expanded power to close hospitals

without anyone else involved?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): I'm pleased to take the question. I know that the Minister of Health is

eager to get in on this as well.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: He'll bat cleanup.

I do want to say that we are eager to move forward with this legislation. It's based on the premise that the most important place in which we can make those

decisions connected to health care in the community is at the community level. We just don't believe we can micromanage all those things that go into delivering good-quality health care from

downtown Toronto, here at Queen's Park.

We have 154 hospitals, 581 long-term-care homes, 42 community care access centres, 37 public health units, 55 community health centres, 16 district health

councils and so on and so forth. There are over 1,200 health organizations that aren't talking to each other. We're changing that. We're bringing them together and asking people in the community to

make those decisions.

Mr. Tory: You are absolutely not making that decision the responsibility of local people. In fact, what you have done is taken a situation

where, since 1999, the minister has only had the power to issue orders to close or amalgamate hospitals that had previously been given a direction, and you are now, in sections 28 and 29 of this

bill, allowing the minister to close hospitals without a hearing, without cabinet approval, with no consultation except with his hand-picked people on these LHINs, whom he appointed. So you are in

fact centralizing the responsibility and giving the power to close those hospitals to the minister where he doesn't have that today. So I ask you, why have you done this? Why have you in fact

centralized that power with the minister and removed the public interest test that existed before? Why have you done that?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Just so we can be clear on this and so Ontarians have the benefit of a clear contrast, under their watch, the previous

Conservative government cut $557 million from hospitals over two years and closed 28 hospitals. What this Minister of Health has done for the first time ever is put in place multi-year funding to

ensure our hospitals are fully aware of the strength of their ongoing existence and of our continuing commitment to them.

LHINs are all about acknowledging that we have every confidence in the people of Ontario to assist when it comes to making important decisions that will

improve the quality of care delivered by them, to them in their communities.

Mr. Tory: If you were giving the power to local people to make those decisions and if you weren't intending to close any hospitals or

amalgamate them, why would you give this minister or any minister under this bill the power to close or amalgamate hospitals, a power that minister has not had since 1999? Why would you do

that?

Furthermore, why would you give your own cabinet the power to remove and shut down services in hospitals in secret, without any consultation with anybody

whatsoever, under this bill? If you've read it, that is exactly what this bill does. Check it out: Sections 28, 29 and 33 give your minister the power to close hospitals and give your cabinet the

power to remove services from hospitals without consultation and without hearing. Why do you feel it necessary to do that if you really believe local people should be making these decisions?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'd like to point out to the honourable member, which has been well said by my

leader, the Premier, that there are parties in this Legislature that have a record of closing hospitals willy-nilly, and you're leading the party that has been principally associated with it.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: The honourable member who was the longest-serving Minister of Health in the previous government wants to talk now about

her record, but the record is very, very clear: In communities across the province stand relics of buildings that once stood as important service providers. That is their legacy; it is not ours.

Our commitment to hospitals has been clear. Multi-year funding has been established.

With respect to the powers that were in the Public Hospitals Act, which have been extrapolated into this bill, due process has been added and public interest

concerns remain paramount. What we seek to do in this piece of legislation is affirm our important accountability to the people of Ontario for the stewardship of the health care system and delegate

significant powers to the people in local communities, who are better able to exercise those important decisions about what priorities must be supported in a circumstance where resources will

always be more scarce --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. New question?

Mr. Tory: You make all the decisions under this bill, and you know it. You just have to consult them on the people you appointed.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Could you please explain why, in the period of the fall of 2005, without even knowing what you've blown since then,

you spent more than $2 million in health tax money on furniture and design alone for the swanky offices your LHIN bureaucracy is going to occupy? Can you tell us why you couldn't have used some of

the old furniture you had when you closed down the district health councils at a cost of more than $100 million and used this $2 million instead to hire dozens of nurses that you could have hired,

as the taxpayers would expect?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: In part measure, I would have expected the honourable member to stand in his place and repeat one more time what he has

fondly said so often, that this is just another layer of bureaucracy. Now it's very clear to people across the province that, in a sensible fashion for once, we've brought together the powers and

the responsibility for policy, planning and decision-making and put them under one roof. We've said that those people from local communities who will make those decisions will make them in full

public eye, at public meetings open to citizens and patients of Ontario.

With respect to the very excellent suggestion that the honourable member makes, that as we equip new offices to do their work we take advantage of existing

furniture and existing contracts associated with things like fax machines, printers and copiers, we have done exactly that. We have sought to make sure that any expenditure and asset of district

health councils was put to work as we brought these new offices to life and these new responsibilities and opportunities for patients to life.

Mr. Tory: With respect, what complete rubbish. If you weren't hiring a lot more people, then why do you need to spend $2 million more on new

furniture and new design for these offices -- and that's just in the first few months.

Still under your LHIN bill, why, I ask the minister, can you, by ministerial order, transfer property to a hospital which donors have given to another hospital

-- no hearing, no cabinet oversight and no involvement by the courts, as is the case in other provinces. You could just decide that an MRI machine given by Mrs. Smith to the hospital in Belleville

be transferred to London -- no hearing, no oversight by anybody. You could decide $1 million given to a hospital in London could be transferred to Toronto. People want to support their

hospitals locally and make sure the money stays there. Why do you want, need and insist on putting in this bill the power to transfer those donations, at will, any time you want, with no

supervision and no oversight? Why do you want to do that?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: The answer to the honourable member, if he would apply a practical test, is a very simple one: If a decision was made at

a point in time in the future where two services currently operating came together as one, what would be the reasonable sense in leaving behind a piece of equipment that no longer had an

operational role? This is the suggestion that the honourable member makes.

There will be circumstances, and there have been circumstances, in the Ontario health care system where there has been an evolution in the roles of hospitals

and the services provided. I know this rather well as the person who had the privilege of running the Staying Alive campaign at the Wellesley Hospital. We sought and we fought to keep that hospital

alive, but when that was no longer the case, the taxpayers of Ontario were asked again to pay for assets that they had already played a role in paying for. They double-paid for assets that were

important in terms of being able to provide the services that St. Michael's Hospital had the obligation to provide. This is a mechanism that takes advantage of the considerable opportunities that

are there to make sure that the donations made in good heart by the people of Ontario can continue to serve the patients of Ontario.

Mr. Tory: If you know what you know about raising money -- and you know that I know the same about raising money for hospitals -- then why

wouldn't you have put in this

section either a requirement that maybe the poor old donor who gave the money could be consulted as to what happens with the property, or a requirement, as is the case

in other provinces, that it go to court for some kind of court approval. You know, as I do, that people are going to stop giving if they think any Minister of Health -- starting with you, because

you're the one who's giving yourself this power -- can simply take their donation and transfer it somewhere else, perhaps even out of their local community. Why, if you have raised this money

before, as I know you have and as I have, would you not take that into account and put some safeguards in here that will allow donors to continue to give with the confidence that the money will

stay where they gave it?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: The very safeguard that the honourable member asks for is there, and it's a prudent one. He adds to his hyperbole and

speculation by suggesting that this asset could be transferred to some other part of the province -- rather inconsistent with the very principle of local health integration networks in the first

place.

