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

March 29, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-Mar-29 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 29 March 2006 Mercredi 29 mars 2006

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

CONANT FAMILY

BROCKVILLE GENERAL HOSPITAL

TRANSPORTATION

PROPERTY TAXATION

WOMEN'S ISSUES

ONTARIO BUDGET

ROBERT COSTALL

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MORE TIME TO APPEAL ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 PORTANT PROROGATION

DU DÉLAI D'APPEL

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

FIRST NATIONS REVENUE SHARING /

PARTAGE DES RECETTES

AVEC LES PREMIÈRES NATIONS

EMPLOI DES JEUNES /

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

FIRST NATIONS REVENUE SHARING

EMPLOI DES JEUNES /

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

FIRST NATIONS REVENUE SHARING

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO BUDGET

NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT SUPPLEMENT

PROPERTY TAXATION

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

AGRICULTURE FUNDING

NORTHERN ONTARIO

EDUCATION

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL

ENERGY CONSERVATION

PETITIONS

LANDFILL

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

SPECIAL CARE HOMES

ORGAN DONATION

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

ORGAN DONATION

LONG-TERM CARE

ORGAN DONATION

IDENTITY THEFT

CANCER TREATMENT

LONG-TERM CARE

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

COMMUNITY MEDIATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT À LA GESTION

DES SITUATIONS D'URGENCE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mrs. Julia Munro (York North): On Monday, this House passed Bill 210, designed to offer greater protection and certainty to children under the

care of children's aid societies. Our caucus voted for this bill. It did not contain every feature it could have, but it was a good bill, and we support every effort to better the lives of

children.

Passing a bill is only the first step. The ministry has to implement the bill. Training staff or setting up programs like alternative dispute resolution costs

money. Where is the McGuinty government going to find the money when it has cut the budget for the Ministry of Children and Youth Services by $82 million? How can they pay to implement a new law

when they have cut funding for existing programs? Which programs will the government cut: children's mental health, child protection, early years centres, children with disabilities? Ontario's

children deserve an answer.

It's time for the Minister of Children and Youth Services to start speaking up on behalf of children. She needs to tell the Premier and the Minister of Finance

to halt their $82-million cut to children's services.

CONANT FAMILY

Ms. Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): It is my honour and pleasure to welcome the family of Ontario's 12th Premier to this Legislature today. Mr.

Gordon Conant, who is named after his grandfather, is joined by his wife, Marsha; his son, Geoffrey; his father, Premier Conant's son, Douglas, who is turning 92 on April 8; his stepmother, Sydney;

and his sister, Sandra Manning. Three generations are represented here today.

I have been friends of the Conant family for years, and until I was elected, I had no idea of their amazing connection to Ontario's history. I have since walked

past the fine painting of Premier Conant and have also learned of his remarkable support for women, as reported in the Daily Star of 1942. Premier Conant said, "I think there should be women in

every deliberative and legislative body," a truly remarkable statement and well ahead of its time.

Born outside of Oshawa, Ontario, in 1885, called to the bar in 1912, and an admirer of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, he became a lifelong Liberal. He was elected deputy

reeve and the youngest mayor of Oshawa. Elected to the Ontario Legislature in 1937 by an overwhelming majority, Premier Mitch Hepburn made him Attorney General and, when he resigned, he appointed

Gordon D. Conant his successor, the 12th Premier of Ontario. Unmoved by the furor and controversy surrounding his appointment, Premier Conant put the now-famous sign on his desk which read, "How to

escape criticism: Do nothing, say nothing, be nothing."

Gordon D. Conant died in 1953, and was hailed by the press as a man of integrity who lived an admirable and useful life. Today his grandson, my friend and

constituent who carries his name, visits this chamber for the first time, and Premier Conant's son remembers this building from his last visit almost 40 years ago. Please join me in welcoming the

Conant family.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Welcome.

BROCKVILLE GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Yesterday, residents in my riding were greeted with news that the Brockville General Hospital is being

forced to lay off staff, strip services, close beds and close its outpatient lab in the community of Prescott. This is an alarming example of taxpayers paying more and getting less under the

McGuinty government and this government's disdain for smaller urban centres in rural Ontario.

After getting elected on a promise not to raise taxes, Mr. McGuinty brought in the largest tax increase in Ontario history under the guise of improved health

care. What my constituents have received in return for that deception are the removal of services like physiotherapy and eye and chiropractic care, and now these job losses and further service

cuts. This is not only the loss of important health care services for our region; it is also the loss of almost 30 good-paying jobs, and that has a long-term economic impact.

The bitter irony here is that the former PC government just three short years ago invested millions of dollars in the expansion and renovation of the Brockville

General Hospital so that it could better serve the region. Yesterday's announcement is a significant blow to my riding and that corner of eastern Ontario and a disturbing indicator of the McGuinty

government's "pay more, get less" approach to the province's health care system.

TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Tony C. Wong (Markham): Last Friday in Markham, I had the privilege of meeting with a number of my constituents as well as community leaders

and representatives from York region in order to provide them with a detailed account of our government's 2006 budget and to receive their feedback. I'm happy to report that the feedback was

positive, particularly for the commuters of Markham and York region.

As regional chair, Bill Fisch said, "The Ontario 2006 budget provided significant news for Markham and York region residents and businesses, and we will continue

to work with the provincial government on these important transportation and public transit initiatives."

Our $1.2-billion investment in Move Ontario will strengthen transportation infrastructure, resulting in less gridlock and shorter commute times. Move Ontario

will enhance public transit in Markham, provide a new subway to York region and invest $7 million to support phase 2 of Viva rapid transit. For Markham residents, these major investments will mean

more time with family and less time commuting, reduced business costs, a cleaner environment and a better quality of life.

I am proud that our budget addressed transit infrastructure needs in Markham, and I know that together with our municipal partners we will continue to provide a

variety of public transit options for all York region communities.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): Yesterday, the Premier, when asked in a press scrum whether or not he would extend the deadline

for the appeals process of the Municipal Property Assessment Corp., responded with a deer-in-the-headlights look. But lo and behold, under pressure from the opposition and the third party, they

announced yesterday that they would extend the deadline by 90 days. If the Liberals remain true to their character, this will be a 90-day extension of their deadline to do nothing.

While we're very pleased that property owners who have been living under a system that does not address the reality of property values in today's Ontario will be

given this extension, much more must be done. The McGuinty government must do more than retreat to its burrow and hibernate for three months on this issue. It has been clearly shown that major

reforms to the assessment system are needed. It is imperative that the government ensure that, within this 90-day period, a concrete, long-term solution to this problem be implemented. My colleague

from Erie-Lincoln has already done the groundwork for them.

It is no small irony that the government has ensured that the appeals extension will go beyond the life of this session, making it impossible for the opposition

to question them in this chamber. Significant recommendations have been made by the Ombudsman, and the government must act quickly. The shame of it is that they promised to overhaul this system

almost two years ago and chose to do nothing. In fact, the Premier said it was working fine. He saw the draft of this report several weeks ago and knew what the recommendations would be.

Premier, you're the one with the big office; you're the one with the car and driver. Stop sitting on your hands --

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Members' statements. The member for Hamilton East.

WOMEN'S ISSUES

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): I rise to acknowledge all of the young women who are here in the gallery today from universities and

communities across the province. They are part of the Miss G Project, an Ontario-wide movement that's pushing to have women's studies included in the secondary school curriculum. I want to commend

all of the young women involved, particularly the four founders of the Miss G Project: Sarah Bhabrial, Lara Shkordoff, Sheetal Rawal and Dilani Mohan. A special welcome as well to Dr. Rebecca

Coulter of the University of Western Ontario, who is the project's grand matriarch and a continuing source of guidance and inspiration.

Today the Miss G Project hosted a lunch for MPPs as a first step to getting this government to deliver results. It shouldn't be very difficult to bring women's

studies into the high school curriculum. Really, it's a no-brainer, and we should just do it.

There hasn't been enough action on women's issues by the McGuinty government. Liberals seem to say all the right words, but when you look behind the words,

there's little of substance: no action on stopping the clawback; no action on the comprehensive program for domestic violence that was promised; no provincial dollars for a child care program for

which they promised $300 million; no funding as promised for children with autism and other special needs; no action on passing Bill 45, my bill, which would make workplace harassment a violation

under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

I'm proud to be a New Democrat representing a party that fights every day for the issues that mean the most to women. I only wish the government would do the

same. I would gladly trade the ministerial speeches for timely and concrete action.

Welcome, all young women. I'm very proud to be here with you today.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): I'm very pleased to rise today to talk about some of the very positive things that were announced in last

week's provincial budget for Huron-Bruce. All of the municipalities in Huron-Bruce will be receiving almost $10 million in total. I can tell you, this is much-needed funding for our roads and

bridges. This will allow our municipalities to determine their own roads, their priorities. This is welcome news to the municipalities that are having a very difficult time repairing crumbling

infrastructure. For 10 long years, there were very few provincial funds available for maintaining our roads and bridges, and combined with our severe winter climate, this played its damage.

Roads are the arteries of rural Ontario. They bind our communities together. Our commodities such as milk, eggs and manufactured goods from Volvo and Wescast

need good roads to get in-time delivery, and it's vital to keep our area attractive to new business.

This government has not forgotten rural Ontario. I am proud to be part of a government that is committed to working together with municipalities, treating them

as true partners and recognizing the contribution they make to our rural communities. This was recognized in our budget, the contribution that rural communities give to this great province of

Ontario.

Mr. David Orazietti (Sault Ste. Marie): I'm very pleased with the recent budget because it means more great news for Ontarians and certainly

more great news for Sault Ste. Marie. We've listened to Ontarians and made responsible choices to deliver on their priorities, namely better health care, better education and better infrastructure,

while ensuring transparent and accountable fiscal planning to reduce our deficit to $1.4 billion, down 75% from when we took office.

What our budget means for Sault Ste. Marie is that we can move forward with the construction of our new hospital. It means $4.7 million more for roads, $1.2

million more in gas tax funding, greater funding for the Algoma Health Unit, more funding to train new physicians, and more spaces at Algoma University and Sault College.

What it means for my community is greater hope that the future will be brighter, that the youth will find opportunities in our community, that health care will

improve and that access to a doctor will be easier, that support for our students from the earliest grades to the post-secondary level will be available, and that our local economy will continue to

grow.

Ontarians will not forget the TV-game-show-style budget that was the Magna budget at an auto parts plant.

While the previous Conservative government left us a $5.5-billion deficit and the NDP ran yearly deficits in the $10-billion range, we're on track to eliminate

the deficit within one to two years, but we will only make this claim when it's a fact and when it's confirmed publicly by the Provincial Auditor.

