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

June 8, 2005

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2005-Jun-08 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 8 June 2005 Mercredi 8 juin 2005

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY

CANCER FUNDRAISING

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

JOSEPH DUFFY

CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS IN NIPISSING

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

SUPPORT FOR ONTARIO'S YOUTH

PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

DEFERRED VOTES

TOBACCO CONTROL STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT

À LA RÉGLEMENTATION

DE L'USAGE DU TABAC

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTRY OF HEALTH SPENDING

MANDATORY RETIREMENT

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

MINISTER'S SPENDING

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

ONTARIO JOINT REPLACEMENT REGISTRY

GENERAL MOTORS OF CANADA

WATER QUALITY

TOBACCO CONTROL

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

CANADA-ONTARIO RESEARCH

AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

MINISTER'S SPENDING

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY 406

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

REFUNDABLE CONTAINERS

HALTON RECYCLING PLANT

HEALTH CARE

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

GASOLINE PRICES

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

SCHOOL FACILITIES

TENANT PROTECTION

OPPOSITION DAY

SUPPORT FOR AGRICULTURE

AND RURAL ONTARIO

ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

SUR L'ENVIRONNEMENT

EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'EXÉCUTION

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY AND

SUPPORT ARREARS ENFORCEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES OBLIGATIONS FAMILIALES

ET L'EXÉCUTION DES ARRIÉRÉS

D'ALIMENTS

TRANSPORTATION STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE TRANSPORT

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY

Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): Today marks the 10th anniversary of our party's election to government on June 8, 1995, an era that

continued with our re-election to a second consecutive majority government in 1999.

The Ontario PC Party was elected on a clear mandate of positive change. We were immediately confronted by a huge deficit, a massive debt and some of the highest

taxes anywhere in North America. Addressing these were prime targets of the Common Sense Revolution, our party's platform in 1995.

In government, we worked hard to keep our promises. We worked to restore hope and confidence. We cared about jobs and implemented policies that encouraged the

creation of hundreds of thousands of new jobs. Ours was a government that saw a challenge as an opportunity. We knew that economic growth would generate new revenues, and those revenues helped to

pay for health care, education and infrastructure even as the tax burden on Ontario's families was reduced.

I believe that Ontario's economy continues to benefit from the work we did from 1995 to 2003, but the world is not standing still and, unlike our government,

which sought to take on the world and win, we see a Liberal government today that takes economic development and job creation for granted.

Ontario must confront the new challenges emerging in the global marketplace, including the dynamic economies in the Far East. If we don't do everything we can to

compete successfully, we will lose jobs in this province. Working with industries and organizations such as the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, I tabled a motion in this House last week

calling for the standing committee on finance and economic affairs to investigate Ontario's industrial competitiveness and develop an action plan to maintain and expand our domestic and

international markets in the coming years. This motion is aimed at turning the challenges on the horizon into better opportunities for Ontario. I urge the government to act upon it before the House

rises for the summer.

CANCER FUNDRAISING

Mr. Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I would like to take the time today to tell you about a wonderful initiative in my community. On February 25

of this year, the Ottawa Hospital dental clinic and the Bytown study club co-hosted a continuing education day to raise money for the head and neck cancer fund at the Ottawa Hospital. This fund is

used to offset the cost of implants and implant prosthetics that are required for patients who have had orofacial surgery due to cancer.

Dentists at the clinic do the needed surgery and prosthetics at minimal cost by donating their time and expertise, but funds are still needed for the laboratory

portion of treatment. This is just an absolutely outstanding display of generosity and compassion.

The dental clinic itself at the Ottawa Hospital was made possible by the generous donations of the dental community of eastern Ontario and donors in the oral

health care industry. The fundraising by the Ottawa dental community to build this clinic raised approximately $1 million, and the clinic was built entirely without additional government or

hospital funds. It is the only full-service adult dental care clinic in eastern Ontario that provides specialized care for in-hospital and outpatients who are medically compromised.

I know that everyone in the House would join me in congratulating the dental community of eastern Ontario for showing themselves to be benevolent and proactive

on behalf of those who have been disadvantaged by their medical disability.

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): At an all-party MPP breakfast this morning, a senior Liberal strategist and McGuinty confidant, Warren Kinsella,

reviewed a public opinion poll on the closure of coal-fired generation stations. The survey said that 50% of people under 35 aren't aware of the reckless Liberal promise to close the coal plants by

2007, and 73% said that if the Premier delayed the plant closing by one or two years, it would make no difference in their view of the Premier. What would you expect?

I predict that the polling results may just be paving the way for yet another broken Liberal promise. Is there any surprise? There have been more than 40 broken

promises so far, and the McGuinty government seems to get away with it. This includes an increase of almost 25% in hydro customers' bills after the McGuinty government campaign promise to keep the

hydro rate protection in place. Look out in the future. I cannot help but wonder whether voters have heard so many broken promises that they have just given up.

However, I would also like to point out that today's poll showed that just less than 50% of Ontarians remain nervous under the control of the Liberals'

electricity system following the blackout a couple of years ago. Just ask the Society of Energy Professionals. The numbers prove that this government has done nothing to restore Ontarians' faith in

our once proud electricity system -- except to raise the prices, of course.

JOSEPH DUFFY

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Joseph Duffy has passed away. Brother Duffy was the long-time business manager of the Provincial Building and

Construction Trades Council of Ontario. Before that, he was the business manager of the heat and frost insulators, local 95. A worker, a tradesperson in his own right, he was an insulation

mechanic.

Born in Belfast, Ireland, he was a proud Canadian, a great trade unionist and a lifelong, effective and highly regarded advocate for working women and men here

in Ontario and across Canada.

He served on a number of important boards and agencies like the Workers' Compensation Board, as it was known then, and the provincial labour management committee

for the Construction Safety Association of Ontario, the Workplace Health and Safety Agency, and he was a driving force in the foundation of the Ontario Construction Secretariat. As well, Brother

Duffy was the provincial coordinator for Dollars against Diabetes, DADs Day, raising funds to combat juvenile diabetes.

He will be remembered by so many for his tireless work to make all construction workplaces safer. Much advancement in health and safety was the result of his

hard work and dedication.

Brother Duffy will be missed by so many. We extend our sincere sympathies and condolences to his wife, Janet, and his children: Lori, Lynn, Michael, Shawn,

Steven and Mark.

CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS IN NIPISSING

Ms. Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): I rise today to congratulate a group of organizations that are contributing to building strong communities in

my riding of Nipissing and in northeastern Ontario.

Last week, the North Bay Rotary Club and the Kiwanis Clubs of North Bay and Nipissing joined together to throw an incredible fundraiser for the North Bay

Regional Health Centre. Over 500 people celebrated together the moving forward of this important project and raised $72,000 in the process. Congratulations to Chris Mayne, the chair of the event,

to the members of the North Bay Rotary Club, the Kiwanis Club of North Bay and the Kiwanis Club of Nipissing and to all the volunteers for a fabulous evening.

That same day, the Papa Joe ride took place: a motorcycle ride between North Bay and Mattawa. The 300-plus riders enjoyed a beautiful day for a ride, a great

barbecue in downtown Mattawa and a big dinner and party in North Bay.

The ride was originally started in honour of Joseph Isadore Lefebvre, or Papa Joe, as he was known, who died of cancer in 1994, but his legacy lives on. The

proceeds of this year's ride went to the North Bay Regional Health Centre. The ride raised over $70,000. I would like to congratulate Don Lefebvre, Papa Joe's son, and all the organizers for

another great event.

This past weekend, the Alzheimer Society hosted a beautiful walk on our waterfront. Over 100 people participated.

On Sunday, the Juvenile Diabetes Association held its third walk in our region, with over 350 people walking the waterfront in North Bay. They raised a total of

$102,000 over their three walks in Mattawa, Temiskaming Shores and North Bay. They had representatives from our native community and all across our community.

I'd like to congratulate the organizers of those two walks and everyone in our community who contributed to raising over $250,000 in the last two weeks in

Nipissing. Thank you for building a strong community.

LIBERAL CAMPAIGN PROMISES

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): As you know, Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago today, Ontarians voted for change in government. In fact, it was a change

that was revolutionary. It was a government that was committed to fiscal responsibility, a government committed to lower taxes, a government committed to cutting red tape and getting Ontario back

to work again, strong and prosperous.

Not only were we elected on these promises, but we delivered. We cut taxes for working families. We restored balanced budgets. We helped to create over 1.2

million new jobs in the province of Ontario. Most importantly, Mike Harris brought integrity back to politics because he did what he said he was going to do. For the first time in decades, people

could actually believe a politician when he or she made a promise.

I tell you, 10 years later, things have changed a whole bunch around this place. We've gone from politicians known as promise keepers to a new batch of promise

breakers. This was a government elected to balance the budget, but now they're going to run deficits until at least 2008. It was a government elected not to raise taxes, but what was the first

thing Dalton McGuinty did? The biggest tax increase on businesses and working families in the history of the province of Ontario.

We know that in politics, the most fragile commodity is integrity and credibility. Mike Harris and his team, elected under the Common Sense Revolution,

understood that. I'm proud to have been part of that team, and I look forward to John Tory in two years' time restoring integrity and responsibility to the province of Ontario.

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Ms. Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): The health and well-being of people with intellectual disabilities is at the forefront of this government's

agenda. This past May, Minister Pupatello announced a $41.1-million plan to strengthen specialized care for adults with disabilities.

In Hamilton West, there are a number of supports for people with disabilities, and Community Living Hamilton ensures that each of these individuals receives the

care they need in an environment that nurtures their ability to live independently and to contribute to society.

On June 16, Community Living Hamilton, alongside Community and Continuing Education, will receive the Corporate/Agency Literacy Award for their work with adults

with disabilities. They will be recognized for providing disabled people with a lifestyle that ensures a feeling of acceptance into a community alongside the comfort of residing in a nurturing

family environment. Their programs also ensure access to education, appropriate housing and pension plans that allow them to live their desired lifestyles.

I would like to take this time to commend Community Living Hamilton on their efforts to provide disabled persons with the resources and supports to live a full

and productive life. I'd also like to congratulate them on receiving this award. They deserve this recognition for the work they put into our community.

