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

February 21, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-Feb-21 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 21 February 2006 Mardi 21 février 2006

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO MEDAL

FOR GOOD CITIZENSHIP

INTERNATIONAL

MOTHER LANGUAGE DAY

ROY GOOD

FAMILY SERVICES HAMILTON

CANADIAN WOMEN'S OLYMPIC

HOCKEY TEAM

MINISTERIAL CONDUCT

UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH

OMERS PENSION FUND

VISITORS

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

ORAL QUESTIONS

OMERS PENSION FUND

HEALTH CARE

OMERS PENSION FUND

FOREST INDUSTRY

OMERS PENSION FUND

CHILD CARE

AMBULANCE SERVICES

OMERS PENSION FUND

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

OMERS PENSION FUND

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE

OMERS PENSION FUND

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

OMERS PENSION FUND

HANDGUNS

GASOLINE PRICES

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

DIABETES TREATMENT

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES

RETIREMENT SYSTEM ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR LE RÉGIME DE RETRAITE

DES EMPLOYÉS MUNICIPAUX

DE L'ONTARIO

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO MEDAL

FOR GOOD CITIZENSHIP

Mr. Cameron Jackson (Burlington): On February 7, the Ontario Medal for Good Citizenship was awarded here at Queen's Park to 38 outstanding

individuals for their kindness and generosity. A record five recipients came from my community of Burlington.

Linda Cupido, an advocate for volunteer service, is a former vice-chair of the Ontario Trillium Foundation.

Elizabeth Ann Grandbois has spent many years raising money and awareness for ALS research.

Beverley Jacobs helped organize the Life Quilt, depicting the stories of breast cancer patients.

Bernard "Bernie" Marchildon founded the St. Patrick's Breakfast Club 14 years ago to ensure that children start their day with a nutritious meal.

Keith Strong, a tireless organizer and fundraiser, supported many projects, including the Burlington Community Foundation and Halton Women's Place.

Congratulations to all these worthy recipients on their special day, which was attended by four members of the PC caucus and one member from the government.

It is customary for the Minister of Citizenship to inform all members of this House of the names of each honoree so that their MPP can join them. It is

unfortunate that the minister overlooked the time-honored traditions of sensitivity to our honourees and courtesy to all our members. When asked about this lack of notice, the minister chose to

place the blame on the Office of the Lieutenant Governor instead of accepting responsibility as the head of his ministry.

In future, I'm sure that all members of the House would appreciate that our traditions and the individuals we honour are respected.

INTERNATIONAL

MOTHER LANGUAGE DAY

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): Observing February 21 as International Mother Language Day was adopted at the 30th general conference of

UNESCO, held on November 17, 1999, in Paris, France. The day was declared on subsequent proposals from the Mother Language Lovers of the World organization in Vancouver, Canada, and the government

of the People's Republic of Bangladesh. Thereafter, February 21 was proclaimed as International Mother Language Day by UNESCO in 2000 to promote linguistic and cultural diversity and

multiculturalism.

Language is a powerful tool. Without it we wouldn't be able to share our ideas, fears or hopes and we wouldn't be able to communicate. Language preserves our

heritage and helps us define who we are. By learning about the significance of language and valuing the importance of all languages in the world, we can encourage a sense of unity based on

understanding, tolerance and dialogue. We reaffirm our commitment here in the province of Ontario of celebrating language diversity, providing a society of understanding leading to peace, dignity,

respect, safety and harmony.

All of us here in the Legislature join the people of the world from Bangladesh to Canada in celebrating International Mother Language Day. Merci, monsieur le

Président; muchas gracias; grazie; door tse; dhanyabaad; tse tse; thank you, Mr. Speaker.

ROY GOOD

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I rise today to pay respect to the passing of Staff Sergeant Roy Good, a respected member of the Durham

Regional Police force who passed away on February 11 after a battle with cancer. I'd like to take this opportunity to express my sincere condolences and sympathy to his wife Pam, his sons Ron and

Steve and daughter Kathy.

Staff Sergeant Good was one of the most familiar faces on the Durham Regional Police. In fact, he was one of the original officers hired by the force when it

came into being in January, 1974. He served for almost 30 years. During those years, Roy served as community liaison officer, sitting on various boards and fundraising projects. He also helped to

preserve the history of policing in the region of Durham by collecting and restoring old documents and photographs, publishing a history of the Durham Regional Police force and establishing a small

museum at police headquarters to showcase it.

Roy was always giving back to the community he believed so much in. Whether it was the Parkwood Estate restoration, Cops for Cancer initiative, local Arthritis

Society or Alzheimer's, Staff Sergeant Good was always involved. Even though Roy would spend hours and hours of volunteer time for the Durham Cancer Centre or on his time with the Knights of

Columbus or some of the other community activities already mentioned and so many more that weren't mentioned, Roy Good was always a father and a husband who, no matter how busy, always found the

time and showed up at 5:30 for family time with the family evening meal.

As an officer, a dear friend and a devoted family man, Roy Good will be sorely missed but never forgotten.

FAMILY SERVICES HAMILTON

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): Family Services in Hamilton has fallen into bankruptcy, causing tremendous concern among the many in my city

who rely on services formerly provided by Family Services of Hamilton over its 80-year history of community service. A year ago, I stood here urging the McGuinty government to take action and

ensure the protection and delivery of these services. They are services that Hamiltonians can't do without: women, seniors, immigrants, low-income families, young people with special needs. Family

Services of Hamilton provided transitional housing for women and children fleeing domestic violence. They provided the support and units even after the Mike Harris government cut their funding.

They provided them even as the McGuinty Liberals refused to help.

Fortunately, the city of Hamilton will be able to save these units, but now the Liberals are content to watch Family Services disintegrate. The city, in return,

needs the provincial government to fund a transitional housing worker to work with these women and children as they try to rebuild their lives. I heard the minister's fancy words, but that's all

they were. She was going to fix things. She said, back in April of last year, "We understand that there's more work to do with this particular agency. We want them to be a vibrant, successful

agency to be able to respond to the needs of those women who come to their doors."

Now, not only is the agency bankrupt, partially because the McGuinty Liberals refused to fund their transitional housing program, but the dedicated employees of

Family Services of Hamilton have been jolted out of their jobs. The workers are out in the cold; no wages, no severance, no warning. Fancy words from the minister didn't fix a thing. The McGuinty

government should provide concrete assistance plans for Family Services workers and their clients. Hamilton is currently tied with Toronto in poverty, and as the MPP for the hardest-hit area, I

call on this government and this minister to take responsibility --

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

CANADIAN WOMEN'S OLYMPIC

HOCKEY TEAM

Mr. Bruce Crozier (Essex): They say that a picture is worth a thousand words. This picture of our Canadian women's national hockey team as

Olympic champions is certainly worth that, and I'd like to add a few more.

Did you know that, of the 22-member roster of this great Olympic hockey team, 10 are from Ontario? Gillian Ferrari from Thornhill, Becky Kellar from Hagersville,

Cheryl Pounder from Mississauga, Gillian Apps from Unionville, Cassie Campbell from Brampton, Jayna Hefford from Kingston, Cherie Piper from Scarborough, Vicky Sunohara from Scarborough, Katie

Weatherston from Thunder Bay and, I want to add very proudly, Meghan Agosta from Ruthven, Ontario, in my riding. Ruthven is a little hamlet that's part of the town of Kingsville, and we're so very,

very proud of Meghan.

Meghan scored a hat trick on her 19th birthday. She's the youngest member of the team. She's a member of the kids' line in this great, outstanding hockey team.

Meghan has said it as well as any of us can. She said after the game: "Tears come to my eyes every time I think about it. I'm just so honoured to be Canadian." Meghan, we're so honoured to have you

as a member of our riding. Thank you for your effort.

MINISTERIAL CONDUCT

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Over the past week, the Progressive Conservative Party has insisted on continuing the debate on the

Integrity Commissioner's report dealing with the activities of the Minister of Transportation, Mr. Takhar. This is a debate that, for the most part, is going unnoticed by the public, but it is an

unprecedented historic debate and, attention or not, the Progressive Conservative Party will make our best efforts to see it continue. We believe this is critically important in terms of

understanding just who Dalton McGuinty is and what he will do or say to get into government and stay in government.

In opposition, Mr. McGuinty was vicious and unrelenting in his personal attacks against good people, members of the Progressive Conservative cabinet, for much

less offensive activities than those engaged in by Minister Takhar. In opposition, Mr. McGuinty told the people of Ontario what his standards for ministerial integrity were, and now, in government,

he's turning his back on his own words and breaching the trust of Ontarians.

This debate is critically important with respect to the character, judgment and standards of Dalton McGuinty, the man currently leading this province. The

Progressive Conservative Party, under the honest leadership of John Tory, will not give in. This is a fight worth fighting.

UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH

Mrs. Liz Sandals (Guelph-Wellington): Recently, I was pleased to join with Dr. Alastair Summerlee, president of the University of Guelph, to

announce that the university is receiving $5 million from our government's quality improvement fund. Thanks to the McGuinty government's unprecedented $6.2-billion investment in post-secondary

education, we have created the new $211-million quality improvement fund for colleges and universities.

The University of Guelph, one of Canada's finest universities, is using its $5 million to provide students with a higher quality of education by hiring 35

additional full-time, tenured faculty; improving access to educational resources by investing in library acquisitions and extending library hours; and responding to increased demand for student

services by investing in student counselling, student tutoring, the Centre for Students with Disabilities and student health services. President Summerlee said, "We are very grateful to have this

funding confirmed and for the government's ongoing commitment to addressing quality improvement at Ontario's universities."

Students are our most valuable asset. The McGuinty government is rebuilding post-secondary education so that students in Guelph-Wellington and around the

province get the very best education possible.

OMERS PENSION FUND

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): There is something that is getting lost in all the attention being paid to the illegal strike that CUPE Ontario

is threatening. We seem to have forgotten that one of the key portions of this bill is the part that will give police officers and firefighters the ability to negotiate supplemental plans with the

municipality that employs them. This will potentially allow them to retire earlier and with more security.