The key principle is well established in law; it's there. It says that any transfer of the assets that the honourable member speaks about must be done in a

circumstance that is clear, and this circumstance goes something like this: The charitable purpose of the donation must be maintained. If Mrs. Jones gives money to an MRI for service and activity

in her local community, I stand before you and I give this assurance, and it is clear: This service will continue to be the one that Mrs. Jones offered the dollars for in the very first place.

OMERS PENSION FUND

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier and it concerns a very specific promise the Premier made in writing in

order to avoid a potential province-wide work stoppage.

Premier, this is a letter that you sent to the head of the OMERS pension plan. In it, you promised a mechanism to settle pension disputes modelled on the

teachers' pension plan. It would have meant that if workers and employers under the OMERS pension plan are deadlocked on a pension issue, that issue would go to arbitration to be decided. But when

you introduced your most recent amendments to the OMERS pension legislation, your promise wasn't there. Instead, you substituted a dispute settlement mechanism that would be grossly unfair to the

lowest-paid CUPE workers in the province.

I'm asking you, Premier, will you keep the promise that you made on a dispute settlement mechanism with respect to OMERS, or will you be responsible for a

province-wide work stoppage?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): I'm more than happy to take the question. Just so the leader of the NDP

is clear, the legislation specifically provides that if employers and employees cannot come to an agreement in terms of a two-thirds majority with respect to a change to the benefits, then the

board can, by way of a 50%-plus-one majority, send it to mediation. If that mediator's report comes back and it is not accepted by the board, again by a two-thirds majority, they can again, by way

of a 50%-plus-one majority, refer that to arbitration. When that comes back, it is binding.

Just so we're very clear about what we are talking about, at the end of the day, this is all about a mediation and binding arbitration process that can be

instigated by a 50%-plus-one majority, and we believe that to be fair.

Mr. Hampton: Just to be clear, that is not what you promised, Premier. You promised a very simple dispute settlement mechanism modelled on the

teachers' pension plan, and what you've provided in the legislation is so complex and so ridden with delay that it is grossly unfair to some of the lowest-paid CUPE workers in the province.

You thought it was a good idea then. In fact, you thought it was such a good idea that you put it as a promise in writing. All the people who are involved in

this dispute are asking you to do now is to keep the very promise that you, Dalton McGuinty, made. You can avoid the controversy, you can avoid the potential province-wide work stoppage simply by

keeping the specific promise that you made. Will you do that, Premier -- simply keep the promise that you made?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: We are pleased to be keeping our promise.

The leader of the NDP is saying that, as we might expect, if anything untoward should unfold, if there should be an illegal strike in the province of Ontario,

then that could be no person's responsibility other than my own. I see it a little bit differently and I'll tell you why, and maybe my friends will agree. We have followed and respected the process

throughout. We ran on this commitment; we are now delivering on this commitment. We introduced a bill in this Legislature. We had two rounds of committee hearings; I think those lasted some 11

days. We've entertained all kinds of amendments, friendly and otherwise. I think we've adopted three that were put forward by the NDP --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Answer.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: What we propose to do now is to move ahead for third reading. Someone in the province is saying, "Notwithstanding the fact

that you have respected the process and respected opposition to this, if you should continue to honour that process and move ahead in third reading, then I will break the law."

We will do what is right. We will always honour the process and we will respect our opposition.

Mr. Hampton: Premier, people are trying to be quite reasonable in this process. Mr. Tory has suggested to you that you come to the table. Sid

Ryan and CUPE have suggested to you that there is a way out of this. All they are asking is that you do what you promised in writing in this letter. But you have decided to draw a line in the sand.

What is your line in the sand? You positively refuse to do what you promised, even if it should result in a province-wide work stoppage.

I say to you again, Premier, you made the promise. When you start messing around with people's pension plans, you start messing around with their retirement

security. It's a very serious issue.

The Deputy Speaker: Question.

Mr. Hampton: You can find a resolution to this merely by keeping your promise. Will you keep the promise that Dalton McGuinty made and bring

in a simplified dispute --

The Deputy Speaker: The question has been asked. Premier.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I know there are many people who are concerned about this bill, and I just want them to have a good understanding of what

in fact it is all about. Again, it provides for, effectively, a 50%-plus-one majority required if there is a dispute to send something to mediation and, ultimately, to binding arbitration. That's

what this does. Beyond that, I want to be clear to Ontarians that we have, throughout this matter, respected the process: We introduced a bill in this Legislature, had that bill debated in this

Legislature, two rounds of committee hearings, we're going to bring the bill back, and there will be an opportunity for third reading debate. I think it is unreasonable and objectionable for

someone to say, "Notwithstanding the fact that you have throughout respected the process, should you proceed as a duly elected government to continue to follow due process, I will encourage people

to break the law." I just think that's wrong. I think we have an obligation to move ahead, given everything that we have undertaken and by respecting the process, and we will continue to respect

our --

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

Mr. Hampton: To the Premier: You promised a specific dispute settlement process for pensions. What you promised is what teachers have. It is

also what firefighters would have under this bill; it is also what police would have under this bill. But the lowest-paid CUPE workers, many of them women working as caretakers in our schools, you

will deny them the same dispute settlement mechanism. If it's good for teachers, if it's good for firefighters, if it's good for police, tell me, Premier, why isn't it good enough for those

lower-paid workers, especially when you promised it?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I can understand that 50% plus one is not something the NDP would support, but I think for the overwhelming majority of

Ontarians 50% plus one makes eminently good sense. Again I say to the leader of the NDP, and I say to Ontarians especially, that we have throughout this process respected the process itself by

ensuring that people had ample opportunity to make presentations. We've had two days of debate in the House so far; 11 days of committee debate; we received 141 submissions; we heard from 54

presenters. A number of amendments were introduced and, as I say, among those that we adopted were three that were moved by the NDP.

We have heard from many, we have worked hard to improve the quality of this bill, and, of course, we look forward to moving on.

Mr. Hampton: Do you know what, Premier? Most of those submissions were from lower-paid workers, telling your government how unfair your OMERS

amendments are going to be to those lowest-paid workers in the province.

I say to you again, Premier: If a dispute settlement mechanism of 50%-50% is good enough to send it to arbitration for teachers and it's good enough to send it

to arbitration for police officers and good enough to send it to arbitration for firefighters, why do women who work as caretakers in our schools have to have a two-thirds majority in order to have

it sent to a dispute settlement mechanism under Dalton McGuinty's legislation?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I'll explain it again for the benefit of the leader of the NDP. What the legislation effectively provides -- and I'll be

more than delighted to have the ministry provide him with a briefing on this. It specifically provides that, in the event that they cannot get the two-thirds majority for a change to the plan, what

they can do is ask for a mediation. All that is required in that regard is 50% plus one. Once the report is received, all they need, again, is 50% plus one to move it on to binding arbitration.

So what we're talking about, again, is a 50%-plus-one majority that is required to make changes to the plan. I think that is fair. The leader of the NDP says

he believes it is not fair. To that end, he's prepared, I gather, to support the unfortunate -- hopefully, an eventuality that can be avoided: an illegal strike. I just don't think that that would

be the responsible thing to do.