Most of all, this budget shows Ontarians that we're responsible with their financial resources and respect their priorities.

ROBERT COSTALL

Mr. Bill Mauro (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I rise today to pay tribute to a courageous young man who died while attempting to bring peace and

stability to a region and country so desperately in need of both.

Private Robert Costall, stationed with the first battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry in Edmonton, was killed while engaged in a fierce

firefight with Taliban forces overnight.

Robert Costall was born in Thunder Bay, living in our city until he moved west with his father at the age of eight. At 19, he returned to Thunder Bay and lived

with his grandmother before going to Quebec for military training.

A proud new father, Robert Costall was just beginning life's full and rewarding journey. Robert has been described by family members as being "strong in his

belief for the Canadian military and what Canadians stood for."

There are no words I or anyone can offer that will help ease the excruciating pain or dull the aching loss of this exemplary young man, nor are there words that

can truly or properly express the devastating death of a young person taken in life's prime. The tragic death of one filled with enormous potential and brimming with unlimited possibility is hard

to comprehend and difficult to accept.

Too often we have a tendency to use words like "brave," "courageous" and "dedicated" with an almost indifferent frequency and without proper context, and thus

they tend to lose some of the magnificence of their meaning. In recognizing Private Robert Costall, these words fit the example and aptly eulogize this gifted and complete young man.

He gave the ultimate sacrifice, his life, for the freedoms and improved quality of life for others -- others he did not know and, sadly, would never meet. His

efforts in bringing stability, peace and harmony to a country and its peoples, in defending his fellow soldiers and his devotion to duty will always be remembered.

To Private Costall's family, his wife, Chrissy, and their one-year-old son, Colin, we offer our deepest sympathies on the loss of a loving and devoted husband

and father.

In recognizing Robert's efforts to help others gain a better quality of life today, let us remember his sacrifice and dedication always.

Speaker, I would ask that we all rise for a moment of silence in recognition of the life of Private Robert Costall.

The House observed a moment's silence.

VISITORS

Ms. Deborah Matthews (London North Centre): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to introduce in a non-partisan way the energetic,

intelligent, dynamic women of the Miss G Project who are joining us in the Legislature today. I would like all men and women in this Legislature to welcome these fine women, leaders of the

future.

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want to welcome three bright young women to this Legislative Assembly,

students from St. Kevin School in Welland: Sharon Michalak, Madison Hamilton and Marley Kajan, and Marley's dad, Rodney Kajan, too.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received the report on intended appointments dated March 29,

2006, from the standing committee on government agencies. Pursuant to standing order 106(e)9, the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MORE TIME TO APPEAL ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 PORTANT PROROGATION

DU DÉLAI D'APPEL

Mr. Duncan moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 85,

An Act to amend the Assessment Act / Projet de loi 85, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'évaluation foncière.

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

The minister may wish to make a brief statement.

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Finance, Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): This bill extends the deadline for appeal on MPAC decisions

until June 30 of this year. It was provided to the opposition this morning at 10 o'clock. My understanding is that there is agreement with that.

I seek unanimous consent to put a motion to give second and third reading to this bill immediately so that we can implement it today.

The Speaker: The Minister of Finance has asked for unanimous consent. I heard a no.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, Deputy Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Order. The member for Niagara Centre will come to order. Minister of Finance, order. This isn't

necessary. The deputy government House leader.

Hon. Mr. Caplan: I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding private members' public business.

The Speaker: Mr. Caplan seeks unanimous consent to move a motion regarding private members' public business. Agreed? Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Caplan: I move that, notwithstanding standing order 96(d), the following change be made to the ballot list of private members' public

business: Ms. Di Cocco and Mr. Lalonde exchange places in order of precedence such that Ms. Di Cocco assumes ballot item 59 and Mr. Lalonde assumes ballot item 34.

The Speaker: Mr. Caplan has moved that, notwithstanding standing order 96(d), the following change be made to the ballot list of private

members' public business: Ms. Di Cocco and Mr. Lalonde exchange places in order of precedence such that Ms. Di Cocco assumes ballot item 59 and Mr. Lalonde assumes ballot item 34.

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

FIRST NATIONS REVENUE SHARING /

PARTAGE DES RECETTES

AVEC LES PREMIÈRES NATIONS

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, Deputy Government House Leader): It is indeed a great pleasure that I rise today

to inform all members of the House of an historic day for the government of Ontario and for Ontario's First Nations.

Earlier this morning, Premier McGuinty signed an agreement in principle that sets out a new partnership for sharing the economic benefits of gaming with

Ontario's First Nations. It's great news. I want to underline the word "partnership." Our government is committed to taking a new approach to aboriginal affairs and to strengthening the partnership

that we value greatly.

The agreement in principle commits the parties to negotiate a binding legal agreement by December 31 of this year, which will provide over 130 Ontario First

Nations with more financial stability and a brighter future than they currently have. First Nations communities will be able to invest in important areas such as their people's education, their

skills and their health care.

Let me briefly outline a few elements of the agreement.

Right now, Ontario's First Nations receive provincial gaming revenue from a single gaming source, and that's Casino Rama. That contract runs until the year

2011. Under the terms set out in today's agreement in principle, as of 2011, First Nations would be provided with 1.6% of gross revenue from all provincial gaming, and before 2011, Ontario First

Nations would also receive approximately $155 million over the course of the next six years.

This was a huge piece of work. It took almost one full year for the provincial government and the Ontario First Nations Limited Partnership to arrive at this

historic agreement. It happened thanks in large part to a highly dedicated group of individuals. I want to express my gratitude and the gratitude of this entire province to the negotiators for

their very valuable leadership. Those people include former Ontario Premier David Peterson, who acted as the province's representative, as well as the following members of the Ontario First Nations

Limited Partnership, or OFNLP, and I'd like to read their names: Gord Peters, Joe Miskokomon, Linda Commandant, Don Morrison, Mike Mitchell, Ernest Sutherland and George Kakeway.

I want to point out that a number of people from OFNLP are here in the Legislature with us today to witness history in the making. I want to introduce to you

Steve Williams, the vice-president of OFNLP; Don Morrison, board member and treasurer; and Leroy Dolson, another OFNLP board member. Gentlemen, thank you for being here.

In closing, let me say that our government is committed to building opportunity for all Ontarians, and that includes Ontario's First Nations. We will continue

this road together, working with our First Nations partners toward a goal that all of us share: healthy, prosperous communities.

I want to thank all members of this House for being here to witness this historic day.

L ' hon. David Ramsay (ministre des Richesses naturelles, ministre délégué aux Affaires

autochtones) : Je suis heureux de prendre la parole devant cette Assemblée aujourd'hui pour féliciter les représentants de l'Ontario First Nations Limited Partnership,

l'ex-premier ministre de l'Ontario, M. David Peterson, et mon collègue M. David Caplan, ministre du Renouvellement de l'infrastructure publique, pour la conclusion aujourd'hui avec

les Premières nations de l'Ontario d'un accord de principe relatif au partage des retombées économiques des jeux de hasard.

It is a pleasure for me to rise in the House today to congratulate representatives of the Ontario First Nations Limited Partnership, former Ontario Premier

David Peterson, and my colleague David Caplan, the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, who just made his statement, for the signing of today's agreement in principle to share the economic

benefits of gaming with Ontario's First Nations.

This agreement in principle is another milestone in our government's relationship with the aboriginal peoples of Ontario, a relationship sustained by mutual

respect and that will lead to improved opportunities and a better future for aboriginal children and youth.

Since the launch of our government's New Approach to Aboriginal Affairs in June 2005, the McGuinty government continues to build a constructive, co-operative

relationship with First Nations.

Ensemble, nous pouvons améliorer le potentiel des peuples autochtones de l'Ontario.

Earlier this month, our government delivered a key commitment under the new approach through the launch of the Northern Table, a political-level forum

dedicated to addressing the unique challenges and opportunities of northern First Nation communities. The Northern Table represents a partnership between our government and the Chiefs of Treaties 9

and 5 and will be dedicated to bringing greater economic opportunities to aboriginal communities in northern Ontario. It is a step that will help enhance First Nation participation in the benefits

of resource development and boost the long-term sustainability of the northern economy. Over time, it will include other First Nations in the north.

Today's agreement once again reflects our government's commitment to help close the socio-economic gap between aboriginal peoples and other residents of

Ontario.

Significant progress is being made and will continue to be made by the McGuinty government in improving relations with First Nations leaders and communities

throughout the province. Our government is also making significant progress through land claim negotiations and the development of new programs and initiatives that are aimed at strengthening

aboriginal communities.

Gaming revenues can play a significant role in strengthening the economies of First Nation communities and improving the quality of life for First Nations.

In closing, the final legal agreement that Ontario and the First Nations will develop, based on the terms of the agreement in principle, can help shape a

better future for the First Nation communities in this province.

EMPLOI DES JEUNES /

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

L ' hon. Christopher Bentley (ministre de la Formation et des Collèges et Universités) : Aider les jeunes à

acquérir les compétences et l'expérience dont ils auront besoin à l'avenir est une priorité de notre gouvernement.

With that in mind, I'm pleased to announce the launch of Ontario Summer Jobs 2006.

Our government is investing almost $52 million in Ontario Summer Jobs to help over 56,000 young people find work this summer. I firmly believe that a summer

job is a learning and growing experience. It provides young people with opportunities to test the job market and to try out a range of potential careers, many they may never have considered or

known about.

Helping our young people acquire the skills and experience they will need for the future is a priority for our government. Through Ontario Summer Jobs, we are

giving young people an opportunity to find rewarding and productive summer work.

L'année dernière, nous avons dépassé notre objectif en aidant presque 61,000 jeunes à trouver un emploi et à recevoir un soutien

grâce au programme Emplois d'été Ontario. Nous espérons faire de même cette année.

Ontario Summer Jobs provides a range of services, including a $2-per-hour hiring incentive for businesses and community organizations to hire young people so

they can gain valuable work experience.

I know it's challenging for young people to make decisions about careers and further education and training. It's also challenging for young people to get

their first job. Students who are beginning their job searches can access services through community-based youth employment agencies and our colleges in more than 100 sites in 80 communities across

the province. They can call the toll-free JobGrow hotline at 1-888-JOB-GROW to find the location of the organizations closest to them that can help them find a job or even start a career.

Creating a summer business is also an important part of Ontario Summer Jobs. This year, the government will continue to encourage and help young people start

their own summer business through the Summer Company component of Ontario Summer Jobs. It provides hands-on business coaching and mentoring from local community business leaders. It's a great

opportunity for enterprising young people who want to start and run their own summer business.