Yesterday morning in Niagara Falls over 100 leaders of the Police Association of Ontario met and expressed their support for Bill 206. Since they put the need

for this bill so well, permit me to quote them. The Police Association of Ontario's president, Bob Baltin, said, "We believe that Bill 206 will enhance policing and community safety and would urge

its swift passage." The CAO of the police association, Bruce Miller, said, "The consultations and hearings since the bill was introduced were extensive. A clear and fair process was laid out and

followed. We believe that it is time to move this bill forward." We think they are right.

Mr. Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): I rise today to recognize the work that police officers do in keeping our communities safe. Every

time police officers put on their uniforms and go out on the job, they are putting themselves in harm's way. We think it's important, worthy and right that we recognize that these men and women

assume special responsibilities, that they assume great risk and danger every day as part of their job.

As such, we think it's only fair that we give them the opportunity to negotiate supplemental retirement benefits with the municipalities that employ them, and

we're doing it in a way that's fair to everyone. Any supplemental benefits that police officers do get will be paid on a 50-50 basis by them and their employers, and no one else. No existing

pensions will be affected, and any other group that wants to negotiate a supplemental plan can do so.

I think it's only fair that we as a society should recognize the sacrifices that police officers make. Bill 206 does exactly that. I urge all members of this

House to show their support for police officers and other public safety workers by helping to pass Bill 206.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): I would like to welcome to the Legislature this afternoon in my gallery the mayor of Dubreuilville,

Réjean Raymond; the mayor of Manitouwadge, Darrell Chisholm; and a councillor in the fine town of Manitouwadge, Randy Barnes.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon. Christopher Bentley (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): I move that, pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall

meet from 6:45 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 21, 2006, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will 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 1349 to 1354.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Balkissoon, Bas

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Chudleigh, Ted

Colle, Mike

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Gerretsen, John

Jackson, Cameron

Jeffrey, Linda

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kwinter, Monte

Levac, Dave

Martiniuk, Gerry

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGuinty, Dalton

McMeekin, Ted

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Norm

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Orazietti, David

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Scott, Laurie

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Gregory S.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yakabuski, John

Zimmer, David

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

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Horwath, Andrea

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Murdoch, Bill

Prue, Michael

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 59; the nays are 7.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

ORAL QUESTIONS

OMERS PENSION FUND

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): My question is for the Premier and deals with the government's decision to call Bill 206 this

afternoon. Premier, you have not, in our view and in the view of many Ontarians, taken the time to fix what many believe is flawed legislation. In opposition, you talked about a new way of doing

business in this place. The leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, John Tory, has suggested to you on a number of occasions that you go that extra mile, sit down with Mr. Tory, Mr. Hampton

and others who are impacted by this legislation to try to find a middle ground, try to find a resolution. Instead, you're going down a road that could cause significant disruption to the province

and hurt families throughout Ontario.

Premier, why are you taking the province down what we would describe -- and I think many would share this view -- as an irresponsible road?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): The member of the official opposition tells us that he is in disagreement

with this legislation. His only suggestion is that we should find a way to come together. But what they have failed to do is put forward any positive, constructive proposal related specifically to

the legislation itself. In fact, the Conservative Party introduced a total of four amendments to the legislation. They then withdrew two.

We are happy to say that we have spent a great deal of time and put a great deal of effort into ensuring that we get this bill right. It has now been the

subject of an eight-month process; it has been about eight months since it was introduced in this Legislature. It's been through two rounds of committee hearings. We've had 11 days of committee

hearings, in fact, and we've heard from countless presenters --

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

Mr. Runciman: Unlike the government, we didn't want to suggest that we know what's best for the people who hold these pensions, whose future

depends on these pensions, which you are making decisions about on their behalf. What you're doing, really, is provoking a strike by poking a stick into an open wound here. The Premier made

promises about OMERS to get elected. You're keeping one, which we don't disagree with, and showing contempt for the other. I ask the Premier to tell the people who believed your promises why you're

not keeping them. You are essentially telling them to rub salt. That isn't leadership; it's the arrogance of power. Why haven't you gone the extra mile to find a solution? Why haven't you done

that?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: The member of the official opposition may not want to recognize this, but the fact is that we respect the process. We

introduced a bill in this House. After first reading, it went out to committee hearings, which is a rather extraordinary event. After second reading, it again went out for committee hearings. We

heard from 54 presenters. We received 141 separate submissions. We adopted three separate NDP amendments.

We now look forward to calling the bill once more and getting on with it. We have worked as hard as we could to reconcile what in many cases are irreconcilable

differences between the municipalities and the employees. The municipalities say they want 100% agreement before they can make changes to the pension plan. Some employee groups said no, that we

should only require 50% agreement in that regard. We feel that we have come down --

The Speaker: Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr. Runciman: This legislation is irresponsible, for a number of reasons. The government doesn't have any idea what this will cost

municipalities and, ultimately, taxpayers. You don't know what you're going to do if there is a province-wide strike. If you've got a plan, I would suggest that it should be shared with the

assembly, that it should be shared with the people of Ontario. I ask the Premier to show us this isn't just another ill-thought-out initiative driven by short-term political gain, to show us he has

a plan to go forward -- he certainly hasn't been responding to many concerns across this province -- to show how he can deal with this going forward. Tell us today.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I'm going to say something that I am confident Ontarians would fully agree with, and I think it will be interesting to

learn whether or not the Conservative Party agrees with this. Ontarians have every right to protest their government, but they shouldn't break the law in doing so. I think the people of Ontario

deserve to know where the Conservative Party stands on this issue. The time is here. I believe that CUPE in particular has every right, and I fully respect and support that right, to protest any

action on the part of our government, but at the same time, I think it is wrong to engage in an illegal activity to register that protest. I think it's wrong, because you're angry with the

government, to take it out on Ontario families. I think it's wrong, because you're angry with the government, to keep kids out of school. I think it's wrong, because you're angry with the

government, to stop plowing our roads. I think it's wrong, because you're angry with the government, to stop picking up our garbage. I think it's wrong, because you're angry with the government, to

stop providing those important services we all count on.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, the Minister of Community and Social Services and the member for Leeds-Grenville. Order.

New question.

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question is to the Premier as well. We agree that it's wrong to have an illegal strike, but I can tell you

that we also believe it's fundamentally wrong that the one person who can avoid that illegal strike -- namely, the Premier -- has failed to do so. He either --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Oak Ridges is attempting to ask a question. He deserves your attention as he does that. Only one member has the

floor at a time.

The member for Oak Ridges.

Mr. Klees: There is only one person in this province who could have avoided the illegal strike, and that is the Premier. He either was

incapable of doing that or, somehow, a province-wide strike served his political purposes.

Knowing that for weeks now we have been warning, and he has been warned, that there will be an illegal strike, I would like to ask at least this on behalf of

parents and students across the province: Knowing that the strike is coming, what directive has he given to school boards to prepare for this inevitable event?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Let me just tell you a little bit about this government's record when it comes to averting strikes and working with a

genuine sense of goodwill with our labour partners in Ontario. We have achieved a four-year collective agreement with our teachers. That has never happened before. We have achieved a four-year

agreement with our own employees, OPSEU workers, who are second to none in Canada when it comes to public services. We have achieved a four-and-a-half-year deal with Ontario doctors. Again, that

has never been seen before in the history of this province.

I'm also very proud to say that our investments have led to about 5,000 new CUPE members being hired in Ontario schools and about 200 new CUPE members being

hired in our child care centres and our children's aid societies. So if the member opposite is suggesting that somehow we are trying to foment some kind of dissent when it comes to positive labour

relations, he should really take a very good look at our record. It's a record we're proud of.

Mr. Klees: It's not the record I'm talking about; it's what is about to happen in this province, which is a province-wide strike that has been

threatened for weeks. We've been calling on the Premier to show leadership to avoid that, to bring the parties to the table and find a resolution. The Premier has failed in doing that.

I ask the question again: Knowing that the province-wide strike is coming, knowing the hardship it's going to mean for parents and students, what direction has

the Premier given to school boards and parents to prepare for this inevitable event?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I'm not as fatalistic as the member opposite. I believe that people of goodwill, when apprised of the facts, will

understand that it would be, at best, inappropriate, but at most, outright wrong, to withdraw services given these circumstances. It is surprising to hear from the member opposite, as a

representative of that party, that somehow he believes that if the government pursues a lawful process, introduces a bill and follows the committee procedures and the debates as required by law,

and if somebody -- anybody -- stands up in the province of Ontario and says, "I'm going to protest that illegally if you pursue that," this member opposite says then that that party, were they

serving in government, would buckle.

We disagree with that. There is a matter of the greater public interest that is at stake here. The people of Ontario are entitled to know that their government

will not buckle in the face of a threat of an illegal protest. We will do what we think is right. We will do what we think is best. We will uphold the public interest.

Mr. Klees: Either the Premier is not hearing me or the briefing notes he is getting are incongruous with my question. As the education critic,

I'm asking a very specific question about what preparation he or his Minister of Education has given to school boards and parents across the province to prepare for what he knows is going to happen

within the next few hours. Services will be withdrawn from schools. Special-needs students across the province won't have teaching assistants. What, if any, directive has been given to school

boards or parents to prepare?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: The member opposite knows very well where I stand on this issue, as do Ontarians. I've said it before: CUPE has every

right, and I fully support that right, to protest the actions of their government here in Ontario. But I don't support the right of any particular group to protest in an illegal fashion. That's

where we stand.

What the members opposite need to know is that Ontarians also want to hear from them: Where do they stand on this particular issue? Do they support an illegal

strike or not? Do they support our police, who are here today, or not? Do they support our firefighters or not?

Mr. Klees: No.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: He's saying no. Then he should listen what John O'Toole said just recently. The Ontario Professional Fire Fighters

Association supports an autonomous governance structure. I've heard from John O'Toole, I've heard from Joe Tascona, I've heard from Ernie Hardeman, beyond that I've heard from Ted Arnott and

Elizabeth Witmer, all in support of what we're doing for firefighters and police. Maybe they should get their act together over there.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. Order. Member for Oak Ridges.