Mr. Hampton: Here is the process in your legislation. If those low-paid workers who are caretakers at a school that my son or daughter goes to

want to improve their pension plan, they have to get a two-thirds majority. If they don't get a two-thirds majority, they need to get 50% plus one; in other words, they need one of the employers to

vote with them. How often do you think that's going to happen? Even when they get that, if it gets to mediation, it requires a further two-thirds majority to accept the mediator's report -- another

roadblock. If the mediator's report is turned down because they can't get a two-thirds majority, it requires 50% plus one to go to arbitration. They need another employer to vote with them.

Premier, that isn't a dispute settlement mechanism; that's a roadblock, and it's an unfair roadblock to the lowest-paid workers in this province.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Just so all members are aware, what municipalities -- AMO in particular, of course -- were asking for was that, in order to

make changes, there be 100% support. What CUPE and some others were asking for was that all you'd need was 50%. So we have come up with 50% plus one, which we think is very fair in the

circumstances. We think that enables the employers and employees to have a good foundation on which to build the kind of support that is necessary in order to bring about change. It is hardly an

insurmountable obstacle over which they must jump. We're talking about 50% plus one.

Again I say to my friend opposite: We have worked long and hard on this bill, we have received many amendments, we have adopted many amendments, and we look

forward to moving ahead.

The Deputy Speaker: New question.

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question is to the Premier. Premier, the province is on the brink of an illegal strike that we all oppose and

only you can prevent, simply by agreeing to facilitate a resolution to Bill 206. Why are you prepared to subject thousands of students and their parents across this province to disruption in the

classroom? You promised peace and stability in the classroom, and now it's in your hands to ensure that peace and stability. Yet across this province students will be prevented from studying. Why

will you not agree to do your part to facilitate a resolution to this issue and ensure continuation of study in the classrooms across this province?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I can understand why Ontarians are confused when it comes to the position of the Conservative Party on this particular

issue. Of late, we hear that they have some serious objections to the bill, but a while back, I received a letter from John O'Toole, who said, "The Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association

supports an autonomous governance structure that includes the ability to negotiate local supplemental plans for pension benefits. I would like to express my support for this request and commend it

to your immediate attention." As well, Ernie Hardeman said recently, "I am pleased to hear that the government has decided to go with a two-thirds vote on major decisions." So Ontarians are

justifiably confused about where the Conservative Party is coming from on this issue, and it would be good to know where they're coming from.

Mr. Klees: I'd like to know at what point, since the Premier became the Premier, he stopped being concerned about students and about parents

and about individuals.

I have a letter here from the Windsor-Essex Catholic District School Board regarding this issue. It reads as follows: "In the event of a walkout by our CUPE

employees, the usual level of service and support in the schools will be impacted... There will be no one in the schools to provide personal care and hygiene for special needs students."

Premier, I would just like you to simply answer this question: Why are you prepared to allow a disruption of thousands of special-needs students across this

province, when it is in your hands to facilitate a resolution that would prevent that disruption? Why have you stopped caring about special-needs students and their parents in the schools of our

province?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I appreciate the caring and concern being expressed by the member opposite but, you know, I wish he would have cared when,

during the Tory regime, Ontario students lost 24-million school days. On top of that, 430,000 high school students were deprived of an entire year of extracurricular activities under the Tory

watch. Again, not only did I receive a letter of support from John O'Toole in connection with this bill, but I also received letters of support from Ernie Hardeman, Ted Arnott, Joe Tascona and

Elizabeth Witmer. So what I'm prepared to do is provide copies of those letters to the leader of the official opposition so that he might have a fulsome discussion at their next caucus meeting.

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Premier. The city of Toronto again this year is facing a massive budget deficit

pegged at some $414 million. In the last election, you and your party campaigned on a platform to put Toronto on a sound fiscal footing; and you promised resources, money and a new deal. When will

you personally make good on the $250 million that the city of Toronto council says this province owes that city?

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Finance, Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I'm pleased to respond to the question. Toronto is indeed

not only the capital of Ontario but the capital of Canada in so many ways. I'm proud of our government's record, and I'd like to review some of the achievements this government has made for Toronto

since we came to office.

On the question of the gas tax and TTC funding: In 2005, we flowed $217 million, $80 million more than the previous government provided in 2003. The TTC now

receives more annual funding from senior levels of government than ever before. We are contributing to the city's needs on an ongoing basis: funding to the city increasing through the provincial

gas tax funding and the federal-provincial-city five-year TTC capital funding agreement.

The Canada-Ontario affordable housing program allocated $116 million to the city of Toronto. Under the strong communities rent supplement program, Toronto

receives over $20 million per year; the strong communities housing allowance program, $3.6 million.

We are committed to working with Toronto in a responsible and prudent fashion and will continue to --

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

Mr. Prue: Mr. Minister, you and your government promised a new deal, but in fact all Toronto is getting is the same raw deal. Toronto is short

$59 million --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Stop the clock for a second.

Order, please. Let's get the question in. The member for Beaches-East York.

Mr. Prue: Toronto is short $59 million this year for the cost of disability and drug benefit plans -- $59 million that you should be paying.

The TTC is short $180 million over the funding that they received a decade ago -- $180 million less. This is not sustainable for the city. It is not sustainable at all.

In opposition, the Premier promised "to put the city of Toronto on a sustainable footing so it can properly assume its responsibilities."

The Deputy Speaker: Question.

Mr. Prue: Toronto needs a long-term plan, and that starts with $250 million now. Will you give it?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: No government and no Premier in the history of this province has done as much for the city of Toronto as this government and

Premier Dalton McGuinty.

This year alone, I say to the member opposite, $130 million in gas tax funding -- the first time ever. The City of Toronto Act, which for the first time treats

the city of Toronto as a government of an equal basis, as a government that deserves our respect and support and gives them the tools they need to manage many of the challenges they face.

We remain committed to working with Toronto, indeed with all municipalities, to deal with the difficult decisions resultant from the downloading of the

Conservative government. But let me be clear --

The Deputy Speaker: Answer.

Hon. Mr. Duncan: -- municipal governments at all levels must take responsibility for their budgets. They must be prudent, as we must be

prudent. They must work to eliminate their deficit, as we are working to eliminate our deficit. Working together, we will help Toronto. We'll make this --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

OMERS PENSION FUND

Ms. Deborah Matthews (London North Centre): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. There have been a number of

criticisms tossed about regarding the timing of Bill 206 and the amount of consultation that was involved. I find this somewhat puzzling. OMERS devolution has been talked about for a decade; that

is, there have been years and years of discussion on this issue. Back in 2002, the OMERS board provided their recommendations on this issue, and finally there is a government at Queen's Park that

has the courage to do something about it. I'm proud to be part of this government.

We knew it would be a difficult challenge, but we didn't back away. Unlike the previous government, which rammed legislation through, often without any

committee hearings, I know first-hand that we've taken the time to listen --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Question.

Ms. Matthews: -- to all sides of this debate.

Minister, could you please elaborate on some of the work that was done in committee and the extent to which we listened to all sides of this issue?

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I'd like to thank the member for the question. She's quite correct: OMERS

devolution has been talked about for at least 10 years by numerous governments.