Starting a business or learning from others in the workplace are important experiences for young people. That is why Ontario Summer Jobs provides young people

with a wide range of employment opportunities. For example, through the summer experience component of Ontario Summer Jobs, students can work as Ontario Rangers with the Ministry of Natural

Resources. The rangers work in wilderness camps maintaining trails, parks and camp buildings, as well as helping in fish and wildlife projects. All of these experiences encourage young people to

learn about the job market, explore potential careers and expand their job skills.

Notre gouvernement estime que les jeunes représentent l'avenir de la province. En appuyant l'emploi d'été, nous aidons la jeunesse à se

prévaloir de possibilités qui pourraient contribuer à son succès futur.

By making priority investments like the one we are announcing today, we are helping to build the best educated, most highly skilled workforce in North America.

This way, we will enjoy a strong and prosperous economy in which all people will find themselves sharing in our province's prosperity. If we can do that, we will build an Ontario with a quality of

life that is second to none.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Response? The member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.

FIRST NATIONS REVENUE SHARING

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): It was my pleasure to attend the smudge ceremony this morning. I want to recognize the work of former

Premier David Peterson in this agreement that has been reached. I note that Mr. Peterson did his work pro bono as a volunteer and I think he should be thanked for that.

I would also like to recognize the negotiating committee, including Harvey Yesno, president of the Ontario First Nations Limited Partnership, and the other

members of the negotiating team: Gord Peters, Joe Miskokomon, Don Morrison, Mike Mitchell, Ernest Sutherland, George Kakeway, and especially from Wahta First Nation in Parry Sound-Muskoka, Linda

Commandant, who I understand is not able to be here today.

I'd also like to recognize Chief Angus Toulouse, who was at the ceremony -- he's the Ontario regional chief of the Chiefs of Ontario -- for his work. At the

announcement, Chief Toulouse said that he hopes the funding will in, in his words, "eradicate poverty" on First Nations and "break the cycle of dependency." These are certainly very worthwhile

goals. Obviously more work has to be done, and this is an agreement in principle.

This government has been very good at making announcements; not necessarily so good at delivering results. It is my hope that this agreement will be

implemented successfully and that the deadline of December 31 will be met.

EMPLOI DES JEUNES /

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

M. Cameron Jackson (Burlington): Aider les jeunes et appuyer les compétences et les expériences dont ils auront besoin à

l'avenir est une priorité de tous les membres du Parlement ici et de toute la province.

Minister, I would like to comment briefly about your statement in the House today. You say you're committing almost $52 million. What you don't tell us is that

this is a cut over last year's summer experience program for the province of Ontario. That is distressing news at a time when the students in our colleges have had to extend their school year by a

further three or four weeks, not without thanks to you for taking over 10 days to even contact the parties to try and bring a resolution. In fact, the sum and substance of your contribution in the

first 10 days of the strike was to announce a tuition increase for these very same students who are seeking employment this summer.

You state here that you know it is challenging for young people regarding their further education, and clearly that is the message the Ontario students'

federation has given you, with your conduct during the recent strike.

You say in your press release that students who are beginning their job searches can start accessing these services. Minister, last year you made these

announcements well in advance so students could prepare to seek summer employment, and I want to commend the former minister because she did it in a timely manner. You are one full month later.

Take a look at the fact that the summer job services program you're announcing today has four business days left in which young people can apply in Ontario. Your summer company program for young

people to start up their own summer businesses -- you've left them with six business working days to put together a company and to make application for your program. You've given the summer

experience program, which is the program that you've cut the most -- and I'm glad that you, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and the minister for MNR are here today, because you've

cut this program by almost 300 jobs for junior rangers, junior forester programs and other programs.

You've left them with two business days. The cut-off for this program is March 31. The Ontario government regular summer student programming is open-ended, but

this one is the kicker. We appreciated any effort to support the exchanges between Ontario and Quebec because the program you announced today was cut off on February 28, a month and a bit ago.

Minister, it's hard for the students in this province to take seriously your commitment as the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. You were late

getting to the table to help them with the community college strike, you were disappointing in terms of having them at the table to assist you with a framework for tuition, and now, with two days

left for your main summer student employment program, many are left wondering just what your intention was and why they can't apply with two days left.

FIRST NATIONS REVENUE SHARING

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I will say first of all to the First Nations communities, to Chief Angus Toulouse and all of his team,

congratulations for being tenacious in holding this government's and the former government's -- under Mike Harris and Ernie Eves -- feet to the fire to try to get what was the historical agreement

in the first place.

Where are we at? There was a deal made between the NDP government and the First Nations back in the early 1990s that they would be into their own casino. They

would be able to get revenues of almost, at today's dollars, $1 million a day. Imagine what we could have done from 1995 up to now if First Nations had received that up to $1 million a day that we

get in profits from a casino like Casino Rama. We would have been able to deal with much of the infrastructure problem that we have in communities across northern, central and southern Ontario. We

could have dealt with issues such as housing and water. We could have dealt with issues such as putting recreational facilities in those communities and giving First Nations families, their kids

and the communities some of the things that we take for granted.

This government stands in the House today and says "historic." Hardly. I give you credit for having gotten to where you are, but it's nowhere near where they

would have been if they had had the deal that was given to them in the first place. I say to the former Conservative government, shame on you for having put First Nations in this position in the

first place; and I say to this government, it's hardly historic. We have a government that's asking, "How are we able to negotiate our way out of this and minimize the exposure of our treasury

towards the First Nations of this province?" I, along with others in this House who represent First Nations communities, know full well how First Nations communities are faring when it comes to

their part of Ontario. When it comes to their share of Ontario, it is nowhere near what everybody else takes for granted.

We have communities such as Kashechewan. We all know what happened last fall, where the water was tainted and people couldn't drink the water. That is not just

an isolated incident; that is what's happening across over 60 communities in the province of Ontario when it comes to First Nations. We have communities like Kashechewan, which doesn't even have a

jail to lock somebody up in should there be a charge in that community, because their jail burned down. People were killed -- two inmates -- and an officer was injured, and this government has yet

to find a lock-up facility for that community to make sure that, should somebody need to be arrested, there is somewhere to put him. Now what are you going to do? Are you going to arrest somebody

and tie them to a tree? That's all you're going to allow that community to do.

I say to this government, you have to take your responsibilities and take them well. I give you some credit for what you've done today, but don't think you're

off the hook, because all this is is a commitment towards a negotiated settlement that you say is going to be signed by next fall. Well, I've seen Dalton McGuinty's promises before, and they've

been broken. We will be here as New Democrats -- Howard Hampton and myself, who represent First Nations -- to make sure that, at the very least, you keep this promise.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I would like to explain why Mr. Bentley's announcement is a positive one. The students who are here

watching these debates would probably understand it better than I, Mr. Bentley, or dare I say, Monsieur McGuinty.

I suspect some of these students are paying incredibly high tuition fees. If some of those young men and women are going to the law school here at the U of T,

they will be paying, this year alone, $17,000. Courtesy of Monsieur Bentley, next year they're going to get whacked with an 8% increase, which amounts to, more or less, a $1,500 hit.

The ministers on that side think this is okay. In fact, even the U of T thinks it's okay. If you're going to medical school, you're probably going to be paying

15,000 bucks here at the U of T. You're going to get whacked this September with an 8% increase. Mr. Bentley thinks this is okay. Maybe that is why he is providing a little help -- less than last

year, but any help is better than a kick in the teeth. Yes, summer jobs are going to be helpful indeed, and required to be able to pay these kinds of hefty tuition increases. Young men and women

going to the U of T, just in a general program, are going to be paying $200 more, added to the 5,000 bucks they pay already, excluding books, transportation, and if you've got to live outside of

your own city, you've got to pay for rent and housing, wherever you're going.

Monsieur Bentley, thank you so very much for the summer jobs. They're going to need them, because come this September they're going to get whacked in a very

serious way. I just wanted to point that out.

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On November 30, 2005, I made the following inquiry of the Ministry of Finance:

"Would the Minister of Finance provide a date when he or his Deputy Minister Colin Andersen will be available to meet with Simcoe-Grey constituents from the Collingwood Condominium Ratepayers

Association as requested in my letters dated August 19, 2005, and September 19, 2005, and would they also provide details as to why they have not responded to this request in a timely manner."

I believe the response to that inquiry of the ministry is overdue.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): It's my understanding that the answer to the member's question was due on Monday. Minister, could you

indicate when you will be replying to the request of the member?

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Finance, Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): Later this afternoon.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): A question today for the Premier: Roger Anderson, the chair of Durham region, had the following to say about

your recent budget: "Durham is one of the fastest-growing regions within the GTA, and yet there was no mention at all for transportation."

Premier, Christine Elliott wants to know, the members of the assembly want to know and the taxpayers of Durham region certainly want to know, why was there no

assistance for the region of Durham --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Order. We're not getting off to a good start.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): Tell her to pick up the phone.

The Speaker: Order, the Minister of Community and Social Services. The member for Ottawa Centre will come to order. The member for

Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke will come to order. The member for Erie-Lincoln is patiently waiting to complete his question.

The member for Erie-Lincoln.

Mr. Hudak: To the Minister of Community and Social Services, why doesn't she pick up the phone? Well, she'll be here soon enough to ask these

questions right here in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, let me tell you.

Let me say one more time, Premier: Christine Elliott wants to know today, the members on this side of the House want to know today and Lord know the taxpayers

in Durham region want to know, why did you ignore the region of Durham in last week's budget?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Let me say what, in fact, we have done for Durham. The member opposite may feel that 22 million additional new dollars for

roads and bridges is unworthy of comment, but we think it's very significant from a taxpayer and constituency perspective. In Clarington, they're getting $1.4 million. The Durham region itself is

getting $10.8 million: Kawartha Lakes is $5.8 million, Oshawa is almost $3 million, Scugog township is $857,000, and Uxbridge township some $560,000.

Again, I could say that we are very interested in supporting not just this particular community, but communities throughout the province of Ontario.

Mr. Hudak: I suggest the Premier check his atlas. I don't think Kawartha Lakes has too much to do with the region of Durham, and certainly not

the riding of Whitby-Ajax.

It's not just me, Premier. This is the chair of Durham region who has basically said that your budget had small potatoes for the region of Durham. It's almost

as if when the Premier takes the Whites Road exit off the 401 in Pickering, he thinks he's gone into another province.

While you go on a hot spending spree in your budget, you basically gave Durham taxpayers the cold shoulder. The durhamregion.com news site states, "And all

this time, we thought the province ignored Durham's needs. This is one of those times when it hurts to be right."

