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

March 7, 2005

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2005-Mar-07 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 7 March 2005 Lundi 7 mars 2005

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SHANNON AND ERICA DEERING

IDENTITY THEFT

WOMEN'S CURLING CHAMPIONSHIPS

NATIONAL SOCIAL WORK WEEK

MINISTER OF HEALTH AND

LONG-TERM CARE

PROTECTION FOR

HEALTH CARE WORKERS

HOME CARE

ONTARIO FARMERS

CHILD OBESITY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ELECTION STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉLECTIONS

ELECTION FINANCES

AMENDMENT ACT

(ONGOING DISCLOSURE

OF CONTRIBUTIONS), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE FINANCEMENT DES ÉLECTIONS

(DIVULGATION CONTINUE

DES CONTRIBUTIONS)

GREENBELT AMENDMENT ACT

(PERMANENT GREENBELT), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA CEINTURE DE VERDURE

(CEINTURE DE VERDURE PERMANENTE)

SAFE NEEDLES SAVE LIVES ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR

L'UTILISATION D'AIGUILLES SÛRES

POUR SAUVER DES VIES

MOTIONS

CONSIDERATION OF BILL PR11

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL /

RENOUVEAU DÉMOCRATIQUE

HYDRO GENERATION

DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL

HYDRO GENERATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

GREENBELT

LONG-TERM CARE

GREENBELT

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

CATTLE FARMERS

GREENBELT

COURT BACKLOG

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

GREENBELT

SECOND-STAGE HOUSING

DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL

VISITORS

PETITIONS

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

TUITION

ONTARIO FARMERS

TUITION

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

GO TRANSIT TUNNEL

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

DIABETES TREATMENT

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

TTC RIGHT-OF-WAY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PLACES TO GROW ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR

LES ZONES DE CROISSANCE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SHANNON AND ERICA DEERING

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): I rise in the House to pay tribute to a successful event in my community on Saturday, March 5, at the Scugog arena on

behalf of Erica and Shannon Deering. Over 1,000 friends and neighbours attended. Everyone present shared the view that it takes a community to raise a child, and Scugog and Port Perry, their home,

is just such a community.

When two of our community's children needed help, the response was overwhelming, generous and full of warmth. Shannon Deering is 19 years old and her sister

Erica is 16. They were left as quadriplegics after a horrific car accident last summer. However, the event this past weekend shows that they are not alone in meeting the challenges that they face.

In fact, I can see Shannon and Erica being a strong voice for the physically disabled community any time soon. I am pleased to report that Shannon and Erica will soon be home in Port Perry in their

new barrier-free home.

The benefit hockey game on Saturday is one of many examples of the entire community coming together to support the Deering sisters and their parents Tony and

stepmother Debra and grandparent Jean Deering, who is a real treasure and who looks after the children on a daily basis. She is to be formally thanked.

Saturday's special guests included 2002 Olympic hockey gold medalist Cheryl Pounder and her teammates from the Toronto Aeros. Some of the team included Sommer

West, Heather Logan, Bradi Cochrane and Jen McCullough. They played a Scugog team comprised of mostly women from the Scugog area.

I would like to commend Brian Callery, Bill Van Camp, Rob Scott, Martha Larsen, Ron Compton, Brenda Robinson and Marg Snider-McGrath for their support of the

Deering sisters.

IDENTITY THEFT

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I'd like to bring to the attention of the House two important items related to identity theft that consumers must

watch out for.

The first, as incredible as it sounds, concerns a constituent of mine who had his identity stolen in order for thieves to steal his house. In fact, his house was

sold twice within 19 months before he noticed another person's name on his property tax bill.

The second also concerns identity theft, which is the fastest-growing crime in our country. Tens of thousands of our citizens are victimized by identity thieves

every year. While I applaud our minister's valiant effort to combat identity theft through public education campaigns and making specific recommendations to businesses, this may not be enough. Many

of our new immigrants and members of our ethnocultural communities may not be able to defend themselves properly, since this kind of theft is really foreign to them. We must listen to consumer

advocates who are calling for more stringent measures such as requiring businesses and government to report leaks of personal information to consumers and criminalizing identity theft offences. We

should listen to them and act quickly before identity theft becomes a real epidemic.

WOMEN'S CURLING CHAMPIONSHIPS

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): I rise today to tell all members of this House about the outstanding performance of Kanata residents

Jenn and Stephanie Hanna at this year's Scott Tournament of Hearts Canadian women's curling championships, held in St. John's, Newfoundland. Jenn is the skip of the Ontario rink that made it to the

championship final, where they were defeated when Manitoba's skip snatched victory with her last rock.

Jenn's Ottawa curling team arrived at St. John's as relative unknowns. However, that changed quickly when they began the competition by defeating Canadian

curling legend Colleen Jones and her Team Canada rink. Jones, who has six Canadian championships and two world championships to her credit, is one of 25-year-old Jenn's heroes.

After that initial victory, the Ottawa rink faltered under new-found media attention and added pressure, but Jenn and her teammates regrouped to win four of

their last five round-robin matches and then two tiebreakers and a semifinal match.

I'm sure all members of this House will want to join me in congratulating Jenn and Stephanie, as well as their teammates Dawn Askin, Pascale Letendre and Joelle

Sabourin, all from Kanata and the city of Ottawa. We're proud of them all.

NATIONAL SOCIAL WORK WEEK

Mr. Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): Today marks the beginning of National Social Work Week. The theme this year is Social Workers: Celebrating

Community -- Honouring Diversity. This gives everyone a chance to honour and recognize the work they do to enhance the quality of life for individuals, families and communities across Ontario and

Canada. It is also an opportunity to publicly recognize the contribution of individuals who remain true to the Ontario Association of Social Workers' goals of creating a caring and just

society.

In 2001, Dr. Dan Andreae and Dr. Frank Turner established a division of the profession called the Social Work Doctors' Colloquium. They are a group of senior

leaders in the profession from academia and practice, and today they are pleased to be presenting the honourable David Zimmer, MPP from Willowdale and parliamentary assistant to the Attorney

General, with the inaugural Award of Merit. The Social Work Doctors' Colloquium Award of Merit will be awarded annually to an elected official who represents the values of the social work

profession.

Throughout his career, Mr. Zimmer has been actively involved in humanitarian causes, including as vice-president of the Alzheimer Society of Canada, as deputy

chair of the Refugee and Immigration Board of Canada and as chair of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Corp., one of the largest in North America. His ongoing interest in improving the lives of

Ontarians and in enhancing the quality of communities makes him a most worthy recipient of this special honour. I would like to personally congratulate my colleague the honourable David Zimmer on

his award, as well as to thank the social workers of Ontario for the valuable work they do.

MINISTER OF HEALTH AND

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): People who care about health care were excited to learn that the Minister of Health was coming to their

riding, that he was visiting the great riding of Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey. They were excited; they wondered if he was going to be coming to help explain what he was going to do for rural

patients who are in desperate need of a physician -- these orphan patients. They thought he would be there to announce new funding for the Headwaters hospital in Orangeville, which is trying to get

more funding to increase the hours that they can operate their MRI. They thought they might be getting new funds to deal with additional cataract operations, because these are the so-called

priority areas of the government's agenda.

Alas, when the Minister of Health showed up in Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, all the people of that constituency got was politics -- no promises, no

deliverables, nothing. This followed through on last Friday's successful agreement with the Ontario Medical Association, where there was no new money put on the table to attract more physicians to

the province of Ontario, or new residents' spots for Ontario students.

People in Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey were excited about the opportunity that more funding would be coming for rural Ontario, but alas, they realized that this

government has not responded to those needs, to those challenges. People in this riding have a great opportunity to send in an advocate for them and to send Dalton McGuinty a message by voting for

John Tory on March 17.

PROTECTION FOR

HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Every year in Ontario, more than 22,000 --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. I'd like to hear the member from Nickel Belt's statement.

You can start again.

Ms. Martel: Every year in Ontario, more than 22,000 health care workers are accidentally stuck with needles. The vast majority of these

accidents could be prevented through the use of safety-engineered devices such as retractable needles. The sharps alliance -- including ONA, SEIU and OPSEU -- has lobbied the Minister of Health to

make the use of safety-engineered devices mandatory in Ontario. To date, no commitment has been made by the McGuinty Liberal government to protect workers in this important way.

This is a very serious health and safety issue. Today, I will present a private member's bill aimed at preventing accidental injuries and infections caused by

accidental sticks with hypodermic needles and other sharps.

In Saskatchewan, the government is conducting public consultations on a regulation on mandatory safety-engineered medical devices to go into effect this

November. In Manitoba, the government has announced it will bring in legislation or a regulation to make safety-engineered devices mandatory. Four years ago, the federal Needlestick Safety and

Prevention Act came into effect in the United States. Last year, researchers at the University of Virginia's International Health Care Worker Safety Center showed that with only one quarter of

workplaces in compliance so far, there was a 51% reduction in needle-stick injuries.

It's time to protect Ontario workers from needle-stick injuries and reduce the health care costs associated with testing and treating workers who are injured on

the job. My private member's bill will be debated on March 31, and I ask all members to support this important bill.

HOME CARE

Mr. Tony C. Wong (Markham): Last weak, the McGuinty government announced that it will be investing in the diagnostic and medical equipment

required to care for Ontarians in their homes and in their communities. This is all part of this government's commitment to providing home care to 95,700 more Ontarians by 2007-08. The diagnostic

and medical equipment we're investing in will strengthen our home care system, allowing us to do exactly that. This investment in medical equipment will assist people in their own homes, in

supportive housing and in adult day programs in the community. The equipment includes mechanical lifts, bathing equipment, intravenous and feeding pumps, as well as devices designed to increase

mobility, such as door openers and wheelchairs.

Province-wide, this announcement is getting a warm welcome. Joe McReynolds, the chief executive officer of the Ontario Community Support Association, said: "This

extremely wise investment by the government will help people with disabling conditions to access services in their community. Both client and worker safety will also be increased, with far fewer

opportunities for injuries."

Health care reform won't be easy, but we can no longer continue with the status quo. Step by step, we will make sure that Ontarians are the healthiest people in

the country, and Friday's announcement is one of those steps. We are transforming health care in Ontario and bringing positive change to Ontarians.

ONTARIO FARMERS

Mr. Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland): Last week, we welcomed farmers from across the province who came to send us a message. They were here to tell

us that times are bad and they need our help.