We had 11 days of hearings. As a matter of fact this bill, in an unprecedented or very infrequent way, was referred to committee after first reading. It was

referred again after second reading. There were something like 74 submissions made at the first hearings and 67 at the second hearings. There were a total of 86 motions presented to change the bill

after we had listened to the various stakeholders. As a matter of fact, a number of NDP amendments were accepted as well.

It's kind of interesting to note that the official opposition only made two amendments to the bill at that point in time. As a matter of fact, two later

amendments were withdrawn by them. We've had enough consultation on this bill; the stakeholders have spoken. It's time to act and give governance back to those individuals who pay into the system:

the employers and the employees.

Ms. Matthews: I appreciate hearing about the work that was done at committee. But I have to say that I've been pretty disappointed by the

official opposition's engagement on this bill. They can't seem to decide where they stand. First, John Tory wants it withdrawn, then he wants further study and now he has asked for a joint meeting.

I ask him, where was your party during committee? With all the debate around this issue, they managed to suggest a whopping two amendments during the first round and another two during the second

round, both of which were withdrawn; zero amendments on the second round of clause-by-clause. Interestingly, they seem to be experts on that issue now and have no shortage of advice to offer

us.

The Deputy Speaker: Question?

Ms. Matthews: Minister, there are many who are engaging in fearmongering. Certain stakeholders have embarked upon a campaign designed to scare

OMERS members who rely on this pension. As a result of this campaign --

The Deputy Speaker: I think the question has been asked. Member for London North Centre, please take your seat. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: Let me first of all thank the member for the supplementary question. Let me be absolutely, categorically clear that under

this bill no pensions are affected; no pensioner loses anything with respect to this bill. As a matter of fact, for the first time the pensioners are given something they never had before: They

have a vote on both the administration board and a vote on the sponsors board.

But this government has done so much more for low-income workers of this province: It has abolished the 60-hour workweek, it has raised the minimum wage for

the first time over the last three years and it has increased the number of occupational health and safety officers by nearly double the number that were there when we first took office. The

supplemental plan that will be there for our emergency providers will be paid for by those emergency providers and their employees once it's negotiated at the local level.

MINISTERIAL CONDUCT

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. You attended a meeting at your place of business, the Chalmers

Group, on April 29, 2005, which by all appearances was contrary to the Members' Integrity Act. Given that you know that meetings with your trustee should be reported immediately, according to the

act, why did you wait until June 10 to finally report to the commissioner that you may have broken the law, and why did you do this only after being contacted by a reporter?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): I was not aware of the requirement that I needed to report this issue in the beginning.

Since then, I have become aware of that and have said that I accept the recommendation of the Integrity Commissioner in its entirety. I have acted very promptly to work with the Integrity

Commissioner to change my trustee and have made all the changes he requested.

Mr. Wilson: In the Integrity Commissioner's report, you stated that your

schedule was too busy to get a brief moment to speak with your wife

because "I get home late." Minister, we now have your schedule, and you're definitely not the busiest person in the world. In fact, for a cabinet minister, you have a remarkably empty schedule.

From January 1, 2005, to April 30, 2005, you had 31 days, excluding Sundays, with one or no appointments, and on 52 other days --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Stop the clock. I would like to hear the question, please. The member for Simcoe-Grey.

Mr. Wilson: From January 1 to April 30, you had 31 days, excluding Sundays, with one or no appointments, and on 52 other days, you finished

work by 6 p.m. Given that you clearly had plenty of time, would you now like to revise the story you gave the commissioner as to why you had to meet at your place of business?

Hon. Mr. Takhar: Let me say this: This is my ministerial schedule. It basically takes into account all the appointments that I perform on

behalf of the ministry. Other than that, I perform work on behalf of the constituency, and in addition to that, I have a lot of other work that I perform on behalf of the ethnic community as well.

On average, I have nearly six to seven appointments that I keep, even on Saturdays and Sundays. I leave at maybe 8 o'clock and come back at 11 o'clock. I have a busier

schedule than you will ever

have.

LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): My question is to the Minister of Health: When you appeared before the committee that was dealing with

Bill 36, the local health integration networks act, you said to the committee, "The constitutional rights of aboriginal people and our government-to-government relationship must be recognized."

First Nations community leaders took you at your word. They worked hard in order to bring forward amendments that my colleague, Shelley Martel, brought to the committee. Among them was a

non-derogation clause that would recognize your responsibility under the act and their right. Why did you break your promise to First Nations leaders and not accept those amendments?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Well, here we go again. The honourable member's reputation with respect to

advancing information on this subject has already been besmirched, in my view. I want to say very directly that I have, in a very regular series of meetings with the regional chief and grand

chiefs, expressed the view that I would work with them to establish a better capacity for the government of Ontario and First Nations people to work together, both at the highest levels influencing

the ministry, and at the local levels, at the LHIN level. This has been done in the legislation, very specifically, on the non-derogation clause. They asked me about it at the very last meeting

that we had. I told them that I would review it with lawyers. Upon seeking advice of government lawyers, I was told that it, in fact, would be inappropriate, unconstitutional. I made no such

commitment to First Nations communities. I work very closely with Regional Chief Angus Toulouse. The commitments that I made to him have been fulfilled. Accordingly, I would ask the honourable

member to be a little bit more cautious in the language that he appropriates towards me.

Mr. Bisson: This is not me saying this, Minister; this is Angus Toulouse, the very person you talk about. They're saying -- not only Angus

Toulouse, but other chiefs across this province -- that you did not maintain your word. If anything has been besmirched, quite frankly, it's what's happened with what they've had to say to you.

Listen, First Nations have heard it for years: 130 years of being ignored and not being taken seriously by provincial and federal governments. You know because

you've been with me, and you know very well the conditions of the communities across Ontario when it comes to health services.

I ask you again, why did you break your word to Angus Toulouse and others, and not put a non-derogation clause within the legislation?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: It's my understanding that, at legislative committee, the health critic for the NDP had the opportunity to ask

legislative counsel why the non-derogation clause was viewed as inappropriate. I am not a lawyer and, from time to time, I seek the advice and accept the advice that is offered by lawyers. They

offered that view to Ms. Martel.

I repeat again, in no meeting with Angus Toulouse did I commit to a non-derogation clause, but rather committed to a representative, I believe from Treaty 3,

but I'm going by memory here, that I would take that look at it to see if it was appropriate. I did that and I was told that it was not appropriate. Ms. Martel, your seatmate, voted in favour of an

amendment, the community engagement

section amendment, that included creating aboriginal planning bodies at the community level with LHINs and with a higher First Nations health council that would

have the capacity to work alongside the government --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Answer.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: -- on the stewardship of health care. These are the commitments that I made repeatedly to First Nations leadership in the

very regular series of meetings that I asked them to engage in with me, and we're meeting again in the next week or two because we're very concerned about moving, not just in a process fashion, but

in a content fashion, to address the underlying health circumstances of our First Nations.

The Deputy Speaker: New question. The member for Brant.

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. My constituents are concerned, and rightly so, about the

information they're receiving about Bill 36, also known as the LHINs bill.