Premier, answer the question of durhamregion.com when it says it hurts to be right, that Durham was left out. Premier, what do you have against the taxpayers

of Durham region?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: In addition to the $22 million I referenced earlier for roads and bridges, the community of Whitby is receiving $1.8

million as a result of our last budget, Ajax another $1.5 million. Unlike the previous government, which closed a hospital, we are actually rebuilding and expanding the hospital in Ajax.

I'm also pleased to report that we have a wonderful pilot project for the JobsNow program that's under way in Durham as we speak.

We are working very well with the people in that particular community, and we will continue to work well with them long into the future.

Mr. Hudak: Premier, it's not only Roger Anderson, the chair of the region, who is criticizing you; it's not only the news website for Durham

region. You know what? It's actually also your Liberal Party candidate who's trying to distance herself from you. If you look on her website, it's long on Judi but awfully short on Dalton McGuinty.

In fact, we couldn't find a single picture of Dalton McGuinty in any of her brochures. On her website you're not in the picture gallery. You don't even show up in her list of endorsements.

I've got to ask you, Premier, are you not supporting your candidate, and is she running from you because of your reputation as a tax-hiking promise-breaker or

is she exiling you from her website because she's mad at you too because you totally left Durham out of the recent budget?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Judi Longfield, our candidate, doesn't need to hang her hat on any one particular individual or any particular

organization. She's standing on her own two feet. She has a wonderful record of community service and we are proud to have her run under our banner.

I can tell you, one of the reasons she is being so well received at the doors, quite apart from her own record of personal service for her constituents in that

riding, is because of our investments in the new courthouse there, because of the JobsNow program, because of the expansion of the 401 that's taking place there, because of the investment that

we're making in the new hospital, the expansion of the hospital there. It's because of the new teachers we've hired in that community. It's because of the new doctors and new nurses that are

working in that community. It's because of the ongoing commitment our government has to that community, which is far and wide different from the kind of record they were left with as a result of

the previous government.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): My question is also for the Premier. We do not agree with your government's decision to spend $1.4

billion in order to avoid balancing the budget. However, since you have made this decision, why have you forgotten Ottawa? I believe the Ottawa Sun summed up Ottawa's place in the Thursday budget

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I'm going to warn the Minister of Community and Social Services. You need to come to order.

The member for Lanark-Carleton.

Mr. Sterling: They are pretty sensitive about what they do to Ottawa, Mr. Speaker.

The Sun said, "Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan rolled out the municipal gravy train yesterday. Unfortunately for Ottawa, the line seems to stop just a

few miles out of the Big Smoke.

"Mind you, with recent polls showing the McGuinty government's" so weak in eastern Ontario, it's not surprising he has dealt eastern Ontario another blow.

Premier, you are from Ottawa, and yet you managed to largely ignore Ottawa in last week's budget. Can you explain why the city of Ottawa, the second-largest

city in Ontario, will receive less than 2.4% of the funding you have allocated to transit and transportation, through Move Ontario and one-time funding for the Toronto Transit Commission -- 2.4% of

the total, that's what you gave Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Let me seize this opportunity to better inform the members opposite of some of the good news we continue to bring to the

good people of Ottawa. In our recent announcement, we are sending $33 million for roads and bridges alone to the people of Ottawa. The community has received $30 million in gas tax and $10 million

for special municipal assistance. We're investing $200 million in a light rail program, $11 million for arts coming out of the recent budget, and $140 million for a regional cancer centre. We are

doubling the size of the Montfort Hospital, a hospital that organization tried to shut down. We've invested in two more MRIs, we're expanding the cancer centre, and we're investing in a newborn

screening program at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario. It's all good news in Ottawa.

Mr. Sterling: It's not only I who thinks Ottawa got the raw end of the stick. Ottawa Mayor Bob Chiarelli, a former Liberal MPP from this

particular Legislature, said, "(Toronto) got the lion's share. Again." What an incredible understatement.

At a time when your party is fighting a by-election in Ottawa in the riding of Nepean-Carleton, you still seem to have forgotten that Ottawa exists. While

Toronto, Vaughan, Brampton and Mississauga will receive $838 million for transit funding for Move Ontario, Ottawa will receive less than $33 million. It seems you do not want Ottawa to improve its

transit and public roads. Premier, let me ask you this: How is it that a city like Brampton, which is half the size of Ottawa, receives three times the funding?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: This is more of the same. It's an old approach where you try to divide and conquer and pit one community against another.

We just don't see the great province of Ontario that way.

Let me just reassure the members opposite that we have not lost sight of my hometown of Ottawa. We are again investing $33 million for roads and bridges, which

we've just provided to the city of Ottawa; $6 million for the Ontario municipal partnership fund; $30 million in gas tax. Let me just dwell for a moment on that particular investment. Under that

government, there was no support of any kind for public transit in Ontario. What we have done is put in place a new apportionment of our gas tax, which we are now turning over to our municipal

partners. That is 30 million new gas tax dollars for the city Ottawa. That is stable, it is growing year after year and it's something that the people of Ottawa --

The Speaker: Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr. Sterling: The Premier should really examine history, because he is unaware of what the previous government did for the city of Ottawa. I

personally delivered a cheque for $17 million to the mayor for new buses in 2001. In 2000, the former government gave over $45 million for roads in the city of Ottawa. But under this $1.4 billion

of largesse, which you have given mostly to the greater Toronto area, you have given us $33 million -- 2.4% of the total.

Mr. Premier, you promised the city of Ottawa $200 million for their rapid rail system. I ask you, why didn't you include the $200 million in your Move Ontario

trust fund so that you can't break that promise --

The Speaker: Thank you. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Let's just take a look again at that government's record when it came to the community of Ottawa: First of all, they shut

down the Grace Hospital; they shut down the Riverside Hospital; they tried to close the Montfort Hospital; they tried to remove the cardiac unit from the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario;

they took over the Ottawa Board of Education; they fired the board of the Ottawa Hospital -- of course, they would have nothing to do with the gas tax -- and they downloaded all kinds of social

services onto the city of Ottawa which are now being picked up by property taxpayers.

That is the legacy. That is the record. I will stack our record any day against that record in terms of our investment, our commitment, our support, our

championing of the city of Ottawa.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The Minister of Natural Resources. The Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Stop the clock. It's getting way too noisy in here. I'm going to be forced to start naming people if we don't bring this place into some kind of order. I don't

want to do that; you don't want to leave. So let's get on with it in a business sort of fashion.

NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT SUPPLEMENT

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. On Monday, I asked about your government's failure to keep your

promise to Ontario's most vulnerable citizens, our poorest children. You didn't have a good answer then, so I'm going to ask you the question again. Premier, why is the McGuinty government still

clawing back the national child benefit supplement from Ontario's poorest children?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): I'm sure that in his supplementary the leader of the NDP will want to

correct the record and indicate to all present, and to ensure it's recorded on Hansard, that I was not in this House on Monday. I'm sure he's going to want to do that, Speaker.

Having said that, he has raised an important issue, and that is the national child benefit. What we have done with respect to providing additional support for

our families is, first of all, increased social assistance by 5%. Beyond that, we have made permanent now, effective 2004, the additional benefits we are receiving from the federal government.

As a result of the investments that we have made and continue to make, what that means in practical terms is that a single mother with two children is now

receiving on an annual basis $1,620 more than she would have received under the previous government. Is there more work to do? Of course there is.

Mr. Hampton: Premier, just two and a half years ago you said that clawing back the national child benefit supplement to Ontario's poorest

children was wrong and you promised to end it. Today, under the McGuinty government, there are 443,000 children living in poverty. That's one in six kids in the province. That is a human tragedy

and a black eye on a wealthy province.

Here's the situation. You had a $3-billion budget revenue windfall. It would cost only $220 million to eliminate the clawback. Tell the poorest children in

Ontario why, when you have the money, you haven't eliminated the clawback of the national child benefit supplement which affects the poorest kids in this province.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: It may not be significant to the leader of the NDP, but the additional revenues were $2.4 billion, and they were not

permanent in nature. They were one-time revenues, so we made one-time investments and we did that specifically in infrastructure, something that is durable and does not require ongoing support.

That's why we did that.

Beyond that, we also did other things for children in this budget. We continue to invest heavily in education. We are reducing class sizes, specifically in the

earlier years to ensure that more children receive more individual attention. We've invested, again, heavily in health care. We are also continuing with our program to provide immunizations free of

charge to Ontario families. We are also the first Canadian province to cover costs for insulin pumps. We anticipate that program will cover 6,500 children affected by type 1 diabetes. So we

continue to invest in more programs, more --

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

Mr. Hampton: Tomorrow working families will have the opportunity to send Dalton McGuinty a message about his broken promises to kids, about

the shameful way he's punishing poor children by taking away money that was given by the federal government, intended to improve the quality of life for those children.

Premier, you say it's one-time money, but those who looked at your budget say that you're consistently underestimating your revenues and consistently

overestimating your costs, just as Paul Martin used to do with his budget. You had no trouble finding the capacity to extend a capital tax break to banks in your budget, but suddenly when it comes

to the poorest kids, they don't seem to matter any more. If you can afford to give and accelerate a tax break to the banks, which are raking in multi-billion dollar profits, then surely you can

afford $220 million for the poorest kids in the province. Are you going to keep your promise, Premier, or was that just another insincere group of words?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: The minister would like to speak to this.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): I want to remind the member

opposite what we have done with annualized dollars. Almost every single new annualized dollar available in this budget went to health care, education and vulnerable people, and let me tell you

where. I want you to tell me which of these is inappropriate: intellectual disabilities and supporting those people who desperately need it, after you cut their services; or perhaps it's the

intervener or interpreter services, after you cut their services. These are the kinds of decisions that we make in this ministry and that children's services makes in that ministry. Virtually every

single new annualized dollar available in this budget went to two ministries: community and social services and children's services. That is what we place as priorities: those vulnerable

people.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): To the Premier: The banks and insurance companies that are raking in billions of dollars in profits

can afford to wait a couple years while you keep your promise to the poorest kids in the province.

But I want to ask the Premier this: Ontario's Ombudsman wants you to make two key changes to fix your arbitrary, capricious and secretive property tax

assessment system. André Marin has directed you to make it mandatory for MPAC to tell the taxpayer how it came up with the assessed value of their property and for MPAC to justify its assessed

value on appeal, to protect taxpayers from subjective and unfair property tax hikes. Will you commit to implementing those two recommendations of the Ombudsman immediately, Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): I want to take the opportunity to thank the Ombudsman for the work he's

done in this particular regard. He has very helpfully placed before all of us some of the real challenges. In fact, he's confirmed those very real challenges associated with MPAC. I want to thank

him for his work and thank him specifically for the recommendations that he's put forward.

