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

November 22, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-Nov-22 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 22 November 2006 Mercredi 22 novembre 2006

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LONG-TERM CARE

GREY CUP

GEORGE LESLIE MACKAY

CANCER SCREENING

YEAR OF THE WAR BRIDE

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 107

SENIOR ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS

JOB CREATION

FOREST INDUSTRY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROTECTING VULNERABLE WORKERS ACT (EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES TRAVAILLEURS VULNÉRABLES (AGENCES DE PLACEMENT)

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT (INDEXING), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ PROFESSIONNELLE ET

L'ASSURANCE CONTRE LES ACCIDENTS

DU TRAVAIL (INDEXATION)

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 107

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

FOREST INDUSTRY

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 107

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

RENEWABLE FUELS

COAL-FIRED GENERATING STATIONS

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

PETITIONS

WATER QUALITY

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

LAND TITLES

AUTISM TREATMENT

BORDER SECURITY

SCHOOL FACILITIES

LONG-TERM CARE

GRAVESITES OF FORMER PREMIERS

MACULAR DEGENERATION

LONG-TERM CARE

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

OPPOSITION DAY

MANUFACTURING AND FOREST INDUSTRY JOBS

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): I have tabled a private member's resolution for debate tomorrow in the Legislature in response to the growing concern from residents, families, staff

and long-term-care home operators over the recently introduced Liberal Long-Term Care Homes Act, Bill 140. They fear that Bill 140 will put a 10-year deadline on older nursing homes' operating licences without any plan or funding commitment for

the capital renewal of older B and C beds, where 35,000 residents live. In fact, after seven years, the government can decide to do anything it wants with these beds, including closures or moving the beds to other communities. This has created

uncertainty for the residents.

Furthermore, without a funding commitment or a plan for capital renewal on the part of the Liberal government, these residents will continue to live in three- and four-bed wards, with no ensuite bathrooms or

Our government, on the other hand, undertook a plan of action in 1998 to invest $2.1 billion in long-term-care homes so that residents could live in comfort and dignity. These homes met new 1998 design

standards. We built 20,000 new long-term-care homes. We rebuilt 16,000 of the province's oldest beds to meet the new standards. I urge this government to take action on behalf of our vulnerable citizens.

GREY CUP

Mr. Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): I say this reluctantly but respectfully: Congratulations are due to the 2006 Grey Cup champion BC Lions for their 25-14 win over the Alouettes last

weekend.

While Toronto football fans are feeling the disappointment of the Argonaut loss in the final game of the CFL East, it's now time for the people of Toronto to start looking ahead to the 2007 Grey Cup. We look

forward to coach Pinball Clemons leading our Argos to the championship, but we should also start getting excited about the fact that the location for the 2007 Grey Cup game will be none other than here in the city of Toronto. This is a great

opportunity for Ontario's capital to showcase itself to the rest of Canada. It will be a great opportunity for Torontonians to come together to welcome Canadians from coast to coast as they come to our city to celebrate this great Canadian

tradition.

The theme of the 2007 Grey Cup will be Over the Top in Toronto. Work has already begun on the Over the Top festival, which builds excitement in the days leading up to the Grey Cup game itself. I can't talk about

the details yet, but this may be the biggest party Toronto has ever seen. It will be an experience for the whole family. Come enjoy a piece of Canadian history and culture and an opportunity to partake in a celebration unlike any we've seen

before.

I'm confident the Grey Cup celebration 2007 will be the best celebration in the 95-year history of this great game. I say to the people of Ontario and the people of Toronto, it's time to start getting excited

about the 2007 Grey Cup game in Toronto.

GEORGE LESLIE MACKAY

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I am pleased to stand today to talk about an Oxford county hero, Reverend George Leslie Mackay.

Reverend Mackay was raised in Zorra, in the north end of Oxford county. In 1872, he traveled to Taiwan as a missionary, where he became known as the Black-Bearded Barbarian. Eventually, he won over the locals,

not only with his preaching, but his work healing the sick and practising dentistry. Over 20 years he extracted more than 21,000 teeth.

During a visit home, he tried to raise funds to build a school in Taiwan at a cost of about $4,000. In 1881, through the leadership of Reverend Mackay and the Woodstock Sentinel Review editor, people came

together from Oxford county and the surrounding area. Together, they raised over $6,000. In honour of Reverend Mackay and the generosity of Oxford, the school was named Oxford College, and it still exists as a successful university today.