I know that they understand and support that changes and improvements are needed in our health care system, but they have some questions that I'd like to pass

on to you. Some of my constituents have been told they will have to travel great lengths, and if not, then from one side of a LHIN to another to receive routine treatment. This makes no sense to

me, and I understand that's not the case, but it does cause them concern.

They also want to know whether local community voices will be respected when decisions are made regarding how their health care is provided.

Minister, will you address those concerns specifically and tell me and my constituents the role that LHINs will play in planning their local health care?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: I've been clear in saying that I think there has been a deliberate and sustained misinformation campaign designed to

create a fearful circumstance for people about the consolidation of health care in a few centres.

We fundamentally believe that the best health care is the health care you find as close to home as possible. The evidence of that is in the hundreds and

hundreds of millions of dollars of community-based investments we've made across Ontario in the smallest communities. We've been pursuing an aggressive agenda of moving these services out to

communities. But we cannot pretend that there will not be circumstances, as health care evolves, where there will not be specialized services that are best delivered in a centre-of-excellence model

where technology, as an example, or the expertise of health professionals dictates that you can't do this on every street corner. But the responsibility for these decisions is being vested in

people.

Earlier today, Mr. John Tory said these are our hand-picked people and we shouldn't respect them. But we've reached out to people like Tony Fell in your local

community, Mr. Speaker. We've appointed Carolyn King, and we have proposed Vince Bucci and other local representatives because we believe fundamentally that health care decisions should be made

locally by people who have on their --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Levac: Minister, I deeply appreciate the fact that it is going to be indeed a local concern, because there are concerns with some of the

LHINs that the local voice is not going to be heard. It's obvious from today's answer that we're going to get that.

I've heard that some people really see Bill 36 as a means to extend home-care-style competitive bidding systems to the rest of the health care system,

something we both know is not acceptable. Information being disseminated suggests that the government will move to promote greater contracting out of clinical services after legislation passes; in

other words, privatizing our health care system through stealth and using LHINs to do so.

Minister, can you address these claims and make sure we have a clear understanding that that's not the case?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: Here in the province of Ontario we have a government that fundamentally believes in a public health care system.

Entrenched in the

preamble of the legislation is our commitment to the Canada Health Act and to our Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act, which rules out two-tier medicine in our province. We

stood at the borders and prevented Lifeline from coming. We worked to repatriate MRIs. We sent a strong message to Copeman that his proposal for private clinics in Ontario is a no go.

The circumstances are clear: There are those who are pretending their way through this that we should in no way ever ask about a health care service in the

context of the cost to deliver it. We believe fundamentally that there are opportunities for health care providers to be challenged to provide good-quality services with a consideration of

cost.

The NDP offered an amendment yesterday that basically said that no health care decision can ever be made with a view to its relative cost. The circumstance we

would be forced to tolerate, then, is the one we inherited, where hospitals in Ontario, the same health care system, offer a price range from $450 to more than $2,000 an eye for cataract surgery --

the same service. That is the status quo that the NDP wishes to support.

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR

THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I want to ask her about some very

vulnerable people who are living in Rideau Regional Centre, and some other people who are living at Huronia Regional Centre and are being transferred out of the homes they've lived in for over 40

years because this government wants to empty those particular residences.

On January 26, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice said that the families of those residents had to consent to the movement of these individuals. The court

also declared that any disagreement between a family and the ministry would have to be resolved by the court. So no longer can the minister unilaterally transfer these people out; she has to have

the approval of the court.

Madam Minister, have you changed the procedure and the administration procedure to take into account the ramifications of this court's decisions?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): I'm very happy to be asked this

question because, as you know, many people -- families and individuals -- and the staff who work at these centres have been waiting to see how the courts would rule in this challenge. I was very

pleased with what the judges had to say in their ruling; that is, a significant acknowledgement about the role that the staff of community and social services have played in the planning and

development of that move into the community.

In specific answer to the member opposite's question, he needs to be aware, as do all of the members of this House, that never in the history of anyone moving

from those facilities, including the 1,000 who were moved under that member's government, have any of them been moved without family consent when families are involved with those individuals.

Mr. Sterling: First of all, those people who were moved early on didn't have nearly the vulnerability nor the multiple challenges that the

ones have who are left. I am told now by the families of these residents that your ministry is using very high-pressure tactics to move their loved ones out of these residences.

Minister, why will you not provide these families with outside professional expert assessments of each individual that will assure the families that the new

homes for these highly challenged people will meet their needs? And will you reimburse the family that challenges your decision with their legal and expert assessment costs so that they can look

out for their loved ones?

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: I think it's important to repeat that never in the history of any individual living in our facilities, where a family has

actually been involved with that individual, have they ever been moved without consent. For anyone to suggest that that has not been the case is simply not true.

Let me say as well that our jurisdiction stands as a leader of moving people into the community, with plans that, bar none -- and even the acknowledgement in

the court decision by this judge's panel suggested a tremendous effort on the part of our planners; the best, in my opinion, in this nation. We have the very best planners at work with the 1,000

who are still in our institutions and are moving. What I would dearly love to have is the opportunity to sit with this member to talk about the number of success stories, not only in the move since

we became the government, but the success stories of those who that member opposite was involved with in moving them into the community, because they are legion.

SALE OF FOREST LAND

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Premier, under your government, 485,000 acres of prime forest land in

northwestern Ontario was recently sold off to an American investment company for a mere $113 per acre. To put this in perspective, 485,000 acres of prime forest land is more than three times the

area of the city of Toronto. Thousands of jobs in northwestern Ontario depend upon having access to timber that would come from that forest land.

Can you tell us, Premier, why you allowed half a million acres of prime forest land in northwestern Ontario to be sold off to an American company that doesn't

even operate a sawmill, a paper mill, a pulp mill, any kind of mill in northwestern Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): To the Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon. David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources, minister responsible for aboriginal affairs): I'd like to point out to the member, and

certainly to the members of this House, that this land historically has always been in private hands. It was under the ownership, as of late, of Abitibi paper, and they put it up for sale. They had

an open bid process. The government was part of that, and the government didn't succeed in that.

Since we lost that opportunity, I have met with the owners of the company. I'm sure that in the supplementary I would have the opportunity to maybe inform the

member more fully as to how that land is going to be managed.

Mr. Hampton: Premier, here's the situation: Thousands of forest sector workers in northwestern Ontario have lost their jobs. Why? Because of

the high cost of wood fibre and the high cost of electricity. Now you allow half a million acres of prime forest land to be sold off to an American company that will be quite content to allow this

timber to be exported to American mills in Minnesota and Wisconsin, to supply jobs there.

Abitibi put this timberland up for sale in April of last year. All it would have taken was a phone call from you or the Minister of Natural Resources to

Abitibi, telling them that Ontario wants this forest land, and Abitibi would have come to the table and sold it to you for a mere $113 an acre.

Tell us, why was your government asleep at the switch? Why are you now allowing timber to be exported to mills in Michigan and Wisconsin while forest workers

in northwestern Ontario are losing their jobs?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I have to say to the member to just hold his horses. No timber is going across the border to the United States. I have met

with the owners of the land, and they have described how they are setting up a local management operation for this in Thunder Bay.