New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Premier, you have created the OMERS pension fiasco. Instead of working with stakeholders to bring in

pension legislation which is acceptable for everyone, you have brought in a flawed bill which has divided people. Instead of trying to bring people together, you have taken a confrontational

approach which has in fact increased the conflict.

We believe that the best thing you could do as Premier for worried working families across this province is to stop the confrontation, bring the stakeholders

together and start serious discussion to find common ground. Will you do that?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: If it's helpful to the leader of the NDP, I will repeat the process that we've gone through with this particular bill. It

was introduced almost eight months ago. It flows from a specific commitment we made as part of our campaign platform. The bill has gone through two rounds of committee hearings. Those in fact

consisted of 11 days of committee hearings. There were 141 submissions and 54 separate presentations. The NDP introduced a number of amendments, three of which we have adopted because we generally

feel that they improve the quality of the bill.

The leader of the NDP may feel that we somehow have not respected the process, that we somehow have not attempted to reach out to all the parties involved in

this, but I would of course argue otherwise.

Mr. Hampton: In fact, Premier, your bill was so flawed, it had to be amended dozens of times. In fact, New Democrats brought forward over 100

amendments, of which you accepted only three. But the reality persists: You do not have legislation here that is going to speak to all the stakeholders. It's going to be very unfair to women

workers and lower-paid workers generally.

What people are asking you to do is to show some leadership instead of ratcheting up the tension, instead of throwing down a gauntlet and instead of talking

about work stoppage. What people are asking you to do is show leadership, bring the stakeholders together and look for that common ground. Are you prepared to show that leadership, Premier, or do

you really want a work stoppage?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I can tell you that there's one thing that the parties -- by "parties" I mean AMO and employee groups -- agree upon: that

they should have control over their own pension plan. There's complete agreement on that score. The challenge, of course, comes beyond that, in reconciling the irreconcilable differences in terms

of the positions that were put forward by AMO and the employee groups. AMO in particular said that they need 100% agreement before any changes might be made to the plan. CUPE in particular said,

"No, all we want is 50% agreement before we can make changes to the plan." What we said was, and we tried to come somewhere in between, "Look, it's going to have to be 50% plus one to move on to

mediation and binding arbitration."

Neither side is particularly happy with that. Mr. Hampton is suggesting I do something that would be completely rejected by AMO. We have tried to be as fair as

we possibly can in this matter. The parties still want us to transfer control of the plan to them, and we are doing that.

Mr. Hampton: This is not about transferring the plan to the parties; this is about the fact that some of the lowest-paid workers, many of them

women workers in this province, will not have the same opportunities in terms of pension as other workers who are much better paid. This is a fundamental issue of fairness, and what people expect

of you in this situation is to show leadership, to bring stakeholders together and look for that common ground. In fact, what you've done, after creating a flawed bill, is to look for every

opportunity to promote confrontation and conflict.

I'm going to ask you again, Premier: Are you prepared to lower the language tone, to lower the volume? Are you prepared to bring the stakeholders together and

look for a common solution, or do you really want a work stoppage in this province?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: The leader of the NDP continues to perpetuate a myth that somehow plan members beyond police and firefighters are going to

be disadvantaged as a result of the proposal that is before this House, and nothing could be further from the truth. More specifically, we adopted an amendment put forward by the NDP that provides

protection to ensure that nothing that is associated with what is happening for police and firefighters -- I'm delighted to welcome police to the Legislature today and I'm delighted to be

representing a government that recognizes the special challenges they have as part of their line of work. Again, notwithstanding Mr. Hampton's assertions to the contrary, nothing in this bill is

acting in any kind of way to disadvantage plan members.

HEALTH CARE

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is to the Premier. In Bill 36, your local health integration network legislation, which I

understand you want to introduce for third reading tonight, there are some big problems. In the election, you told voters to choose "between the failed policies of privatization or leadership that

will protect and improve medicare." In committee, we introduced an amendment to your LHINs bill that would ban cutthroat bidding; in other words, private delivery of health care services through

cutthroat bidding. We want to keep the delivery of health care services public and stop privatization, but your members on the committee voted down the amendment. Premier, why did members of your

government vote down a safeguard to protect and improve medicare and guard against privatization of health care services?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): I'll refer this to the Minister of Health.

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'm delighted to have an opportunity to talk about Bill 36 and to answer very

directly to the honourable member.

The clause his party brought forward in committee would have the effect of making sure that the Ontario health care system was obligated in every instance to

pay the highest possible cost. As a government, we came to find that when we asked hospitals what they could provide a cataract surgery for, the range in price offered from the same Ontario health

care system was from $450 an eye to more than $2,000 an eye. By moving forward on the basis that that party recommended in committee, the Ontario health care system would have been obligated at all

times to accept the service on the price that it was offered, regardless of where that price was. We're talking about services provided in the public health care system by public institutions, but

they don't all provide that at the same cost.

Mr. Hampton: Well, you can tell your version. Our amendment would have simply stipulated that there would be no further movement to the

private delivery of health care services in Ontario, and your members voted it down. What you're really opening the door to is the kind of cutthroat bidding that we see in home care, where the

wages, benefits and pensions of nurses are cut. For patients, it often means lower-quality services: private delivery, lower wages, lower benefits and less service for patients. We think you should

fix your bill before you proceed to third reading. Are you prepared to stop the cutthroat bidding, the further privatization of health care services in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: I find it interesting every day to hear the honourable member advance on behalf of the public health care system and the

public sector providers, especially in the home care sector, that they're losers, that invariably the system is stacked against them and that the circumstances are such that only the private

providers will win out.

But in offering up that rhetorical explanation, the honourable member does not apprise himself of the facts. The reality is that under the model the member

talks about, public sector providers -- Saint Elizabeth Health Care, a not-for-profit provider, and a variety of the VON agencies across the breadth of this province -- have demonstrated tremendous

capacity, resilience and dedication to patient service to the extent that they have won back in area after area after area the provision of these really, really crucial and important services to

Ontarians. We believe in the public health care system, and we believe in those not-for-profit and public providers and in their capacity to deliver excellence to the patients of this province, and

that is what this --

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr. Hampton: Your bill is about duplicating in hospitals what cutthroat bidding has done in home care. The not-for-profit providers have come

forward time and again and said the only way that they could continue to offer services is by cutting wages, by cutting benefits, by cutting pensions, by in fact delivering a lower quality of

service. That's what you're driving toward.

So I'm going to ask you again: Instead of putting in place a system that will move more and more to private delivery, more and more to private corporations,

cutting wages, cutting benefits, cutting the quality of work, don't you think it's time that your government should actually honour its promise and speak up for medicare, speak up for a public

system and speak up for better health services for patients instead of racing to the bottom?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: The honourable member wants to stand on his high perch and talk about these things and neglect the fact that when he was

part of a government, they oversaw the privatization of services in Ontario hospitals. All across the landscape, in hospitals up and down University Avenue, services that were provided by the

public sector were privatized while that member stood silent. And now he makes his big speeches.

We're the government that repatriated MRIs to the not-for-profit sector. We're the government that's moving forward with community health centres, with

palliative care strategies to support home hospice, with more resources for midwives, with primary care reform in the form of family health teams coming to life all across the breadth of this

province, with a wait-time strategy that has awakened the capacity of the public health care system; and that is committed to excellence and is going to demonstrate to the taxpayers of this

province continuous quality improvement. That is the vision for health care.

OMERS PENSION FUND

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): My question is to the Premier. No one denies the challenges that our firefighters and police

officers face in this province. However, today our concern is focused on your refusal to respond to the request of our leader, John Tory, for further dialogue in order to avert an illegal strike.

We now know that a province-wide strike is going to be coming. We also know that it is going to have a very detrimental impact on patients in our hospitals. So my question to you today is, what

contingency plan have you put in place to ensure patient safety in our hospitals?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Let me just say I find it rather interesting that this question should come

from the member opposite, whom I've respected over the years. She well knows that the issue of OMERS devolution and the issue of supplementary plans for our emergency workers have been talked about

within government for at least the last 10 years, and she was in government for eight of those years. The OMERS board itself made a report in 2002 recommending the devolution of the plan. The time

has simply come, and, as we've heard, there are irreconcilable differences between the municipal world and some of the employee groups. The time has come to finally put this issue to bed and to

recognize the extraordinary services and the risk services that the emergency workers of fire, police and paramedics play in this province. That's what we're doing in this bill and that's exactly

what the people of Ontario want us to do.

Mrs. Witmer: What a tremendous disappointment to the people in Ontario that the Premier is unable to stand in this House and tell us what

contingency plan he has in place to protect the safety of patients in our hospitals. He has known this strike is coming. He has done nothing to avert the strike. He has refused to sit down with our

leader and Mr. Hampton and others. Today I ask you again, Premier: What contingency plans do you have in place to ensure that the safety of patients in our hospitals is not jeopardized?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: We are absolutely confident that our municipalities, our school boards and our hospitals that carry out the operations in

so many different ways, and the functions of this government through health care etc., will put into place any contingency plan that may be necessary. They've dealt with these kinds of issues in

the past, they will deal with them again in the future, and I am sure they will take the steps that are necessary to ensure that patients are properly looked after, that our school children are

properly looked after and that the municipal services that we rely on are properly looked after in this province as well.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): My question is to the Premier. Today I got to listen, for probably the 10th time, to the presentation

that Jamie Lim, the Ontario Forestry Association president, has been making to anybody who will listen, and that is the situation we find ourselves in with the forest industry. She's very clear.

She says that the problem we have in the industry in Ontario has been caused by the policies of this government. She cites these examples: We have the highest electricity prices in Canada and most

of North America. We are unable to compete with our cousins in Manitoba or on the Quebec side. Our price of electricity here is two to three times higher, depending on the jurisdiction. She talks

about delivered wood cost, where the wood cost delivery here in Ontario is the highest in North America. She, along with others, has been calling on your government in order to respond to these

issues in a real way.

What's clear is that what you've announced up to now hasn't worked. We've lost 3,500 jobs plus since your government announced its aid package to the forest

industry. My question is simply: When are you going to finally respond to the key policy issues that she and others have been raising?

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 was intuitive that the Premier would do

that.