During his time in Taiwan, Mackay established over 60 chapels, several schools and a hospital. He remains a national hero in Taiwan. His work has created a strong connection between the people of Oxford and the

people of Taiwan.

Several years ago, the university that Mackay founded honoured Oxford county by presenting them a statue of Mackay. Reverend Mackay is being honoured in a Rogers OMNI documentary, which will air this Saturday,

November 25. I encourage everyone to take the time to watch the documentary and learn about this legendary man from Oxford county.

CANCER SCREENING

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): The dismal news today that Canada can't participate in a clinical cancer trial because most provinces don't pay for Avastin, a cancer drug for colorectal cancer

patients, means provinces like Ontario, which refuse to fund this drug, have an added responsibility to screen for it so it can be detected and treated early on.

I'm concerned about the ongoing delay in establishing a screening program in Ontario. In March 2004, Cancer Care Ontario began a one-year screening pilot project using the fecal occult blood test. The main

objective was to compare the participation rates of eligible individuals who were recruited for screening through a public health program or a primary care physician. The key findings were completed in February of 2005, and CCO submitted its final

report to the Ministry of Health at the end of March 2006.

I would have hoped after a year of study, CCO would have come up with the most effective screening model to recruit eligible patients. So I was very surprised that on October 16, the Minister of Health said the

model he got didn't have the level of physician involvement needed to get the best results from a screening program. I can only hope this matter gets sorted out very soon and a screening program gets under way.

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer in Ontario: 3,000 Ontarians died from it last year. If detected early, the cancer is 90% curable. Given that Ontario refuses to fund Avastin for advanced

colorectal cancer, it's more critical than ever to screen and detect this cancer long before a serious treatment regime is ever required.

YEAR OF THE WAR BRIDE

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): A few months ago, our government hosted a reception here at Queen's Park celebrating 2006 as the Year of the War Bride. At this reception, war

brides and their families gathered to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the arrival of over 45,000 war brides and the contributions they made to our great province.

It is my pleasure to tell all members of the House here today that celebrations continue in my riding of Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh. On Friday, November 17, I was fortunate enough to be present at a special

art exhibit at Sue's Art Gallery. Entitled War Brides on Canvas, the exhibit was organized by six local artists who showcased numerous pieces of stunning art featuring 11 war brides from in and around the Cornwall area. I wish to take a moment to

congratulate the artists of the Focus Art group: Charlene Bennett, Patricia Campbell, Rose Desnoyers, Patricia Fish, Jacqueline Milner and Micheline Tanguay are to be commended for embracing this initiative and contributing to the commemoration of

the Year of the War Bride.

The war brides themselves are to be commended. They have helped to shape this province and continue to play an active role. My constituency assistant, Jeremy Gowsell, has had the chance to participate in several

events with local war brides, including riding with them to Toronto to participate in that event this past year. He has continued to be impressed by their charm, their goodwill and their incredible stories. Certainly, go on the war brides website

and you can read about and understand those incredible stories.

It is my pleasure to support these wonderful ladies and join with them in celebrating 2006 as the Year of the War Bride here in Ontario. I wish the war brides well in their continuing celebrations during this

year, and I certainly appreciate the efforts that Bea Surgeson from my riding has made to profile the war brides here in Ontario.

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 107

Mrs. Christine Elliott (Whitby-Ajax): I'd like to speak just for a moment about integrity, and in this specific case the lack of integrity shown by this Liberal government with respect to Bill

107, and the lack of respect that they've shown to the members of this Legislature and to the hundreds of presenters who've been lined up to speak to this matter for several months. For several months, they've been led along by this government in

the expectation that they would have a fair hearing before the justice policy committee. Actually, up until November 20, all of us in this Legislature and all of the presenters were under the impression that they would have this opportunity,

before this government last night brought down the guillotine and choked off the debate on this fundamental issue so important to all of Ontarians.

Not only that; there haven't been just procedural problems here. There are substantive issues and there's a lack of integrity shown here, issues around the so-called amendments that have been presented to the

committee. In fact, they're not amendments at all. One of the significant presenters, Ms. Toni Silberman, called them "vague, amorphous promises." I couldn't agree more.