We are proud of all of the men and women who volunteer their valuable time and efforts for the betterment of our community -- all part of building a healthy,

connected community, taking responsibility for each other, and in particular those who are less likely to be able to care for themselves. It's no wonder that Hamilton is the volunteer capital of

Ontario.

SUPPORT FOR ONTARIO'S YOUTH

Mr. Tim Peterson (Mississauga South): Our Premier is becoming known as the education Premier. Therefore, it is part of the Liberal philosophy to

support our youth, and hence we believe in their education and training.

Today in the House we have four members of the Port Credit Lions Club in Mississauga South who share our values of supporting youth. As you may know, the Lions

Clubs in Ontario have established a public speaking competition for our youth as their way of assisting their training. They are to be applauded not only for their idea, but for holding this

competition for over 58 years.

Today with these members of the Lions Club are five members of the Wyman-McCarthy family, also from Mississauga South. All of them believe in strong education

for our youth. Father Tom is the principal of Bishop Scalabrini School; Kathryn, the mother, is an ESL teacher; and each of their sons has won the Lions Club public speaking contest. Imagine that:

In one family, each of the boys has won the same public speaking competition. Matthew, the oldest son, won in 1997 and 1998, the local and district competitions; Nat won in 2001; and Timothy, the

youngest son, won the all-Ontario competition this year, to the amazement of his two brothers. If any of you have a chance to hear their speeches, you'll be amazed at the quality of their delivery,

the depth of their knowledge and the high level of humour. Young Timothy will tell you that the longest palindrome is 17,259 words and that two of the more usual oxymorons are "marital bliss" and

"government organization."

As Lion Cassan, Lion Bruer, Lion Frazer and Lion Crawford rise with the members of the Wyman-McCarthy family, I hope you'll join me in applauding their support

of our youth and their participation in these public speaking contests.

PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): I would like to ask the members of the House to join me as we lament the 10th anniversary of the

commencement of the Reform-a-Tory government.

Now, when I say a phrase, I want members to visualize what this means to them: unrest in our classrooms, cuts to social housing, disrespect for public service,

hospital closures, Hula Hoops, disregard for the environment, Walkerton, downloading to municipalities, neglect of the energy sector, tax cuts versus social programs, poor-bashing, the minimum wage

freeze, the 407 rip-off, the Magna budget, contempt of our Legislature, a $5.6-billion deficit.

If you could paint a picture of the Reform-a-Tory legacy, what you would see is bleak. They told Ontarians that the drastic cuts were needed in order to balance

the books. They told Ontarians it would be worth it.

What Ontarians got was eight and a half lost years and a $5.6-billion annual deficit. That's why they chose change.

Today we have John Tory's Tories, who voted against a smoke-free Ontario, voted against fiscal transparency, voted against the public health care system reforms,

voted against the greenbelt and protecting 1.8 million hectares of green space. They even voted against the best post-secondary education investment in over 40 years. I just don't see the

difference. Brand new Tory, same old story.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received the report on intended appointments dated June 8,

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Ms. Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on regulations and private bills and move

its adoption.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Mr. Todd Decker): Ms. Churley from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presents the committee's

report as follows, and moves its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr9,

An Act to revive Acton Disposal Services Limited;

Bill Pr12,

An Act respecting Tyndale University College & Seminary;

Bill Pr14,

An Act respecting the Institute for Christian Studies;

Bill Pr15,

An Act respecting the Toronto Atmospheric Fund and the Clean Air Partnership (formerly known as the Toronto Atmospheric Fund Foundation).

Your committee further recommends that the fees and the actual costs of printing at all stages be remitted on Bill Pr12,

An Act respecting Tyndale University

College & Seminary.

Your committee further recommends that the fees and the actual costs of printing at all stages be remitted on Bill Pr14,

An Act respecting the Institute for

Christian Studies.

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

DEFERRED VOTES

TOBACCO CONTROL STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT

À LA RÉGLEMENTATION

DE L'USAGE DU TABAC

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 164,

An Act to rename and amend the Tobacco Control Act, 1994, repeal the Smoking in the Workplace Act and

make complementary amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 164, Loi visant à modifier le

titre et la teneur de la Loi de 1994 sur la réglementation de l'usage du tabac, à

abroger la Loi limitant l'usage du tabac dans les lieux de travail et à apporter des modifications complémentaires à d'autres lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1350 to 1355.

The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Chudleigh, Ted

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Hampton, Howard

Horwath, Andrea

Hoy, Pat

Jackson, Cameron

Jeffrey, Linda

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Levac, Dave

Marchese, Rosario

Marsales, Judy

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGuinty, Dalton

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Mitchell, Carol

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Scott, Laurie

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Gregory S.

Tory, John

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wong, Tony C.

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

Nays

Barrett, Toby

Hardeman, Ernie

Hudak, Tim

Klees, Frank

Murdoch, Bill

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): They ayes are 71; the nays are 6.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTRY OF HEALTH SPENDING

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Premier, can you confirm that the Ministry of Health will be

spending $16.964 million more on administration this year, more so than when you took office, as per page 220 of this year's spending estimates?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I can say, with a great deal of pride on behalf of the people of

Ontario, that we are investing billions more in better health care services for the people of Ontario. I can also say that the Leader of the Opposition remains very much married to his plan to take

$2.4 billion out of our health care system. Therein lies the contrast; therein lies the difference. We continue to support medicare for all Ontarians.

Mr. Tory: Aside from the Premier's flights of fantasy about things that I've said, he remains committed to profligate spending on bureaucracy

and administration. That's what you remain committed to. If you were committed to patient care, as you said, Premier, then you'd be saying that we're not going to spend $17 million more on the

administration of the department of health -- and that's before we even get to a further discussion of the hundreds of new bureaucrats you are going to appoint.

I would simply like to ask you this question: What is the extra $17 million in administration doing for patient care that you just professed to be so committed

to in Ontario? What is that $17 million producing for them?

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

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): As we had the privilege earlier this week of tabling estimates before the

Legislature, I'll rely on those and invite the honourable member, not just for the briefing that we've offered repeatedly, but also to meet up in the estimates committee, where we'll have an

opportunity to go over all of the ministries' work.

From the estimates of the Ministry of Health, to be found on page 6, are numbers that I think would prove interesting for the honourable member. They show the

beginning of a decrease in 2005-06 for the ministry administration line, and this is part of a 10% overall reduction in ministry administration that my ministry will achieve over the next three

years.

Mr. Tory: Of course I had seen the line; it's on the same page that I referred to. But it's coming from the same bunch who overspent their

budgets everywhere last year by hundreds of million of dollars. In fact, even on the administration spending for the Ministry of Health itself, you overspent last year. So it's telling that you

can't name one patient benefit that comes from the fact that you are spending $17 million more on administering the Ministry of Health, just administering the department. You can't name one health

benefit from that. You're spending that $17 million since you took office, and last year when you came forward and had estimates, they weren't to be relied upon, so why should we rely on that this

year when you have flatlined it?

I just want to know, again, why you think it's OK to blow $17 million more administering your department since you took office. What benefits are people who

are paying twice the health tax going to get from you this year for that?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: I'd like to reiterate to the honourable member that it's a decision made by my ministry, and presented clearly in our

estimates, that we will reduce our administrative costs by 10% over three years. That represents a reduction of some $39 million, further evidence of our view that we can do better and make more

appropriate use of the important resources that Ontarians provide.

The honourable member asks, what can patients point to in the province of Ontario? Just a couple of examples: The bill that we just passed, Bill 164, the

Smoke-Free Ontario Act, has associated with it a very aggressive plan to help people stay off tobacco in the first place, on prevention, and also on cessation. Each of these initiatives is one that

will incur some modest investment on ministry administration, because it does take important people in the ministry, in the public health unit, to be able to support the important healthier Ontario

objectives we are advancing, with obvious patient benefits.

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

Mr. Tory: The fact of the matter is, the money that's being spent on the anti-smoking campaign is contained pages on, and you know that. It

has nothing to do with administration. This is just administrative fat.

My new question is to the Premier. There is a troubling pattern emerging here: no answers on how wasting $17 million on ministry administration is advancing

the cause of health care at all in Ontario. Yesterday, incredibly, your Minister of Health disputed his own leaked cabinet document. He said no, he's not hiring 560 new bureaucrats as part of your

LHIN program; it's really only 320 new bureaucrats who are being hired at great public expense. I think if you were to ask the people whether they would prefer you hired 320 doctors and nurses with

their hard-earned tax dollars they are paying you twice as many of this year for the health tax, they'd pick the doctors and nurses 10 times out of 10.

My question is this, Premier. Since your minister and you and everybody else don't believe your own cabinet documents, what is the total cost of setting up

your new regional health bureaucracy, the cost of hiring and firing all these people, and the cost of the hundreds of new bureaucrats you're hiring? What is the total cost?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Apparently, the Leader of the Opposition has a document which he is not prepared to share with us. But let me tell you that

the real numbers were advanced yesterday by the Minister of Health, and Ontarians are now aware of those.

I find it passing strange that the leader of the Conservative Party would embrace this. What we have are effectively nine separate silos. We're talking about

our hospitals, our long-term-care homes, our community care access centres, our community health centres, our ministry regional offices, our mental health programs and our five academic health

science centres. When you add all those up, those nine silos come out to over 1,200 distinct health care organizations. My friend opposite may feel that you can run over 1,200 organizations from

downtown Toronto through Queen's Park, but we believe that we should move the management and integration of those programs into the communities, where people in the local communities have more

control over their health care.

Mr. Tory: It's a bit ironic, this coming from the greatest centralizer I think we've seen in Ontario history.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, Minister of Community and Social Services.

Mr. Tory: Only this McGuinty Liberal government could talk about this rationalization of functions and so forth, and do it and create this

so-called greater efficiency by adding hundreds of bureaucrats. Only you could do that.

Your own estimates documents, released yesterday by your government, show that you are spending $17 million more just administering the Ministry of Health

since you took office.

I want to quote from the this leaked cabinet document that we talked about yesterday: "There is insufficient detail regarding restructuring plans ... whether a

full analysis ... has been done, how the ministry will coordinate a network of 14 LHINs into a provincial system, etc."