It's quite galling to hear this coming from a member from that party which, while they were in the government, downloaded all the cost of the roads onto the

forest industry. It's this government that has made one announcement, and is soon to make a second announcement, that is going to reverse all the damage you did to that industry years ago. You

should be ashamed, because we're undoing your bad work. Stay tuned, and just to remind you, by the way: The Premier met with Jamie Lim on Sunday night. We had a great meeting about the future of

this industry. She, the Premier, this government and the industry are very positive about our future in northern Ontario.

Mr. Bisson: Two things: First off, her name is Jamie Lim; you should pronounce it properly. The second point is that the downloading of roads

is not what we have done; it's something that your previous government had done under David Peterson, so you'd better keep the ball back in your court. We were the government that responded to the

restructuring of the industry when the industry was in crisis: Kapuskasing, Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay, Atikokan, and the list goes on. What's clear is that northerners are saying what you're

doing now does nothing to respond to what's happening in the industry.

I ask you again: When are you going to be prepared to respond to those issues directly, specifically the issue of electricity costs in the province? I tell

you, Premier, and the minister, that if you don't deal with electricity costs, we're seeing thousands of other jobs, not only in the forest industries but others, go down the road. Are you going to

do it?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I have a copy of a letter here from the then Minister of Natural Resources, Bud Wildman, of the NDP government, in response

to E.B. Eddy Forest Products. He said, "I appreciate the implications of eliminating forest management agreement road funding." It was done at that time, and also at that time, 14 mills were lost

in this province. This is a cyclical thing and it's happening again.

I would say to the member that we're working hard with the industry, and I'd invite you to come down to the legislative dining room at 8:30 tomorrow morning

and be part of a very good-news announcement to that industry.

OMERS PENSION FUND

Mr. Bill Mauro (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. On June 1 of last year, our

government introduced Bill 206 to bring the OMERS pension plan to the people who pay into and benefit from the plan. Today we are joined in the galleries by many OMERS members, some of whom

represent the men and women who serve on Ontario's finest police forces.

Many police and fire groups have expressed their frustration to me with the amount of misinformation being spread by some individuals surrounding Bill 206.

They are equally frustrated with comments about how unfair and arbitrary this process has been to date.

Minister, please clarify for the police officers present in the Legislature today and for those who are working to maintain the safety of our communities right

now precisely how our government maintained a sense of fairness to stakeholders throughout the legislative process for Bill 206.

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I'd like to thank the member for the excellent question that he has just

asked.

First of all, let me just say I'm sure I speak on behalf of everyone here that we appreciate greatly in this province -- everyone does -- the tremendous work

that is done by the fire, police and paramedics in this province.

There have been discussions about supplemental plans for community safety employees since 1995. As I indicated earlier, the previous government did not act

upon those recommendations at all. These supplementary plans that are part of Bill 206 will simply allow, at the local level, negotiations to take place for earlier retirement for our emergency

workers. Whatever is negotiated at that level will be paid for on a 50-50 basis between the employees and the employers. We believe that's a fair way to deal with the situation. We believe that our

emergency workers in this province deserve that kind of consideration to take place at the local level. That's what Bill 206 provides.

Mr. Mauro: Minister, public safety is an important issue for Ontarians and for our government. Ontarians expect to live in a community that is

safe. As the Police Association of Ontario has stated, Ontarians realize the challenges to community safety that police are dealing with across this province. Our government has made progress on

community safety by passing legislation making it mandatory for hospitals to report the treatment of gunshot wounds; providing $30 million in funding to municipal fire departments for training and

equipment for the first time in more than 20 years; announcing new funding for an additional 1,000 police officers as part of a six-point plan to make Ontarians safer, with half of the new officers

to be used for community policing and the remainder used to target youth crime, dangerous offenders, guns and gangs, organized crime, and domestic violence; and protecting children from Internet

luring and child pornography.

I know we have made progress in other areas of community safety as well. Minister, how does Bill 206 further enhance the safety of our communities?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: First of all, I think credit should go to our Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services for the excellent

relationship that he's been able to build up over the last two and a half years with our police and firefighters in this province.

What Bill 206 is all about when it comes to supplementary benefits is for the local associations of both police and fire to sit down with their employers at

negotiation time and to determine whether or not a particular benefit within the supplementary plan is for the welfare of their community, for the welfare of the individual members and for the

welfare of the citizens of that community as a whole. As I mentioned earlier, whatever is negotiated at that level will be paid for on a 50-50 basis between the employer and the employee, and the

main plan will not in any way be affected, financially or otherwise.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): New question. The member for Leeds-Grenville.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question again to the Premier about his decision to proceed with Bill 206.

The Premier said, with some holier-than-thou rhetoric earlier with respect to illegal strikes, and challenging our party and our leader, John Tory, "We are

opposed to an illegal strike." But Mr. McGuinty hasn't always taken that position with respect to illegal strikes. Quote in the Ottawa Citizen and the Toronto Star in October 1997: "I'm on the side

of teachers. This may be an illegal strike but" -- a big "but" here -- "you're doing the right thing, and I ask you not to give up."

You will have to question the Premier's sincerity here. Why should CUPE members heed his plea for restraint, given his broken promise to them to get their

votes in the lead-up to the provincial election, and given his past record with respect to illegal strikes? Why should they listen to him now?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): Speaker, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: Thank you very much. I am sure that I speak on behalf of every member of this House when I say that we are all against

illegal activities and illegal strikes.

Surely to goodness we have a process in this province whereby disagreements, whether between employer and employees or other groups, are handled. Illegal

activities cannot be justified or condoned under any circumstances.

Mr. Runciman: I guess the Premier got cold feet and doesn't want to deal with the reality of his own words, his own record, with respect to an

illegal, province-wide strike.

I think the other area we should be exploring -- we talked about this initiative being irresponsible, but it's even more irresponsible with what we're hearing

today in response to questions from the opposition. There is no plan here. There is a supposition, I guess, that nothing is going to happen. Well, this could be affecting the education sector; it

could be affecting the health care sector; it could be affecting garbage pickup. This government is putting communities in jeopardy, and apparently they have no plan. If they have a plan, let's see

it today; let the people of Ontario see it today. Bring forth the plan.

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: It's kind of interesting that these comments are coming from a member who was part of a government when, during its period

of time in office, those eight years, there were probably more strikes in Ontario as a result of its activities in the entire labour field than at any other time during our province's history.

I say to this member that we have full confidence in our municipalities, in our school boards and in our local hospitals to deal with any situation that may

come forward. We respect the process, and we urge each and every CUPE member not to be involved in any illegal activity, because it is not going to advance their cause.

CHILD CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): The question is to the Premier. In 2003, you promised to invest $300 million of new money into creating

more regulated child care spaces. But yesterday in finance committee your Liberal MPPs voted against a motion to invest $150 million into much-needed affordable child care spaces.

In Ontario, nine out of 10 children can't get the care they need. Premier, $150 million is only half of what you promised Ontarians. Why can't you even keep

half a promise?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): Speaker, the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Mary Anne V. Chambers (Minister of Children and Youth Services): I am happy to continue the conversation that started yesterday because

I'm no closer to understanding where our opposition parties here in Ontario stand when it comes to supporting parents and their children.

We know where we stand. We also know that we are the government that worked really hard to strike a five-year, $1.9-billion agreement with the government of

Canada. We did this because parents told us that this is what they need when they have to struggle with balancing the demands of work and home.

Instead of the member from -- where are you from, Mr. Yakabuski?

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): Pembroke.

Hon. Mrs. Chambers: Instead of --

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

Ms. Horwath: Minister, I can tell you where we stand: We stand clearly behind families who expect their provincial government to make good on

their promise to fund new child care spaces in Ontario. You promised to invest new money in child care in this province. Yesterday, your committee members went on record and broke that promise.

Relying on federal money for child care is not the same as investing yourself.

Premier, yesterday's $150-million child care motion was only half of what you promised in Ontario, yet your Liberal members couldn't even agree to that. When

will you live up to your word?

Hon. Mrs. Chambers: The member from Hamilton East would have been well advised to lobby during the campaign instead of contributing to

bringing down a government that was there to support parents and children who need this kind of assistance. I seem to remember it was your federal cousins, your federal counterparts, who brought

down a government that was on the right track in supporting good-quality developmental child care. But no, partisan politics always wins out when it comes to that party across there, not the

benefit to children and their parents.

are expecting you to represent their interests. Stand up for them.

Interjections.

The Speaker: We have a member waiting to ask a question. Order.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, my constituents in

Perth-Middlesex rely on land ambulances to be their first point of contact in a health emergency. Minutes can mean the difference between life and death. This is especially true in our far-flung

rural communities. We need timely services, whether you live in a city or on a concession.

Since the Tories downloaded land ambulance funding in 1999 on a supposed 50-50 basis, my municipalities have been struggling to keep up with the rising costs

they've been forced to shoulder by the provincial government not being a full 50-50 partner. I can tell you that my rural municipalities and I believe that the land ambulance funding inequity is

their number one issue. Minister, what is the government doing to ease this cost burden?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I think what applies to the principle of a 50-50 program is the principle of

partnership. I think this morning at the ROMA/OGRA meeting, the Premier reflected on that very well. I had the privilege, as many members did, of being in attendance. I'd like to quote from the

Premier's speech to those 1,200 people or so.

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): Way to go, Dalton.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: Here, Rosie, listen: "We have listened. And we have heard you.

"Right now, the province is paying about 38% of the costs of land ambulance.

"That is going to change.

"I am pleased to announce this morning that we are committing an estimated $300 million over the next three years to achieve a true 50-50 funding share of

municipal land ambulance services by 2008."

We all acknowledge that there are challenges for those municipalities, and on the property taxpayer especially. We've been working hard to upload the cost of

public health, and now we add $300 million over three years to sustain the partnership with our municipal partners, with $50 million coming right away.

Mr. Wilkinson: Minister, I want you to know that for all of us at the ROMA conference this morning, and at Good Roads, this was incredible

news for the rural municipalities right across this province. By closing the fiscal gap, our government is ensuring that our rural constituents continue to receive first-class health care and

emergency services like everyone else in Ontario.