I'm proud to say that many members of the Liberal caucus, including myself, were out there that day to listen to farmers and hear what they had to say. I'm even

prouder of being a rural Ontarian. The people you saw in the crowd were people I am proud to represent. They are the people who ensure that Ontarians, along with all Canadians, have quality food on

their tables each and every day.

It's no secret that they are faced with extraordinary challenges like BSE and low commodity prices. I want the farmers in Northumberland to know that we heard

you at the rally and we are committed to you. We see the pain and frustration in your eyes, and we are working to make farming more sustainable in the province. That is why we have already taken

some necessary steps such as exempting the land transfer tax from family farms, investing in increased abattoir capacity for older animals, establishing a new renewable fuel standard that will

require that gasoline sold in Ontario contain an average of 5% ethanol by 2007 to help our corn farmers and providing up to $30 million to help the cattle industry recover from the fallout of BSE.

But we know that farmers need more help, and we'll continue to meet with them and work with them to ensure they have the tools they need to continue in the footsteps of the many proud farmers who

have come before them.

CHILD OBESITY

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): I rise today to speak about the leadership role that the McGuinty government is playing across North America. Indeed,

the right's newest hero, the Republican Governor of California, is following the government's lead when it comes to fighting child obesity.

Yesterday, the Governator himself, Arnold Schwarzenegger, came out in favour of terminating junk food from schools as a great step in the right direction against

child obesity. On this side of the House, we already know that giving kids healthy choices in schools will help them make better choices about what they eat now and in the future.

Unfortunately, the official opposition doesn't seem to think that child obesity is a problem. Instead of supporting a good piece of legislation and pumping up

the kids with healthy food choices, the member for Oak Ridges accuses us of micromanaging. Shame on him.

While I would never say such a thing, it occurs to me that if the Terminator saw their lack of concern for child obesity, he just might call the PC member for

Oak Ridges and the new guy who wants to come in girlie men. That's what he'd call them.

Hopefully, having their newest hero come onside with our way of thinking would convince the Tories that this is indeed good legislation. If not, parents all

across the province will be saying hasta la vista to them in the next election.

Mr. John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want to say two things. We would be willing to ask for unanimous

consent for him to speak for another minute or two; and second, I say to Bill Carroll, don't give him the Play of the Week for that.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): I know there is unanimous consent that he do another statement tomorrow.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr. Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): I beg leave to present the report on pre-budget consultations, 2005, from the standing committee on finance

and economic affairs and move the adoption of its recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Mr Hoy presents the committee report and moves adoption of its recommendations. Does the member wish to make a

statement?

Mr. Hoy: The standing committee on finance and economic affairs conducted extensive pre-budget consultations in December 2004 and January 2005

in Toronto, Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury, Ottawa, Kingston, London and Whitby. Witnesses included the Minister of Finance; experts invited by the committee to present economic and financial forecasts;

representatives from various associations, organizations and other stakeholder groups; and individuals. The committee heard from 158 witnesses appearing in person and received 82 written

submissions from others who did not appear before the committee.

I want to thank committee members from all three parties and the staff who assisted with the committee work.

I move adjournment of the debate.

The Speaker: Mr Hoy has moved adjournment of the debate on the motion for adoption of the recommendations of the standing committee on finance

and economic affairs.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

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

All those against, please say "nay."

I think the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1349 to 1354.

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

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Kular, Kuldip

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Peters, Steve

Peterson, Tim

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

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

Nays

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bisson, Gilles

Churley, Marilyn

Dunlop, Garfield

Hardeman, Ernie

Hudak, Tim

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

Sterling, Norman W.

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 50; the nays are 19.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ELECTION STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉLECTIONS

Mr. Bryant moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 176,

An Act to amend the Election Act, the Election Finances Act and the Legislative Assembly Act, to repeal the Representation Act, 1996 and to enact the

Representation Act, 2005 / Projet de loi 176, Loi modifiant la Loi électorale, la

Loi sur le financement des élections et la

Loi sur l'Assemblée législative, abrogeant la

Loi de 1996 sur la représentation électorale et édictant la Loi de 2005 sur la représentation électorale.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those against, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

Mr. Bryant?

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): I'll speak to it

in ministers' statements.

ELECTION FINANCES

AMENDMENT ACT

(ONGOING DISCLOSURE

OF CONTRIBUTIONS), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE FINANCEMENT DES ÉLECTIONS

(DIVULGATION CONTINUE

DES CONTRIBUTIONS)

Ms. Churley moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 177,

An Act to amend the Election Finances Act respecting the ongoing disclosure of contributions by registered political parties and constituency

associations / Projet de loi 177, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le financement des élections en ce qui a trait à la divulgation continue des contributions par les partis politiques inscrits et

les associations de circonscription inscrites.

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

Ms. Churley?

Ms. Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): This is, unlike the government bill just introduced, a real-time bill in real time, right now, that

will deal with real-time disclosure of financial contributions. It amends the Election Finances Act to provide that the chief financial officer of every political party and constituency association

-- which is not part of the Liberal bill introduced today -- must, within seven days of depositing a contribution in excess of $500, file with the Chief Election Officer the name of the contributor

and the amount of the contribution.

I would move unanimous consent for second and third readings of this bill today without debate.

The Speaker: Unanimous consent? I heard a no.

GREENBELT AMENDMENT ACT

(PERMANENT GREENBELT), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA CEINTURE DE VERDURE

(CEINTURE DE VERDURE PERMANENTE)

Ms. Churley moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 178,

An Act to amend the Greenbelt Act, 2005 to create a permanent greenbelt / Projet de loi 178, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2005 sur la ceinture de verdure

afin de créer une ceinture de verdure permanente.

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

Ms. Churley?

Ms. Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): What this bill does is actually create a permanent greenbelt instead of the floating greenbelt that

was just passed in this House. The bill amends the Greenbelt Act, 2005, to designate additional areas of land to be included in the greenbelt area: the lands that I made amendments to and that the

government left out.

The bill also amends the act to prohibit regulations removing lands from the greenbelt area and to prohibit amendments to the greenbelt plan removing lands

from areas to which the plan applies, which under the government's bill you can do.

The bill prohibits the issuance of licences or permits, or expansion of site plans under the Aggregate Resources Act, if they relate to a site including or

adjacent to a key natural heritage feature located in the protected countryside.

The bill also amends the act to provide that objectives of the greenbelt plan include that no development proceed on lands that are part of the natural

heritage system designated in the greenbelt plan.

The bill expands the prohibition on passing bylaws or undertaking projects that conflict with the greenbelt plan to also apply to Ontario ministries, boards,

commissions and agencies. In the case of a conflict between a provision in the greenbelt plan and a provision in a plan, bylaw, policy, act or regulation specified in the bill, the provision

providing more protection to the natural environment or human health prevails.

The bill amends the act to replace the hearing officer appointed by the minister to hear proposed amendments to the greenbelt plan with a greenbelt area

tribunal, which is established in the bill.

The bill also amends the act to replace the Greenbelt Council with the greenbelt advisory council and sets out provisions regarding the council's membership,

terms of reference and mandate.

Finally, the bill amends the act to address the applicability of

section 3 of the Planning Act and

section 7 of the act to a plan made or amended by the

minister under the Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1994, as well as the applicability of

section 7 of the act to decisions made relating to areas designated as protected countryside. Should

we pass this bill, it means we will have a permanent greenbelt, not a floating greenbelt.

SAFE NEEDLES SAVE LIVES ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR

L'UTILISATION D'AIGUILLES SÛRES

POUR SAUVER DES VIES

Ms. Martel moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 179,

An Act to reduce the incidence of needlestick injuries / Loi visant à réduire les incidences de blessures causées par des piqûres

d'aiguille.

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

Ms. Martel?

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Every year more than 22,000 health care workers are accidentally stuck with needles on the job in Ontario,

and a vast majority of these accidents can and should be prevented with the use of safety-engineered medical sharps.

In Saskatchewan, the government is working on a regulation now to go into effect on this issue this November. In Manitoba, the government has announced it will

introduce a regulation or legislation that will also make safety-engineered medical sharps mandatory there. Four years ago, federal legislation in the US was passed to make safety-engineered

devices mandatory, and last year research showed that, with only one quarter of workplaces in compliance, there has been a 51% reduction in needle-stick injuries.

It's time that Ontario workers were protected too. My bill will require that employers in prescribed workplaces must provide for and ensure the use of

safety-engineered medical sharps, if commercially available and appropriate, in any circumstance where a worker is required to use a medical sharp.

MOTIONS

CONSIDERATION OF BILL PR11

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal): Mr. Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to move a motion regarding

committees.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Was that for the Pr bill?

Hon. Mr. Caplan: Yes, for the private bill.

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

Hon. Mr. Caplan: I move that standing order 87 respecting notice of committee hearings be suspended for consideration of Bill Pr11,

An Act

respecting the Kitchener-Waterloo Young Men's Christian Association, by the standing committee on regulations and private bills on Wednesday, March 9, 2005.

The Speaker: Carried? Carried.

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal): I move that, pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45

p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Monday, March 7, 2005, and Tuesday, March 8, 2005, for the purpose of considering government business.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): The minister has moved government notice of motion number 316. Is it the pleasure of the House that the

motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those against, say "nay."

I think the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1410 to 1415.

The Speaker: Will all members take their seats, please. All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Dunlop, Garfield

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jeffrey, Linda

Klees, Frank

Kular, Kuldip

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Peters, Steve

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sterling, Norman W.

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yakabuski, John

Zimmer, David

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

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Hardeman, Ernie

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 64; the nays are 7.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL /

RENOUVEAU DÉMOCRATIQUE

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): I am pleased to

introduce the Election Statute Law Amendment Act. This bill, if passed, will strengthen Ontario's democracy in four ways.

First, it will give Ontarians a more direct say on important government decisions than they've ever had before by allowing us to move forward on establishing a

citizens' assembly on electoral reform and a citizens' jury on political finance reform. This bill will enable Elections Ontario to access the permanent register of electors so people can be

selected to take part. Under the current law, Elections Ontario cannot do this. Under this bill, if passed, that would happen.

Second, this bill, if passed, will give northern Ontarians stronger representation in the Legislature by preserving the existing 11 northern ridings in

Ontario.