Some of the good news here is the tremendous goodwill demonstrated by the leadership at MPAC, who say that they are looking forward to moving ahead on those

recommendations. My Minister of Finance has specifically said that we welcome these particular recommendations, but we feel we have a responsibility to consult on them, and that's what we intend to

do.

But again, there is a real issue here. I think we all recognize the inherent failings associated with the MPAC system that our government has inherited, and we

look forward to moving ahead with those recommendations we received from Mr. Marin.

Mr. Hampton: Premier, the Ombudsman describes MPAC as an elitist operation with a "superiority complex" and "questionable practices" that

result in thousands of incorrect evaluations each year. The Ombudsman has directed you to make it mandatory for MPAC to tell the taxpayer how it, MPAC, came up with the assessed value of their

property and for MPAC to justify its value on appeal, to protect taxpayers from subjective and unfair property tax hikes.

Premier, this is already in place in other provinces. Manitoba does this with their assessment system. Your government is in its third year. You own this

system; it's your system, and you are running out of excuses. Are you going to implement the Ombudsman's recommendations or are we simply going to hear more excuses from the McGuinty

government?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I think, in fairness to the process here, we just received this report. The member opposite is telling us that we should

move quickly, and yet when the Minister of Finance just a few moments ago sought unanimous consent to move ahead with a bill that would bring immediate relief to property taxpayers who were seeking

more time to appeal their assessments, they were not prepared to move quickly in that particular regard.

We think we've got a responsibility to speak to taxpayers and to municipalities about these specific recommendations. We think that's the responsible thing to

do, and that's what we will do.

Mr. Hampton: Premier, we gave your House leader a letter indicating we were prepared to move forward tomorrow. But it's your Minister of

Finance who wants to play trickery with this. We're prepared to move forward.

But again, I want to ask you about what the Ombudsman says. He says your property tax assessment system is David versus Goliath. It's "The average citizen,

with scant information on his property and very little additional useful information to make his case, facing an adversary ... with a full bank of relevant data -- collected at taxpayers'

expense."

All the Ombudsman is asking is for you to make it mandatory for MPAC to tell the taxpayer how it came up with the assessed value of the property. It seems to

me that's very reasonable. What's your problem in not acting on that recommendation? It's transparent; it's open; it means everyone knows the rules. What's your excuse for not acting now?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: The leader of the NDP is hot and cold on this stuff. On the one hand, he says he wants us to move quickly, but when it

comes to providing immediate relief to those who are seeking to extend the time for their appeals, he's not prepared to move ahead with that.

Again, we welcome the recommendations. The particular recommendation just referenced by the leader of the NDP sounds to me to be sensible. But I think we've

got a responsibility to speak to our municipal partners and to speak to taxpayers to make sure that we're moving on this both expeditiously and in a responsible fashion, and we look forward to

doing so.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I have a question for the Premier. When the issue of skyrocketing property assessments came up this past fall,

you're quoted on October 1, 2005, as saying you're not going to address the issue because "We didn't run on that." I remind the Premier that you didn't exactly run on pit bull bans or hiking taxes

either.

You seem to have set the tone, because the Ombudsman's review found that there were three reports -- one in 2003, one in 2004 and one in 2005 -- that showed

major problems with the MPAC assessment process that apparently the McGuinty government sat on. Secondly, the previous finance minister, Greg Sorbara, appointed Mike Colle, now the Minister of

Citizenship and Immigration, to review the MPAC system. No report has yet been tabled. Premier, when will you publicly table Mike Colle's report?

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Finance, Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): We were pleased to receive the Ombudsman's report

yesterday. I was quite pleased that MPAC has already responded on 17 of the recommendations. There are two specific recommendations aimed at the government. I think, as the Premier said a moment

ago in his response, it's prudent now to take those and discuss them with the municipalities that will be affected, with, by the way, the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Some of the

information that will be released will be impacted by information and privacy legislation.

I think what's important to note is this -- and we have acknowledged that there have been problems with this system since we took office. We have taken a

number of steps in the past to address them. We have done a number of things already to respond to just the Ombudsman's report, which is only the most recent response.

So, we are moving forward. We're moving forward immediately on 20 of the 22 recommendations. Regarding the other two recommendations, the ones that require

legislative change, I look forward to the opportunity --

The Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary.

Mr. Hudak: I find it rather passing strange that the minister ignored my very simple question about whatever happened to Mike Colle's secret

report, the then parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance. Your predecessor, Minister Sorbara, said that he would be taking on the next phase of reforms in property tax. Yet his report to

the finance minister has disappeared.

You've had some time to address this issue. I have three proposals for you. First, for our debate on the bill you introduced today, please table Mike Colle's

secret report on property assessments. Second, along with your 90-day extension, waive the $75 fee for appeals.

The third thing: Just last night the North Bay council endorsed the Homestead Act, which would put real caps, at 5%, on property assessment increases. Will you

include real caps on assessment increases as part of your bill?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: This is awfully rich, coming from a party that brought in eight pieces of legislation and still got it all wrong. We're

determined not to make the same mistakes.

With respect to the member opposite, I enjoyed the Welland Tribune

article on March 2. Its headline read, referring to the irony -- "irony" because I think

anything else is not parliamentary -- "Hudak's Party Created Tax Problem." It was you who created the problem, and we are responding to that problem. Even in the St. Catharines Standard: "Hudak

acknowledged ... the problem is an unexpected result of the legislation."

There is one thing we can do today, and we can do it immediately. We shared the legislation with the official opposition at 10 o'clock this morning. Pass the

bill today to extend the appeal. Don't say no any more. The time for this kind of childish debate is over. It's time for real answers to a difficult --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. You have proposed changes to the Ontario Human Rights Commission that

are opposed by most individuals and non-government organizations that have worked with the human rights commission. Will you scrap these unfair changes that you are proposing, go back to the

drawing board and work with Ontarians with disabilities, new Canadians and visible minorities to draft a plan for reform that will work at the human rights commission?

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

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General): Yesterday, I met with members of the human rights commission, and we talked about these changes, these

reforms, that are so long overdue.

I know the member will remember, because he was the Attorney General at the time, that Mary Cornish filed a report with the NDP government of Ontario, calling

for direct access to the human rights tribunal, which we are seeking to move forward on, and a number of reforms which we're seeking to move forward on. These change are long overdue. They've been

gathering dust throughout the time in which the NDP were in power and throughout the time the Conservative government was in power.

I think everybody understands that the delays that are inherent in the system do not serve human rights in Ontario. Ontarians deserve to have the best human

rights system possible, and we intend to move forward with reforms to make that human rights system all the better.

Mr. Hampton: Well, Minister, the people who know the human rights commission the best are those Ontarians who have to go to it: Ontarians with

disabilities, new Canadians, visible minorities. These are the people who say that your proposed changes are wrong and will make the situation worse. They say your cutbacks may mean certain victims

of discrimination will have to hire their own lawyers or suffer the loss of their rights and their dignity.

As a province, it is our duty to stand up for the vulnerable, not tell them to fend for themselves. These groups who are among the most vulnerable are asking

you: Will you scrap your unfair and prejudicial plans, go back to the drawing board and work with Ontarians with disabilities, with representatives of new Canadian communities and visible

minorities? Will you work with them to draft a plan that works, rather than your plan, which will make matters worse?

Hon. Mr. Bryant: On the contrary, we've been working with those very groups that the member just refused to for well over a year, and

consulting with them. If we piled up the reports of recommendations as to how the reforms should take place and what the reforms should be, you would see a consensus, and you will see that they're

long overdue. That's why the Toronto Star, in their editorial of last month, said that the long-overdue reforms are welcome. That's why the chair of the Ontario Bar Association said that the

changes proposed are timely and well designed to solve current system problems. That's why Ruth Carey, the executive director of the HIV/AIDS legal clinic, said that the government should be widely

applauded for the proposed reform initiative, as giving people the right to a hearing is a matter of simple justice and fairness.

I'm sure the member doesn't want to have a situation where he says go back to the drawing board, which means a step backwards. I'm sure what the member wants

is that we, together, take a step forward to improve our human rights system. It's long overdue. You had a chance to do it, and you didn't; we are.

AGRICULTURE FUNDING

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. I was dismayed to read today in

the press that the member for Dufferin-Peel-Wellington−Grey has decided to not only appear publicly with the vocal minority in rural Ontario who spread a message of misinformation, fear and

the implied threat of violent confrontation, but now, according to press reports, he is an active participant in confrontation.

The leader of the official opposition, desperate to avoid the consequences within his own caucus of losing formerly safe Tory seats in the by-elections

tomorrow, has resorted to attempting to pander to farmers who are hurting. The leader of the official opposition is quoted today in the media as saying, "The Liberals, in effect, have cut back in

the amount support they give farmers."

Minister, my farmers in Perth-Middlesex want to know the truth in this matter. They need your answer.

Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it appropriate to pre-empt the time of question period to engage in

a personal attack on --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Order. The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I thank the honourable member for the question, because I know how

hard he works on behalf of the farmers in his riding. I am very happy to have the opportunity to stand in this House and talk about the truth about what our government has committed to farmers in

Ontario.

We have listened to the farmers of Ontario and we have provided them with $125 million -- $80 million for grains and oilseeds, $35 million for fruit and

vegetable growers -- along with our commitment -- and this has been consistent with what we have said to farmers for months. We agree with them; we need a multi-year partnership with the federal

government. We are committed to working with the federal government to achieve that for the agricultural community in Ontario.

I encourage members opposite to pick up the phone and encourage their federal members to push the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister

of Finance of Canada to act expeditiously. The needs in this community are urgent.

Mr. Wilkinson: I know that my farmers are increasingly frustrated with the multiple positions taken by the Leader of the Opposition just over

the last few days. One day he dives in with us, calling for the Prime Minister -- whom he actively campaigned for -- to come to the table; the next day he backflips and says that he's not with us.

On the one hand, he has called the $125 million in short-term support we are delivering, as requested by real farm organizations, inadequate; on the other hand, he has clearly stated that he would

not have used the additional revenue available to the government for this purpose, but would rather have balanced the books ahead of schedule.

My farmers are getting whiplash watching John Tory. Minister, what do you say to Ontario farmers?

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: What I say to Ontario farmers is that we think it is very important that we have been able to provide $125 million to

them so they will have cash in their hands to do their planting this year.

I want to say as well that I'm very grateful to have received the letters that I have from farm representatives. I have a letter here from Ontario Pork:

"This letter is to thank you for the recent funding announcement by your government of $125 million for ... agriculture. In particular, Ontario Pork is pleased

that you have included farm-fed grains in the amount allocated...."