The history of this company -- and by the way, as we checked with environmental groups in the United States, they have a very good record of sustainable

development of their forest lands there. They generate their revenue by selling to the most local forest operations in the vicinity of the land, and that's what they're continuing to do. They have

assured me that they're going to honour all the contracts that are existing today with that land that feeds the existing mills. So that wood is going to go to the local mills.

EARTHQUAKE IN SOUTH ASIA

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): My question is to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I understand you recently

returned from a visit to the earthquake-affected region of Pakistan. All Ontarians have followed the tragedy that happened there and have consistently done their part to help through fundraising

and donation of goods.

As you know, my riding of Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh is an increasingly multicultural one, with the Pakistani population being one of the fastest-growing

in the city of Cornwall. All of my constituents, but particularly those of the Pakistani community with family and friends in northern Pakistan, are concerned as survivors face a harsh winter. We

all want to ensure that these victims are not forgotten, despite their geographic separation from us.

Minister, can you tell us what we have done for Pakistan, and how Ontario's support is actually helping on the ground?

Hon. Mike Colle (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): I thank the member from Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh for his deep concern about

the victims of the South Asian earthquake. In fact, that deep concern goes from Cornwall to Windsor to Mississauga, where many Canadians of South Asian origin have relatives who are part of the,

sad to say, 86,000 victims who lost their life as a result of the earthquake. There are still three million people living in tents. Every school in the Kashmir area has been destroyed, every

hospital, every clinic. So the people and the NGOs that we're supporting there, like the Canadian Red Cross, are very appreciative of the fact that Ontario has been generous in supporting their

relief efforts in Pakistan.

Mr. Brownell: I know Ontarians take great pride in their role in relief efforts; they have for many, many years. In October, I attended a

Pakistani relief fundraiser in my riding of Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh that was organized by the leaders of the Pakistani community. The event was certainly a success, and after that event, I

reported here in the House that over 200 people were in attendance and close to $30,000 was raised.

The generous people of Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh are not alone. Many other Ontarians generously donated both their efforts and finances to help those

affected by the Pakistani earthquake. Minister, can you tell us a little more about how the funding will be allocated and how Ontarians can continue -- I believe that's important -- to support

those in Pakistan?

Hon. Mr. Colle: As you may know, I travelled to the earthquake area with the former chief of police of the city of Toronto, who's now the

Commissioner of Emergency Management for the province of Ontario: Julian Fantino. He and I were very well received, and there was deep appreciation for the generosity that Canadians have shown for

members, who did excellent work; to NGOs like the Canadian Relief Foundation from Brantford, Ontario; and to the IDRA here in Mississauga for all their generosity. They are so deeply thankful that

there is this caring overseas, and they asked me to pass on the message to please keep on thinking of them in their prayers, their hopes and our generosity, as they still need help in the

earthquake area.

PETITIONS

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."

I want to thank Kim Taylor of ReMax Wasaga Beach for circulating that petition.

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas, without appropriate support, people who have an intellectual disability are often unable to participate effectively in community life and are

deprived of the benefits of society enjoyed by other citizens; and

"Whereas quality supports are dependent on the ability to attract and retain qualified workers; and

"Whereas the salaries of workers who provide community-based supports and services are up to 25% less than salaries paid to those doing the same work in

government-operated services and other sectors;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to address, as a priority, funding to community agencies in the developmental services

sector to address critical underfunding of staff salaries and ensure that people who have an intellectual disability continue to receive quality supports and services that they require in order to

live meaningful lives within their community."

This has been signed by over 100 people from northwestern Ontario, and I have affixed my signature as well.

OXFORD COUNTY LIBRARY BOARD

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): This is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we have read over the petition for the application of good governance of Oxford county and appendix A, Oxford county budget comparisons 2000-04;

and

"Whereas as ratepayers and residents of Oxford county we would like to inquire as to how good government is defined and whether the Oxford County Library Board

and Oxford county council did due diligence in restructuring the Oxford county library system; and

"Whereas we are all concerned that the financial records of Oxford County Library Board are questionable as there are discrepancies in the figures between the

consolidated statements and the budget statements;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing of the province of Ontario, under sections 9 and 10 of the Municipal Affairs Act,

to initiate a provincial and municipal audit of the financial affairs of the county of Oxford to make an inquiry into the affairs of Oxford County Library Board."

I sign the petition and give it to Amelia.

ONTARIO FARMERS

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): I'm pleased to present a group of petitions from my riding of Durham. It reads as follows:

"Protect Our Farmers

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas thousands of Ontario farmers and rural Ontarians have been forced to take their concerns directly to Queen's Park due to a lack of response from the

Dalton McGuinty government; and

"Whereas the Rural Revolution believes that rural Ontario is in crisis and they will be demonstrating their resolve" and have demonstrated it "at Queen's

Park;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, ask the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to deal with the serious issue of farm income, as brought forward by the Rural

Revolution's resolutions to respect property rights and prosperity as follows:

"Resolution number 4: Federal and provincial governments have created a bureaucratic environment that legalizes the theft of millions of dollars of rural

business and farm income. All money found to be removed from rural landowners, farmers and business shall be returned."

I'm pleased to sign this on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Durham and across Ontario.

TENANT PROTECTION

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a petition addressed to the Parliament of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the so-called Tenant Protection Act ... has allowed landlords to increase rents well above the rate of inflation for new and old tenants alike;

"Whereas the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal created by this act regularly awards major and permanent additional rent increases to landlords to pay for

required one-time improvements and temporary increases in utility costs;

"Whereas the same act has given landlords wide-ranging powers to evict tenants;...

"We, the undersigned, residents of Doversquare Apartments in Toronto, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"To immediately scrap all Tory guideline and above-guideline increases...;

"To shut down the notoriously pro-landlord Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal;" and finally,

"To abrogate the Tory Tenant Protection Act and draw up new landlord-tenant legislation in consultation with tenants and housing rights campaigners."

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

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

"Whereas the Minister of Culture recently announced that there would be funding cuts totalling more than $1.2 million from Ontario public library services;

and

"Whereas over 69 million people visited public libraries in Ontario in 2003, with more than 100 million items circulating; and

"Whereas these cuts will impact us as library users, resulting in delays in how libraries receive new books;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, ask the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the Minister of Culture to restore the funding for Ontario public library

services so that libraries can continue to promote literacy in our communities."

I have affixed my signature to this.

AUTISM TREATMENT

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas children with autism who have reached the age of six years are no longer being discharged from their preschool autism program; and

"Whereas these children should be getting the best special education possible in the form of applied behaviour analysis ... within the school system; and

"Whereas there are approximately 700 preschool children with autism across Ontario who are required to wait indefinitely for placement in the program, and

there are also countless school-age children that are not receiving the support they require in the school system; and

"Whereas this situation has an impact on the families, extended families and friends of all of these children; and

"Whereas, as stated on the website for the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, `IBI can make a significant difference in the life of a child with autism.

Its objective is to decrease the frequency of challenging behaviours, build social skills and promote language development';

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to fund the treatment of IBI for all preschool children awaiting services. We also petition

the Legislature of Ontario to fund an educational program in the form of ABA in the school system."

I agree with the petitioners and I will affix my signature to this.