Third, this bill, if passed, also reintroduces fixed election dates, putting citizens at the centre of our democracy. Each election would be four years from

the last election. For example, the next election will be on Thursday, October 4, 2007.

Finally, with this bill we are making political donations to parties more transparent to the people of Ontario. This bill provides for real-time disclosure of

donations to political parties and leadership candidates and requires that those contributions be made public through the Internet. The system we are introducing will make Ontario the world leader

in transparency when it comes to donations to political parties and leadership candidates. If passed, the legislation would apply to both election and non-election periods, as well as to leadership

campaigns. To my knowledge, there is no other jurisdiction with such a comprehensive level of transparency for real-time donations. Donations must be reported to the Chief Election Officer at

Elections Ontario, not a year after they have taken place, not six months after they have been donated, but within five business days. That is real-time disclosure. The Chief Election Officer, in

turn, will post the reports on the Internet within five business days of receiving them.

Ce système fera de nous un chef de file mondial de la transparence. Ce projet de loi reflète ce qui est au coeur de notre programme de renouveau

démocratique : l'établissement d'une relation plus positive et productive entre les citoyens et leurs représentants élus.

Finally, this reporting provision will be retroactive to January 1, 2004. That means you will not have to wait to see a recent donation, and all future

donations will be made public on a regular basis.

I wish to recognize the fantastic work by my great parliamentary assistant Dr. Kuldip Kular, the member for Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale. This bill also

reflects the excellent work by the professional and diligent civil servants of the Democratic Renewal Secretariat.

Moving ahead on electoral reform, preserving our 11 northern ridings, real-time disclosure of donations: This government promised democratic renewal; this bill

means democratic renewal. I urge all members of this House to support this bill.

HYDRO GENERATION

Hon. David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources): It's a pleasure for me to rise in the House today to inform the members of the government's

ongoing efforts to promote renewable energy opportunities.

As a government, we recognize that Ontario's continued growth and prosperity depend on an adequate, long-term supply of electricity. Our approach to meeting

that need is two-pronged: We are looking to increase generating capacity -- particularly clean, renewable energy sources -- while also promoting a culture of conservation.

We have set ambitious goals for cleaner energy generation. The members will know that our government has set a goal that Ontario will get at least 5% more of

its electricity from new clean, renewable sources by 2007. This requirement increases to 10% by 2010. My ministry is working to ensure that we can meet those goals.

I'm pleased to advise the members that earlier today I announced that we were making 18 sites available for water power development. I also announced that we

were inviting a second round of applications to develop wind power on crown land.

The members may recall that last November we issued calls for expressions of interest to identify potential water power sites. The ministry was generally

pleased with the results. A total of 57 applications were received, and 18 sites have been approved for development. The successful proponents now have 121 days to send in development proposals. We

believe there is potential for between 200 and 300 megawatts of clean hydroelectric capacity.

At the same time, we are giving a six-month window of opportunity, starting on April 1, for companies or individuals to submit proposals for sites for wind

power development on crown land. This follows closely on our approval given in January for 16 private companies to assess wind power potential on 21 crown land sites. We feel that there could be as

much as 3,000 megawatts of wind power capacity on private and crown land in Ontario.

As we develop cleaner and greener energy projects, we are tapping into a very fertile source of innovation, job creation and competitive growth. I would

venture to say that this is an exciting time for the renewable energy industry in Ontario.

We believe that continued investment in water power and other sources of renewable energy will both clean up our air and create new jobs and opportunities

right across this province. We are doing all of that so that we can help ensure that Ontarians have cleaner air to breathe, a healthier environment and a more prosperous future.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Responses?

DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): It's amazing what a $10,000-a-ticket fundraiser will bring to this Legislature.

Last week my leader, John Tory, received a letter from Mr. Bryant.. Mr. Bryant said in his letter, "Deb Matthews, MPP, president of the Ontario Liberal Party,

will represent our party as we move forward together to work out the necessary framework for disclosure. I invite you" -- John Tory; Howard Hampton is also on this letter -- "or your designate to

be in touch with Ms. Matthews to arrange a meeting to finalize the details so we can all commence this disclosure as quickly as possible." I don't know how this is moving forward together. This

letter was written on March 3. This is March 7.

The Liberals talk about moving together and bringing forward fair democratic reform, but this bill that was introduced today has no role for MPPs to be

involved in what goes forward with regard to democratic renewal in this province. Much of the bill is left up to regulations -- regulations that are going to be made by a Liberal cabinet as to how

we go forward. The terms of reference for the democratic renewal citizens' committee will be set by the Liberal candidate. They will not be set by the Legislative Assembly.

I'd also like to comment with regard to the provision that we're going to have 11 ridings in the north. If we have 11 ridings in the north, that's fine and

dandy by us, but we have to be fair to the south as well. Our Constitution says that every citizen has the same equal vote. When you look at the numbers that come out, with regard to 107 ridings,

we have ridings that are going to be 34% below the provincial average, which is 106,600 people. There are three ridings in the north that are smaller than ridings in the south. Yet those ridings in

the south are not going to have average representations of a population of 76,000 or 77,000; they're going to have populations of over 110,000.

Not only is this act in contravention of the federal Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, which is our legislation where we set our boundaries, but it's also

in contravention of

section 3 of the Charter of Rights. This bill allows that of the 11 constituencies in the north, 10 are above the 25% limit contained in the readjustment act. If the government

wants 11 ridings in the north, then let's go ahead, but we will have to have more ridings in the south.

Therefore, I would say to the minister that as we go through this process, the only fair thing to do, if you want to retain 11 in the north, is to set up a

provincial election boundaries commission to establish how many ridings we should have in the south, and that those people should have equal representation to those in the north. Some of the people

I represent in my riding will be part of a population of 113,000, over 9,600 square kilometres,

whereas the riding of Sault Ste. Marie in the north will have a population of 74,000 and will cover

250 square kilometres. This doesn't add up. The Charter of Rights is for all Ontarians, whether they're in the north, in the east or in the south.

Ms. Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I'd like to respond on behalf --

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): I got a lot of interruptions in the responses, and I commend the member from Lanark-Carleton for not even

having an outburst about that. But I need to have more co-operation from the members so I can hear the responses.

Ms. Churley: I'd like to respond to the minister responsible for democratic renewal. Let me see what we have here today: We have retroactive

real-time disclosure. So if you gave a year ago or so, retroactively it's going to show up on the books. What this bill gives us is a real-time loophole, because you exclude riding associations,

and we all know what happens with that. Just in case you don't get it, let me explain. This means that you can keep on having your high-priced dinners with the Premier and finance minister and have

individual cheques for over $5,000 each made out to different riding associations. What a scam.

You have an opportunity to come forward today with real-time disclosure. Was it a mistake? Do you want to make an amendment and put it in? This bill before us

today is a further delaying tactic. Instead of getting on with passing a bill like mine today, which does not have a big loophole you could drive a truck through -- why don't we pass that instead,

or make an amendment to yours?

You're doing exactly what the Tories used to do. We want real-time disclosure. You promised real-time disclosure. You bring forward a bill today on real-time

disclosure, an omnibus bill with other parts in the democratic renewal process that you know the opposition is going to have different problems with. Yet you include it all in one. Why don't you

sever your real-time disclosure bill off --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister of Municipal Affairs, please. Minister for Natural Resources, come to order, please.

Ms. Churley: Mr. Speaker, it's getting under his skin, no doubt.

Sever the real-time disclosure bill off and amend it to get rid of the loophole, so riding associations are included, or pass my bill -- one or the other. You

did that, by the way; you had no problem severing out fixed dates for elections, so why not sever off real-time? I will tell you why you're not severing it off: You are stalling. You continue to

stall.

This bill that's before us today is an omnibus bill. There are many difficulties with this bill, and I encourage and demand that the government sever off

real-time disclosure so we can deal with it in real time, right now, and quit this stalling.

HYDRO GENERATION

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I want to respond to the Minister of Natural Resources who, like the Minister of Energy last week,

has come and made another nothing announcement. Is anything happening? No. Just like last week, when the Minister of Energy came into the Legislature and announced he was going to write a letter to

the federal Minister of Finance. Well, write your letter. This is not going to bring on any more wind power now. This is not going to bring on any more hydroelectricity power now.

This is a government that is desperate for hydroelectricity announcements to cover up the fact that two years into your mandate, you do nothing while coal

burns. Remember that promise? You were going to shut down all the coal plants. Here we are, two years into the announcement, and this government does nothing while coal burns.

There's something even more interesting about this announcement, because when the minister went to Thunder Bay to make his original announcement about water

power in northern Ontario, the First Nations ran him out of town. They sent him packing, back to Toronto, because his announcement was so unfavourable to them. They looked at it and they saw that

the McGuinty government's policy for developing more hydroelectricity in northern Ontario would force First Nations into the hands of companies like Brascan. What did Brascan do just a few years

ago? After they got their hands on the Mississagi River plants, they literally ran the lake dry. The environment be damned, fish habitats be damned, tourist industry be damned. Run the lake dry

because you can make money. The McGuinty government is now telling First Nations, "Climb in bed with Brascan. Your future lies with an environmentally irresponsible corporation like Brascan."

There's something else that's interesting here. None of these announcements will do anything for the 130 workers at the pulp mill in Terrace Bay who are losing

their jobs thanks to the McGuinty government. None of these announcements will do anything about the more than 200 workers at the Kenora paper mill who right now are dealing with the possibility

their mill may close, or the Abitibi workers in Thunder Bay who are dealing with the possibility their mill may close. Why? Because the McGuinty government policy is to drive up electricity rates,

no matter how many mills close and no matter how many thousands of workers lose their jobs in northern Ontario.

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): I have a

real-time point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'm asking for unanimous consent for the order for second and third readings of Bill 176,

an Act to amend the Election Act, the Election Finances Act and the

Legislative Assembly Act, that it be called immediately and that the question be immediately put without any further debate or amendment, so we can get this done in real time.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. It seems to me you've all heard it, because I was having difficulty. Do we have unanimous consent? I

heard a no.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. There's a lot of disruption in the early part here.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I'm glad the member for St. Catharines agrees with me.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GREENBELT

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. A week and a half ago, you

appeared on TVO's Fourth Reading and you talked about the greenbelt and how you arrived at your boundaries.