There has been a lack of clarity with respect to these amendments, because in actual fact I don't think they even know yet what they want to do with some of these things. They're leading us along, hoping that

somehow a solution is going to be found, to the detriment of the people of Ontario.

SENIOR ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): On Tuesday morning I had the honour and privilege of attending the Ontario Senior Achievement Awards, held by the Lieutenant Governor here at Queen's Park. The Ontario

Senior Achievement Awards are an opportunity for us to recognize the many contributions seniors continue to make to Ontario. This year, we honoured 21 seniors from across the province for a variety of achievements. These Ontarians come from many

places and from all walks of life, but they do have one thing in common: They've each spent a lifetime contributing to Ontario, from serving in the armed forces to volunteering in their communities, to encouraging governments to take action on

specific needs.

One of the honourees was from my own riding of Brant, Doug Snooks. Doug worked for almost four years as chair of the Eagle Place seniors' centre to get a chairlift for that centre. When he started his quest,

there were 51 members of the seniors' centre. Many of them had difficulty climbing the stairs to the second floor of the building, and some couldn't attend the meeting at all. Doug knocked on doors, petitioned the city and worked with city staff,

city councillors, the mayor and myself. He was unsuccessful in the early going, but he kept pushing until Eagle Place got even more than he asked for: an elevator and much-needed renovations to the seniors' centre. Now a whole review of older

Doug Snooks's efforts are just one example of what the senior achievement awards are all about. Thank you, Doug, and thank you to the 20 other extraordinary seniors that we celebrated on Tuesday.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I rise today to congratulate Ontarians on their job creation record during the last three years. In that time, the hard-working people of this province have

created 250,000 net new jobs. Our government is doing its job to position Ontario as a world leader in the knowledge economy. That's why our Reaching Higher plan calls for an historic $6.2-billion investment in post-secondary education --

benefiting institutions like the University of Toronto at Mississauga -- so that Ontario workers will be the best educated in the world. That's why Ontario has made record investments in health care at Trillium, at Credit Valley and at William

Osler, because we understand that strengthening our greatest competitive advantage, our people, is good for our economy. That's why Ontario has used our $500-million strategic auto sector investment fund to leverage some $7 billion in new auto

industry investments in Ontario -- because ours is a race to the top, not the bottom.

The Premier led a trade mission to China last year. This year he's leading one to India and Pakistan. That's why our Minister of Economic Development and Trade is going to Alberta. Our leaders lead by example.

They get out there and build opportunity for Ontario businesses, Ontario organizations and Ontario families so that we can be leading edge, now, next year and for decades to come.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Ms. Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): I rise in the House today to speak as a proud northerner. I fight every day to represent the interests of northern Ontario and my constituents in Nipissing. As

a government, we are helping the forestry sector invest in the innovative transformation required to compete in today's market. That's why we are providing over $1 billion in financial support. This government understands that there are serious

challenges facing the forestry sector during this transition. That is why on Monday we announced $140 million for forestry rebates that could reduce the electricity costs of participating companies by 15%.

The wood products that come out of Ontario are a world-class commodity, and you couldn't find a more dedicated workforce than you will find right here in Ontario. I see it every day when I am at home in North

Bay and visiting Mattawa in my riding. Families and towns have built themselves around the forestry industry. These are some of the hardest-working people out there. We recognize that, and that is why our government is committed to the

sustainability and competitiveness of the forestry sector.

Progress is being made. We have applications in now that would lead to over $1.2 billion in new investments in Ontario's forestry sector. That tells us there's confidence in the industry and things are not all

gloom and doom as the members opposite would like to you believe. The Minister of Natural Resources, together with many of his cabinet colleagues, has been working tirelessly on this file. Together with the sector, we are working to secure the

future of hard-working families in northern Ontario and all of Ontario.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROTECTING VULNERABLE WORKERS ACT (EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES TRAVAILLEURS VULNÉRABLES (AGENCES DE PLACEMENT)

Mr. Dhillon moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 161,

An Act respecting employment agencies / Projet de loi 161, Loi concernant les agences de placement.

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

The member may wish to make a brief statement.

Mr. Vic Dhillon (Brampton West-Mississauga): Many of my constituents face a considerable amount of abuse as a result of employment agencies that operate in my riding. I'm very unhappy with some

of the activities that are taking place, so I am introducing this bill, whose purpose is to establish a licensing scheme for the control and regulation of businesses that operate as employment agencies. That term is defined in the bill.