Instead of wasting any more of our tax dollars on what you just talked about, when it's clear you have no plan -- there clearly is no legislation -- will you

put a freeze on this program until such time as you come before this House with legislation that will set some parameters on how much is spent, how it's spent and whether it really will bring any

benefits for patients of Ontario, who are paying twice as many of your health tax dollars this year as they did last year? Will you bring that forward?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I guess it's apt. They call themselves Conservatives, and they are truly defenders of the status quo. But more than just

that, the Leader of the Opposition does not trust people in their own communities to take more responsibility for deciding the best way possible to spend money in their communities to ensure they

get access to the best possible health care. He says that we should maintain the nine separate silos, maintain the distinct and separate 1,200 health care organizations and that we should run all

of that from downtown Toronto. We've got a different view. We think we should move services out, move management out and move integration out into the communities, because we have confidence in the

people of Ontario. They know best when it comes to how to spend their dollars on their health care.

Mr. Tory: I'll tell you who you think knows best. You think the people who know best are new, high-priced bureaucrats appointed by you and

that they will replace the very people you're talking about involving. The hospitals today are run by local people on hospital boards, and those boards are going to be emasculated by your new

bureaucracy that you are putting in place at a cost of millions of taxpayers' dollars.

These new regional health bureaucracies will be responsible for spending somewhere in the order of $17 billion to $20 billion in taxpayers' money, as your

minister said yesterday.

The cabinet document is rife with examples of wasteful spending, inadequate details and poor planning, and you can't answer any questions today about why your

administrative costs are going up by million of dollars.

My question is this: Do you think it is reasonable to move any further along with this whole program when you have no plan, no legislation, there are no

parameters, you can't tell us why you are hiring hundreds of people, and there are disputes about how much you are spending? We just know it's millions of hard-earned tax dollars. The whole thing

is a shambles. Will you stop it now and bring legislation to this House?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: We're moving forward. We are bound and determined to improve health care for Ontarians, and part and parcel of that moves

the decision-making away from Queen's Park, away from the ministry and into the local communities, because we have confidence in the people of Ontario.

We're proud to say that this is a made-in-Ontario solution that will empower local communities. We are going to take full advantage of existing hospital

boards. We are getting directors for LHINs from within the community itself, all at a very reasonable price for the people of Ontario.

I might contrast that with just one small but telling example. On their watch, the Tories hired a communications adviser to the minister for over $300,000 on

an annual basis. We have a different approach. We will take full advantage of the expertise and goodwill found in Ontario communities when it comes to improving the quality of their health

care.

MANDATORY RETIREMENT

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, you said, "We just think it's wrong to discriminate

against people on the basis of age." But under your work-seniors-until-they-drop bill, an employer in the same workplace could provide employment benefits, like dental benefits, medical benefits

and disability insurance benefits, while at the same time denying those benefits to workers aged 65 and over. That sounds like a two-tier workforce to me: workers under age 65 with benefits;

workers aged 65 and over, no benefits.

Premier, maybe you could explain how that is not age discrimination.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): It's interesting to note that the NDP have come out fully opposed to a

recommendation of the Ontario Human Rights Commissioner. This is a matter of human rights. We believe that just because you reach the age of 65, that shouldn't impose some artificial requirement on

you that somehow disqualifies you from continuing to work and to make a contribution in the workplace. We think it is right that when you do reach the age of 65, you should have the choice as to

whether or not you continue to work. We think it's a matter of fundamental human rights. We have come out on the side that says that seniors should have the right to choose whether or not they wish

to continue to work. If the member opposite believes in continuing discrimination, then he should just stand up and say so.

Mr. Hampton: Forgive me, but I don't think I heard an answer. I heard lots of wordage, but no answer.

Here is the reality, and I'm sure you don't want seniors to know this: Under the legislation you introduced yesterday, an employer like Wal-Mart or Home Depot

could be contractually required to provide medical insurance, dental insurance and disability insurance for their workers under age 65; at the same time, they could say to workers aged 65 and over,

"None of those benefits for you." It just seems to me, on the face of the record, the McGuinty government here is not only allowing for some pretty serious age discrimination, but you're literally

inviting the Home Depots and Wal-Marts of the world to engage in that kind of age discrimination.

I say to you, doesn't that look like a two-tier workforce to you? How does the McGuinty government justify that kind of age discrimination?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: The NDP are in favour of age discrimination. The only conclusion that we can draw from the position taken by the leader of

the NDP is that they are in favour of discrimination on the basis of age. We will not support that. Ed Broadbent was elected fairly recently at the age of 67. Stanley Knowles was elected for the

last time at the age of 71. Lloyd Robertson, a respected Canadian, is the national CTV news anchor at the age now of 71 years. We feel that people should have the right to continue to work beyond

the age of 65, should they choose to do so. We think to say anything opposite to that is to support discrimination. We stand against discrimination.

Mr. Hampton: Excuse me, but I don't think I heard an answer this time either. Let's face it, there are all kinds of people out there who are

older than age 64 who are working. So when you try to say, "Oh, this is all about ensuring choice," all kinds of people choose to work. This is about other, more important things. This is about

things like the economic security to retire with some dignity.

What I see you're doing here is making an invitation to Wal-Mart and Home Depot: "Hire seniors. Don't worry. We'll give you a discount workforce. You won't

have to pay dental benefits. You won't have to pay insurance benefits. You won't have to pay medical benefits. You can get them really cheap."

What I hear seniors saying is, "We'd like to retire earlier. We'd like to retire with a pension, in dignity, with economic security." When's that going to

happen?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Mr. Alvin Curling): Order. The member from Essex, order.

Have you completed your question?

Mr. Hampton: I was trying to, but I think there are some Liberals who don't want to hear this question.

When I talk to workers, what they say to me is, "We'd like to retire earlier." When I talk to teachers, they'd like to retire earlier. When I talk to civil

servants, they'd like to retire earlier. When are we going to see --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: We're not doing anything by means of this legislative change that would prevent somebody from retiring at an earlier age.

If people can retire at an earlier age, then all the more power to them. We have no objection to that whatsoever. What we're saying is that just as people should have the right to retire sooner,

they should have the right to retire later. What we're doing by way of this legislation is ending mandatory retirement and, at the same time, we are protecting existing pension benefits and earlier

retirement rights. Ours is a fair, reasonable and rational approach.

There was extensive consultation that was taken by the minister and Mr. Kevin Flynn. We heard from many groups. The advice we received was factored in.

Obviously there will be committee hearings, and we'll have time to hear from many more.

But the principle is sound. We believe, in the province of Ontario, at the beginning of the 21st century, you should have the right to continue to choose, when

you reach the age of 65, to continue to work.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr. Hampton: To the Premier: I believe that all those people who want to retire earlier, who choose to retire earlier while they still have

good health, while they can enjoy their families, all those people who want to retire with economic security, deserve some attention. But the reality is that 60% of workers in Ontario have no

workplace pension. They're not interested in working for Wal-Mart or Home Depot without dental insurance, medical coverage, liability insurance and at dirt cheap wages with no pension.

I'm asking you, Premier, rather than facilitating a two-tier workforce for Wal-Mart and Home Depot, when are we going to see the real priority that people

have: pension reform that ensures workers can retire earlier with economic security and dignity rather than having to work longer and harder for less?

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

Hon. Christopher Bentley (Minister of Labour): In fact, the honourable member would perpetuate a two-tier system by denying all people who

reach 65 the right to protection against age discrimination. That's just wrong in our society.

We have done this, though -- and let's be very clear -- in a way that will protect the pension, the early retirement and the benefit rights that workers now

enjoy and have asked not to be undermined. We have a responsibility to all workers in the province. We're going to protect all workers in the province. This is a fundamental human right, and we're

proud to stand and say, "An end to age discrimination for all Ontarians."

Mr. Hampton: I notice that the Premier, after failing to answer the question, now doesn't want to even address the question.

I simply say to the government, I don't think you're protecting anyone here. You're going to end up in situations where, in the same workplace, you have

workers under age 65 who enjoy a dental package, medical benefits, disability benefits, and beside them will be another worker who, because they're over age 64, has none of those benefits. How can

you describe that as protecting older workers?

I can see where Wal-Mart and Home Depot will love this: the McGuinty government providing them with low-wage seniors, and they don't have to pay for medical

insurance, they don't have to pay for a dental package, they won't have to pay for liability insurance. How is it fair to older workers to say to them, "Work longer and harder for less, with no

employment benefits"?

Hon. Mr. Bentley: Right now, workers who turn 65 have no protections whatsoever unless they've negotiated that with the employer, individually

or collectively. This is a historic change in the law to make sure that protection against age discrimination continues. We must make this change, or workers out there who are more than 65 will

continue to have no protection. But we have been very careful -- you cannot undermine pension and benefits rights. Enhancing benefits for all workers in all walks of life is a very important goal

of this government. But that's not what this bill does; it's not meant to do that. That's an important conversation for another time. This bill extends protection against age discrimination. It

will protect all the workers of Ontario and give workers the right to choose. Why is the honourable member against letting workers decide for themselves whether they continue to work?

Mr. Hampton: Here is the situation: I see teachers across the province who want to bargain early retirement; I see civil servants who want to

bargain early retirement; for the pulp and paper industry across this province, the bigger issue was bargaining earlier retirement with a decent pension. What is the McGuinty government's response?

The McGuinty government's response is, you can work longer and harder at Wal-Mart and Home Depot, you can work without medical benefits, you can work without dental benefits, you can work without

disability insurance. I think that's the answer of the minister of cheap labour. I don't think this is a minister looking out for seniors; this is a minister of cheap labour.

My question again is, when are you going to respond to the real interests of older workers, of all workers? They want to retire earlier. They want to have a

decent pension system so they have pension coverage. They want to retire with economic security. They want to be able to retire with dignity. When are we going to see pension reform rather than

The Speaker: Minister of Labour?

Hon. Mr. Bentley: I'm looking forward to the debate when the member has had a chance to read the bill. He will see that there is nothing to

prevent teachers, public servants and anybody else from bargaining whatever they wish to bargain.