Those of us who were hoping for a clearer explanation were disappointed. The so-called scientific reasons for the boundaries remain sealed in a Mason jar

underneath the Premier's Rosedale porch. Here's what you said to Susanna Kelley: "I have not met with any developers. I have purposely stayed away from meeting with individual landowners that had

an interest in the greenbelt."

Minister, do you still stand by your statement from a week and a half ago?

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): First of all, we're very proud of the

greenbelt that was created and that basically added a million acres of land to that.

I can confirm that during the process of drawing up the greenbelt, between about August of last year until the plans came out, I have not met with any

developer on the greenbelt. The gentleman who was referred to, I met with on the night of the seventh game of the Stanley Cup playoffs between Toronto and Philadelphia when he wanted to know from

me whether or not this government was willing to break its commitment with respect to the agricultural preserve in Pickering. I told him no; it was a commitment of this government that that would

be preserved for farmland. That was the total conversation that I had with that gentleman. But never at any time did I meet with developers or property owners with respect to the greenbelt while

the process of drawing up the greenbelt took place, between the summer and the time it was enacted here.

Mr. Runciman: Now we're starting to qualify timelines. We have a copy of a letter sent to the minister today by a developer with an interest

in the greenbelt. The minister said just a week and a half ago, and I'll quote him again, "I have purposely stayed away from meeting with individual landowners that had an interest in the

greenbelt." You didn't state, "Within a four-week or a five-week period, I stayed way from greenbelt developers who had an interest in developing the greenbelt area."

In the letter, the developer thanks the minister for meeting with him. Worse, he also thanks the minister for exempting a parcel of land that he owns from the

greenbelt. I'll send a copy of this letter over to the minister.

Minister, I believe the people of Ontario deserve an explanation. What is it?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: Speaker, I would be more than pleased to take a look at this letter that he's talking about. I don't know what he's

talking about. As far as I know, no property was exempted. I once again repeat that during the drawing of the greenbelt mapping and plan that took place during the summer of last year and the time

when it was actually enacted here, to the best of my knowledge and belief, I did not meet with any particular developer.

The developer that he is talking about, again, I met with in early May, at his request, to deal specifically with respect to our party's commitment related to

the agricultural preserve. As I indicated to him that particular evening and as I have indicated to him many times before, the agricultural preserve, to the best of my knowledge and belief, is part

of our commitment to preserve that for future generations as agricultural lands in this province.

Mr. Runciman: Now we're even getting additional qualifications, not being as firm and forceful as he was in his answer on TVO. You claim to

have avoided meeting with developers who have interests in the greenbelt. Now we have the letter from one of those developers that says that you did meet with him, and as a result of the meeting

you removed a parcel of land from the greenbelt. The letter states, "We were told all of block 41 was to be removed from the greenbelt, not only the lands belonging to us." Today's Hamilton

Spectator also has confirmation from the head of the Greenbelt Task Force that they had nothing to do with setting the greenbelt boundaries.

Minister, how can you possibly claim that your greenbelt was based on science, given this damning evidence?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: I can confirm that the greenbelt was indeed based on science. The original area that we put out during our platform that

we wanted protected was made available during the election campaign. Following our election campaign, we used the best science available from the Ministry of Natural Resources, from conservation

authorities, from the Ministry of Agriculture and from the official plans that had been developed by the different municipalities to come up with the best science and planning available to

determine what areas should actually be included in the greenbelt. That was done, to the best of my knowledge and belief, for the entire million acres that are now protected.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): I'm going to ask the member from St. Catharines to come to order, and I'm also going to ask the member from

Durham. I'm having difficulty having you come to order, even in your seat, so I'm going to ask you to come to order.

New question.

Mr. Runciman: I have a question to the Premier. We hear the minister saying, "to the best of my knowledge," and "I believe" -- talk about

waffling.

Premier, your Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has been, I think, caught saying one thing and doing another. Evidently he takes his cues from you.

Your Minister of Municipal Affairs, confirmed as the man ultimately responsible for drawing the greenbelt boundaries, has now been thanked by a developer with interest in the greenbelt for

exempting his lands. Premier, do you still stand by your assertion that the greenbelt boundaries were based on science?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Absolutely. I draw the Leader of the Opposition's attention to some of

the science that we relied upon. In particular there were a number, in fact six separate documents, all of which are on-line, and I'll make reference to those. There is the Natural Heritage

Reference Manual that was developed in June 1999 by you. It is a very solid document, and that's on-line. The LEAR report is a methodology that's used to assess the significance of agricultural

resources within the proposed greenbelt area. That was developed in 1995, revised in 2002, and then we had it revised in 2004. As well, there is A Current Assessment of Gross Land Supply in the

Greater Golden Horseshoe. That was developed in the winter of 2005. That's also available on the Web site. There are three others as well that I'd be pleased to draw the member's attention to after

his supplementary.

Mr. Runciman: My colleague from Erie-Lincoln tossed cold water on that response last week. That just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

The story gets worse. Mr. DeGasperis, the developer who thanked the Minister of Municipal Affairs today for exempting his lands from the greenbelt, is the same

Mr. DeGasperis who paid $10,000 to meet with you and the finance minister at the Sorbara household last year.

Premier, your defence last week was that you actually broke your promise to Mr. DeGasperis, so no big deal. Now, however, we see the exact opposite. Your

minister met with Mr. DeGasperis while his ministry was drawing the greenbelt boundaries, and suddenly his land is excluded from the greenbelt. What science was the exemption of Mr. DeGasperis's

land based on? What was the science used there?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: It comes as a surprise to me that this particular individual is pleased with our government's actions when it comes to what

land was excluded in the greenbelt.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. One minute, Premier. Member from Erie-Lincoln, I'm going to give you a warning.

Premier?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: It's no surprise that there are many people who are unhappy with the fact that their lands were included in the greenbelt.

In fact, on the weekend, a representative of the Urban Development Institute said, "It doesn't look like" -- the government -- "acted on any of our recommendations." Again, it's no secret that some

people and some interests are unhappy with the 1.8 million acres that we have preserved in perpetuity. But there are millions and millions of Ontarians who are pleased and proud of the fact that

they have a government that stood up for their children and their grandchildren and protected 1.8 million acres. Perhaps the gentleman opposite does not understand that, but we are proud to decide

in favour of the greater public interest and to stand up for our children and our grandchildren.

Mr. Runciman: The science seems to be in culinary science at your secret $10,000 soiree.

Over 100 acres of Mr. DeGasperis's land was excluded from the greenbelt after his meeting with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Recently, a

similar plot of land was sold just south of Mr. DeGasperis's land for $150,000 an acre. So conservatively, Mr. DeGasperis's land is valued at least at $15 million.

Premier, you have to appreciate the understandable impressions surrounding this: Pay $10,000 to get your ear about greenbelt boundaries and, at the end of the

process, receive an exemption with at least $15 million attached to it. That sounds like a decent return on investment. Premier, will you finally release the science behind this exemption?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Earlier, I made reference to three reports to be found on-line, and there are three others as well, which I'll gladly draw

to the attention of my friend opposite.

The Growth Outlook for the Greater Golden Horseshoe was tabled in January 2005 and put on the Web site. That's a paper that provides population, household and

employment forecasts to 2031 in the greater Golden Horseshoe. Another document, The Application of a Land-Use Intensification Target for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, consists of research on the

application of intensification targets in other jurisdictions as a tool for limiting urban sprawl. That has been available since January 2005 on the Web site. And then, of course, there is the

Greenbelt Task Force report itself, made available in 2004 and also to be found on the Web site.

There is lots of science; I have now quoted six separate reports. I have said nothing of the 75 scientists, led by Dr. David Suzuki, who said that they support

this greenbelt. Again, the member opposite may not be prepared to accept the science, but it is there for all to see.

The Speaker: New question. The leader of the third party.

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. My question relates to some new information about your secret

$10,000-a-person fundraiser with developers.

Between 1999 and 2000, the province sold land in Durham region's Duffins-Rouge Agricultural Preserve to local farmers. The lands were sold with easements

attached to them guaranteeing that the land would remain agricultural forever. These lands, according to you, are now included in the greenbelt.

But we've just learned that last week, at the same time you were announcing the greenbelt boundaries, a developer paid Pickering council $2.7 million to remove

the easements that guaranteed that the land would remain agricultural.

Premier, can you tell us why a developer who paid $10,000 to have your ear at your secret fundraiser would now pay $2.7 million to get rid of anti-development

easements on land that you say is protected by the greenbelt?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: Let me repeat once again: The lands that are in the agricultural preserve in Pickering are part of the greenbelt. Whatever

the city or town of Pickering does by way of resolution removing some designation on those lands is up to the town of Pickering. But quite frankly, the lands are still part of the greenbelt. They

are part of our commitment to make sure that the agricultural preserve remains protected for agricultural and for sensitive environmental purposes. That has not changed. This government cannot be

blamed for whatever the town of Pickering may or may not do by way of resolution.

Mr. Hampton: I heard a lot of wordage, but I didn't hear an answer. Some $2.7 million is a lot of money to bet. I'm trying to figure out why

someone, after paying $10,000 to have the Premier's ear, would go out and bet $2.7 million to have easements removed when the land is apparently in the greenbelt.

Let me tell you why I think this happened. We know that the Premier made a lot of promises at this $10,000-a-plate dinner about what land would be included and

what land would come out. We know that your greenbelt is a floating greenbelt, that the land that is in the greenbelt now can suddenly come out of the greenbelt and be developed. So we have the

developer who pays $10,000 to have the Premier's ear and then goes out and spends the $2.7 million to buy the easements. Doesn't this coincidence make you wonder, Minister? Doesn't this coincidence

of spending $2.7 million on land that can't be developed make you wonder just a little bit what happened at this dinner?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: First of all, let me thank the majority of that caucus for supporting our greenbelt legislation. They did the right thing.

They are making sure that an additional million acres of land is protected for generations to come so that we can once and for all deal with the sprawl situation and the gridlock that has developed

in the GTA.

As to any other comment that this member is making, it's just pure and idle speculation. This government cannot tell the town of Pickering what resolution to

either pass or reject at their council meetings. He should be asking those questions of the council of Pickering, I suppose, or of the people involved.

This government has done all it can to make sure that there's a greenbelt there for generations to come, so that the children of our children will be able to

enjoy the farmland and the environmental land that has been protected for many, many years.

Mr. Hampton: New Democrats support a permanent greenbelt, not this floating operation here, where somebody can pay $10,000 and have land

removed.