REFUNDABLE CONTAINERS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Davenport.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me again, on this very important petition. It's to the Legislative

Assembly of Ontario and is specially addressed to the Minister of Finance. It reads as follows:

"Whereas we find lots of pop cans and beer bottles in our parks plus children's playgrounds;

"Whereas it is therefore unsafe for our children to play in these parks and playgrounds;

"Whereas many of these bottles and cans are broken and mangled, therefore causing harm and danger to our children;

"Whereas Ontarians are dumping about a billion aluminium cans worth $27 million into landfill every year instead of recycling them;

"Whereas the undersigned want to see legislation passed to have deposits paid on cans and bottles, which would be returnable and therefore not found littering

our parks and streets;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, strongly urge and demand that the Ontario government institute a collection program that will include all pop drinks, Tetra Pak

juices and can containers to be refundable in order to reduce littering and protect our environment."

Since I'm in agreement with this petition 100%, I am delighted to sign it.

ONTARIO FARMERS

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): I have a second petition on this issue from the riding of Durham, an agricultural riding. This one is protecting

individual rights.

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas thousands of Ontario farmers and rural Ontarians have been forced to take their concerns directly to Queen's Park due to a lack of response from the

McGuinty government; and

"Whereas the Rural Revolution believes that rural Ontario is in crisis" due to lost property rights and a crushing regulatory burden on rural Ontarians, "and

they will be demonstrating their resolve and determination at Queen's Park" and in Port Perry "on March 8;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, ask the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to respect our individual rights as addressed in the Rural Revolution's resolutions to

respect property rights as follows:

"Resolution number 3: The will of the majority can never justify injustice upon individuals or restrictions on their freedom of choice in private matters."

I am pleased to present this on behalf of my constituents.

HANDGUNS

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): This one is titled "McGuinty's Handgun Ban is Not the Answer." It begins with a quote from Premier

McGuinty. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"`I think a handgun ban is an absolutely essential component of any intelligent, comprehensive plan to address shootings, especially those that are taking

place here in the city of Toronto. I think we owe it to our young people in particular to take guns off the streets, and I can't think of anything more powerful in that regard than a handgun ban.'

(Dalton McGuinty, Hansard, Dec. 8, 2005)"

It concludes by saying:

"We, the undersigned, respectfully disagree with Mr. McGuinty and petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to take action on violence and young people by

providing resources for police and fixing the justice system."

I agree with the people who have signed this and hereby affix my signature.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

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

"Whereas the Minister of Culture recently announced that there would be funding cuts totalling more than $1.2 million from Ontario public library services;

and

"Whereas over 69 million people visited public libraries in Ontario in 2003, with more than 100 million items circulating; and

"Whereas these cuts will impact you as a library user, resulting in delays in how often your library receives new books;

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

"That the Minister of Culture restore the cuts to funding for Ontario public library services so that our library can continue to promote literacy in our

community."

I want to thank the good people at the Collingwood Public Library for that petition.

CANCER TREATMENT

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition that's been signed by hundreds of people. It's been sent to me by Marion State of

Thornhill. It reads as follows:

"Whereas Ontario has an inconsistent policy for access to new cancer treatments while these drugs are under review for funding; and

"Whereas cancer patients taking oral chemotherapy may apply for a

section 8 exception under the Ontario drug benefit plan, with no such exception policy in

place for intravenous cancer drugs administered in hospital; and

"Whereas this is an inequitable, inconsistent and unfair policy, creating two classes of cancer patients with further inequities on the basis of personal

wealth and the willingness of hospitals to risk budgetary deficits to provide new intravenous chemotherapy treatments; and

"Whereas cancer patients have the right to the most effective care recommended by their doctors;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to provide immediate access to Velcade and other intravenous chemotherapy while these new cancer drugs

are under review and provide a consistent policy for access to new cancer treatments that enables oncologists to apply for exceptions to meet the needs of patients."

I agree with the petitioners and I've affixed my signature to this.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I have a petition also to do with library service cutbacks. It says:

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the $700,000 cut in funding to the Ontario Library Service (OLS) budget will have a significant impact on the delivery of public library service

across the province in areas such as:

" -- reductions in the frequency of inter-library loan deliveries;

" -- reductions in the SOLS consultation services and the elimination of a number of staff positions;

" -- the elimination of province-wide research on library and socio-demographic trends that all libraries need for their own planning;

" -- the reduction of consortia/charitable purchasing, a service that provides economies-of-scale discounts to libraries on a variety of goods and services;

and

" -- a reduction in the amount of material that is translated for OLS French-language services;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"To restore funding to the Ontario Library Service in order to signal support for the Ontario public library system."

I support this petition.

PROTECTION FOR

HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition that has been sent to me by OPSEU. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas sharp medical devices such as syringes, IV catheters, blood collection needles, suture needles, lancets and scalpels put not only health care workers

but also the general public at risk of injury and/or infection; and

"Whereas an estimated 33,000 needle-stick injuries occur in the health care sector alone in Ontario every year; and

"Whereas the annual cost of testing and treating needle-stick injuries in Ontario, in health care alone, is $66 million; and

"Whereas, since the cost of using safety needles in all workplaces is relatively minimal, we can save $8 million every year in Ontario by eliminating unsafe

medical sharps; and

"Whereas safety needles protect health care workers and the general public, eliminating about 90% of sharps injuries where they are mandated by law;

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

"That the Legislature pass a law requiring the mandatory use of safety-engineered medical sharps in all workplaces where workers are exposed to blood-borne

pathogens."

I agree with the petitioners, and I will affix my signature to this.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REPORT, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): I move that the Legislative Assembly

adopt the report of the Integrity Commissioner dated January 4, 2006, and approve the recommendation contained therein.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time this afternoon with the member from Mississauga Centre.

On January 4, the Integrity Commissioner issued a report that the Legislature must now consider. I know that the Minister of Transportation will speak in

detail to the content of the report and the issues it examined. But first, it's important to outline for members of this House what the recommendation of the Integrity Commissioner was and what the

law provides in terms of our response.

The Integrity Commissioner concludes that the minister "did not go about intentionally trying to short-circuit the system." That's important. The minister has

acknowledged an error and has taken the appropriate steps to correct it.

The rules outlined in the Members' Integrity Act ensure that the public interest and taxpayer dollars are protected. Throughout this entire process, there has

been no evidence to suggest that the public interest was compromised or that taxpayer dollars were at risk -- none. But the Integrity Commissioner did find that a rule was broken and he made a

recommendation to this House, and that was to issue a reprimand. In fact, the commissioner wrote, "I think it would be unfair to sanction the minister beyond issuing a reprimand under

section

34(1)(b). Upon the filing of this report with the Speaker, that reprimand will be duly recorded."

In my opinion, the penalty imposed by the Integrity Commissioner is appropriate. Anything beyond that penalty would be unduly harsh. In short, the penalty

proposed matches the breach found by the commissioner.

According to the Members' Integrity Act, subsection 34(2), when a report is issued that contains a penalty recommendation, "The assembly shall consider and

respond to the report within 30 days" of it being tabled in the House. The motion that I have just moved fulfills the requirements set out in the Members' Integrity Act. The act outlines our

responsibilities as legislators quite clearly: We either reject or adopt the report and its recommendations, nothing more and nothing less.