Sometimes the content of the rhetoric is given greater colour when we look at the record. Let's see what the NDP did for working people when they had the

chance. What did they do with the pension benefits guarantee fund that protects the pensions of workers? They gave companies a holiday. What did they do for injured workers, some of the most

desperately poor in the province? They put their hand in injured workers' pockets and took money out of those pockets. And what about those collective agreements the member speaks of? Well, it's

called the social contract -- ripped up the agreement, took money away and took away benefits. We won't do what the NDP did. We stand for the working people of this province --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): A question to the Minister of Health: Your regional health bureaucracies are in disarray; in fact, they're

rapidly becoming a debacle for the McGuinty government as a whole. To make matters worse, your supersized LHIN is taking local decision-making right out of the Niagara Peninsula. Seven

municipalities have written to you to protest this. Pelham, Thorold, Welland, Port Colborne, Grimsby, Wainfleet and Fort Erie all agree that the supersized LHIN is bad for Niagara's health.

Minister, if you truly care about local decision-making, why are you ignoring the voice of local municipal leaders?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I haven't ignored the voice of local municipal leaders. I had a terrifically

positive meeting with the regional chair of Niagara, Peter Partington, on this very issue. In his supplementary, perhaps the honourable member could stand in his place and tell me what local

decision-making has been taken away as a result of our decisions.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Supplementary?

Mr. Cameron Jackson (Burlington): Minister, one of the major concerns is your lack of openness through this process, and now we learn that

there are going to be political appointments for all of these. That's one of the issues of local autonomy. But your decision will be devastating for the region of Halton, which you have divided

into three separate LHINs. They have done years of work to create a regionalized system of health delivery.

No one, in fact, has come out and endorsed this plan. Joyce Savoline, the regional chair, has come out against your plan. Community Development Halton has come

out against your plan, Oakville Mayor Ann Mulvale, the VON in Halton and the Halton CCAC -- and the list keeps growing. Minister, will you be honest with the taxpayers of Halton? Will you involve

the Halton taxpayers as you radically restructure health care and rob Halton of its local autonomy?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: I'm very pleased to report to this House that the honourable member is out of date. If he turned around and spoke to his

colleague the member from Halton, he would know that as a result of the interventions of Joyce Savoline, someone that I know well and have worked with very closely on this issue, we have been able

to make very serious alterations to the local health integration network boundary. With the involvement of the member, we've been able to move the Georgetown hospital to a more appropriate

placement within the Halton health services family. We think this is an important advancement.

At the end of the day, what our model will have is people from Halton, people who live in Halton, exercising decisions which right now I have the privilege of

making from my office in the Hepburn Block. This is all about community engagement. As the honourable member may have had a chance to consult with his colleagues, he'll know that of the 42 people,

two very fine people from Halton region are already stepping forward. They're community-minded people, they're not partisan people, and they're going to make really well-informed decisions on

behalf of the patients in the province.

MINISTER'S SPENDING

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): A question to the Premier. Premier, in 2003, you stood in this House and said to then-Premier Eves, "It is

wrong to run some $25,000 in family expenses through the riding association." Do you still believe it's inappropriate for a member to finance personal vacations and expensive meals through a riding

association?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I look forward to hearing the supplementary, Speaker.

Mr. Kormos: Premier, this is the annual return for the Ontario Liberal riding association of York South-Weston, the riding of the Minister for

Economic Development and Trade. If a page will come here, I'll send it over to you. It reveals an orgy of spending by your minister: meals in Parisian restaurants, hotel stays in Milan, the latest

plays of the London theatre, even $1,000 suits from local haberdashers, all paid for by the riding association.

Donors who wanted the ear of your government poured money into that riding association and Junket Joe blew it tripping the light fantastic. Premier, do you

still believe this is inappropriate? What are you going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Let me say that I have had the good fortune of having Joe Cordiano serve as my Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

I know that he's been working very hard on behalf of all the people of Ontario. I know that requires extensive travel on his part. I know that he is absolutely scrupulous when it comes to making

expenditures. I know that he honours all of the rules. I know that he does his utmost to make sure that he is balanced and fair. I can say that I have complete confidence in any way that Minister

Cordiano has brought to dealing with his expenditures.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Mario Sergio (York West): My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. With all the hot weather we have been

having lately, we know that summer is approaching. The arrival of summer means that the youth in my riding of York West are finishing their last days of school and many of them will begin to look

for work and training. Summer work provides youth in my riding not only with a source of income but also with invaluable experience for whatever career path they may choose. Summer employment

provides students with training and new skills while also offering students a better understanding of a particular line of work to help them determine whether it is the best choice for them as they

reach toward their career goals.

There are some college and university students in my riding who are still looking for work this summer, while high school students have just a few weeks left

before they are ready to enter the summer job market. Minister, it is vital that students are offered assistance in finding the right opportunity this summer. By helping students in their summer

job search, we will be helping them reach their full potential in the years ahead. Minister, can you please --

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Mary Anne V. Chambers (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): I'm grateful to the member for York West for his question,

because I would like to share with him, and with everyone else in the House so they can share it with their constituents, the fact that our government has announced support for well more than

57,000 young people who may wish to have some summer experience. These opportunities are available from April to September. It involves services from my ministry's offices through 100 Job Connect

agencies in 80 communities. I would encourage our young people to avail themselves of these opportunities, and I would encourage community organizations to avail themselves of the $2-per-hour wage

subsidy that will give these young people work experience. The youth jobs Web site and the Job Grow help line will provide more details on what is available to them.

Mr. Sergio: Other youth in my riding have an entrepreneurial spirit and have already begun thinking about starting their own businesses, with

hopes of great future success. Many, however, have difficulty knowing where to start, and become discouraged and distressed. Teens, either in school or out of school, need a sense of direction and

encouragement from those in authority. When youth feel empowered, it spreads to their peers and can cause a great positive change in communities. Minister, what is being done to reassure the youth

in York West that their ambitions will not go unnoticed and their desire for starting their own business will come to fruition?

Hon. Mrs. Chambers: I think my colleague the Minister of Economic Development and Trade would love to talk about that subject.

Hon. Joseph Cordiano (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I'm happy to report that last March --

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Nice suit, Joe.

Hon. Mr. Cordiano: This one I paid for myself, I'll have you know. Most of these expenses I paid for myself. You know, you sink to a new low

when you stoop to that level, but that's fine.

Mr. Kormos: I just said it was a nice suit.

Hon. Mr. Cordiano: You choose to do that; that's the lack of your integrity.

We announced the Ontario summer job strategy, and through that program 57,000 young people will get the chance to find jobs or start their own businesses.

That's a good thing for the economy of Ontario. The summer company program is a program that's administered by my ministry. It helps students aged 15 to 29 start up and run their summer businesses.

We award up to $1,500 in May and June to help businesses with start-up costs. It's been a very successful program, and I am proud of the fact that we support young people in the province.

ONTARIO JOINT REPLACEMENT REGISTRY

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): My question is for the Minister of Health. The Ontario joint replacement registry was established

in 2000 to collect data on full wait times; that is, from the initial visit to the family doctor, to the specialist, through surgery and outcomes, with the goal of providing timely access to hip

and knee surgery and improving patient outcomes. The information collected helps reduce the need for redo surgeries, which take longer to recover from and are more invasive and costly.

Minister, why have you decided to centralize control and cancel the Ontario joint replacement registry when your new provincial wait-time data will no longer

provide the full wait times to patients from family doctor to specialist to surgery, which is about 205 days, but only wait times from specialist to surgery, about 139 days? Is this part of your

plan to control the data so that wait times will respond to your promise to reduce wait times?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): The little motive stinger that the honourable member offers at the end of the

question doesn't do anything except help emphasize the obvious, which is that we're actually talking about wait times in this province, as evidenced by our government's focus on it. We believe it's

imperative that we produce a better result for Ontarians in this important area. I want to tell the honourable member that this afternoon I'm having a meeting with folks from the Ontario joint

registry. As we move toward a model of wait times that puts the information available on a Web site for all Ontarians to see, I think we are making progress, but at the same time I recognize the

contribution that has been made by the Ontario orthopaedic surgeon community. We will make sure that the value of the data they collect continues to be made available to the Ontario health care

system. I think we're going to make some progress on that even this afternoon in our meeting.

Mrs. Witmer: I would say to the minister that the Ontario Arthritis Society wants you to cancel your decision to terminate the Ontario joint

replacement registry. They understand and they know that support to patients is going to be lost, valuable outcome data are going to be lost, data that help reduce surgery and wait times for hip

and knee by reducing revision surgeries. Minister, why have you made the decision to go back to the 1970s, to no longer support the patients and collect the data that show how well implants and

surgery techniques are working to help provide the best possible care and outcome for patients who have severe arthritis and require hip and knee replacements?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: The honourable member in one breath herself embraces the status quo. She is just like the rest of that bunch over there.

It's Tory, Tory, same old story. You ask a question because someone sent you a press release. Your party is practising fax machine politics. You stand by the fax machine and wait for your message

of the day. But the reality, as I said in my first answer, is that we are working with this group. We can do better --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: Well, I'm having a meeting this afternoon. That's pretty good evidence of the work we're doing together. At the end of

the day, the answer is not to be found in the status quo. The status quo wasn't working for patients in Ontario. They were waiting too long. We are a government that is dedicated to the task of

reducing wait times in five key areas, and we will, but we will do so in a way that works with the orthopods and makes sure important quality data are not lost. That is the bottom-line commitment I

offer to the honourable member.

GENERAL MOTORS OF CANADA

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Premier, workers at the General Motors plant in St. Catharines are reeling at the announcement by General

Motors of the elimination of 25,000 jobs in the United States and significant reduction in production by General Motors across North America. What are you going to do to save those very important

jobs, important to their families, important to Niagara, important to Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I would ask the member opposite, where was he when we put forward our

half-billion-dollar strategic auto sector investment fund? They opposed that plan and we were successful in landing several billion dollars' worth of new investment in Ontario. Obviously we are

paying attention to this news south of the border. We've had our eye on this for some time. They have made an announcement, and obviously they're going to lose 25,000 US jobs, but I think we enjoy

some distinct advantages here in Ontario that we should be mindful of. Number one, in Oshawa we've got the most productive auto assembly plant in North America for GM.