I know my municipal colleagues know the difference between a Tory download and a Liberal upload. But we know that closing this gap is not the only solution.

Minister, can you please tell me what other initiatives our government has taken to improve land ambulance services?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: At this morning's meeting, I think the Premier also challenged us all, those of us who have the responsibility to manage

this program, to do so in a fashion which seeks, in the most efficient way possible, to limit that cost increase, which really has been a challenge and a burden for that municipal property

taxpayer.

In addition to the investment, though, that I had the chance of refreshing about just a moment ago, we are going to do more work through the AMO MOU task

force, which my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs has been leading. The Ministry of Health will continue to work through that table with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to

address other challenges around the delivery of land ambulance, to look at cross-border issues that sometimes plague the relationships among bordering communities, to work harder on issues related

to ambulance off-load delay, where we've recently moved forward with some significant initiatives to the tune of almost $100 million, and to continue to work to enhance the fleet. That's why we

recently invested $12 million in land ambulance equipment, to assist those municipalities further to deliver those important services for the honourable member's constituents.

OMERS PENSION FUND

Mr. Cameron Jackson (Burlington): My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. There are going to be serious consequences to

any kind of illegal strike this week in our province. Important public services may be compromised. In particular, the health and safety of seniors in long-term-care facilities may be at risk. I

don't need to remind you of just how fragile and frail many of these seniors are in these homes. Minister, my question to you is this: Have you or your ministry expressed any concern or have you

contacted any of the long-term-care associations in this province to ensure that, should there be an illegal strike in this province, the safety of the 70,000 seniors in long-term-care homes will

not in any way be adversely affected?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I appreciate the question from the honourable member. Of course, we all share

the concerns he expresses. That's why I think the advice that has been on offer today from our Premier and from the Minister of Municipal Affairs with respect to those who would engage in an

illegal strike are important messages for everybody to absorb.

Of course, the primary relationship between employee and employer is that of our health care providers in Ontario. We're operating on the basis of independent

governance, and the provision of those services rests there. The relationship between the ministry and those providers is an important one and, of course, ministry staff have been working with a

variety of providers with a view toward making sure that all their plans and contingencies are appropriately in place. Paramountcy for us at all times is the care for our patients.

Mr. Jackson: Minister, this morning I contacted the Ontario Long Term Care Association, and they indicated that there has been absolutely no

contact, not a single e-mail, not a single memo, not a single phone call, from either you, your ministry or ministry staff, either here at Queen's Park or in the regional offices. I further went

and contacted the community care access centres association of this province, and they, too, confirm that for the 100,000 seniors who receive daily care and attendant care for health and related

daily living needs, there has been no contact, no concern, no memo, no requests for contingency planning from your ministry.

Minister, need I remind you that 23 people died at the Seven Oaks long-term-care facility on your watch? Why have you no plans and no concerns, and why are you

not expressing any real concern about this issue, and putting in contingency plans? Why are there no plans for the safety of Ontarians during this illegal strike?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: When the honourable member had two minutes, with several seconds used for some part of the discussion that most people

would view as decidedly unhelpful, why did the honourable member not seek to offer one or two words of advice and concern to Sid Ryan? There is responsibility for leadership. We're taking

responsibility in terms of providing those services to Ontarians. The Premier has said it well, and he has said it well on behalf of our government and the people of Ontario: that there is an

obligation --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: You're not even in your seat. There is an obligation on all our parts to conduct ourselves in a fashion that is

responsible. When one takes their protest to the point that it can be a challenge to lives and impact on services, then this is an obligation all must share. The honourable member, I believe, would

be well advised to spend some of his time calling Mr. Sid Ryan.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): A question to the Minister of Labour: Sir, your promise to crack down on bad bosses has been a huge

letdown. Seelan Kandasamy is here today in the gallery. He works at Amato Pizza, where workers were forced to work as long as 80 and 90 hours a week without overtime, paid less than minimum wage,

and in some case not paid at all. Your ministry says that it investigated, but nothing has changed. Why aren't you enforcing the laws that are designed to protect Ontario workers like Seelan

Kandasamy and his colleagues at Amato Pizza?

Hon. Steve Peters (Minister of Labour): I beg to differ with the member. It's interesting; when you look at the period 1990 to 2004 in the

province of Ontario, there were 97 employment standards investigations -- 97 in 14 years. In 2005, in 12 months, there were 226 prosecutions. So I beg to differ with the member. We take employment

standards in this province very seriously, and looking after the rights of our employees is of extreme importance to this ministry.

As far as the issue that you raise, in response to the claims that the employees made, orders to pay were issued against the company. Three of those claims

were under the Employment Standards Act. These claims, though, were unpaid, and they're now in the collections process. So as a result of proactive inspections by the ministry, three payments have

been made, and more payments are owed to the employees.

Mr. Kormos: Minister, the Amato employees didn't complain to your ministry so that they could become judgment creditors awaiting execution of

a writ against Amato. They wanted their rights under the Employment Standards Act protected, with prosecutions, if need be. During the course of your so-called investigation, one worker went 15

weeks without regular pay, five others didn't receive regular wages for four weeks and others worked 63 to 80 hours a week without any overtime.

During your so-called investigation, your ministry didn't talk to any of the workers. They talked only to management, who, not surprisingly, weren't all that

forthcoming with the fact that they, Amato Pizza, were breaking the law. That's like asking Al Capone to guard the bank.

Workers like Seelan Kandasamy are waiting for you to keep your promise. He and his co-workers need real protection and an inspection system that ensures that

bad bosses are not only caught, but prosecuted. When are you going to do that?

Hon. Mr. Peters: I reiterate: in 14 years, including five years under that government, 97 prosecutions; in one year, 226 prosecutions. I think

that demonstrates very clearly, as I said earlier, that we are committed to enforcing employment standards in this province.

As well, as I pointed out earlier, we have conducted proactive investigations to review the employer's records of all employees at all locations. I reiterate:

As a result of this proactive inspection, Amato has made three payments owed to employees. We do take this very seriously, and we've demonstrated that we do take this seriously. Unlike his time in

government, when they weren't there standing up for the rights of employees in the province of Ontario, we are.

As well, I take some exception to the comments that were made. We feel it's very important to translate employment standards into other languages in this

province. People are now able to view the Employment Standards Act in over 25 languages. That's important. That's --

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

OMERS PENSION FUND

Ms. Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): My question today is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, you've said on many

occasions in this House that our government has acted in the best interests of both employers and employees when it comes to OMERS pension plan autonomy. While responding to inquiries from my

constituents on Bill 206, I went to the OMERS board website at www.omers.com. It had some interesting information for its members, including the following: "As the legislative process moves

forward, it's natural for different stakeholders to have different points of view, and as the bill nears final approval, they are looking to influence the government. For example, some feel the new

benefits enabled by the bill will be too costly. Others," however, "feel that the rules that govern the decision-making process of the sponsors corporation are unfair."

Minister, what will happen to the OMERS pension plan if Bill 206 is passed?

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I, too, would encourage all employees who are part of the OMERS plan to take

a look at that website, because, after all, the OMERS board is made up of an equal number of employer representatives and employee representatives. When they put out a news release or a statement,

it's on behalf of the entire board. That includes employee groups as well.

Let me quote from another part of their website. I'm sure that OMERS members will find this straightforward language very reassuring, and it deals with: "Do

you need to worry about your pension? In a word, no. There is nothing in Bill 206 that puts the pensions of our members at risk. In fact, this model gives members a voice in making the final

decisions on their plan." Quite frankly, we are putting a voting member on both the sponsors corporation and the administration corporation so that individual will have a say in the future of the

OMERS pension plan, as it should have been right from the beginning.

Ms. Smith: Like many in this House, I've had many letters and e-mails from constituents who are either current members or retirees of the

OMERS plan, and as you've suggested, Mr. Minister, I've been sending them to the OMERS website as well. They've been asking what will happen to the current OMERS plan should Bill 206 pass. Once

again, the OMERS website answers the question as well. They've been receiving a lot of different information from various sources, as you know, and they're looking for some straight answers.

The OMERS website states:

"OMERS' mandate remains as it is today -- overseeing investments and administering the plan....

"Our pension services will not change either....

"The safeguards that protect our pension fund are in no way affected by Bill 206. Like all pension plans, OMERS is subject to federal and provincial laws that

protect the rights of members and retirees and set investment limits to minimize risk....

"Bill 206 establishes an independent governance model and replaces the Ontario government as the plan's sponsor." This is from their website. However --

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): I believe the question must have been asked. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: Let me be as clear as anyone can be: Bill 206 does nothing with respect to the existing pension plans. As a matter of

fact, what will happen is that once the bill is approved and given royal assent, two corporation boards will in effect be set up: a sponsors corporation and an administration corporation. They will

have equal representation from both the employer and employee groups. As a matter of fact, CUPE will have four out of nine voting members -- four out of nine votes on the employee side -- giving

them the exact same percentage on the employee side as the percentage they have of the total membership of employees.

The bill we are proposing today has had lots of discussion over the last 10 years, has been subject to two legislative hearings, has been amended -- we've even

included a number of good NDP amendments --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is for the Premier. We've asked the Premier today about contingency plans for

health, education and long-term care. I want to ask him about roads and infrastructure.

Last weekend, we had tragedies in this province because of weather and traffic accidents. I ask, and I think the people of Ontario have a right to know, what

your contingency plan is -- we're in the middle of winter, Mr. Premier. What is your plan, in case of severe and extreme weather, to ensure that the safety of Ontarians on our roads and highways is

not compromised in the event of an illegal strike?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): I cannot believe that any CUPE member would endanger the safety of

Ontario drivers. I have every confidence that they will do the right thing, that they will fulfill their responsibilities -- oh, not to me; this is a matter that is somewhat removed from the

government. This is a matter between employers and employees. They will want to do the right thing. They will understand what we have done as a government by way of establishing good labour

relations across the board, and the fact that we're also very proud that, on our watch, our investments have led to about 5,000 new CUPE members being hired in Ontario schools and about 200 new

CUPE members working in our child care centres and our children's aid societies. This is a union that has flourished under our government, and we look forward to continuing to work with them in the

public interest.