The Members' Integrity Act specifically states that "the assembly does not have power to inquire further into the contravention, to impose a penalty if the

commissioner recommended that none be imposed, or to impose a penalty other than the one recommended."

It is clear. It is our duty to ensure that we stay within those parameters. The Legislature should ensure that we follow the act as written.

I would like to thank the Integrity Commissioner for his thorough investigation and thoughtful report. The motion we have before us today adopts the report in

its entirety and includes the recommendation for reprimand. I would urge all members to support the recommendations outlined in the Integrity Commissioner's report and vote for this motion.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar (Minister of Transportation): On January 4, 2006, the Integrity Commissioner, the Honourable Coulter Osborne, issued

his report that reviewed allegations made by a member of the opposition. I stand here today to accept the report's findings and to take responsibility for them. I would like to thank the Integrity

Commissioner and his staff for the time and effort they put into conducting this thorough review.

As a result of the allegations, an impression has been made over the last seven months that there has been a misuse of my privileged position as a member of

the executive council for personal gain. This is not the case, and I am glad to have the report of the Integrity Commissioner to put this to rest. I made the error, but it was not deliberate, and

the findings make it clear that there was never any intent to circumvent the rules, nor any implications of personal gain of any description whatsoever.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak today so that this report can be considered in its proper perspective. The report dealt with three issues, and I think it

is important to look at what the Integrity Commissioner says.

The first allegation was whether I had at any time used my position or knowledge gained as a minister to further the interests of my family-owned business.

This allegation relates to

section 2 of the act. The Integrity Commissioner said there was, and I quote, "no merit" to the contention that my business or I have personally benefited from my

position as minister. He also says, and I quote, "there is no evidence -- direct or circumstantial" to support that claim.

The second assertion was whether I participated in the management of those companies after I was appointed minister. The findings of the Integrity Commissioner

clearly confirm that I have never used my position or knowledge gained from my position to further my private interests.

I did attend a meeting with my wife at my family-owned business. We discussed the financing of my daughter's future education plans. I made an error in

judgment by attending the meeting at this location. But the Integrity Commissioner clearly states that although I made, and I quote, "error in judgment," he was, and I quote, "not satisfied that

the evidence establishes that the minister was engaged in the management of a business carried on by a corporation." He goes on to say, and I quote again, "I therefore conclude this aspect of the

complaint has not been established." These are the words and conclusions of the Integrity Commissioner, not mine. I have not participated in the management of the business.

The third matter dealt with my failure to inform the Integrity Commissioner when the trustee of my management trust also became the CFO of the Mississauga

Centre riding association.

A year after my election, the members of the riding association elected my trustee to the position of CFO. The Integrity Commissioner originally approved my

trustee. In his report, the Integrity Commissioner writes, "Although there is nothing explicit in the act" mandating this, I should have told him about this change, and I agree. The Integrity

Commissioner has clarified a process that I was not aware of. Had I been aware of my obligations, I would have done so.

In his concluding remarks, the Integrity Commissioner wrote, "Although I regard this as a serious matter, I have to recognize that the minister did not go

about intentionally trying to short-circuit the system. I accept his statement that had he realized that his arm's-length relationship ... was compromised, he would have taken steps through this

office to straighten things up."

Immediately after receiving the report, I worked closely with the Integrity Commissioner to put a new trustee in place, and the Integrity Commissioner

confirmed compliance with the act.

The words of the Integrity Commissioner have taught me a very valuable lesson, and I want to thank him again for his guidance. I apologize for not informing

him, and I take his recommendation of reprimand very seriously.

As I have said since receiving this report, I accept the Integrity Commissioner's report in its entirety. In all of this, it is important to recall why some of

these rules are in place. They're meant to ensure that the public interest is protected, no personal gains are realized and taxpayers' dollars are put to their proper use.

While I should have recognized and should have informed the Integrity Commissioner about the added role my trustee took on, I want to make it clear that at no

time was the public interest in jeopardy, at no time were taxpayer dollars at risk and at no time did I personally gain from this. In fact, I went beyond the call of my duty to place all my assets,

directly or indirectly owned, into the management trust. The Integrity Commissioner has now clarified what assets ought to be in the management trust.

I entered politics for the right reasons. It was not for money or power. I entered public life to serve the people of Mississauga and the people of

Ontario.

I have done quite a bit in my life. This wonderful province and great country have been very good to me and my family. Like most immigrants, I came to this

country with very little but a burning desire to succeed. I worked hard during the day and studied at night, and the rewards of my hard work and determination have been very fulfilling for me.

In my professional life, I reached heights that I could never have dreamt when I came to Canada. In my personal life, I got married here, raised my children

here and gave them the very best education and opportunities that we, as a family, could afford.

My family has also achieved success in the business world. I believe in values such as family commitment, respect for each other, appreciation for hard work,

desire to succeed, giving back to the community, and fair and open dialogue. I built my career based on the concept of life-long learning, doing the right thing, and letting the reality determine

the perceptions, not the other way around.

After receiving so much from this great country, I always felt that I needed to give back to the society that afforded my family so many opportunities. I got

involved in the United Way, our local hospital and in the community in general to do my part. This is what led me to enter politics in the first place. I want to use my experience and share that

with people, to share that experience in serving the people of this beautiful province of ours.

Politics is a new profession to me. To some of my colleagues, politics may be their career, but to me, it has been an opportunity of a lifetime to make some

real difference. I want to use my position in this government to further the interests of students, parents, seniors and children, rural and urban Ontarians. The past two years have been a

tremendous privilege for me because I have been able to do just that.

We have made some significant progress since 2003, including improvements to public transit, infrastructure investment and road safety. We are making progress

for commuters by delivering two cents of the existing gas tax to municipalities. We are providing 83 transit systems in 110 municipalities with stable, long-term funding. This has enabled transit

systems to add new buses, new routes, to hire new drivers and other staff. We opened the first-ever high-occupancy vehicle lanes on Ontario's highways so commuters can spend less time on the roads

and more time with their families. We launched special veteran licence plates featuring the word "veteran" and a poppy to honour and acknowledge the great populations and sacrifices of other

veterans.

The GTA fare card is on track toward an early 2007 launch date, with system-wide implementation planned for 2010. The Border Transportation Partnership is

proceeding on

schedule to identify a single preferred new Windsor crossing by mid-2007. We are very close to establishing the GTTA, which will promote better planning and the delivery of transit

services across the GTA and Hamilton. We permitted the use of studded tires for residents in northern Ontario to give them more options and improve road safety in icy conditions. We are developing

and launching a new, more secure Ontario driver's licence card.

We launched the northern Ontario highways strategy to ensure better planning and coordination of improvements to northern area highways. We are continuing to

fight on behalf of 407 users. We are cracking down on illegal taxi scoopers so that when people arrive at an Ontario airport or travel in one of our cities, they get into a safe and licensed cab.

And we are making progress for children by making school buses safer and child booster seats mandatory in Ontario.

While we have accomplishing a great deal in the first half of our mandate, I am looking forward to achieving even more in the second half and working in the

best interests of all Ontarians. I want to assure everyone that I will continue to work as hard as I always have. I stand here today on my record of personal integrity and public accomplishments to

urge everyone to read the