Secondly, CAMI, which is a joint venture between GM and, I think, Suzuki, has recently announced they're going to hire 400 more people. In addition to that,

one of the advantages we enjoy is simply by virtue of medicare, which gives employers here a real edge over their American counterparts. So I remain very optimistic of where we are going with

respect to the auto sector in Ontario. I understand there will undoubtedly be some implications flowing from the job losses down there, but we remain very optimistic.

Mr. Kormos: Tony Van Alphen, in the Toronto Star, reports that Niagara region has lost 10,000 manufacturing jobs over the last decade --

10,000 in Niagara region alone. In the period of time between 1995 and 2005, there were 10,000 jobs lost. This has a serious impact on the economy of Niagara. A reduction in GM production, the

termination of 25,000 jobs by General Motors in the United States, has General Motors workers in St. Catharines extremely concerned about their futures, their families' futures and their

community's future. What are you going to do about those jobs that have been put at risk now by the announcement by General Motors of the reduction in production in the United States?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I think it's important to note, by way of contrast, that during the NDP years in government, this economy lost 1,000 jobs

every week. I thought it was going to be "month," but it's "week"; we lost 1,000 jobs a week. So far, during our 18 months, we have over 145,000 new jobs that were created by this economy.

It's no secret that we've gone to the wall for the auto sector. Frankly, we've taken a bit of a hit from some other sectors, who are saying, "What about us?"

But we understand it's such an important foundational part of our economy that we've set aside half a billion dollars and are engaging in some partnership activities with our auto sector people. We

remain very optimistic. We are mindful of activities taking place south of the border and what's happening in the global economy with respect to shifts in the auto sector, but I think we are poised

here in Ontario for a significant rebirth of the auto sector. We've made some announcements, and we look forward to making more in the future.

WATER QUALITY

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. About a year ago, I asked you a question in this

Legislature about water quality in Lake Huron. Lake Huron has many beautiful beaches and is a major tourist attraction in my riding, yet public beaches continue to be closed due to high levels of

bacteria detected in water along the shoreline. Many concerned citizens in my riding would like to finds solutions to the ongoing pollution problem in Lake Huron. What is our government doing to

address the problems associated with bacterial contamination along the Lake Huron shoreline?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of the Environment): I very much appreciate the opportunity and also the good work of the honourable member

for advocating on this very important issue. I've also heard, and she has been in attendance at the meetings when municipal representatives and community representatives have come to my office to

raise these important concerns. Last year, as a result of that, we created the Lake Huron science committee, which was to review existing information about the shoreline water quality. The science

committee recently completed its review, and they've indicated that bacterial contamination is not worsening; however, additional study is needed. Our government and the Ministry of the Environment

have committed $48,000 to the University of Guelph to further study the problem. As well, we have committed $50,000 to Huron county to enhance its water quality monitoring.

We are moving forward. We are prepared to support community efforts. We do take water quality in the province of Ontario very seriously.

Mrs. Mitchell: I know that the people in my riding will be very pleased to know that our government has renewed its commitment to better

protect water quality in Lake Huron and across all of our Great Lakes.

A report released today by PollutionWatch points out that the Great Lakes are threatened by industrial air pollution as well. The report states that 45% of all

toxic air pollution reported in Canada in 2002 was produced in the Great Lakes basin. This report will come as a shock to the citizens in my riding. Minister, what assurances can you provide that

our government is addressing the air pollution concerns that PollutionWatch has highlighted?

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: I do have the report that the honourable member has referenced. I was very interested, and I have to say somewhat

heartened, that in 2005, the grade that the province of Ontario has received is a C-plus, and we need to improve that. But I could not help but note that over the last 10 years, it has not been a

C-plus since 1995, and in seven of the last 10 years, under the Tory government, it was F. In fact, in one year it was F-minus. I don't know how you get an F-minus.

If you look at the 10 top polluters, three of the worst polluters are coal-fired generators in the province of Ontario. Our government is committed to

replacing coal-fired generation. We have already closed one coal-fired plant.

We are also committed to a five-point air plan that is going to improve air quality in Ontario by reducing NO x and SO x emissions. We are

committed to investing two cents of the gas tax in public transit, getting more vehicles off the road. We are committed to cleaner gasoline. We take our commitment to improve air quality very

seriously, and I think the actions of our government demonstrate that.

TOBACCO CONTROL

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): To the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Minister, your government's

Smoke-Free Ontario Act and tobacco tax hikes created close to 300 smoke shops on New Credit and Six Nations. Six Nations Police and the local newspaper are reporting who benefits: the Hells Angels,

the Vagabonds, organized crime. And it gets worse. I quote the Tekka newspaper: "There is specific evidence to the presence of major motorcycle gang operations, the Italian mafia, Russian mafia,

Sri Lankan and Asian mafias, as well as Jamaican drug gang operatives working in the relative safety of native communities."

A Seneca Road smoke shop was shut down because of a partnership with the PLO.

Minister, do you not know what's going on at Six Nations? If you do know, why no action? What are you afraid of?

Hon. Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): I find the member's question very interesting. If you knew

anything about the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, or the former Solicitor General, I have responsibility for overall policing in Ontario, but I do not have responsibility

for administering every single police service. That is an operational matter for the police. If these issues are known, the police will investigate and do what they have to do. It would be

inappropriate for me to tell police what they should be doing in their capacity in providing police services, and the member should know that.

Mr. Barrett: Minister, we have the OPP at New Credit. We have Six Nations with their own force. They need help. The smoke shops are out of

control. You're leaving Six Nations Police out on a limb. They need help. They could use some of that $8 billion in tobacco taxes that your government and other governments collect across the

Dominion of Canada.

Your government has created this dangerous situation. Minister, why have you turned your back on police at Six Nations and New Credit?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: With all due respect, I haven't turned my back on anybody. The Six Nations Police Service knows exactly what their

responsibilities are. They know what their reporting responsibilities are, and they do that. The OPP are in exactly the same position. They have their responsibilities. They are a force that has

the ability to go in and deal with crime wherever it's found.

That is, as I said earlier, an operational matter for those particular police agencies. It is not my responsibility to direct police services. That is

something that that particular government, given an inquiry that's going on at the present moment, should know very much about and understand that there is a separation between my role as minister

and the role of the police services.

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Premier. Mr. Premier, you're very fond of referencing the funding gap between the

province of Ontario and the federal government. You've been less attentive to the funding gap of your own making between the province of Ontario and the municipalities. The Conference Board of

Canada's report yesterday identified that Toronto will suffer a $1-billion gap in the year 2006, most of which is for initiatives and responsibilities of the province. Surely the same rules apply

for the city of Toronto and the province as you've laid out for the province and the Canadian government.

My question to you is very simple: Will you commit to ending the $1-billion gap in the same way you're asking for the federal government to end the gap in

Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): There is a big difference, at minimum when it comes to the goodwill

that we have demonstrated.

I appreciate the question and I appreciate that some folks at the city of Toronto are bringing forward some information, but what I hope everybody appreciates

is that we got into this file a long time ago. We have made a commitment to introduce legislation by the end of this calendar year to put Toronto on a stronger footing. We have a consultation

process that's going to take place this very summer. So we are into this.

We don't need to be convinced that we need to work together to put the city of Toronto on a stronger footing. That is not an issue for us. The only issue is

what is the best way to get there. We're bringing something to the table that has been missing for decades, and it's called goodwill.

Mr. Prue: Mr. Premier, the billion-dollar gap that the city of Toronto is talking about -- or, more correctly, the Conference Board of Canada

-- already includes your new money, such as the gas tax transfer to the city of Toronto.

The Conference Board stated, "Toronto's local government is in dire need of a new fiscal arrangement -- either through new revenue sharing or a reduction in

financial responsibilities -- to become fiscally sustainable."

Mr. Premier, either share your revenues with Toronto or take back the downloaded costs. Which one is it going to be?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: The member opposite may not appreciate this, but we are in fact involved in some very productive discussions with

representatives of the city of Toronto.

Even before those got underway, we have obviously lessened some of the financial burdens on the city of Toronto: We have proceeded with a gas tax, something

that is without precedent; we are uploading public health; there is a $1-billion investment in GO Transit and a $1-billion investment in the TTC; something the member may think is worth discounting

but we think is very important is that we continue to invest billions of dollars in Toronto schools and in Toronto hospitals. We think that those things happen to be very important to

Torontonians.

I say, in

summary, that we have a good foundation built of goodwill between myself, the mayor and our respective executives, and we look forward to working

together to put Toronto on a stronger foundation.

CANADA-ONTARIO RESEARCH

AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Mrs. Liz Sandals (Guelph-Wellington): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. This past Saturday you made an announcement on

behalf of the province, in partnership with the federal government. The announcement was quite fitting. Just last week, we were reminded of the financial hardships that the cattle sector has been

facing due to BSE when they hosted their barbecue on the front lawn of Queen's Park.

Minister, you made an announcement that will benefit the cattle sector, and in particular the Ontario Cattle Feeders Association, the Ontario Veal Association

and other groups, as they work toward achieving long-term goals. Could you please tell us more about this announcement.

Hon. Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I'm very proud to work in partnership with the federal government to announce a

$35-million investment in the Canada-Ontario research and development program. It demonstrates and fits very clearly into what the Premier is all about, because Premier McGuinty is an individual

who has a long-term vision for agriculture, and that's what this is all about: long-term viability.

Over 70 projects were funded through the CORD program. It is very interesting to see some of these projects, including the Ontario veal industry and the

Ontario Cattle Feeders Association for the Ontario corn-fed program, because the goal is what we have been talking about: the long term.

What these announcements are going to do is give the opportunity to the cattle feeders and the veal association to conduct research and better market their

product to make sure that Ontarians recognize the safe, high-quality, nutritious food they are putting on the table, and make sure that when they go into a store, they are buying local and buying

Ontario.

Mrs. Sandals: Thank you, Minister. Your announcement will go a long way to help rural Ontarians who work hard day in and day out to provide us

with quality food products. The crisis they face is one that needs special long-term attention. Our government recognizes the importance of long-term thinking, and realizes the value of research

and development projects in the agriculture industry. We believe that through advancing science and technology, with a focus on quality and safety, our agricultural sector can truly be a

world-class leader.