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE

Mr. Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas the Liberal government has made the decision to create 14 unaccountable local health integration networks," also known as LHINs, "without properly

consulting the people of Ontario; and

"Whereas Liberal hospital funding policies have led to layoffs of health care workers and closures of programs, harming both patients and workers; and

"Whereas the Liberals are continuing the Tory policy of contracting out home care services, causing harm to patients through lack of continuity of care;

and

"Whereas the health care system needs stability, not health care chaos;

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

"That the government reconsider its ill-conceived plans for the LHINs and instead create an integrated health care system that emphasizes stability over chaos,

fair treatment of all health care workers, democratic and accountable decision-making, and publicly funded, administered and delivered health care services. The government must stop all hospital

layoffs, end competitive bidding in home care and maintain all collective agreements and successor rights of affected workers, which will provide continuity of care for patients."

I affix my signature.

OMERS PENSION FUND

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas firefighters and police officers perform an important and dangerous public service on a daily basis; and

"Whereas they deserve a chance to enjoy their retirement years knowing their future is financially secure; and

"Whereas the devolution of the Ontario municipal employees retirement system pension plan has been debated and consulted on for over a decade; and

"Whereas Bill 206 has been through extensive consultation, two rounds of committee hearings and a number of amendments;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to pass Bill 206 as soon as possible."

I agree with this petition. I will affix my signature underneath it, and I'm going to give it to the page, William.

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): I have a petition from the riding of Durham. It reads as follows:

"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;

"Therefore 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."

I'm pleased to support this on behalf of my constituents and persons with special needs.

OMERS PENSION FUND

Mr. Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas firefighters and police officers perform an important and dangerous public service on a daily basis; and

"Whereas they deserve a chance to enjoy their retirement years knowing their future is financially secure; and

"Whereas the devolution of the Ontario municipal employees retirement system pension plan has been debated and consulted on for over a decade; and

"Whereas Bill 206 has been through extensive consultation, two rounds of committee hearings and a number of amendments;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to pass Bill 206 as soon as possible."

HANDGUNS

Mr. Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition 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.'"

That's by Dalton McGuinty, Hansard, December 8, 2005.

"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 affix my signature.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas the price of gas is reaching historic price levels; and

"Whereas provincial and federal governments have done nothing to protect consumers from high gas prices; and

"Whereas provincial tax on gas is 14 cents per litre and federal tax is 10 cents per litre, plus 8% GST; and

"Whereas these taxes have a detrimental impact on the economy and are unfair to commuters who rely on vehicles to travel to work; and

"Whereas the province has the power to set the price of gas and has taken responsibility for energy prices in other areas, such as hydro and natural gas;

and

"Whereas we call on the province to remove the 14.7-cents-per-litre gas tax and on the federal government to eliminate the 10-cent gas tax, plus 8% GST, which

amounts to 30% or more;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and urge the Premier to take action and to also persuade the federal government to remove

its gas taxes."

I support the petition and affix my signature.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): I also would like to recognize the police and fire and other visitors in the gallery today, on this very important

day of Bill 206. I would have appreciated more hearings, but this bill will pass; I'm confident of that.

I have a petition here that I'm pleased to present on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Durham.

"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;

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

"That the government of Ontario 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."

I'm pleased to support this and give it to one of our new pages, Yasmeen.

DIABETES TREATMENT

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I am pleased to join with my colleague the member for Peterborough in this petition to the Legislative

Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

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

"We are requesting that all diabetic supplies ... as prescribed by an endocrinologist or medical doctor be covered under the Ontario health insurance plan.

"Diabetes costs Canadian taxpayers $13 billion a year and is increasing! It is the leading cause of death and hospitalization in Canada. Many people with

diabetes cannot afford the ongoing expense of managing" the disease. "They cut corners to save money. They rip test strips in half, cut down on the number of times they test their blood and even

reuse lancets and needles. These cost-saving measures often have tumultuous and disastrous health consequences.

"Persons with diabetes need and deserve financial assistance to cope with the escalating cost of managing diabetes....

"We think it is in all Ontarians' and the government's best interest to support diabetics with the supplies that each individual needs to obtain optimum

glucose control. Good blood glucose control reduces or eliminates kidney failure by 50%, blindness by 76%, nerve damage by 60%, cardiac disease by 35% and even amputations. Just think of how many

dollars can be saved by the Ministry of Health if diabetics had a chance to gain optimum glucose control."

I'm pleased to sign this petition and to ask page William to carry it for me.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which has been signed by many people from

both Grey and Bruce counties.

"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;

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

"That the government of Ontario 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."

I've affixed my signature.

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I have a petition here that I'd like to read.

"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;

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

"That the government of Ontario 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."

I affix my signature to this, Mr. Speaker, and pass it to you through the page.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest): I have a petition here today prepared by Sonny Sansone from my community. It's addressed to

the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas Ontario farmers are facing difficulties in earning their living and supporting their families;

"Whereas urban residents, such as those in Toronto, count on a reliable food supply from Ontario farmers; and

"Whereas farming is an integral part of the Ontario economy;

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

"To ensure that Ontario farmers are supported so that all residents can count on a reliable, well-priced, safe food supply for all Ontario residents."

I agree with the contents of this petition and affix my signature to it and give it to page Jordan.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr. Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty, our newly elected Premier, has publicly pledged to move quickly to re-establish local democracy when it comes to public education in

Ontario; and

"Whereas Mr. McGuinty has publicly asked that `cuts and school closures' should be `set aside' and that `that business' should be left for the incoming, duly

elected trustees; and

"Whereas Mr. Gerard Kennedy, our newly elected Minister of Education, has stated publicly that "school boards aren't operating as closed shops anymore";

and

"Whereas there is universal support for the school amongst its staff, parents, student body and the community at large; and

"Whereas Prince of Wales Public School in Barrie is the oldest continuously operating school in Simcoe county; and

"Whereas Prince of Wales Public School has been providing the community with quality education for more than 125 years; and

"Whereas the impact of the closure of Prince of Wales would be devastating on the whole of the downtown core, and most especially the urban neighbourhood which

the school serves;

"Be it resolved that we, the undersigned, demand that the Dalton McGuinty government live up to its commitment and ensure that community schools are not forced

to be closed and that specifically the Liberal government will immediately halt the closure of Prince of Wales Public School in Barrie."

I support the petition and affix my signature.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I'm pleased to acknowledge the assistance of Sonny Sansone from Scarborough Southwest, who has kindly

provided this petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly, which I will now read. It reads as follows:

"Whereas Ontario farmers are facing difficulty in earning their living and supporting their families;

"Whereas urban residents, such as those in Toronto, count on a reliable food supply from Ontario farmers; and

"Whereas farming is an integral part of the Ontario economy;

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

"To ensure that Ontario farmers are supported so that all residents can count on a reliable, well-priced, safe food supply for all Ontario residents."

I'm pleased to add my signature in support of this petition and to ask page Nicholas to carry it for me.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES

RETIREMENT SYSTEM ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR LE RÉGIME DE RETRAITE

DES EMPLOYÉS MUNICIPAUX

DE L'ONTARIO

Mr. Gerretsen moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 206,

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

Loi sur le régime de

retraite des employés municipaux de l'Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): I recognize the Minister of Municipal Affairs with his lead-off speech.

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Before I make my remarks on Bill 206, the Ontario Municipal Employees

Retirement System Act, 2006, I would first of all like to thank the members of the standing committee on general government, which includes members of all political parties, for their hard work on

this bill.

Our proposed legislation is the result of extensive consultation and two -- not one, but two -- sets of committee hearings. This government took the unusual

step of requesting that the Legislature hold committee hearings after first reading, and then again after second reading.

I've heard the Leader of the Opposition say that he thinks this legislation has been rushed. I would ask him and his colleagues where he thinks the hurry has

been. This legislation was introduced on June 1, 2005. That was eight months ago. It has been talked about since 1995 and has not been dealt with by any previous government. It's time to get on

with transferring control of the OMERS pension plan from the government to the people who pay into it and who benefit from the pension plan.

More than 355,000 active and retired members depend on the OMERS pension plan. This includes a diverse range of employees who depend on the plan for their own

and their families' future financial security. It is clear that all OMERS employees hold strong views about their pension plan and its future. Over 900 different employers contribute to OMERS.

These employers are a diverse group as well, who take their role in the shared governance seriously. Employers and employees often have divergent views and competing interests. As a result, no bill

to reform OMERS will fully satisfy all of the groups that participate in the plan. Employers and employees are each responsible for making up one half of the contributions to the plan, and have

done so since 1962.

Like other public sector plans, OMERS is based on the principle of shared risk and reward. Employers and employees are responsible for contributing equally to

the plan, and they are responsible for sharing plan liabilities. Our proposed legislation, Bill 206, continues with that tradition, and goes further to ask employers and employees to share together

in the governance of the plan. Shared governance means give and take on both sides, and shared governance also means that the interests of any one party will not always prevail. Our proposed

legislation offers a balance between the interest of the employers who pay into the plan and the employees who pay into the plan and benefit from the plan. Mindful of that balance, our proposed

model will provide a framework that will allow for representatives of employers and employees to work together to ensure that the OMERS pension plan strives to meet the interests of all of the

plan's participants.

In that regard, may I just say that the sponsors corporation in the proposed model will have 14 members on it: seven on the employer side and seven on the

employee side. The seven members on the employer side will represent the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the city of Toronto, the school boards, the Ontario Association of Police Services

Boards and two other employers that will be rotated from amongst the representatives of the other 90 employer groups.

On the employee side there will be a CUPE representative from Ontario's local, a CUPE Local 79 and 416 member -- basically Toronto CUPE; they will rotate their

membership -- a member from the Police Association of Ontario, the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, one other member who will be

rotated amongst other unions and associations, and one retired member.

The voting on this 14-member board will contain 18 votes. The CUPE Ontario member will have three votes, so the CUPE votes will be four out of the nine

employee votes, which are roughly 45% of the total employees, which happens to be the total number of employees from CUPE who contribute and are members of the plan. Similarly, the Association of

Municipalities of Ontario will have two votes each, for a total of four out of nine votes on the employer side as well, because the municipalities are by far the largest employer contributor to the

plan.