I want to point this out: The province sold the Duffins-Rouge lands for $4,000 an acre, and we're told that if this land were now to be developed -- and it

looks suspiciously like it might be headed that way -- the developer would get over $100,000 an acre. Boy, that's a neat profit. Ninety-six thousand dollars an acre just like that, after you attend

the $10,000-a-plate dinner. And of course, who's the developer who's wheeling and dealing? Mr. DeGasperis. I guess he realized that if he can get something with the left hand, down the road he can

get something with the right hand.

Here's the problem: We need a permanent greenbelt. My colleague the member for Toronto-Danforth, Ms. Churley, has introduced a private member's bill that would

give us a permanent greenbelt. Instead of blaming the municipality, will you support Ms. Churley's private member's bill creating a permanent greenbelt so that this travesty can't continue?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: I'm very pleased to tell this member and his caucus and everyone in this room and outside that we do have a permanent

greenbelt; that the legislation that was passed is stronger than any other legislation we've ever had in this province. The greenbelt plan simply calls for a review every 10 years. That's what it

calls for. And it has the extra provision that if, for any reason, an acre of land is taken out of the greenbelt, it has to be replaced by another acre of land. No other legislation of a similar

nature has these kinds of provisions. It is a strong greenbelt that this government and the people of Ontario can be proud of for many, many years to come.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): My question is to the Minister of Health. Community Nursing Home Ltd. is Port Perry's only long-term-care

home. It serves 105 residents. In October, the home received $133,599 in provincial funding to hire more staff. The money was supposed to guarantee two baths a week per resident, more nurses, more

registered practical nurses and more personal support workers.

Staff at the Community Nursing Home confirmed that residents are not receiving two baths per week, as they were supposed to beginning January 1, and workers at

the home are being fired, not hired. In the gallery today are a personal support worker and a registered nurse who will be laid off as of April 17. Minister, why is the Community Nursing Home not

providing residents with two baths per week, and why are you letting management fire, not hire, these staff?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): First and foremost, I say to the honourable member that I was in Shelburne

this morning, where I visited a long-term-care home facility and found just the opposite. The circumstances the honourable member mentions are troubling circumstances. I'll take this question under

advisement and get back to her.

I would say to any member of this House, if they find that there's a long-term-care home in this province that is not acting in accordance with what we all

expect to be appropriate in each of these facilities, there is a 1-800 number, an action line, which has compliance and enforcement associated with it.

We take these matters seriously. We're working hard to make sure, through these associations and the 600 long-term-care homes in this province, that every

dollar allocated for the provision of enhanced service to those most vulnerable in these homes will be spent that way.

I'll take up the information provided by the honourable member and endeavour to get back to her promptly.

Ms. Martel: Let me give the minister some additional information and remind him that it was his government that promised that, with the new

investment, there would be 1,400 new front-line staff and 600 new nurses.

This home got $133,590 from your government. Management is cutting two and a half registered nursing positions and 105 hours of personal support per week.

That's one less hour of direct, hands-on nursing care per resident per week. Some 12 staff are losing their jobs. The home can't even provide residents with two baths per week now, even though they

are mandated by regulation to do so. So it's very clear that, with that loss of staff, it will be impossible for the remaining staff to provide even basic care to residents.

I want to ask you again, Minister: Can you explain to the staff who are here today how their layoffs are going to help the people they want to care for?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: I have no interest or obligation to explain that. I take the honourable member's question seriously. I support the tone

of it. I'm not satisfied by these circumstances. What I can tell the honourable member is that this morning I was in Shelburne, and the county warden from Dufferin county told me about how the

money had been put into effect and talked about the new hiring that had happened in that home and about the enhanced care that resulted. That was the intent of these resources that we brought to

long-term-care homes.

I will not be satisfied until I'm assured that every cent directed to these long-term-care homes for expenditures to enhance the quality of care is spent that

way. That's why I appreciate the honourable member bringing this forward. If other honourable members have information like this, they can be assured that it will be acted upon and that we will

seek to make sure that all these dollars are spent in exactly the fashion they were intended.

Ms. Martel: I don't know anything about the situation in Shelburne, but let me tell you something else about Port Perry that's very

troubling.

A bargaining unit representative from Community Nursing Home is also here today. She was suspended from her job for two days, and one of the reasons given in

the suspension letter was that she went public with the new layoffs and how that was going to hurt seniors in her home.

I have no doubt that other homes are receiving new provincial money and are firing, not hiring, staff. But with the lack of whistle-blower protection, many

other workers may decide not to come forward to release this information for fear of being suspended or terminated.

Minister, your long-term-care discussion paper talks about whistle-blower protection, but it's not in place. What are you going to do to protect this worker at

this home and other workers who want to come forward to speak out but are afraid to do so?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: Unlike the honourable member, I'm not going to speculate about a circumstance occurring more broadly. However, I've been

on the record saying that our legislation with respect to long-term care, which will be coming forward before this House this year, will include whistle-blower protection, for exactly the reasons

that the honourable member mentions.

Here again I say to the honourable member: Send that specific information across the way and we will follow up on it. She can be assured, and all members of

this House can be assured, that the dollars we have allocated, almost $200 million in additional resources for long-term-care homes, will be spent on the provisions that were intended, which is in

enhancing the quality of care for those most vulnerable residents.

GREENBELT

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): Back to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: There are serious and widespread questions about

connections between secret meetings with developers and changes to the greenbelt boundaries.

Today's revelation is even more alarming. The minister said, "I have not met with any developers," but today that statement doesn't seem to meet with the facts

we've learned. Specifically, for some reason, properties belonging to Mr. DeGasperis in the city of Vaughan, in the finance minister's riding, have been exempted from the greenbelt. His neighbours

-- those to the north, the south, the east and the west -- did not get any kind of exemption. One difference: Mr. DeGasperis had a secret meeting with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and he

attended the secret fundraiser at $10,000 a plate.

Minister, surely, if you made this one particular exception for one individual and not his neighbours, you will release the science today on this property to

try to defend any integrity left with this plan.

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): Your plan is to pave the greenbelt. We all

know about that. You voted against the greenbelt legislation.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. Member from Oxford and member from Simcoe North, I want you to come to order.

Minister.

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: When I met with Mr. DeGasperis, it was two or three months before --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member from Nepean-Carleton, if I sit down, I don't want you to start shouting. I want to give you a warning.

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: It was two or three months before the greenbelt mapping and the plan were even put into preparation. He came specifically

to meet with me with respect to our commitment to maintain the agricultural preserve as agricultural land. I told him that was our plan, that was our commitment during the election campaign, and

that's exactly what happened.

These are the six plans right here, the science on which the greenbelt is based. I would suggest to the member that you read it and come to exactly the same

conclusion we did; that is, that the million acres of land we are protecting in the greenbelt, in addition to what is already in the Oak Ridges moraine and the Niagara Escarpment, is something that

everybody in Ontario --

The Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

Mr. Hudak: Quite frankly, the minister's answers aren't cutting it, not by a long shot. Minister, you know full well that you released the

draft greenbelt study area in December 2003. Those who were caught up in that area knew that every parcel of land was under consideration. After that point in time, you had at least one meeting

with DeGasperis. Who knows how many other developers had secret meetings with the minister and his staff? Sir, you changed the boundaries. You didn't change the boundaries to the south. You didn't

change the boundaries to the east, the north or the west. You made an exception for this piece of land that would have pocketed the individual at least $15 million, and that would have gone by your

desk, Minister.

By the end of the day, sir, will you release the detailed science around this property in the city of Vaughan, in the finance minister's riding, or will you

leave your integrity at the door? Do the right thing, Minister.

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: I will ask one of the pages to walk these documents over to you. This is the science that the greenbelt was based on, the

best science available that we used from the Ministry of Natural Resources, from agriculture, from -- let's see, where else? -- the Greenbelt Task Force. You used exactly the same science to

determine the limits of the Oak Ridges moraine plan, and we used exactly the same science in determining the limits of the greenbelt.

We are proud of the greenbelt. The people of Ontario are proud of the greenbelt. David Suzuki and 75 scientists are proud of the greenbelt. I would suggest to

you that, in years to come, even you may be proud of the greenbelt as well.

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Ms. Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have a question for the minister responsible for democratic renewal. For over a year and a half,

you've used every delay tactic in the book to avoid bringing in real-time disclosure of donations. Now, with your back to the wall, you've thrown Bill 172 at us in a desperate attempt to buy just a

little bit more fundraising time for your party. You've crammed everything but the kitchen sink into your bill, including giving yourself the power to set up a citizens' assembly, without any

consultation at all. The loophole in your real-time disclosure provisions is big enough to drive a truck through.

Interjection: A Mack truck.

Ms. Churley: You know we can't support this bill, this omnibus bull. If you want real-time in our time, drop your bill and pass the bill I

introduced on real-time disclosure today. Will you do that?

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): I say to the

member, I'm afraid your bill just isn't good enough. For us, real-time disclosure is five business days. For this member, it's seven days -- close, but not enough. For us, this applies to donations

of $100 or more. For the MPP for Toronto-Danforth's bill, it has to be donations of $500 or more. If there are any loopholes, if there's any Mack truck, it's going to be driven through the bill of

that member over there.

Ms. Churley: Minister, that's ridiculous. People aren't concerned about the $100 donations or the $500 donations. They're concerned --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. I'd like to hear the member from Toronto-Danforth put her supplementary, and the government side has

been heckling. I'd like to hear the supplementary.

Ms. Churley: People are concerned about the $5,000-plus that, under your bill, people can still give individually to riding associations and

not disclose. That's the loophole. You're stalling, and everyone knows you're stalling. These are the sorts of tricks the Tories used to use and you guys used to denounce.

Before the election, for instance, Gerard Kennedy said, "Why do they insist on sticking to a bill that contains a piece of their election platform smack in the

middle of it?... Well, it is clearly -- and I say this with as much generosity as I can muster -- a government that has lost its way...."

The democratic renewal provision in your bill gives you dictatorial power. The real-time disclosure provisions allow huge donations to go undisclosed. I

brought forward a bill that would make real time a reality and leave out the loopholes. Why don't you support it? What are you afraid of?

Hon. Mr. Bryant: Only the New Democratic Party would have a problem with the world-leader-in-transparency legislation that has been introduced

today. I understand we're now going to be leading the world in terms of transparency of real-time disclosure. Maybe the New Democrats want us to lead the galaxy. But in any event, I'm telling you

that Ms. Churley's bill has a big $500 loophole in it, and it's just not good enough for this government.