I also have one here from Ray Duc: "We're grateful for the announcement. It shows the minister has listened to our concerns and has acted on them."

The Ontario Potato Board has said, "On behalf of Ontario's potato producers, I would like to express our deepest appreciation for the financial support you

announced last week on behalf of the government of Ontario."

There are producers and farmers in Ontario who --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Your budget was not the only budget that was presented

last week. The province of Quebec presented their budget, and there were some big differences. The biggest difference is that Quebec presented a responsible, balanced budget. Also, Quebec did not

forget about the north. Quebec invested some $1 billion in the forestry sector, on top of the $450 million earmarked last fall and $167 million in the previous year's budget.

Why have you ignored the north? What new dollars does this budget provide for forestry?

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Finance, Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): To the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): In fact, it's to the contrary. This government understands the unique needs

of the north and is addressing those needs in very, very real ways: for example, $114 million in operating grants for the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, up $3 million from last

year; in capital infrastructure, $357 million, an increase of $60 million. Over the course of the next five years, the government will invest $1.8 billion in northern highways. This includes $357

million in 2006-07 for rehabilitation and expansion projects. This represents the largest annual investment ever. Unlike the previous government, which cut, slashed and burned northern Ontario,

we're investing in northern Ontario.

Mr. Miller: How can anybody believe anything you say? I'm looking at the budget papers; it shows the budget of the Ministry of Northern

Development and Mines went down $10 million, $357 million to $347 million.

Let's look at what people in the north are saying:

-- "`I'm fuming right now ... all they've done is thrown a bunch of hush money at us,' said Papineau-Cameron Mayor Robert Corriveau," in the North Bay

Nugget.

-- "Doug West, a political science professor at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, said the Liberals clearly had next year's provincial election in mind when

they drafted the budget, which he said offered virtually no help to northern Ontario."

-- Sault Mayor John Rowswell: "... the single biggest disappointment for the north, failure to adequately address the crisis in Ontario's forestry

sector."

-- James Wallace, writing in the Sudbury Star: "Nor was there anything new or tangible for northern Ontario's troubled forestry sector."

What about mining? What about the number two industry in northern Ontario? Quebec allows tax credits that provide incentives for mineral exploration; in

Quebec, a company can be reimbursed for up to 45% of exploration costs. Beyond the $10 million for the mining centre of excellence, what new dollars does this budget provide for mining in northern

Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bartolucci: I only have a minute to answer the question, so let me say that the province announced $10 million for the mining centre

in Sudbury. This is a good-news budget for Timiskaming; this is a good-news budget for North Bay. Timmins applauds the provincial budget. There's all kinds of good news.

Let's talk about mining for a second: $15 million over three years for geological mapping in the far north; $60 million over six years for cleanup of abandoned

mines; a mining tax rate reduction from 10% to 5% for new remote mines; a three-year Ontario mining tax holiday on the first $10 million of profits generated by a new mine or a major expansion.

There's all kinds of good news for the mining industry. There's all kinds of good news for infrastructure projects. There's all kinds of good news for the forestry industry. There's all kinds of

good news for northern Ontario, thanks to a government that is committed --

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I know the member for Trinity-Spadina is waiting patiently. We'll try to provide a quiet, sensible forum for his

question.

EDUCATION

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I believe that being the Minister of Education is a full-time job. If you agree with that, Mr.

Minister, I think parents and students would like to hear you answer this question: Are you running for the leadership of the federal Liberal Party?

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): That question is out of order. It is not within the competence or responsibilities of the Ministry of

Education to respond. Do you have a new question?

Mr. Marchese: Speaker, I have made the assertion that being the Minister of Education is a full-time job. What I have seen of the minister of

late is that he's been busy meetings the Liberal organizers in Alberta; he's been busy meeting the Liberal organizers in BC; busy talking to the Toronto Star's editorial board about the sorry state

of the federal Liberal Party. If you're so busy trying to become the federal Liberal leader, I'm saying step aside, talk to the Premier and say, "I want to step aside for the good of this

government," so that he can appoint a full-time Minister of Education to do your job. That's what I think you should do. Will you do that?

Hon. Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): I'm very proud of being the Minister of Education in the McGuinty government. And let me tell

you, when we were in opposition we asked questions about students, we asked questions about dropout rates, we ask questions about curriculum casualties, about people who were being left behind,

about people in this province not served by that government or the one before that thought about a social contract ahead of the needs of students that let us lose our march on the world.

Under the McGuinty government, this cabinet, this caucus is making sure that every student in Ontario gets paid attention to. I'm very glad to be addressing

the francophone teachers, very glad to be working with the people in Kingston, in Sudbury with Rick Bartolucci, advocating for the people of the north, and for the first time we're getting the same

results for students in the north as we are for any part of the province, because we have a focus. I'm very proud to be one part of that focus, making sure that every student in this province gets

an Ontario education advantage under a McGuinty government, and we intend to do that for some time to come.

Mr. Marchese: I appreciate what the minister is saying, that he has been focused very much on education. Of late, what I have seen his focus

to be is the leadership of the federal Liberal Party. Why else would a Minister of Education meet with the editorial board of the Toronto Star if not to talk about his leadership? I didn't see any

comment coming out of that editorial meeting with the Toronto Star saying, "We're worried about the fact that this minister is still dealing with a Conservative funding formula." I didn't see the

Toronto Star editorial board coming out and saying that this government, this minister in particular, is still underfunding the educational system to the tune of millions and millions of dollars.

Teachers are still being paid with 1997 dollars. The Toronto Star editorial board talked only about you and your desire to deal with the federal Liberal Party problems and your interest in running

as leader. That's all I saw.

Hon. Mr. Kennedy: There was at one time some sympathy on this side of the House for why the critic never got to ask questions. I have to say,

speaking for my colleagues here, that that sympathy has evaporated, because I spent an hour and a half talking to the Toronto Star about education, about the need for education partnerships. We

invite the member opposite to not lose sight, as he has today, of the needs of students in this province. You ought, sir, to be focused on the needs of students. That's your job in this province,

and you shouldn't be like the odd Toronto Star reporter who might want to ask a question on the way out of an editorial board meeting.

We talked about an education partnership being formed in this province. For the first time, teachers and parents, and students and school board trustees are

all part of an education partnership that is deciding to provide a 15% increase in just two years in reading, writing and mathematics. All of that improvement is coming from the kids who have the

toughest time reading, and it's coming because we have a government, we have a Premier --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: As the education critic for the official opposition, I want to publicly state

that I endorse the Minister of Education for leader of the federal party.

The Speaker: New question, the member for London-Fanshawe.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I need to hear the member for London-Fanshawe. Order. The member for London-Fanshawe wants to ask a question.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Over the last few days, several

opposition members have said that our government has ignored those most vulnerable in our society; namely, those on social assistance. We all remember the Harris government and those mean, mad days

when social assistance rates were slashed by over 21%. They froze minimum wages for eight years. We remember when Harris ministers told needy Ontarians to eat dented cans of tuna, as if scrounging

around for dented cans was a dignified way to exist. We know that is the Conservative record. Minister, can you clear up for those who need to hear the truth and tell us what we have done to help

those on social assistance?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): I think many of us in this House

remember the Conservative years of government. What they did to the Ministry of Community and Social Services was cut the staffing by a full third over their decade here. They slashed agencies

across the board by over 5%. But since we came in, yes, we're digging out of the huge hole that they left us in, a $5.5-billion deficit, and we have to remember that that's where we've come

from.

Yet in two and a half short years, in our very first budget, we made increases of 3% to those who are on social assistance, and again an additional 2%. Those

who are getting special benefits received an additional increase in this recent budget. We are proud of the fact that we are moving forward and doing better for people who are on social assistance

today. As the Premier reported in an answer to the question earlier, mothers with two children who are on social assistance today have benefited from $1,620 more today than they did under the

previous government.

Mr. Ramal: Minister, I'm happy to hear that we have done so much in such a little amount of time. So much has in fact been done, but we all

know that more needs to be done. It's not easy to turn around the tragedy of the last government. I know that it will take more time to undo all the damage done by that former government.

Minister, we know that many people on social assistance, if given the chance, would gladly leave social assistance for the workforce. Can you give me some

information on what initiatives we have taken to help those on ODSP and Ontario Works to get off social assistance and enter the workforce?

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: We in fact have a long row to hoe because our job in our ministry is to be certain that people who have an opportunity to

work get every opportunity to take that job. People shouldn't have to be on social assistance when there's employment available. We need to help them get over the barriers to get that work.

What we've done was to make significant changes to break down those barriers for people who are on social assistance. The most significant is likely allowing

people to keep that drug card. For moms with children who told us, "I'm one asthma attack away with one of my children from being out on the street," we knew that maintaining the drug card was

important.

Recent announcements for ODSP recipients -- being able to allow a $100-a-month transportation benefit is a very important measure to allow them to go and find

work and be able to keep work because transportation is so critical for people who are on disability.

We have made a host of changes in the system to make it easier for people to get back in the workforce. We intend to do more in that regard. It will be a far

better place when we're through --

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

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): To the Premier, your caucus has adopted the Farmers Feed Cities messaging. We saw them wearing the

yellow T-shirts at the plowing match, and on at least two occasions members of your caucus have agreed to unanimous consent for MPPs in this House to wear the Farmers Feed Cities pins. Today, I've

been asked by legislative security to remove two Farmers Feed Cities signs that are on the inside windows of my automobile.

Premier, do you agree with this directive? A second question, Premier: Did this request come from your caucus?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): Speaker, I'm in your hands in this matter, but I think this is something

that falls entirely within your purview. It has to do with how security is governed on the precinct here, which has nothing to do with me or my government.

The Speaker: Supplementary, if there is one -- I'm trying to understand the question. If the problem is with security in this place or on

these grounds, the person you need to see is me. New question.

DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is for the minister for democratic renewal --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): If the initial question was out of order, the supplementary, by definition, is out of order.

The member for Beaches-East York.

Mr. Prue: My question is to the minister for democratic renewal. Madam Minister, a couple of days ago you announced that you were setting up a

citizens' assembly. I think what we need to know, and all the members of this Legislature need to know, is that the all-party select committee recommended that, for any recommendation they make, it

should be approved by 50% plus one of the people voting, that there should be no threshold on the turnout and that the bill should set out in its body that it be of a binding nature upon this

government.

To date, the questions that have been asked in this Legislature and the statements that you have made to the press have been, I would think, not very clear.

They remain unanswered, whether or not your government is going in that direction. My question is a very simple one: Will you enshrine the recommendations of the all-party committee in writing to

ensure that your government and subsequent governments are bound by the democratic will of the people of Ontario?