"Employment agency" means both businesses that bring together employees seeking jobs and potential employers and temporary help agencies that contract out persons to organizations.

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT (INDEXING), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ PROFESSIONNELLE ET

L'ASSURANCE CONTRE LES ACCIDENTS

DU TRAVAIL (INDEXATION)

Ms. Horwath moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 162,

An Act to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 162, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la sécurité professionnelle et l'assurance contre les accidents du

travail.

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

The member may wish to make a brief statement.

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): This is following up on an activity of a couple days ago, when we raised the issue of the untenable position that injured workers are in with the erosion of

their payments as a result of inflation because the indexing that they need to make sure their benefits are able to withstand inflation is not in place.

What the bill does is index two types of payments that are received by injured workers. It amends the act to enable annual cost-of-living increases to WSIB compensation paid to injured workers in Ontario by

removing the existing reduced indexing factor. This bill also provides for the unreduced indexing factor to apply to all payments made on or after January 1, 1994. If any payment made to a person on or after that date was less than the amount that

would have been paid using the unreduced indexing factor, the board must pay the difference to the person.

The

short title is Workplace Safety and Insurance Amendment Act (Indexing), 2006. I expect every member, including the minister --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The Minister of Labour will come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The Minister of Health will come to order.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding private members'

public business. I'll see if I can get our people to agree to this.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(d), the following change be made to the ballot list of private members' public business: Mr. Tory and Mr. Murdoch exchange places

in order of precedence such that Mr. Murdoch assumes ballot item 65 and Mr. Tory assumes ballot item 70, and that, pursuant to standing order 96(g), notice be waived for ballot item 65.

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 107

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Acting Premier. Mr. McGuinty and your government used the parliamentary majority you have to bring the guillotine down on the

committee hearings on Bill 107, a fundamental piece of legislation regarding the Ontario Human Rights Commission. This was done despite the promises and repeated assurances, some of them in writing, from the Attorney General that he would let

debate happen for "however long it takes."

I want to know why the government decided to break this promise, to go back on the word of the Attorney General. Why couldn't they, for example, keep the commitments that were made in writing to Margaret

Parsons and others that hearings would be held over the course of the winter, and why couldn't the government live up to the commitments in advertisements, at significant public expense, that appear today in the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star

and the National Post, among other places? Why did you go back on your word and break your promise to listen to these people on a piece of legislation of this importance?

Hon. George Smitherman (Deputy Premier, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I guess it's obvious to anyone who is joining the debate that the leader of the official opposition has now made

himself an expert on the matter of guillotine motions, recognizing that no one has been more expert at this practice than the party he is privileged to lead. The list of those motions and issues that were brought forward is really quite

extraordinary.

What we know about the issue at hand is that it's a fundamental issue. It's critically important and, accordingly, has had the advantage of very considerable debate already. More than 40 hours have been

dedicated to it; 70 presentations; a wide variety of opportunities for individuals to make their views known. There are, obviously, differing points of view, and I think it's an appropriate opportunity for the legislative committee to be able to

work through a variety of amendments that may come forward with a view toward strengthening the bill and bringing it back here for yet further debate.

Our government is very pleased with the progress that's been made, and the debate and the opportunities that have been presented. We think it's time to move on on this fundamental issue.

Mr. Tory: It's interesting to me that when the Acting Premier or others bring up the past, they sort of suggest it was wrong then but it's okay now.

I think the reason Premier McGuinty and the Acting Premier won't stand up and admit to is that they've made a political calculation that it's actually easier and better for them to muzzle people who are

interested in this legislation, muzzle people who, in many cases, are vulnerable and marginalized and just want to be heard, than it is to hear them speak. It's very odd that that would be the case when we're talking about human rights

legislation, and I suggest that is the wrong decision.

David Lepofsky calls it "a blistering betrayal." Mohamed Boudjenane of the Canadian Arab Federation calls it "anti-democratic." Barbara Hall, a good friend of the Acting Premier, says, "What should have been a

broad consensus-building exercise ... was undertaken in a way which ... caused division within the communities concerned."

We agree. Reform is needed, but this government is going about it in the wrong way.