I say to the member opposite, let's agree to a process right now. Even better, let's agree to this bill passing right now. You wanted real-time disclosure; I

give you real-time disclosure. Now I need your real-time support for real-time disclosure in the province of Ontario. Let's hear it: real-time support now.

CATTLE FARMERS

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Our cattle farmers have been under tremendous stress

since May 2003, when the borders were closed to Canadian cattle. Since then, our government has continued to work toward and has anticipated the reopening of the border that was to have happened

today. Unfortunately, due to a recent US federal district court decision, this will not be happening. Minister, can you please tell my constituents what this government has been doing to try to

ensure that the border is opened in a timely fashion?

Hon. Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): We're extremely disappointed in the decision that was reached by the Montana judge last

week. But at the same time, we do remain optimistic, and we're going to continue to be working with the agricultural community to lobby and to move forward. Certainly the Premier demonstrated that

last week, not only in his speech that he delivered in Detroit to US business leaders, but as well the Premier talked to representatives from the Ontario Cattlemen's Association, the Ontario

Livestock Dealers' Association and the auction dealers' association, to make sure they knew the steps that we were going to continue to take. As well, he took the opportunity to call the outgoing

ambassador, Paul Cellucci. So I want to thank the Premier for his continuing efforts in that regard.

Certainly we have tried to do our part, as the government, meeting with both senate and congressional representatives in the United States, to make it very

clear that the science has taken place. And I'm confident that when the judge has an opportunity to look at the minimal-risk rule that the United States Department of Agriculture has in place, he

is going to see that it's built on sound science, and that border will quickly be reopened.

Mr. Leal: I want to thank the minister for his detailed response. Despite the fact that most farmers were cautiously optimistic with the March

7 opening date, this comes as a huge disappointment. This is a case of politics delaying sound science. Can you let my constituents know how our government plans to deal with this continuing issue

of the border remaining closed?

Hon. Mr. Peters: The set-aside programs that have been in place since last September will continue. It's a commitment that we made when the

Premier announced $30 million in support for the ruminant industry. So that support will continue.

As well, we spoke over the weekend with representatives from the Ontario Cattlemen's Association. The OCA is meeting today. We're planning a meeting for early

next week to bring all the industry players together to give them the most up-to-date information that we have.

Certainly, the time has come that we need to realize that, as we move forward, we do need a targeted strategy. We have done that in the past; we've

demonstrated in working with the various ruminant organizations that, by working together, we can develop long-term plans. That's our intent when we meet. We have been there to support farmers in

this province, and we will continue with that financial support.

GREENBELT

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leader of the Opposition): I want to go back to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. There are two critical

issues here that we're dealing with: One is the legitimacy of the boundaries of the greenbelt, and the other is the unequivocal statement that you made to TVO that you did not meet with developers

to talk about greenbelt boundaries. I think these are very serious issues, Minister, which you have not dealt with here today in question period. Clearly, now you're saying, "OK, maybe I made a

mistake. I did meet with a developer, but it was outside the critical period of time."

In reality, this was part of the consideration process; the game was on. He's now admitting he met with this developer. We now know the developer was part of

this $10,000 secret soiree; we know that as well. We're talking about this individual having a parcel exempted from the greenbelt -- he's congratulating you for that -- a parcel that we know was

worth at least $15 million -- $15 million.

I ask the minister, once again, to tell the public of Ontario why he told TVO that he did not meet with the developers and to release the science behind this

exemption.

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): I believe that what I told TVO, quite

frankly -- and perhaps the tape will bear this out -- is that I determined myself, personally, that I was not going to meet with any individual property owners while the mapping and the planning of

the greenbelt was going to be in place, which took place after the Greenbelt Task Force reported, sometime at the end of June or early July. I felt that the people I should meet with were the

legally elected people from all the different areas -- whether they were at the regional council or at the local council -- and the planning officials. It's not that I was prevented from meeting

with anybody, but I didn't meet with any developers once the planning and mapping took place.

The meeting with Mr. DeGasperis was at least two or three months before that, to deal specifically with the agricultural preserve. He wanted us to break our

promise to keep that as part of the agricultural lands, and I told him, as far as I was concerned, it was part of our commitment to the people of Ontario to keep it as agricultural lands.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): It appears that with every new question the minister's story changes. I do wonder how many meetings he had with

developers before August, and then what happened in August. He got collective amnesia, I guess, about all these meetings he had beforehand. Maybe those fundraisers are some sort of down-payment

system on future decisions.

Minister, I read through this stuff that you sent over. We've got this from the Web site. Quite frankly, there is nothing in here about the city of Vaughan.

There is nothing in here about the individual parcel in question. There is nothing in here about the individual developer in question. There are no answers in there about property 41 in the city of

Vaughan in the finance minister's riding.

Sir, we told you that you shouldn't reserve the right to yourself to make these changes. You assumed that power and, sir, you have now used that power to a

$15-million benefit for one particular developer.

I ask you, sir, by the end of the day today, to release the science on this particular property in the city of Vaughan. Tell us why it got an exemption when

all the neighbours did not.

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: As a result of the consultation process with all the various municipal leaders involved, there were some changes made. I

believe the Toronto Star --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: Well, isn't consultation all part of making sure that you've got it right? And we do have it right. There were certain

changes made. The net result of those changes was the fact that 8,500 acres of additional land were placed in the greenbelt.

With respect to the city of Vaughan, to the best of my recollection, and I have to review the documentation, basically the natural science system of protecting

the watercourses in Vaughan -- they were protected. There were some tablelands that weren't, strictly speaking, part of the natural resource system that were made available for development. But as

far as I'm concerned, in the city of Vaughan, the amount of land that was put into the greenbelt equates to about the amount of land that was taken out.

The bottom line is this: A million acres of land are going to be protected for future generations, something that that government didn't care about because

they didn't care about the sprawl or the gridlock that existed in this part of Ontario.

COURT BACKLOG

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I have a question to the Attorney General. In December 2003, the Provincial Auditor warned this province

that the backlog in our criminal courts was at an all-time, 10-year high, that the integrated justice project was floundering and that the ministry was failing to collect millions of dollars of

unpaid and overdue fines.

You and your government's response? "We'll flat-line the ministry's budget." Cases continue to be thrown out, fines continue to go uncollected, the backlog

grows, and it's the front-line staff who bear the brunt of the anger from the public.

Minister, you promised to rebuild our public services. Why are you breaking that promise? How many cases have to get tossed out of court and how many human

rights cases ignored before you take action to rebuild the justice system?

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

to a number of initiatives that we've undertaken to deal with court case backlogs. But now, actually for the first time, we're going to be publishing statistics on caseload -- criminal, civil,

family and otherwise -- that previously had never been known to the public so that it will be able to track exactly the progress we're making.

Since we formed the government, we have appointed 29 judges to the Ontario Court of Justice. That is one way to deal with the backlog. We've hired 50 crown

attorneys and deployed them across the province. We have set up the blitz courts at the sites -- and the member will know this: You need to set up the blitz courts at the sites where you've got the

biggest problems. You've got some sites where there's very little or no delay; you've got some sites that just generally incur delay. That's the purpose of the blitz courts. We've established case

management teams in high-volume areas to monitor caseload and identify charges that might be in jeopardy, and instituted a bail best-practices protocol to reduce the number of in-custody

appearances.

I have more to say in response during supplementary.

Mr. Kormos: Attorney General, you see the president of OPSEU, Leah Casselman, here. I want you to know that with her are three OPSEU workers

from our court systems: Shelley McCormick, Julie Weber and Ramona Solevilla. These front-line workers ensure that documents are processed, court proceedings are transcribed, fines are collected and

victims of crime get the information they need.

You've treated these workers, mostly women, with ongoing contempt, casualizing and contracting out their jobs, denying them full-time work, cancelling their

training. Rather than reinvesting, you've brought more cutbacks into the system in the courts, at the Human Rights Commission and now at the Native Affairs Secretariat.

Shortly after you were elected, Leah Casselman asked you to meet with contract workers from the courts. You refused. Why have you not met with the front-line

workers? They're the ones who're going to tell you how to address some of these problems. Why haven't you met with these front-line workers in our courts to discuss new ways to rebuild the court

system in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bryant: I certainly join in the member's commitment to ensuring that we not delay our case flow anywhere in the province of Ontario.

I thank all the front-line workers who are working on this. I thank them in person as I go from court to court across the province of Ontario, and I take their advice on how we can reduce

delays.

I'll tell you what they say to me time and again. What they don't want to have happen is what happened in the early 1990s under the NDP government, when the

Askov decision came down and more than 80,000 cases got thrown out in the province of Ontario. So we won't be taking any lessons from Mr. Hampton and the NDP when it comes to justice delayed,

because that's justice denied.

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): My question today is for the Minister of Health. So many of our communities in Ontario have received the

dubious distinction of "underserviced." What does this new deal with the OMA do for the people of Ontario who are in communities that have received the designation of underserviced?

Interjections.

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): It's interesting to hear the heckles from the parties opposite, who first

created the shortage of doctors in this province and then said that the agreements we sought to reach with the Ontario Medical Association were too generous. Now they heckle and suggest something

to the contrary.

I'm pleased to be able to say that, as a result of the hard work of two teams negotiating over a lengthy period of time, our government has come to a tentative

agreement with the Ontario Medical Association that has been unanimously endorsed by the OMA board. In doing so, I'm pleased to read something that is helpful. A release from the Ontario Medical

Association said that they have "unanimously endorsed a new tentative agreement with government that will take steps to improve wait lists, doctor shortages, Ontario's competitiveness with other

provinces and access to health care services for Ontario patients."

Our government believes that, in reaching this tentative agreement, investing these resources of the people of Ontario is a very significant step toward

reducing the underserviced areas, which were the legacy of that party while in government.

Mrs. Mitchell: Thank you, Minister.

Interjections.

Mrs. Mitchell: I also want to say, especially for all the communities that have received their underserviced designation, that this is good

news for the people of Ontario, and I'm pleased that the opposition recognizes this as good news. But what will this new deal do to improve access to a full range of health services?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: The enhancements to this agreement build on the foundation of the previous work that had been done, which, by its very

design, was going to support new models of primary care. The honourable member will know well, because all honourable members who are in touch with their ridings know well, that 213 communities

have already submitted applications for family health teams. This agreement underscores our commitment to primary care, because it associates that agreement with this new model of the provision of

care.