Minister, my constituents at the University of Guelph want to know how they can apply for funding under the Canada-Ontario research and development fund.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Peters: It's interesting to hear the heckling from the other side as they talk about their pride in the 10th anniversary of the

election of their government. When they were elected, they went and cut $14 million directly out of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. There was no forward thinking on the other side. They just

lurched from crisis to crisis.

We are taking a different approach. We are looking ahead. We are being forward-thinking. I'm proud of the work the member has done in promoting the University

of Guelph and those great facilities we have there, because the heart of research and development in agriculture and the agri-food industry is in Guelph. What is so great about it is that they are

looking ahead; they are forward-thinking. That very same approach is what we are doing and moving forward with as well.

They can apply by getting in touch with the Agricultural Adaptation Council. The council plays a very important role in administering these funds and in

reviewing these programs. There is an additional $28 million available for projects in this pot.

MINISTER'S SPENDING

Mr. Ted Chudleigh (Halton): My question is to the Premier. When you were over here in the 37th Parliament, your now Attorney General and your

now Minister of Health attacked our Minister of Environment on a daily basis for incurring expenses while overseas and charging them through his riding association. Premier, your Minister of

Economic Development and Trade is doing exactly the same thing. Why was it not OK then, and why is it OK now?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I will say again that I have complete faith in the Minister of Economic

Development and Trade, in his handling of these kinds of matters and in the appropriateness of the expenditures he has made.

Mr. Chudleigh: Premier, Chris Stockwell resigned. He was driven out of politics because of the attack methods that you used on him through

what you are now calling legitimate expenses. This is the worst case of double standards that I have ever experienced.

Can't you see that this is wrong: buying suits in London for $1,300; buying luggage; staying in hotels in Toronto, where he has an apartment? This is wrong and

it's a double standard. Are you going to ask for his resignation?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I know the minister would like to speak to this, Speaker.

Hon. Joseph Cordiano (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): All of these expenses have been thoroughly canvassed; they've been audited.

These reports have been audited and none of these expenses is inappropriate. The Integrity Commissioner has gone thoroughly through my expenses on travel-related matters. These have nothing to do

with that. In fact, when I stayed in Milan, what the previous member was referring to --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Cordiano: If I could speak, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. Could I have some order, please. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Cordiano: It was referred to that I stayed in Milan and that this was a vacation. I paid for the evening in that hotel out of my own

pocket. So the claims that are being made here today are erroneous. None of these expenses is inappropriate. They're all within keeping of management guidelines when I travel. All of these expenses

are, I remind you, through the riding association, in support of initiatives that I undertook on behalf of the party with respect to fundraising or other matters. All of these expenses --

The Speaker: Thank you. That brings us to the end of oral questions.

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY 406

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the province's greenbelt legislation and Places to Grow plan have significantly restricted how Niagara can grow and develop; and

"Whereas the 406 highway from Beaverdams Road in Thorold to East Main Street in Welland is one of the busiest two-lane highways in Ontario, with 27,000 cars

daily; and

"Whereas extending Highway 406 to Port Colborne will attract much-needed jobs and new investment to Port Colborne, Wainfleet, Pelham and Welland;

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

"That the Dalton McGuinty Liberals immediately expand Highway 406 and extend it to Port Colborne."

And in support, my signature.

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I have a petition here from a number of people, among them Bev McLean of Thomas Street in the Middlebury

area, who used to swim on the same swim team as me at the Glenmore Curling Club in Dollard-des-Ormeaux in Quebec in the 1960s and 1970s. The petition reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I fully support this petition. I affix my signature to it and ask Benjamin to carry it.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas many volunteer fire departments in Ontario are strengthened by the service of double-hatter firefighters who work as professional, full-time

firefighters and also serve as volunteer firefighters on their free time and in their home communities; and

"Whereas the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association has declared their intent to `phase out' these double-hatter firefighters; and

"Whereas double-hatter firefighters are being threatened by the union leadership and forced to resign as volunteer firefighters or face losing their full-time

jobs, and this is weakening volunteer fire departments in Ontario; and

"Whereas Waterloo-Wellington MPP Ted Arnott has introduced Bill 52, the Volunteer Firefighters Employment Protection Act, that would uphold the right to

volunteer and solve this problem concerning public safety in Ontario;

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

"That the provincial government express public support for MPP Ted Arnott's Bill 52 and willingness to pass it into law or introduce similar legislation that

protects the right of firefighters to volunteer in their home communities on their own free time."

I want to thank James Peavoy from the town of Erin for his work in compiling this petition. I, of course, support it and I've affixed my signature as well.

REFUNDABLE CONTAINERS

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I keep getting petitions against pop cans and beer bottles in public parks. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and especially to the Ministry of the Environment:

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

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

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

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

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

our parks and streets;

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

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

And since I agree with this petition 100%, I'm delighted to sign it as well.

HALTON RECYCLING PLANT

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

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

Newmarket; and

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

decline in the value of their homes; and

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

intolerable;

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

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

As I am in favour, I have affixed my signature and I give it to Luke.

HEALTH CARE

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

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Liberal government has announced in their budget that they are delisting key health services such as routine eye exams, chiropractic and

physiotherapy services,

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

"To reverse the delisting of eye exams, chiropractic and physiotherapy services and restore funding for these important and necessary services."

And I have also signed this.

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): I have a petition here signed by a number of people, including Elaine West from 1265 Sixth Line in

Oakville, and it reads as follows:

"Credit Valley Hospital Capital Improvements:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas gasoline prices have continued to increase at alarming rates in recent months; and

"Whereas the high and unstable gas prices across Ontario have caused confusion and unfair hardship to Ontario's drivers while also impacting the Ontario

economy in key sectors such as tourism and transportation;

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

"That the Parliament of Ontario consider an immediate gas price freeze for a temporary period until world oil prices moderate, and

"That the provincial government petition the federal Liberal government to step up to the plate and lower gas prices by removing the GST on gasoline products

and fix the federal Competition Act to ensure consumers are protected and that the market operates in a fair and transparent manner."

I affix my name in full support.

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I have a petition here signed by, among others, Dr. Barbara Clive, head of surgery at the Credit Valley

Hospital and a resident of my riding on Nutcracker Drive in Lisgar. It reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

times; and

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

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

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

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

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

penalties for violations of smoking laws be substantially increased."

I was pleased to vote in favour of Bill 164 just a short time ago. I affix my signature on this petition and ask page Kai to carry this for me.

SCHOOL FACILITIES

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

"Whereas the Ontario Street Public School community in Clarington wishes to alert the Minister of Education to a damaging situation with respect to

overcrowding and underfunding at this French immersion school; and

"Whereas Ontario Street Public School is being penalized because it is located in the fast-growing urban centre of Clarington, but is part of a larger board

that includes rural communities with declining enrolments and less access to public funding; and

"Whereas despite its exceptional track record, Ontario Street Public School's French immersion program is being reduced from a K-8 to a K-6 program, with a cap

on K-6 enrolment and grade 7 and 8 students being temporarily housed off-site for a third consecutive year; and

"Whereas our single greatest need is in adequate housing of a program that has seen superior academic achievement and a unique community culture building on

strong values of success; and

"Whereas the entire Ontario Street school community is committed to working with the Minister of Education and all parties to explore a fair, reasonable,

practical and effective solution;

"Therefore we, the undersigned parents, students and friends of Ontario Street Public School, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as

follows:

"To grant special consideration for a review of funding options that will protect and develop the existing K-8 French immersion single-track program at Ontario

Street Public School in Bowmanville; and

"To undertake the necessary actions immediately, in the context of the current budget, to resolve the urgent accommodation needs of Ontario Street Public

School in the shortest time possible."

I'm pleased to endorse this and sign it on behalf of Alex Reid and others from the community.

TENANT PROTECTION

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I keep getting petitions from Doversquare Apartments and the tenants thereof in my riding. The petition reads

as follows:

"Whereas the so-called Tenant Protection Act of the defeated Harris-Eves Tories has allowed landlords to increase rents well above the rate of inflation for

new and old tenants alike;

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

required one-time improvements and temporary increases in utility costs, and this same act has given landlords wide-ranging powers to evict tenants; and

"Whereas our landlord, Sterling Karamar Property Management, has applied to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) to add a fourth high-rise unit to our compound in

order to circumvent city of Toronto restrictions on density and the city's opposition to its project;

"Whereas this project would lead to overcrowding in our densely populated community, reduce our precious green space, further drive up rents and do nothing to

solve the crisis in affordable rental housing;

"Whereas this project will drive away longer-term tenants partially shielded from the post-1998 Harris-Eves rent increases, thereby further reducing the number

of relatively affordable units in the city core; ...

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

"To institute a rent freeze until the exorbitant ... guideline and above-guideline rent increases are wiped out by inflation;

"To abrogate the ... `Tenant Protection Act' and draw up new landlord-tenant legislation which shuts down the notoriously pro-landlord ORHT and reinstates real

rent control, including an elimination of the ... policy of `vacancy decontrol';

"To keep the McGuinty government to its promise of real changes at the OMB, eliminating its bias toward wealthy developers and enhancing the power of groups

promoting affordable housing, sustainable neighbourhoods and tenant rights."

OPPOSITION DAY

SUPPORT FOR AGRICULTURE

AND RURAL ONTARIO

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Michael Prue): Mr. Tory.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I'm a clerk in training.

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): I'm a little concerned about some of the attendance at the Clerk's table, but I'll leave that for

another time.

We put this motion forward to try to put on the record and again have, I hope, a thoughtful discussion on the part of all parties today about agriculture, and

not just about agriculture but about the future and --

The Acting Speaker: The leader of the official opposition needs to move the motion in order that we have something to debate.

Mr. Tory: I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the Legislative Assembly calls upon the government:

To recognize and endorse the fiscal and social value of Ontario's agricultural industry and the rural way of life that surrounds it; and

That the Ministry of Agriculture and all members of the assembly recognize and offer assistance with the legitimate challenges that are currently plaguing

Ontario's farmers; and

That the government live up to its commitment to make the Ministry of Agriculture a lead ministry; and

That the members of the assembly support and endorse the historical and traditional values of Ontario's rural communities and commit to ensuring that

government legislation, regulation and enforcement do not undermine these traditions and values.