I would also like to take the opportunity to address the many misunderstandings that seem to be circulating concerning Bill 206. Simply stated, we intend to

transfer control of the plan from the provincial government to the people who pay into it and benefit from the pension plan. Yet many myths are still circulating about our proposed legislation. I

would like to begin by being very clear that no one's pension is in peril due to this proposed legislation. Let me repeat that: No one's pension is in any danger whatsoever as a result of this

legislation.

This apprehension is of a tremendous concern to me and to our government, and I want to assure pensioners that our proposed legislation fully protects current

OMERS pension beneficiaries. As a matter of fact, for the first time ever they will have a vote on both the administration corporation, which will basically look after the management and the

investment of the plan, and the sponsors corporation, which will basically determine what benefits and changes should be made to the plan.

But I understand the concern of the pensioners. When the structure of the pension plan changes, people who receive a pension from that plan or who expect to

receive a pension in the near or distant future tend to get very anxious. I know I would, and I think most of us here would as well. So let me be clear once again: There is nothing in our proposed

legislation that would change the terms of existing pension payments. Pensioners will not see a reduction in the amount of pensions they are receiving because of Bill 206. In fact, under our

proposed legislation, for the first time, as I mentioned before, OMERS pensioners will have a vote on the sponsors body, which in our model is called the sponsors corporation.

On another note, over the past few weeks, members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees have been told by their leadership that Bill 206 discriminates

against female municipal workers. That is patently incorrect and wrong. Let's start by being clear that the OMERS plan currently already distinguishes between two types of employees based on their

type of employment. These two types are those with a normal retirement age of 65 and those with a normal retirement age of 60. The last group, the normal retirement age of 60, already includes

police officers and firefighters. The distinction between the two groups of workers is not based on gender whatsoever. The two groups pay different pension contributions, in that the NRA 60 group

already pay more based on the higher cost of their earlier retirement pensions, as do the employers, obviously, because they contribute on a 50-50 basis. Bill 206 continues this distinction.

What we have proposed in the bill is the establishment of a supplemental benefit plan for police, firefighters and paramedics. Let's also be clear that our

proposed model does not require supplemental benefits for all police, firefighters and paramedics. The plan merely provides another item for police officers, firefighters and paramedics to consider

as part of their collective bargaining processes at the local level.

We have also enabled the sponsors corporation in our proposed model to create supplemental benefit plans for all other groups of OMERS members. The sponsors

corporation would be free to establish supplemental benefits for other groups of OMERS plan participants.

Some people have the mistaken belief that funds in the main OMERS plan can be used to pay for the costs of any benefits in the supplemental plan we are

proposing for police officers, firefighters and paramedics. I believe that this error, or at least this mistaken belief, has been corrected over and over again. Yet certain parties continue to

perpetuate the myth that funds in the main plan can be used for this purpose. Bill 206 simply will not allow the transfer of any assets from the main plan to the supplementary plan or vice versa.

Again, our proposed legislation specifically states that funds in the main plan cannot be used to pay for benefits in the supplementary plan. The bill has additional provisions that require

supplemental plan members, along with their employers, to pay all the additional costs of those benefits.

A further concern has been raised about the cost of the supplemental plan benefits. Many people are overlooking the fact that any supplemental benefits would

have to be decided on locally. This will usually be through the collective bargaining process, and, as we all know, collective bargaining involves give and take. Therefore, any supplemental benefit

bargained for would likely mean that something else is given up in the bargaining at that point in time or not bargained for at that particular time. A supplemental benefit should therefore not

necessarily be regarded as a net new cost.

Our proposed model would also limit each employee group to one additional supplemental benefit initially -- remember that any cost of any such benefit is to be

shared equally between the employee and the employer. We also propose in the bill that three years will have to pass before another supplemental benefit can be added. This too will contribute to

containing the cost of supplemental benefits on both the side of the employee and the side of the employer. What is more, the Minister of Finance has indicated that he is prepared to recommend that

the new supplemental benefits be exempt from the solvency funding rules. Again, this would be another step toward making the proposed supplemental benefits more affordable to both the employers and

the employees.

Some representatives of the employee groups claim that the voting protocol we are proposing -- namely, that two thirds of the members in the sponsors

corporation vote in favour before any significant change -- is excessive, that it establishes too high a threshold and means that no benefit changes would ever be agreed to for the main plan.

There's a good reason that we settled on the two-thirds majority vote. As has already been indicated, AMO wanted unanimity, 100%; some employee groups,

including CUPE, wanted 50%. We settled on two thirds. These types of changes that we're talking about in the supplemental plans, improvement or reductions in benefits and changes in contribution

rates, for example, would have a lasting impact on the financial viability of the OMERS plan. We are talking about changes to people's pension benefits that would affect contributions and future

benefits of thousands of people, and this could lead to increased costs not only for employers but also for employees as well.

It only makes sense that decisions of this type, decisions that could have important financial repercussions and affect thousands of people's lives, should

require a significant level of support from both the employer and employee representatives on the sponsors corporation. Of course, Bill 206 makes provision for sponsors to take matters that don't

meet this two-thirds majority test forward for mediation and arbitration, if the request has the support of 50% plus one. Now, with respect to arbitration, I should also be clear that under our

proposed model an arbitrator involved in the decision on the sponsors corporation would be limited to making an award that results in an increase of no more than 0.5% in contribution rates during a

three-year period.

It's time for the parties opposed to this bill to basically stop fearmongering and look rationally at the proposed legislation. Our bill is full of safeguards

and protections for contributors to the plan and for the beneficiaries and pensioners. Any major decisions to change the plan, such as changes in benefits or contribution rates, would have to be

approved by a two-thirds majority vote from the sponsors corporation.

To protect retirees, and the plan generally, our proposed legislation would require that the OMERS main plan be funded to 105% of liabilities before any change

requiring reduced contributions or increased liabilities could be made. This requirement is to help ensure the solvency of the main plan for current and future beneficiaries.

Next, I want to address just briefly the accusations that the government is rushing this bill through the Legislature. Nothing can be further from the truth.

Let me just tell you a little bit about the history of the proposed OMERS model. As has been indicated in this House on a number of occasions, for more than 10 years OMERS stakeholders have talked

about devolution of the governance of OMERS.

Before I go any further, I just want to explain what the devolution of governance means, for those who may not have been following this debate all that

closely. Very simply stated, it means transferring control of the plan from the provincial government to the people who pay into it and benefit from the plan. Right now, the provincial government

controls the OMERS pension plan. This means, for example, that the government decides what contribution rate will be paid for by the plan members; what the level of benefits to plan members will be

when they retire; what, if any, supplemental plans there will be; and what benefits would be in those supplemental plans.

I want to point out, though, that the provincial government does not pay directly into the plan, except in cases where they're also the employer. This makes

OMERS the only public sector pension plan that I'm aware of or that I know of that has a party controlling the pension plan that doesn't even pay into the pension plan. As I said earlier,

discussions about changing this anomaly have been going on for more than 10 years, and the government wants to transfer control of the plan from the government to the people who, once again, pay

into it and benefit from it. The OMERS board itself, made up of equal representtatives from employers and employees, came out with a model to correct the governance of the plan in 2002, in an OMERS

board of directors report. We took the model recommended in that report and built on it. The result is a model that we believe achieves the right balance between competing demands.

I want to talk about how we arrived at our model in Bill 206. Again, we introduced our proposed model for OMERS governance devolution on June 1, 2005. We then

took the unusual step of requesting legislative hearings on the bill after first reading. We listened to the plan's participants, who had constructive comments on our model. Government members on

the standing committee then requested many amendments to our proposed legislation based on those comments.

Bill 206 had its second reading on December 12 last year -- six months after first reading. This was to give OMERS members plenty of time to review the

proposed legislation and amendments. I repeat: We wanted to give OMERS stakeholders plenty of time to understand our proposed model.

Then we had further hearings in late January and more clause-by-clause debate, proof of our government's determination to make our proposed OMERS model as fair

as possible. We adopted at that time a number of different amendments at these clause-by-clause hearings, including three proposed by our NDP colleagues. So two sets of hearings, eight months to

get to third reading, and some still insist on saying that we're rushing this legislation through.

The government has certainly received a lot of suggestions from OMERS members, who are rightly concerned about their pension plan. I have mentioned the many

amendments we have made based on the constructive comments made at the hearings held by the standing committee on general government. We believe that Bill 206, as amended, strikes a fair balance

between the needs and interests of different employer and employee parties in the OMERS pension plan.

In conclusion, I simply want to thank the many OMERS stakeholders who have helped us provide in Bill 206 a balanced model for the diverse groups of employees

and employers who make up the membership of the pension plan. To be more specific, these are the approximately 224,000 employees who are active members paying into OMERS currently; the retirees,

approximately 131,000 members, who are current OMERS pension beneficiaries; and the employers, which include 382 municipalities, 88 school boards, and 416 other local boards, such as library

boards.

If passed, our proposed legislation will give these groups the long-awaited and well-deserved control over their retirement pension plan that they have been

paying into and upon which so many do, or will in the future, depend. If passed, our proposed legislation will see the provincial government removed from the governance of the pension plan, to

which it does not directly contribute.

Finally, I would like to thank my parliamentary assistant, Brad Duguid, who led the process during the legislative hearings at committee and has done a

tremendous amount of work on this bill throughout the entire process in many different ways.

If passed, our proposed legislation will further contribute to the autonomy that our municipal partners expect and deserve as mature orders of government. I

urge every member of this House to support this bill, since it's the right thing to do for our OMERS members.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I want to thank the minister for another great rendition of what he had intended to do but, in fairness, what he

somewhat missed in achieving. He speaks quite eloquently about all the consultation and the support of all the players in the OMERS plan, yet when I see all the players in the OMERS plan, the vast

majority of both the employers and the employees are totally opposed to this approach that the minister has taken. So I find it kind of ironic that the minister would still refer to the massive

support that exists for this piece of legislation. I'm afraid it is greatly limited in support.