Hon. Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): I thank the honourable member

for the question, for the suggestions and for his work on the select committee, as I thank the members of the select committee for their excellent work and for the document they produced. It was an

honour to make the announcement two days ago that we will have a citizens' assembly to look at electoral systems, and if they so choose, to recommend possibly a change in our electoral system. The

suggestions you brought forward will be considered very carefully, as will all the recommendations of the report by the select committee.

Mr. Prue: The reason I've asked this question is a very serious one, because on February 13, 2002, the Premier of Ontario, then in the

opposition, wrote to the people of Victoria county, and I quote him: "I have committed that a Liberal government will ensure a binding referendum is held to allow local citizens to determine

whether or not to dismantle the amalgamated city." On November 10, 2003, the people, some of whom are here today, voted yes on the ministerial approved question. The Premier, the cabinet, your

colleagues, your caucus, have all said that they're not going to be bound by that democratic will of the people, in spite of what the Premier had to say. The citizens are here today. Two veterans

are here today, two veterans who fought for democracy, two veterans who saw their colleagues go down.

I want to ask you, how can these citizens and all the citizens of Ontario believe you will respect the democratic will when you have a policy and a procedure

already of not doing so?

Hon. Mrs. Bountrogianni: The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): As we've always said to the people from Victoria county, or Kawartha Lakes or

all the other people who are involved in these kinds of issues, it's the will of the council that this particular government listens to. If the proposal the council puts forward is fair to all the

taxpayers, demonstrates fiscal self-sustainability, we will take a look at those proposals in order to look at the delivery model of the various services in a municipality.

Now, I noted that the people of Kawartha Lakes this week are extremely happy with the fact that in the budget last week they received, in one-time funding for

roads and bridges, $5.8 million. The Ontario municipal partnership funding: The people in Kawartha Lakes received $7.1 million this year, which is an increase of $1.3 million over last year. That

is in addition to the gas tax money they've received of $1.3 million --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Ms. Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): My question is for the Minister of Energy. I've been following the work of this minister and the

previous one with regard to conservation and creating a culture of conservation in our province. I was with the justice policy committee during the public hearings on this and we heard time and

again that we have a culture of waste in our society, not a culture of conservation. Much is needed in the way of education. There are those who have lived through wars or they've lived through

depressions, so they understand the intrinsic need for conservation and its importance in any kind of a program. But there are other problems that we face in terms of financial incentives. Again,

we heard a number of times during the hearings concern for people who are living in social housing, the fact that they don't have the same control to maybe buy a refrigerator that's more energy

efficient. I just want to get some details from you about what you are doing for that sector of our society to help them conserve.

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield (Minister of Energy): I'd like to thank the member for Stoney Creek for her continued involvement in the social

service areas, not only in her community but in all of our communities.

We were very fortunate to announce a directive that went through to the power authority, to the conservation bureau, working with the social housing

corporation and communities right across Ontario that says that 100 megawatts would come from those communities in terms of energy efficiency. So we will be using interest-free and paying down

loans to enable the providers to go into about 250,000 -- ultimately 750,000 -- low-income homes to help them deal with replacing refrigerators, stoves and other appliances that aren't working,

weather-caulking their windows, changing their doors, putting in insulation and enabling them to deal with those energy costs that they have to absorb.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Thank you. This completes the time allocated for oral questions.

PETITIONS

LANDFILL

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): "Whereas there is currently a proposal to more than double the size of the Carp landfill in west

Ottawa; and

"Whereas this site has been in operation for some 30 years and had been expected to close in 2010; and

"Whereas the surrounding community has grown rapidly for the past 10 years and is continuing to grow; and

"Whereas other options to an expanded landfill have yet to be considered; and

"Whereas the municipal councillors representing this area, Eli El-Chantiry and Janet Stavinga, and the MPP, Norm Sterling, all oppose this expansion;

"We, the undersigned, support our local representatives and petition the Minister of the Environment not to approve the expansion of the Carp landfill and

instead to find other waste management alternatives."

I have signed that.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

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

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty, MPP, as leader of the official opposition, made the following commitment: `I have committed that a Liberal government will ensure a

binding referendum is held to allow local citizens to determine whether or not to dismantle the amalgamated city'; and

"Whereas, in the interest of true democracy, the Minister of Municipal Affairs put the following question to the voters of the city of Kawartha Lakes: `Are you

in favour of a return to the previous municipal model of government with an upper-tier and 16 lower-tier municipalities?'; and

"Whereas the voters, by a clear majority on a provincially mandated ballot, answered in the affirmative; and

"Whereas the council of the city of Kawartha Lakes has demanded that the province of Ontario honour the results of the 2003 election as it pertains to the

minister's question;

"The undersigned demand that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario act to honour the commitment made by Dalton McGuinty and to respect the will of the people as

expressed in a democratic vote, and restore the former municipal structure as stated in the minister's question."

I'm in total agreement and would affix my signature thereto.

SPECIAL CARE HOMES

Mr. John Milloy (Kitchener Centre): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas hundreds of vulnerable adults live in homes for special care that provide them a warm and secure, stable and friendly environment which allows them to

lead fulfilling lives; and

"Whereas the alternative for many of these individuals is a life of homelessness on the street; and

"Whereas special care homes have had only a single 3% increase since 1999, which in no way matches the rising costs they face; and

"Whereas the Liberal government promised Ontario in the election they would `significantly increase supportive housing options for those suffering from mental

illness';

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call on the government to bring in an immediate increase in funding to homes for special care."

ORGAN DONATION

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas 1,920 Ontarians are currently on a waiting list for an organ transplant; and

"Whereas the number of Ontarians waiting for an organ transplant has virtually doubled since 1994; and

"Whereas hundreds die every year waiting for an organ transplant; and

"Whereas greater public education and awareness will increase the number of people who sign their organ donor cards and increase the availability of organ

transplants for Ontarians; and

"Whereas the private member's bill proposed by Oak Ridges MPP Frank Klees will require every resident 16 years of age and older to complete an organ donation

question when applying for or renewing a driver's licence or provincial health card, thereby increasing public awareness of the importance of organ donation while respecting the right of every

person to make a personal decision regarding the important issue of organ donation;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to pass Bill 67, the Organ and Tissue Donation Mandatory Declaration Act, 2006."

I support this petition.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr. Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Where it has been shown that crossing control arms on school buses reduce or virtually eliminate instances of students being struck by their own bus; and

"Whereas 91% of all front-bumper fatalities involve buses not equipped with crossing control arms; and

"Whereas the safety of the children of Ontario is our number one priority;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to require that all future school buses be equipped with crossing control arms and that all

existing school buses be required to be immediately retrofitted with crossing control arms."

I am pleased to add my signature to this petition.

ORGAN DONATION

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas 1,920 Ontarians are currently on a waiting list for an organ transplant; and

"Whereas the number of Ontarians waiting for an organ transplant has virtually doubled since 1994; and

"Whereas hundreds die every year waiting for an organ transplant; and

"Whereas greater public education and awareness will increase the number of people who sign their organ donor cards and increase the availability of organ

transplants for Ontarians; and

"Whereas the private member's bill proposed by Oak Ridges MPP Frank Klees will require every resident 16 years of age and older to complete an organ donation

question when applying for or renewing a driver's licence or provincial health card, thereby increasing public awareness of the importance of organ donation while respecting the right of every

person to make a personal decision regarding the important issue of organ donation;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to pass Bill 67, the Organ and Tissue Donation Mandatory Declaration Act, 2006."

I support this petition. I sign it and I send it to the table through Sharmarke.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): Thank you for this opportunity. I met with three organizations of long-term-care facilities and they wrote a petition

to the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"Whereas long-term-care funding levels are too low to enable homes to provide the care and services our aging seniors and parents, who are residents of

long-term-care homes, need, with the respect and dignity that they deserve; and

"Whereas, even with recent funding increases and a dedicated staff who do more than their best, there is still not enough time available to provide the care

residents need. For example, 10 minutes, and sometimes less, is simply not enough time to assist a resident to get up, dressed, to the bathroom and then to the dining room for breakfast; and

"Whereas those unacceptable care and service levels are now at risk of declining;

"We, the undersigned, who are members of family councils, residents' councils" -- whom I met with -- "and/or supporters of long-term care in Ontario, petition

the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to increase operating funding to long-term-care homes by $306.6 million, which will allow the hiring of more staff to provide an additional 20 minutes of care

per resident per day over the next two years (2006 and 2007)."

I affix my name to this petition, support it wholeheartedly and hand it over to Ben.

ORGAN DONATION

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

"Whereas 1,920 Ontarians are currently on a waiting list for an organ transplant; and

"Whereas the number of Ontarians waiting for an organ transplant has virtually doubled since 1994; and

"Whereas hundreds die every year waiting for an organ transplant; and

"Whereas greater public education and awareness will increase the number of people who sign their organ donor cards and increase the availability of organ

transplants for Ontarians; and

"Whereas the private member's bill proposed by Oak Ridges MPP Frank Klees will require every resident 16 years of age and older to complete an organ donation

question when applying for or renewing a driver's licence or provincial health card, thereby increasing public awareness of the importance of organ donation while respecting the right of every

person to make a personal decision regarding the important issue of organ donation;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to pass Bill 67, the Organ and Tissue Donation Mandatory Declaration Act, 2006."

I am in full agreement with this petition and will affix my signature as well.

IDENTITY THEFT

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

"Whereas identity theft is the fastest-growing crime in North America;

"Whereas confidential and private information is being stolen on a regular basis, affecting literally thousands of people;

"Whereas the cost of this crime exceeds billions of dollars;

"Whereas countless hours are wasted to restore one's good credit rating;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, demand that Bill 38, which passed the second reading unanimously in the Ontario Legislature on December 8, 2005, be brought

before committee and that the following issues be included for consideration and debate:

"

(1) All consumer reports should be provided in a truncated ... form....

"

(2) Should a consumer reporting agency discover that there has been an unlawful disclosure of consumer information, the agency should immediately inform the

affected consumer....

"

(4) The consumer reporting agency shall investigate disputed information within 30 days and correct, supplement or automatically delete any information found

unconfirmed, incomplete or inaccurate."