The Acting Speaker: Mr. Tory has moved opposition day motion number 5. Mr. Tory.

Mr. Tory: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for that. The truth of the matter is, I thought that I had to do it, because I did last week at

this time. But I didn't actually have the motion handy, and I thought I might get away with just getting up and starting to speak to it. But you're obviously on top of the rules, as always,

sir.

I think that sometimes in this House we act as if this whole issue of agriculture and rural Ontario is something that's happening somewhere else and really

doesn't have any relevance for us here, and really doesn't have any relevance for a lot of the people who live in cities, for example. I was fond of saying, and still am, that I come from a city,

and I describe myself as a city boy. But I'm a city boy who has gone out of his way, during the time I've been involved in politics, to make sure I spent the time and invested the time to learn

about rural issues and learn about farm issues.

I still have lots to learn, but I have come to understand that there is an absolutely crucial connection between the health of the agricultural sector in

Ontario, the impact that in turn has on the health of rural Ontario, and then the connection that is often lost, which is that the health and vitality of rural Ontario does in fact have a lot to do

with the overall health of Ontario itself and should be of much more concern than it is to people who live in the cities of Ontario.

If you go back and look at the identity of Ontario and where those kinds of cornerstone values come from, they come from the farms, from the soil of Ontario

and from the small towns, where people have roots that go back generations, where people hold to the values that have made Ontario great, and that still, I think, in many cases root a lot of where

we go and what we do in Ontario. Agriculture is a part of who we are. It connects us to the land. It's a source of pride. The fruits of our land gain accolades and praise around the world.

But I think the part we forget from time to time is the contribution that agriculture makes to fuelling the economy of Ontario. The Minister of Agriculture has

been among those saying that it is the second-biggest industry in Ontario -- and he's right when he says that -- just behind the automotive industry. The fact is that we've heard that a lot of

times from the Minister of Agriculture, but what we haven't seen is the kind of commitment that backs up that sort of statement, that says what we're going to do is get behind this industry,

especially in its time of trial, and do the things that need to be done to make sure it can remain strong going into the future.

The spinoff economy that agriculture supports, as we all know, is huge. Just think of how many times you've been in a grocery store and how many people are

employed there doing all kinds of things, and of how many people make their living getting produce to market.

I was in my own riding in the town of Mount Forest not too long ago. I may have said this in the House before, but it bears repeating because I think it's a

good example of the interconnection between all the different things that go on in Ontario that rely on the health of the agricultural sector. I went into the ladies' wear store for a visit to say

hello. I said to the woman, as you will, "How's business?" She said, "In 20 years, it has never been worse." I said, "Why is that? What is causing it to be so bad?" She said, "It's very simple. The

farmers have no money, and if the farmers have no money, they make up a substantial percentage of my customer base, and as a result the business is the worst it's been in 20 years."

Two doors down the street in Mount Forest is the Ford dealership. The woman there who is the general sales manager -- same day, half an hour later -- when

asked, "How's business?" said to me, "Well, you know, in the car business it is always up and down, but it's very bad right now." I said, "Is it just the cycle of the car business?" She said, "No,

we sell more trucks than cars and we sell the trucks to the farmers. The farmers don't have any money so they're not buying any trucks."

These were two people independent of each other and it was within 15 minutes. I'm sure if I had finished asking the same question in shop after shop, whether

it was in Mount Forest, Arthur, Shelburne, Orangeville or anywhere else, I would have had the same story repeated over and over again.

Yet we talk here as if somehow this is kind of unconnected to the rest of reality. When we see retail sales slowing down, not only is it, as the retail council

said, a result of the shocking withdrawal of money from taxpayers' pockets by the McGuinty Liberals for the health tax, but it's because they have failed to step up and support the farmers, and the

farmers are spending less money at retail and many other places. They're not able to provide properly for their own families, and they're not able really to stay in business. Of course that, in and

of itself, has a bad impact on the government. It has a huge impact on the dignity and livelihood of farmers and rural Ontario, but it has a negative impact on the government too, because for every

item farmers are not buying, for every dollar they are not earning, the government is being denied tax revenues that would come from the taxation of that spending or from the taxation of that

income that is earned by the farmers.

Beyond that, beyond the sort of short-term or current crisis being faced by farmers in rural Ontario, the towns are hurting. We can all see that. As we drive

through the towns we can see the number of storefronts that are boarded up. There are a variety of factors that are at play in causing that to occur, but there's no question that the crisis facing

the farm economy is a big contributor to that.

You would think that, if this was going on, if we have the minister himself saying it's the second biggest industry in the province, employing all kinds of

people, tens and tens of thousands if you include the spinoff jobs, this would be something that would be right at the centre of the government's focus, yet we see that with this McGuinty Liberal

government not only are agriculture and small-town Ontario not a priority, but they are basically turning their backs on the farmers of this province and turning their backs even more particularly

on rural and smaller-town Ontario.

If you just look at one long-term challenge that should be right in front of us, namely, the challenge of our own food sovereignty, which speaks to the

question of the health of our farmers and the health of the agricultural industry, but also speaks to our ability down the road in five years, ten years, 15 years, to make sure we can be growing

and using the food that is grown by our own farmers here in Ontario to look after ourselves to the greatest extent possible, there is no plan, even if you put aside the short-term crisis and say

they're failing to respond to that. If you said, "They've got a bang-up long-term plan in place to really make sure that five years from now farmers will be prospering and we'll have increased food

sovereignty for Ontario" -- but there's no short-term program; there is no long-term program; there is no plan of any kind. It's just find new ways to regulate, find new ways to push down

expenditures on to farmers who have no money, as a result of programs they dream up over there, and really just forget about any possible commitment you might make to making agriculture, as the

resolution refers to, a lead ministry.

A lead ministry? My goodness, I'm surprised we even still have anybody sitting at the table, based on how far things have fallen. I can remember sitting at the

cabinet meetings when William Davis was the Premier of this province, and I can tell you, when people spoke up on behalf of rural Ontario -- by the way, there were quite a few more of them at the

table at that time -- the Premier of this province and the other ministers from urban centres in this province listened, and they acted. That's what they did.

From this government and this minister, a staggering 20% cut last year in the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture, and not a peep out of him, and not a peep

out of any Liberal members of the Legislature. They are busy out there explaining and apologizing on behalf of the government, "I'm sorry. We're really doing our best here. We're doing more than

you think. You don't really understand the numbers," but no one would ever stand up. We haven't heard one of them. With all these canned questions they get up in the Legislature to read, there's

not one who ever got up and asked a real, genuine question, with some passion and some emotion, on behalf of the farmers and residents of rural Ontario.

What happens is that you get a series of protests on the front lawn of Queen's Park; they came down here, tens of thousands of farmers. I'll give him his due:

The minister was out there to meet those people and listen to them. But unfortunately, I think what we have here is not a minister who doesn't care, but who couldn't go back to the table, after

meeting the 10,000 farmers and listening to them, as I'm sure he did, and deliver. When they responded, they responded for a little while with some short-term measures. I was reading a clipping

just today about the incredible disappointment people get when they go out to their mailbox, open up the envelope and find a cheque for $300, which is probably less than the amount they lose on any

one third of one cow they try to take to market nowadays if they're a beef producer. That's the kind of thing they produced.

Then you might say, "Well, OK, he had a chance to redeem himself with this past year's budget." What do we find? We find that in fact they're cutting back

spending by 23.1%. The minister stood up today and did what he does so well: He started to speak louder and louder about some of our past budget changes of one kind or another, and he talked about

a $14-million reduction that had taken place one year in the budget. This man should have given credit where credit was due, because he has far surpassed that, by a margin of 10 times this year

alone, with a reduction of $169 million in what this government is going to spend to help the farmers of Ontario this year. He has the temerity to come in here and talk about some past reduction of

$14 million and say that somehow that was behaviour that should be the subject of censure.

I think what's happening here is that it comes from the top. I don't think the Premier is really interested in this. Then you have the finance minister, who

said at the time of his budget, "Let's remember that there's a good part of our agricultural industry which is doing quite well and doesn't need the intervention of the government."

I can tell you, I've been making a real effort to get around Ontario, and in particular to focus on spending time in farm communities with groups of farmers,

with groups that are in the farm industry, and I'm still looking, aside from some of the people in the supply management areas, for people who want to stand up and say how well they're doing. There

are some, but he says "a good part of our agricultural industry." I can tell you, I think that Ron Bonnett and a whole host of other people would take considerable issue with that.

Yet their response was to cut the municipal drainage program, and then, under great duress, to restore it with less money than before -- keep pushing through

regulations that cost farmers money. They're still waiting for their CAIS funding. Farmer after farmer goes to the mailbox and gets these cheques that are late and small. They cut back the budget

of the Ministry of Agriculture by 23.1%, and on and on it goes.

I'm running out of time, but I want to finish on two notes, one of which just has to do with priority-setting. This government obviously had enough muscle at

the table that when the time came to divide up the money, they somehow managed to find $400 million for a swanky casino hotel in Windsor; they found $400 million of taxpayers' money for that. Yet

when it came time this year to look at what was going to be done for farmers, $169 million of the money that's going to pay for that casino came from money that is not going to be spent to help

farmers this year. That's what happened. They have to explain that, not me, because I couldn't possibly, for the life of me, understand how any government, any cabinet, any Minister of Agriculture

or any Premier could allow that kind of priority-setting to take place. It's distorted, it's wrong and it can't be allowed to stand. It won't stand, because in 2007, if not before -- we're going to

work hard in between to fight for farmers and rural communities in Ontario -- we're going to change the government and get back to a day when rural Ontario and farmers were respected and listened

to in the highest councils of this province. That's what we're going to do.

I want to finish on one final note, which to me says it all again, about priority-setting and so forth. I had a visit -- and I must say that I didn't know

about the issue, but I just shook my head again, more in dismay and disappointment than anything. I was at the Perth spring festival -- it's a maple syrup festival; I've forgotten the exact name

for it -- with the member for Lanark-Carleton. We had a very nice time. We were going along all the different booths that were there; there was a farmers' market there. We stopped at one booth, and

the woman said to us, "Look, could you help me with something?" She said, "They're now telling me there are inspectors. They're going to come to my farm kitchen and tell me whether it's OK to be

making jams and jellies," and all this sort of thing that's been going on for generations in this province.