I think one significant benefit that patients all across the province of Ontario will soon experience is that this government has suggested that it's

appropriate to put the resources of the people of the province behind it and therefore allow us to lift caps which have long been in place for some of the specialists. This has been one of the key

constraints of the Ontario health care system, and I'm pleased to be able to say that if this agreement is ratified by the membership of the Ontario Medical Association, caps on key specialties

will be a thing of the past in the province of Ontario.

GREENBELT

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leader of the Opposition): Back to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and some of the issues he was talking

about earlier: In the letter that I sent over to him from Mr. DeGasperis earlier today, he talks about Mr. John MacKenzie, special assistant, greenbelt and planning, of your office. DeGasperis was

told that "all of block 41 was to be removed from the greenbelt, not only the lands belonging to us.... I ask you to amend the plan to exclude all of block 41 from the greenbelt plan. Not just our

lands."

You talked about the tablelands earlier to protect streams and lakes. DeGasperis says, "The balance of the tablelands in block 41 is no different from our

lands and should be treated the same."

We also have a letter from Michael Di Biase; you talked last week about the official plan in Vaughan. He takes strong issue with that, asking you to amend the

greenbelt plan to reflect Vaughan's official plan: "We have no tolerance for double standards in the province."

I think the people of Ontario deserve a clear explanation from you with respect to the rationale for exempting these properties: a $15-million realization for

this one developer. Please stand up and explain your actions.

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): The first thing I can explain is that the

date on Mr. DeGasperis's letter is March 7, 2005, which is today, in which he's trying to confirm some conversation that took place, I guess about 10 months ago. So the actual contents and the

parcels that he's referring to that --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: It would be interesting to know how the opposition got this letter before I as minister got the letter. But that's another

issue, I suppose.

All I can tell you is that I am not familiar with the blocks of land that he refers to. However, now that we have this letter of March 7, 2005, which happens

to be today, you can be assured that we will take a look at it and deal with it accordingly.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): The minister is certainly backpedalling here. His answer almost seemed to say that he doesn't remember if they'd

had a meeting in the first place,

whereas 10 minutes ago he said that he'd had the meeting. He said it was in May, so it didn't matter because it was in May. But we think it matters.

According to Mr. DeGasperis's letter, he said that he had a meeting with the minister and his special assistant, and that he was told that all of block 41 was

to be removed from the greenbelt, so all of the land in question. A commitment apparently was made.

Minister, was it you who were making the commitment? Was it your political assistant? Who exactly made this commitment that the land would be exempted?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: First of all, it would be difficult for me to know about particular issues in the million-acre greenbelt. I never saw the

letter until the member gave it to me. But Mr. DeGasperis never says in his letter that he raised the issue of block 41 with me. What he says is, "We have had a number of discussions and meetings

with Mr. John MacKenzie, special assistant ... of your office, to which he has been very helpful, but we were told that all of block 41 was to be removed from the greenbelt...."

In other words, I didn't even have that conversation about a specific piece of property. The only thing I can recall --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Oxford, I'm going to give you a warning. I hope the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke comes to order too.

Minister?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: As I mentioned before -- and at least he agrees on the date, because I did say it was the seventh game of the

Toronto-Philadelphia series; he was in a bit of a hurry and didn't really have all that much time to speak to me -- all I can remember is that he came in to see me specifically about the

agricultural preserve in Pickering, and we said at that time, as far as I was concerned, that we were going to live up to our commitment to retain that land as agricultural land.

SECOND-STAGE HOUSING

Ms. Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have a question for the minister responsible for women's issues. Tomorrow is International Women's

Day. In honour of that day, I'm asking you to fix a broken promise to women. Safe housing for women fleeing domestic violence, like second-stage housing, is in scarce supply. Your government hasn't

built any of the affordable housing units you had promised. As a result, women in shelters are forced to choose between returning to an abusive home or homelessness.

The Liberals' election platform and throne speech promised to restore core funding for second-stage housing, but this November you did not deliver. You took

the money promised to second-stage housing and stretched it thin over a wide variety of services. International Women's Day provides you with an opportunity to right this wrong. Will you do it?

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

This member will probably recognize that today we had a tremendous announcement. My parliamentary assistant, Deb Matthews, and I made it from London. We spoke to 98 agencies that are benefiting

today from a new refurbishment fund, which is designated not just to our women's shelters but also to our second-stage housing providers: 98 agencies that made that priority list for funding for

things that, frankly, may not be very sexy. It is one-time funding for things like repairing the roof, getting a new furnace, upgrading the wiring, adding, in some cases, bullet-proof windows and

doors, basic security items that places like our second-stage housing and shelters desperately need.

Yes, we did it this week. It is the beginning of International Women's Week, something that I think everyone in this House should be celebrating, and I look

forward to having an opportunity to continue the long list of some of our achievements so far this year.

Ms. Churley: Like all your announcements, Minister, you still haven't kept your promise -- and the Premier's promise in opposition -- that you

would reinstate funding to second-stage housing. I've been hearing from second-stage housing providers across the province, providers like Family Services Hamilton. They have a message for you: You

have put second-stage housing in even greater crises by breaking your promise. As a result, there will be even fewer safe places where women and their children can go to rebuild their lives.

Minister, any statement you make tomorrow on women's issues will ring hollow if you do not keep your promise on second-stage housing. I ask you again,

specifically on second-stage housing, will you keep your promise and restore the funding to second-stage housing?

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: What I do know is that this year for the first time, we brought second-stage housing agencies back into the government

fold. They participated in a significant announcement around transitional support programs that not only went out to counselling agencies, shelters and second stage, but as well we have

incorporated them into all kinds of other funding models.

This member opposite should stand up or, frankly, do cartwheels over our domestic violence action plan that we released in December, a $66-million plan that

encompasses four significant areas. One of those that has been lauded by every expert is our public education campaign; supports to the community for those who have to respond to domestic violence;

training of front-line workers, which, frankly, we don't do enough of across Ontario; and finally, the justice sector, where we know there are improvements that have to be made. But I must finish

by saying we have addressed French-language services in this sector as well, and I hope this member opposite will appreciate --

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Thank you. New question, the member for Mississauga East.

DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL

Mr. Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East): My question is for the Minister responsible for democratic renewal and his world-leading legislation.

During the last election, as I was meeting with the voters in my riding, one of the things that kept coming up was the state of democracy in our great province and the ways we can improve our

democratic system, including the way political donations are made to parties. People are worried that our democratic system is not sufficiently accountable and transparent. At the same time, we're

witnessing increasing cynicism and decreasing voter turnout, especially among our young voters. My question is this, what will the legislation introduced today do to combat this?

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): I thank the

member for his question. Firstly, we will begin the process that will allow us to start the citizens' assembly and the citizens' jury on financial reform, so that finally, for once, the people will

get a say as to how their electoral system works and how political finance works.

This bill is also going to, for the first time, provide for real-time disclosure of donations to political parties and to the PC and NDP leadership conventions

in 2008. We're going to see, for the first time in Ontario -- and there isn't anything like it in North America, the Commonwealth or the world -- legislation whereby you've got to disclose, within

five business days, a donation to a political party, and then it will be disclosed on the Internet by the chief electoral officer. It is transparency that will give people confidence, and we look

forward to getting all members' support.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Supplementary.

Mr. Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): The Progressive Conservative government cut the number of legislative seats in northern Ontario by

one third. Today we learned again that the Progressive Conservative Party endorses the further elimination of one northern seat from the next general election.

Twice, when I was in opposition, I introduced legislation that would have maintained the number of seats at 11. I had the support of my leader and my caucus.

The Liberal Party of Ontario committed to these 11 seats in our election document and reiterated that commitment in the speech from the throne. Minister, how does today's legislation address the

needs of the people of northern Ontario for a strong and equitable voice at Queen's Park?

Hon. Mr. Bryant: I thank the member for his question. I thank the member for his leadership and for the leadership of the northern caucus, and

the leadership of Dalton McGuinty, to make sure that we have 11 ridings in the north in Ontario entrenched in legislation if this bill passes. This is not only an expression from a government of a

commitment to northern Ontario, but it's a guarantee to those communities, which face enormous challenges in terms of ensuring that their voice is heard in vast geographic areas, that

notwithstanding the fact that under the Elections Canada boundary commission they would end up with 10 ridings, we want to make sure they get strong representation, and that means 11 ridings in the

north. Eleven ridings in the north is good news for northern Ontario and good news for all Ontario.

VISITORS

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would

hope that you would help me recognize the Queen's University media students who are in the press gallery today. These budding communication professionals run the Queen's Journal, the Diatribe, CFRC

radio 101.9 and Studio Q. They'll be meeting members of the Legislature and the press gallery today.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): The minister knows that's not a point of order, but of course they're welcome.

PETITIONS

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

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

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas over 1.2 million people use physiotherapy services every year in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas those who use physiotherapy services consider this an important part of their health care and rely on these services, along with the OHIP funding, in

order to function; and

"Whereas the elimination or reduction of physiotherapy services would be viewed as breaking the promise not to reduce universal access to health care; and

"Whereas eliminating or reducing OHIP coverage of physiotherapy services, where the patient pays part of the cost, will end up costing the government far more

in additional physician, emergency department and hospital visits;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: that the Parliament of Ontario does not delist

physiotherapy services from the Ontario health insurance plan, and that assurance is given that funding for physiotherapy services not be reduced or eliminated."

I affix my name, as I support not only the petition but also the Thorntonview long-term-care facility.

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the Minister of Community and Social Services has announced plans to close Huronia Regional Centre, home to people with developmental disabilities,

many of whom have multiple diagnoses and severe problems that cannot be met in the community;

"Whereas closing Huronia Regional Centre will have a devastating impact on residents with developmental disabilities, their families, the developmental

services sector and economies of the local communities;

"Whereas Ontario could use the professional staff and facilities of Huronia Regional Centre to extend specialized services, support and professional training

to many more clients who live in the community, in partnership with families and community agencies;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the government to keep Huronia Regional Centre, home to people with developmental

disabilities, open, and to transform them into `centres of excellence' to provide specialized services and support to Ontarians with developmental needs, no matter where they live."