Since I agree, I am delighted today sign this petition.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario:

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

"Whereas cancer patients taking oral chemotherapy may apply for a

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

place for intravenous cancer drugs administered in hospital; and

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with this petition; I'll sign it. I want to thank Dennis Smith of RR2, Stayner, for sending it to me.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): Last Friday, I had the opportunity to meet with the family councils of Riverview Manor, Pleasant Meadow and

Springdale County. They're long-term-care facilities in the great riding of Peterborough. They gave me a petition. It said,

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas long-term-care funding levels are too low to enable homes to provide the care and services our aging seniors and parents, who are residents of

long-term-care homes, need, with the respect and dignity that they deserve; and

"Whereas, even with recent funding increases and a dedicated staff who do more than their best, there is still not enough time available to provide the care

residents need. For example, 10 minutes, and sometimes less, is simply not enough time to assist a resident to get up, dressed, to the bathroom and then to the dining room for breakfast; and

"Whereas those unacceptable care and service levels are now at risk of declining;

"We, the undersigned, who are members of family councils, residents' councils and/or supporters of long-term care in Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly

of Ontario to increase operating funding to long-term-care homes by $306.6 million, which will allow the hiring of more staff to provide an additional 20 minutes of care per resident per day over

the next two years (2006 and 2007)."

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I have here a petition signed by a great many citizens from the city of Kawartha Lakes, and it is to the

Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Dalton McGuinty, MPP, as leader of the official opposition, made the following commitment: `I have committed that a Liberal government will ensure a

binding referendum is held to allow local citizens to determine whether or not to dismantle the amalgamated city'; and

"Whereas, in the interest of true democracy, the Minister of Municipal Affairs put the following question to the voters of the city of Kawartha Lakes: `Are you

in favour of a return to the previous municipal model of government with an upper-tier and 16 lower-tier municipalities?'; and

"Whereas the voters, by a clear majority on a provincially mandated ballot, answered in the affirmative; and

"Whereas the council of the city of Kawartha Lakes has demanded that the province of Ontario honour the results of the 2003 election as it pertains to the

minister's question;

"The undersigned demand that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario act to honour the commitment made by Dalton McGuinty and to respect the will of the people as

expressed in a democratic vote, and restore the former municipal structure as stated in the minister's question."

I affix my signature to this petition, as I believe that all politicians, and particularly the Premier, should honour their commitments.

COMMUNITY MEDIATION

Mr. Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East): "Support Community Mediation

"Whereas many types of civil disputes may be resolved through community mediation delivered by trained mediators, who are volunteers who work with the parties

in the dispute; and

"Whereas Inter-Cultural Neighbourhood Social Services established the Peel Community Mediation Service in 1999 with support from the government of Ontario

through the Trillium Foundation, the Rotary Club of Mississauga West and the United Way of Peel, and has proven the viability and success of community mediation; and

"Whereas the city of Mississauga and the town of Caledon have endorsed the Peel Community Mediation Service, and law enforcement bodies refer many cases to the

Peel Community Mediation Service as an alternative to a court dispute; and

"Whereas court facilities and court time are both scarce and expensive, the cost of community mediation is very small and the extra expense incurred for lack

of community mediation in Peel region would be much greater than the small annual cost of funding community mediation;

"Be it therefore resolved that the government of Ontario, through the Ministry of the Attorney General, support and fund the ongoing service delivery of the

Peel Community Mediation Service through Inter-Cultural Neighbourhood Social Services."

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The time for petitions has expired.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT À LA GESTION

DES SITUATIONS D'URGENCE

Mr. Kwinter moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 56,

An Act to amend the Emergency Management Act, the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 / Projet de loi

56, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la gestion des situations d'urgence, la Loi de 2000 sur les normes d'emploi et la Loi de 1997 sur la sécurité professionnelle et l'assurance contre les

accidents du travail.

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

Hon. Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): I'll be sharing my time with my new parliamentary assistant for

community safety, the member from Scarborough−Rouge River.

I rise this afternoon to speak about Bill 56, legislation that, if passed, will make Ontario even safer for residents. It is important to remember that Ontario

is the only province in Canada that doesn't have emergency powers legislation, and that leaves us vulnerable.

In an ideal world, there wouldn't be a need for this legislation but, unfortunately, as everyone knows all too well, the world as we know it is now far from

ideal. The tragic events of 9/11, as well as SARS and the power outage in 2003, clearly showed a review of provincial emergency powers legislation was needed. We needed this bill because we must be

prepared for emergencies. SARS presented us with a new and unknown threat. One of the most important lessons learned from it was that the challenge is not in planning for the knowable, but in

planning for the unknowable.

The people of Ontario deserve effective measures that will allow their government to best protect them during times of emergency, and they deserve to have them

as soon as possible. We need to have this type of legislation in place now, before something happens that would require us to build the boat in the middle of a storm on the ocean. The question

isn't whether the province is ready for an emergency; it's whether or not it has the tools it needs to ensure that it can act quickly and effectively when an emergency occurs, because there is no

doubt this province is vulnerable to another emergency.

We introduced Bill 56 last December because we were encountering unacceptable delays in getting all-party approval in getting Bill 138, the forerunner to the

current legislation, to second reading. Many of the details in Bill 56 have been carried over from the previous Bill 138, which was drafted by an all-party committee of this House and introduced on

November 1, 2004, by the chair of that committee.

The Emergency Management Act, passed by this House in 2003, deals almost exclusively with emergency preparedness as opposed to emergency powers. It authorizes

cabinet to assign planning responsibilities to ministers by order in council. The ministries identified as the lead ministries in the case of emergencies were required to develop emergency response

plans to address their designated risk. It was a good first step, but it didn't go far enough to protect Ontarians in the case of emergencies.

By introducing Bill 56, the McGuinty government has taken a giant step forward in protecting Ontarians. Bill 56 would amend the Emergency Management Act to

provide a comprehensive strategy for emergency powers, making Ontario's legislation more consistent with modern emergency powers legislation in other provinces and in other jurisdictions worldwide.

The bill would be used only during defined provincial emergencies that would not relate to everyday occurrences in the province. So the powers used would apply specifically to the defined

emergencies.

Provincial emergencies, by definition, are not, nor should they be, dealt with through statutes designed to address normal situations. The tools that Bill 56

would give us are the tools we may need in order to save lives when other measures are unavailable or inadequate. If passed, these emergency powers would allow the Premier and cabinet to make

emergency orders that would promote the public good by protecting the health, safety and welfare of the people of Ontario in a manner that respects the rights of individuals.

We're talking about emergency orders such as those that would provide for evacuation, the establishment of emergency shelters or hospitals or the immediate

purchasing of needed supplies such as bottled water. We have had only two provincial emergencies in the history of this province: SARS and the power outage, both in 2003. Bill 56 sets out a list of

powers that can only be exercised in a declared provincial emergency.

The 14 order-making powers outlined in the bill include such things as evacuation, controlling travel, establishing facilities, requisitioning property,

price-fixing and authorizing service. The order-making power is conferred on cabinet, which in turn can delegate that power to a minister or to the Commissioner of Emergency Management for a

maximum of two days. The bill also contains strict criteria that must be met for issuing an order and limitations on the making of each order. These orders could be enforced for a maximum of 14

days, but may be extended with the approval of cabinet. The bill contains significant penalties for failing to comply with an order or obstructing a person carrying out an order. The legislation

would amend the Employment Standards Act to provide for job protection during a declared provincial emergency.

Although there have been just two provincial emergencies declared in the history of Ontario, there are numerous examples of smaller emergencies occurring in

municipalities across the province. The Peterborough flood in the summer of 2003, the Barrie tornado 10 years ago and the tornadoes that tore through southwestern Ontario a year ago are all

examples of natural disasters.

Every emergency situation needs to be managed. Bill 56 would give the government the authority and the tools it needs to effectively manage provincially

declared emergencies. Those tools, the emergency orders in the bill, are ones that we hope we never have to use.

Even legislation designed to deal with events such as an environmental spill deals with situations that can be reasonably anticipated. Such legislation does

not really address the catastrophic event that would call for a provincial emergency to be declared. It is the nature of an emergency that no one can plan for all eventualities or anticipate all

possible scenarios or individual issues that may arise.

Another reason for considering general powers rather than changing existing legislation is that powers in existing legislation may not go far enough to cover

the emergency situation at hand. The government currently has some of the powers included in the proposed legislation. For example, we have the ability to establish facilities, to construct works

and to procure goods. The problem is that, in order to do many of these things under existing legislation, we need to follow sets of rules that in many cases are very onerous. Existing legislation

is simply not designed for the quick response needed in an emergency. Having one act clarifies the existing powers. Clarifying the powers available to emergency officials in advance would help them

carry out their functions quickly and with assurance in an emergency. Bill 56, if passed, would improve the province's ability to act quickly, decisively and in the best interests of the

public.

Tony Clement, the former Ontario Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, pointed out in his testimony before the standing committee on Bill 138 that the next

pandemic or public health crisis will have elements of similarity with the SARS outbreak, but also many differences. "The response structure must be flexible enough to meet any new situation," Mr.

Clement said, "and that's why any emergency legislation must be broad to include powers of evacuation, cordoning off, price stabilization, resource control and so on." Bill 56 has those

provisions.

We have said all along that, if passed, Bill 56 would make the government accountable for its decisions and would ensure transparency in its handling of

emergencies. As I mentioned earlier, there are stringent requirements the government must follow. The bill would require the government to report to the public during an emergency. It also would

require that the Premier table a report in this House within 120 days after determination of a provincial emergency. That report would have to specifically address any emergency orders made and

provide justification for those orders.

This House has an important role under the bill. The bill provides that the assembly may disallow a cabinet declaration of emergency. Further, only the

assembly can continue a declaration of emergency beyond the time limits set out in the bill. Bill 56 would make the government accountable for its actions prior to, during and after an emergency.

Accountability and transparency are the necessary complements to the exercise of emergency powers. We are all accountable for our actions. Accountability is paramount in Bill 56 as well.

The powers listed in Bill 56 have been well considered, and have appropriate checks and balances in place. This is a balanced bill that offers similar

protective measures to those in other jurisdictions. Bill 56, however, is not the McGuinty government's only initiative in the area of emergency preparedness. Under the Emergency Management Act,

every Ontario municipality must have an emergency response plan and have filed it with Emergency Management Ontario by the end of last year. I'm proud to say that virtually every Ontarian lives in

a community where such a plan exists, and a majority of communities have achieved what is referred to in the emergency planning business as the essential level and many are well on their way to

achieving the enhanced level of preparedness.

But it didn't stop there. Last July, the Premier, after consultation with key government officials, mandated that all provincial ministries develop business

continuity plans by December 31, 2005. I'm pleased to note that every ministry in the government met the deadline, and some ministries already exceed the minimum requirements. This year, ministries

will be making all Ontario government employees aware of their plans and practising them to ensure they are complete, effective and understandable. In this way, should an emergency occur, whether

it be natural, human caused or even

an act of terrorism, the government will be well po