That is part of what makes Ontario tick, that you have people with a real sense of community. They know who they're buying this stuff from. They know where

it's made. It was probably made by the same person's grandmother, in the same kitchen -- probably updated but the same physical structure -- two generations ago. This government has no time to

provide any meaningful help for farmers, no time to develop a meaningful approach, all kinds of time to develop a new so-called municipal partnership program that gouges the property taxpayers of a

lot of small towns across this province. But they do have time for their idea of a food sovereignty strategy, to ban fresh sushi and to really crack down on those farm kitchens across Ontario where

all these people -- like none -- are getting into trouble because they're buying jams and jellies from people who have probably been making those things in their kitchens for two or three

generations.

I think it's time that we started to see two things. One is some real attention for the plight of farmers, backed up by consistent financial support,

consistent support around the cabinet table for the farmers of Ontario. The second is some respect for the people and the values represented in rural Ontario, which are the bedrock values that have

guided this province and built this province for many, many years. There was a time when the cities relied on the strength and health and financial vitality of rural Ontario to help them finance

all of their expansion and their building of infrastructure. Well, now it's time to have it the other way around.

I think it's time this government woke up, that we had a minister at the table who can actually get something done, who has enough muscle, and I'm not just

talking about one minister, but several ministers who will speak up for rural Ontario and get something done. That's why we moved this motion today: to draw some attention to this and to hopefully

attract some attention, even just for a minute, from this government.

So I'm very pleased to put those comments on the record and to be joined by so many of my colleagues who care so much not just today, but every single day,

about this. The people of rural Ontario know that, and that's why we're going to have a change of government, among many other reasons, in 2007.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): I am actually quite, quite happy to enter into the debate, because I want to talk about the person I

refer to as the $200-million Minister of Agriculture, the Honourable Steve Peters.

Now, it's very interesting. I find it quite strange that the temporary member for Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, the temporary rural member in this House, has

come in here and said, "Well, you know what? I don't mind borrowing a rural riding, but I can hardly wait to get back to Toronto and represent Toronto." I give him full credit for saying that

that's what he's going to do, but his commitment to rural Ontario is at best transitory, I would say.

What I want to do is talk about our Minister of Agriculture. Now, as I was explaining to my farmers in the Agriculture 101 event and the government relations

101 event that we had in this riding, it's very, very important in an era of fiscal probity that we budget things.

Last year, for example, around this time, the grain and oilseed farmers were experiencing very good prices, so we didn't budget for an extraordinary collapse

in the international price of grain and oilseed, but when that happened -- something beyond our control, something beyond the control of the Leader of the Opposition, something beyond the control

of even the federal government -- farmers came to us and said they needed assistance. Now, which government provided that assistance? That would be the Dalton McGuinty government. Whose voice was

the one at the cabinet table that convinced other ministers that, yes, money had to come out of the reserve that we'd set aside for these unexpected contingencies? Well, it would have been the

Honourable Steve Peters, the Minister of Agriculture.

Last year, he was able to secure from cabinet and his colleagues out of the reserve, with the support of the Minister of Finance, and obviously the support of

the Premier, some $200 million of additional funding that was not budgeted. Now, to me, where I come from in rural Ontario, that's getting the job done for the farmers. The question then becomes,

what about the future? What about that future? Well, I think all parties agree -- and I know the opposition agrees; both parties agree -- that there has been a lack, in my opinion, of that one

common vision.

Interestingly enough, I remember when the then Leader of the Opposition -- a man who, I might add, has no transitory commitment to rural Ontario -- was in my

riding and he promised to the farmers that, as Premier, he would institute a Premier's summit on agriculture and food.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition, when the great Bill Davis was the Premier, I don't remember him ever having a summit with the farmers and the food

industry in this riding. They weren't there at all. I don't remember Mr. Harris and I don't remember Mr. Eves having a summit for agriculture --

Interjection.

Mr. Wilkinson: Oh, wait a minute. I think the heir less apparent, the ambitious member from Erie-Lincoln, is saying that when he was in the

government, all was well with agriculture, was it? Everything was fine when you were in power?

I think I remember a different history than that. I remember the farmers of my riding coming to me and saying how deeply disappointed they were with a party

that they thought, with a base of rural Ontario, would be there for them.

I remember when they were unhappy with the Minister of Agriculture. Let's see, I think they had four Ministers of Agriculture. Who did they have? I'm sure the

member will help me out. There was Helen Johns, the former member from Huron-Bruce. She was the last minister. She was defeated by her rural riding; defeated by our member Ms. Mitchell. And who was

the member before that? Oh, I think it was Mr. Hardeman, the member from Oxford. There's a rural riding. I remember when they used to call for his head. So everything was good back then and now

it's terrible? And who was before that? Well, there was Noble Villeneuve. I remember Noble. He really didn't stick too long as well. And who was that first one? There was Ernie and Helen and Noble

and -- oh, Brian Coburn, that's it; another member who ended up being a Minister of Agriculture and Food for that government. That was back in the old days, but it seems to me that it's a bit rich

for the current government to come in here and to start to lecture us about supporting the farmers.

As always is the case with the Leader of the Opposition, he was very good; he explained to us just recently, when he was speaking, that what we needed to do

was reduce taxes but spend more money on agriculture. I'm a certified financial planner, and I don't understand -- I'm sure, when he gets back up and speaks about this -- how on the one hand he can

be talking for tax cuts and on the other hand saying that we should spend more money on agriculture.

As the member from Perth-Middlesex, I agree with spending more money on agriculture. But what's going to be cut? Am I not going to get a new hospital in

Listowel because of this? Is there not going to be money for the Rotary respite house? What things have to go to make that happen?

It isn't a matter of taxing and spending. What my farmers have told me is that they want a long-term solution. They're happy that the Premier of the province

of Ontario had his inaugural Premier's summit at the urging of our Minister of Agriculture. They're proud of the fact that they finally have a Premier of Ontario who doesn't have a revolving door

at the Ministry of Agriculture and, instead, has a long-term commitment to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. I think that is what is most important. That is what trumps all: that

commitment.

Because we're getting ready for next year's summit, what are we doing? Right now, teams of people are going across this province, speaking with farmers about

that need for revision. That's very, very important to me. I think what we have to do is get out of this dynamic of what the things are that we disagree with and talk about the things that we do

agree with.

I appreciate the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has brought forward this opposition motion today, because I say, with all respect, that this is exactly

what needs to happen in this House. What we have to do is set partisan politics aside, and I say this with all sincerity. We have to go -- because we've all had to deal with the agriculture file --

and look not at those things that divide us and not those things that divide farmers, but look at those things that unite us and those things that unite farmers. It strikes me, as someone who knows

a bit about business, that the best way to build that coalition is not on the things that are divisive but, instead, on the things that unite us.

Talking to my farmers in Perth-Middlesex, we would all agree, and I think all members would agree, that what's important is that we believe this province

should be self-sufficient for food. I think we can all agree on that. I see the member from Oxford is nodding his head. I think he would agree with me on that. Self-sufficiency is important. In

this age of post-9/11, when borders can be closed by trade action and by threats of terrorism, we need to be able to feed ourselves. That's important.

I think we all agree on food safety. We all agree on the absolute necessity that we keep our food safe. I say this with great respect, that all farmers believe

they are better stewards of the land and have difficulty with regulation. But I look back and say, why do we have regulation of rural Ontario? Why do we have regulation 170? Why did all of these

things happen? It was because of a tragic decision made by Premier Harris: When warned by the chief medical officer of health for this province that he should not allow private firms to check water

and not be required to tell the local public medical officer of health, that was a mistake that he made.

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): That was the Red Tape Commission.

Mr. Wilkinson: That was the Red Tape Commission. That was a mistake that was made, and we have been living with reverberations of that in this

province ever since.

When we took over, we had the Nutrient Management Act from the previous government, we had regulation 170 from the previous government, we had a commitment to

source water protection from the previous government, and none of those things, I say with great respect, had ever been worked together as one single policy piece. There is but one source of water

that we all draw upon. They say in rural Ontario, "You don't foul your own well, and you don't foul your neighbour's well." We understand that in rural Ontario.

One of the things that I know our ministers -- my minister, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture and Food -- have been struggling

with is how to reconcile those things and to implement fully the O'Connor report which, I might add, all three parties endorsed and agreed to during the election. How do we make that happen in

practical terms? That's why I'm so happy that we have a new drinking water regulation to replace regulation 170, which everyone agreed was completely unworkable. This one is much more workable. I

think it's important that we set aside the partisanship and we look at those things.

Now, if we go away from regulation and move to stewardship, which is natural -- I know we have farmers in this House. I know the member from

Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, the member from Chatham-Kent, the member from Oxford and the member from Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound are all farmers, and they would tell all of our parties how stewardship fits a

lot better in the culture of agriculture than does regulation, and I notice that. We have to all take a certain amount of responsibility for what has happened in the past and work together to

overcome that.

Self-sufficiency in food and stewardship over regulation is important, but the other thing we have to do is embrace the concept of service. That's a challenge

that all of our parties have. I welcome the motion from the Leader of the Opposition. We will always disagree about the history, I'm sure, but I think we can work together on more of a non-partisan

basis and challenge our farmers, who at times can be deeply divided, to rise above that themselves. We have to set the example in this House. If we can achieve a certain bipartisanship or

tripartisanship in this file, I think the farmers of this province will respond.

I want to finish by commending our $200-million Minister of Agriculture and the great work he did in the last fiscal year.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I'm pleased to rise and speak in support of the motion put forward by our leader, John Tory, calling on the

government to show some support for rural Ontario and the rural Ontario way of life.

Since the election, the McGuinty Liberals have been concerned about the lack of support this government has given the agriculture community and rural Ontario.

In May 2004, in the Liberal government's first budget they saw fit to remove $128 million from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food's budget. It was the biggest cut of any ministry. Again this

year, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food once again has had its budgets cut by 23.1%. Tell me, is this a government that supports agriculture and rural Ontario? I don't think so.

Let's take a moment and review this