I'm in agreement and affix my signature thereto.

TUITION

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): I present this petition on behalf of the member for Kingston and the Islands. This is to the

Legislative Assembly of Ontario from the students' association at Queen's University:

"Whereas the Ontario Liberal government took an historic step forward by funding a tuition fee freeze for two years; and

"Whereas a majority of Ontarians support increased public funding for colleges and universities as well as reduced tuition fees; and

"Whereas increasing student debt through income-contingent loan repayment schemes or raising loan limits only increases the cost of post-secondary education

for students from modest means; and

"Whereas per student investment in Ontario still lags gravely behind the vast majority of jurisdictions in North America;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, supporting the Canadian Federation of Students' call to increase funding for colleges and universities and reduce tuition fees

for all Ontario students, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to (1) reduce tuition fees for all students in Ontario, (2) increase public funding for post-secondary education to at least

the national average, and (3) implement an upfront, needs-based grant system for Ontario full-time and part-time students."

ONTARIO FARMERS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have here a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

government to farm issues; and

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

regulatory burden on farmers; and

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

between 1996 and 2001;

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

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

greenbelt."

I affix my signature to this, as I wholeheartedly agree with it.

TUITION

Mr. Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland): I'm here today to present this on behalf of the member from Peterborough. It's to the Legislative Assembly

of Ontario, from Trent Central Student Association:

"Whereas the Ontario Liberal government took an historic step forward by funding a tuition fee freeze for two years; and

"Whereas a majority of Ontarians support increased public funding for colleges and universities as well as reduced tuition fees; and

"Whereas increasing student debt through income-contingent loan repayment schemes or raising loan limits only increases the cost of post-secondary education

for students from modest means; and

"Whereas per student investment in Ontario still lags gravely behind the vast majority of jurisdictions in North America;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, supporting the Canadian Federation of Students' call to increase funding for colleges and universities and reduce tuition fees

for all Ontario students, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to (1) reduce tuition fees for all students in Ontario, (2) increase public funding for post-secondary education to at least

the national average, and (3) implement an upfront, needs-based grant system for Ontario full-time and part-time students."

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the Minister of Community and Social Services has announced plans to close Huronia Regional Centre, home to people with developmental disabilities,

many of whom have multiple diagnoses and severe problems that cannot be met in the community;

"Whereas closing Huronia Regional Centre will have a devastating impact on residents with developmental disabilities, their families, the developmental

services sector and economies of the local communities;

"Whereas Ontario could use the professional staff and facilities of Huronia Regional Centre to extend specialized services, support and professional training

to many more clients who live in the community, in partnership with families and community agencies;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the government to keep Huronia Regional Centre, home to people with developmental

disabilities, open, and to transform them into `centres of excellence' to provide specialized services and support to Ontarians with developmental needs, no matter where they live."

I'm pleased to sign my name to this.

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas seniors and other qualified patients require the continued provision of physiotherapy services through

schedule 5 clinics to promote recovery from

medical conditions and continued mobility and good health;

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

"The patients of

schedule 5 physiotherapy clinics request the continued support of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario for provision of OHIP-covered

physiotherapy treatment to qualified seniors and others in need of these vital health care procedures."

I am pleased to add my signature to this petition.

GO TRANSIT TUNNEL

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I have a petition addressed to the Parliament of Ontario, the Minister of Public Infrastructure, and the

Minister of Transportation that reads as follows:

"Whereas GO Transit is presently planning a tunnel in an area just south of St. Clair Avenue West, making it easier for GO trains to pass a major rail

crossing; and

"Whereas the TTC is presently planning a TTC right-of-way along all of St. Clair Avenue West, including the bottleneck caused by the dilapidated St. Clair

Avenue and Old Weston Road bridge; and

"Whereas this bridge" -- which really is also an underpass -- "will be (1) too narrow for the planned TTC right-of-way since it will have only one lane of

traffic; (2) it is not safe for pedestrians. It's about 50 metres long. It's dark and sloping on both the east and west sides, creating a high bank for 300 metres; and (3) it creates a divide, a no

man's land, between Old Weston Road and Keele Street. This was acceptable when the area consisted entirely of slaughterhouses, but now the area has 900 new homes;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, demand that GO Transit extend the tunnel beyond St. Clair Avenue West so that trains will pass under the St. Clair Avenue West

bridge, thus eliminating this eyesore with its high banks and blank walls. Instead, it will create a dynamic, revitalized community enhanced by a beautiful, continuous cityscape with easy traffic

flow."

I support this petition 100%, and I'm delighted to sign it.

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the Minister of Community and Social Services has announced plans to close Huronia Regional Centre, home to people with developmental disabilities,

many of whom have multiple diagnoses and severe problems that cannot be met in the community;

"Whereas closing Huronia Regional Centre will have a devastating impact on residents with developmental disabilities, their families, the developmental

services sector and economies of the local communities;

"Whereas Ontario could use the professional staff and facilities of Huronia Regional Centre to extend specialized services, support and professional training

to many more clients who live in the community, in partnership with families and community agencies;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the government to keep Huronia Regional Centre, home to people with developmental

disabilities, open, and to transform them into `centres of excellence' to provide specialized services and support to Ontarians with developmental needs, no matter where they live."

I'm pleased to sign my name to that.

DIABETES TREATMENT

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): Again, I'm presenting a petition on behalf of the member for Kingston and the Islands.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

"Persons with diabetes need and deserve financial assistance to cope with the escalating cost of managing diabetes. We think it is in all Ontario's and the

government's best interest to support diabetics with the supplies that each individual needs to obtain optimum glucose control. Good blood glucose control reduces or eliminates kidney failure by

50%, blindness by 76%, nerve damage by 60%, cardiac disease by 35% and even amputations. Just think of how many dollars can be saved by the Ministry of Health if diabetics had a chance to gain

optimum glucose control."

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, relating to support for chiropractic services in

Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas elimination of OHIP coverage will mean that many of the 1.2 million patients who use chiropractic will no longer be able to access the health care

they need;

"Those with reduced ability to pay -- including seniors, low-income families and the working poor -- will be forced to seek care in already overburdened family

physician's offices and emergency departments;

"Elimination of OHIP coverage is expected to save $93 million in expenditures on chiropractic treatment, at a cost to government of over $200 million in other

health care costs; and

"There was no consultation with the public on the decision to delist chiropractic services;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reverse the decision announced in the May 18, 2004, provincial budget and maintain OHIP

coverage for chiropractic services, in the best interests of the public, patients, the health care system, government and the province."

I'm pleased to add my signature to this petition.

TTC RIGHT-OF-WAY

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I do have one more petition I would like to present to you. It's to the Parliament of Ontario and the Minister

of the Environment.

"Whereas an environmental assessment is underway on St. Clair Avenue West to study potential transit improvements, including the possibility of installing a

dedicated TTC right-of-way;

"Whereas the consultation process so far has been in bad faith, top-down and rushed, which has disappointed and angered the local community almost entirely,

and not been up to any acceptable public standards;

"Whereas comments by the chair and the members of the Toronto Transit Commission have made it clear that there is a predetermined outcome to the EA process,

regardless of the objections of the local community;

"Whereas a dedicated right-of-way would restrict left-turn access to neighbourhood streets north and south of St. Clair Avenue, and a barrier down the centre

of St. Clair would force the vast majority of residents to make U-turns and go further out of their way just to get home or go to work;

"Whereas a dedicated right-of-way would force significantly more traffic on to our local streets;

"Whereas safety must be a high priority for any alternative selected and, according to the ambulance and fire department staff, they don't like to work with

right-of-ways;

"Whereas a right-of-way would lead to the reduction or elimination of on-street parking on St. Clair Avenue West;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, strongly urge the Minister of the Environment to order a full environmental assessment on St. Clair Avenue West, one that

genuinely consults and takes into consideration the views and opinions of the local community."

Since I agree with this petition wholeheartedly, I'm delighted to sign it as well.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PLACES TO GROW ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR

LES ZONES DE CROISSANCE

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 2, 2005, on the motion for second reading of Bill 136,

An Act respecting the establishment of growth plan areas and

growth plans / Projet de loi 136,

Loi sur l'établissement de zones de croissance planifiée et de plans de croissance.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I believe the member for Toronto-Danforth was in her speech. So you have the floor.

Ms. Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I'm pleased to be able to not necessarily pick up where I left off, because I can't quite remember

where I left off, but I do want to talk about -- it was last week -- one of the major problems I have with this piece of legislation, and that is the focus on highways.

I have brought it up in this House in regard to the greenbelt legislation, and brought forward amendments which were not passed by the Liberal members sitting

on the committee, although I think they were very aware of the problems when I presented them around building the highways "and they will come." I'm sure my colleague from Beaches-East York will

want to talk about that as well, because that's one of his favourite expressions. We're both into baseball.

In this case, we all know. We've seen it. The evidence is there. When you build highways, when you build infrastructure like the big pipe, obviously the

development is going to come. I referred to four or five highways, and there were two new ones added after the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal a few weeks ago announced their growth

plans. In particular, the highway going up to south Simcoe is of grave concern because of what we refer to as leapfrog development. That is one of the major problems with the greenbelt, which of

course relates to this bill.

There are a number of problems, but there are two major ones. One is the leapfrog development which will happen because of south Simcoe being left out. And

now, to make things worse, we have a highway being extended up there. So there's no question about it: The greenbelt, along with this growth plan, will not achieve its stated purpose, which is to

stop or curb urban sprawl.

The second major problem with this plan before us is that even though there's a lot of talk about the importance of moving forward with more transit-based

transportation, the government is not putting its money where its mouth is. So there's a lot of good talk around it, but no action. We know that this week the cost of riding the TTC here in Toronto

has just increased by 25 cents per ride because the province refuses to fund it at the required level. We know that the greater Golden Horseshoe growth plan states that growth needs to occur at

transit-supported densities. But at the same time, even though that's very nicely stated -- I'd agree with that -- they are building new highways through the greenbelt. Unfortunately, and people

are really starting to see that now, it's a typical Liberal approach, where they talk a good line but continue to deliver the status quo. That's one of the things that's happening around the

greenbelt now.

It is true when the Minister of Municipal Affairs stands up and says that, yes, New Democrats supported it, and there are maybe 80% to 90% of urban dwellers

especially, and a lot of rural dwellers, who supported the greenbelt for obvious reasons. We can't go on with the status