I just had the opportunity of coming back from the gathering of the municipal officials from rural and small-town Ontario at the Rural Ontario Municipal

Association's conference, along with the Ontario Good Roads Association's conference. The room was full of people. The topic around the hall was not about the things that they were being told by

the Premier; it was about Bill 206 and why the government would be doing that to them. So I find it hard to understand where the minister would still come from with, "Everybody in the plan supports

it."

The big problem with this bill -- we'll get to it a little bit later, when I have an opportunity to speak to the bill -- is that it's about devolution, and

they're making all the changes that the players in the plan don't want made before they devolve it, as opposed to letting those people who are involved in the plan make the changes that they deem

most appropriate for both management and all the players within the plan. I would ask him to reconsider the approach he has taken with this, and to actually work with the players within this plan

to make it work for the betterment of all the people in OMERS, as the minister has said he wanted to do.

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): It was quite entertaining to listen to the minister gloss over all the big, big problems that this bill

has and then speak to all the things that he thinks are okay with the bill. Fortunately, the members of the opposition will get an opportunity to highlight some of the problems with the bill,

which, of course, have to be highlighted, because it's causing quite a problem in the province of Ontario. In fact, it's irresponsible, in my opinion, that this bill is here when there are still

such fatal flaws in the bill.

I started to think, during the second round of public hearings on the bill, why is it that this government can't figure out why there's so much of a problem in

terms of stakeholders' acceptance of the bill? It became very clear in one of the meetings, when the parliamentary assistant could not really decide at the time what the purpose of the bill was.

Was it what the minister had initially talked about, which was the idea of devolving OMERS to the stakeholders, or was it to follow up on a promise made to police and fire about their supplemental

benefits? That is the crux of the problem this government got itself into. It wasn't clear what it wanted to do in the first place. It's a very technical, very difficult and very significant issue

for many workers throughout this province.

I can tell you that not only were New Democrats very much supportive of the idea and the principle of supplementals, but we were also equally concerned that

this bill, which takes on so many issues for so many workers, be a fair bill that treats everyone properly and with fair process, particularly the piece that the minister glossed over: a big group

of workers who are not able to obtain the same consideration because processes have been built in. Not the first time around, but the second time around in the hearings process, the government

brought forward amendments that basically stymie the ability of some workers to get a fair deal.

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): I'm privileged and honoured to stand up this afternoon to speak in support of Bill 206, because I believe

it's about time. This bill is nothing new in this place. It was introduced almost 10 years ago. Many different governments of different stripes never dealt with it until this government came,

opened it up and dealt with it in a professional manner, according to the procedure of this place, and followed all the steps, all the legalities involved with this bill.

The committee took the bill and travelled the province. From every corner of the province we received petitions, affirmations, representations. We received so

much information about it.

This bill was introduced 10 years ago. It is about time. It's about time for it to be dealt with, to be open, to talk to the people, who deserve it. This bill

is about fairness.

I know there are so many different stories out there being told by the unions, misinforming the workers. I want to tell you a story. This past Friday, one of

the workers who work in the school -- probably he is watching me today -- came to my office. He was worried. He asked me, "What about my pension, Khalil? Is my pension going to go to the pension

for police? Am I going to lose my pension?" These are the stories going on out there. It's about misinforming the workers. It's definitely not correct.

We listened to the Premier talk about it this afternoon. We listened to the Minister of Municipal Affairs talk in detail about it. It's about fairness,

applying it to people who deserve it and need it, who contribute to the pension plan so they can get it. It's about fairness, as we mentioned.

It's about time. This bill should have been introduced 10 years ago. It had never been dealt with until this government came to power, until this minister took

office. He opened it up, and he wants to deliver what he promised before the election. It's about commitment. That's why we're talking about it. That's why I'm supporting it.

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I think it's unfortunate that the government has called Bill 206 into the Legislature today. We know

that this will likely prompt an illegal strike by CUPE, and a lot of people will suffer because of that. I think that's unfortunate. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Tory, had written to the

Premier and said in his letter, "It's time for everyone involved to take a deep breath and step back." He asked for a meeting including CUPE, AMO, police and firefighters, Howard Hampton and the

Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Tory. I think that would have been a sensible thing to do, but instead the government is pushing ahead with this. There's no great need to rush it through, but that is

what they are doing and, unfortunately, I think it's going to create a lot of problems in Ontario.

It's my feeling that this bill is a mess. It has had over 100 amendments. If you look through it, it's more strikeouts than it is the original bill. We're

talking about a $40-billion plan, and I think it's pretty irresponsible of the government to be pushing forward with this regardless, especially when we have a strike that will likely be happening

as a result of them calling it forward.

We have the employers, being the municipalities, who don't like it. They're concerned that there could be as much as a 3% increase in property taxes. We have

most of the employees who don't like it, and we have some employees who do. I say that the government should be taking their time with this, following Mr. Tory's advice, holding that meeting among

the affected parties and not rushing this through. Instead, by their irresponsible actions, they're going to force a province-wide strike.

The Acting Speaker: That concludes the time for questions and comments. I'll return to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, who has

two minutes to reply.

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: Let me thank the members from Oxford, Hamilton East, London-Fanshawe and Parry Sound-Muskoka for their comments.

Let me just say this: I hope that during this debate we can stick to facts. We may have different opinions about the

interpretation of some of the facts, but

let's not endanger the confidence that our pensioners and our contributors to this plan have had for over 40 years. Let us at least stick to the facts and let us not put out some of the myths that

have been put out there by a number of different parties.

The members opposite say, "Let's have a meeting and we can somehow resolve it." They were in government for eight years. They had committees set up to deal

with this issue for eight years. We've got about 95 employers on one side and over 90 employee groups on the other side, and the likelihood of getting unanimity over the last 10 years has proven to

be unattainable. It is time to move on, but on the clear understanding that there is nothing in this bill that in any way detracts from the main plan from which the vast number of retirees and

members of OMERS benefit, either now or in the future. Their pensions are not affected one way or another.

The supplementary plans that we're talking about for our emergency workers, who deserve a plan like this for the risks they take in their daily lives, and

which they will be contributing to equally with municipalities, will not in any way affect the main plan, and that is a fact. I urge the members of this House to support this very worthwhile

bill.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate.

Mr. Hardeman: Normally I would stand up and say that I'm pleased to stand here today and discuss Bill 206, the Ontario Municipal Employees

Retirement System Act, 2006, but I'm afraid I can't say that today. I think it's somewhat a shame that we are debating this bill, which was called a housekeeping bill when it was introduced by the

minister. We have managed, with what I would call incompetence and a total disregard for process, to turn it into a fiasco. In fact, of the people who are members of this plan, both the employers

and the employees, there seem to be very few who are now ready to say they support the bill in its entirety the way it's written.

We keep hearing a lot from the government side that this bill is so complicated, we can't possibly have unanimity on it, but I think in every case, including

the government's presentation, we tried for as close to unanimity or as close to a consensus as we could achieve.

As we went through this -- and we give the government credit for that; when the bill came up for first reading, it was immediately referred to committee,

because it was a bill that affected a lot of people, affected their livelihoods, and they wanted to be part of it, to make sure they didn't raise the concerns in their pensions, as has happened. So

the government put it forward, it went to committee and we started getting presenters.

All of a sudden, it came out that not only was there not total support for it, there seemed to be very little support for it. The government suggested that

they would listen to the presenters and then make some amendments to the bill, and I think that's really where it ran off the rails. Rather than looking at what was happening to the integrity of

the bill and the integrity of the purpose that was put forward in the bill, it just became a hodgepodge of bill amendments and amending amendments. In fact, there were times when the bill was

amended or proposed to be amended in the same area for a third time, because they just didn't have it right.

I think it's a bit of a challenge -- yes, I guess the word is "challenge" -- that we're here today speaking on the bill when in fact we should have taken the

advice that was given by our leader to sit down, call all the players together and see -- maybe the minister is right: Maybe we couldn't get total consensus, but at least we could get to some areas

of improvement in the bill where it would serve the purpose better than it does now.

Having been involved in the committee hearings through the first and second reading, I find it very interesting that the things that are happening today and

the concerns being expressed today, particularly by employees who are part of the plan, are not the same concerns that were expressed when the bill was at first reading. In fact, the concerns at

that time were addressed by some of the amendments, but instead of making it better, they made it worse.

I guess I'd have to say that the reason I'm not really enthusiastic about standing here today speaking to this bill is because of the actions of the government

and their refusal to look at discussing options with all the players to see if we couldn't come to a consensus.

Having taken that position -- and I've taken this position all the way through the hearings process, at first reading, at second reading and here in the House

-- I suppose I should take this opportunity to thank the Premier. In the last two sittings of this House, the Premier made reference to a letter I had written a couple of years ago to the Minister

of Finance as the discussions were taking place to revamp the bill concerning the firefighters and their wish to have the OMERS plan changed in order to allow for a negotiated supplementary plan

within their plan; in other words, to separate their pension plan on paper, not by a different administration, but as a different entity within the same administration, as the police and fire plan,

so they could have different levels of pension and different benefits negotiated with their employers.

The firefighters made a presentation to, I think, many of the members here in the House. They in fact may have made a presentation to you. I have to say they

made a good case, and I agreed with them. I sent a letter to the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Premier of the province, suggesting that I thought the government

should be looking at allowing different sections of the OMERS plan to be applied differently to different employees.

The problem that arose, of course -- I guess I want to finish that. I do want to thank the Premier for bringing that up. Because of my concern with some of the

other sections of Bill 206, there seems to be some question as to whether I still support a better pension plan for the police and fire. I want to say here in public, in this Legislature, that I do

think that's a good idea, but not at the expense of the basic OMERS plan that has been in effect for a long time.

Before we get back to the plan, I would just suggest that the government could very well have introduced this in two bills. Then I think we would have had a

debate with the employers and the employees as they relate to the emergency service sector about how you would implement supplemental plans, and you also would have had a debate -- and I expect it

would not have been as contentious a debate -- about how you would effectively devolve OMERS from the sponsorship of the provincial government and put it under the control of all the people

involved in the plan.

To my mind, there was no need to have put all this together. I think it really relates to, as I mentioned earlier, when I spoke on the presentation of the

minis