Acting Premier, yesterday we made an offer of co-operation to let the committee hearings continue as planned and then to let this matter come to a vote when we come back here in March. Why would you not accept

that offer of compromise and co-operation on human rights legislation?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: The honourable member has effectively got himself wrapped up in the discussion about process today, but in using the word "vulnerable," the honourable member doesn't

manage to find any empathy for those people who have waited too long for the justice associated with appropriate action of these bodies.

He speaks about an individual as an example; he names David Lepofsky. This is an example of an individual we all have a tremendous amount of respect for. That's why I had breakfast with him on this issue.

The point is, over a long period of time there has been an opportunity for people to make their views known in a variety of settings and forums. Those views are well expressed already, through the wide variety

of presentations at committee and presentations that have come in the form of submissions and letters to all of us individually, and most certainly to our colleague the Attorney General. Accordingly, it's appropriate that we give the legislative

committee the opportunity to work through a series of amendments, which will be brought forward from a variety of perspectives, reflecting an opportunity to strengthen the bill and bring it back to the House for yet further debate --

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

Mr. Tory: I'm delighted to hear that the Acting Premier had breakfast with Mr. Lepofsky, and that's great, except it does nothing at all for the hundreds of other people who want to be heard

on this.

We just finished saying -- I said it last night and again today -- that we agree reform is needed. What we're arguing about here is that people want to be heard on this bill and you won't let them be heard.

It's an insult, frankly, that you won't even address the offer of co-operation that was made about bringing this to a vote after people are heard. This is an area where we have to show we can listen and co-operate with each other if we deserve to

be called leaders.

June Callwood wrote to the Premier today. She said that she supports reform and that she has some concerns about the bill which she thought would be addressed at committee. She goes on to say, "I beg you, I

urge you, to reschedule the hearings."

I will ask you again: Will you accept our offer to have this matter brought to a vote in the first couple of days when the House resumes the week of March 19, 2007, in return for hearing the people who want to

be heard on this human rights legislation? We could undo the travesty of last night with unanimous consent right now. Why won't you do it?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: It's only through action that we can undo the travesty, which is that they're pretending to be interested in an issue that for eight and a half years they ignored. In

fact, their only action on this file was to reduce the amount of resources available for those people who needed legal assistance. That is the legacy of your party.

Just take, as an example, the comments of June Callwood: What did you say? How did you characterize it? You said that she thought the committee was the place where some of the concerns she has will have the

opportunity to be addressed, and indeed that is the way the process works. The honourable member wants to talk and talk and substitute process for action. Instead, we think it's important to give the legislative committee an opportunity to

consider amendments from a variety of perspectives, which will give advantage to a stronger bill. I look forward as a member to have the opportunity in this House to stand and vote on third reading in advance of reform and action, not more process

and talk, for which the honourable member opposite has now become the standard-bearer.

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): Once again to the Deputy Premier: I noticed that never once in that dissertation from you did we hear the word "listen," because you don't know how

and you don't want to, on this or any other issue.

Let's talk about another matter. Here we have déjà vu all over again on another issue. Almost exactly a month ago, we stood in this House and asked questions about serious allegations concerning the

integrity of the lottery system operated by the lottery and gaming commission. At the time, we asked for an independent forensic audit into the operations of the OLGC after it was revealed that an impossibly high number of lottery insiders had won

prizes of more than $50,000. Premier McGuinty refused to have that independent audit. Four weeks later, we now have allegations of nearly 10% of scratch-and-win prizes being collected by lottery insiders, 65 jackpots totalling $10.7 million, with

none of that information being made public at all -- ever. Will the Deputy Premier admit finally that it's time to have an outside, independent forensic audit to get to the bottom of this?

Hon. George Smitherman (Deputy Premier, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): To the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal.

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, Deputy Government House Leader): I want the member and all Ontarians to know that this government treats these and any other

allegations as very serious matters. That's why, in fact, we have an independent officer of this Legislature, the Ombudsman, looking into the security of the lottery system, and I eagerly await the work that he has undertaken.

In addition to that, the chair of the board, Mr. Gough, supported by all members of this Legislature to assume that very important responsibility, is conducting a review. He has undertaken KPMG -- I hope

you're familiar with that firm -- to conduct a forensic audit and investigation, to do the appropriate investigation and analysis, and to report back as soon as possible. Every member of this Legislature should have total confidence that I will

take the appropriate action to protect the public interest and to protect the integrity of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp.

Mr. Tory: Mr. Gough is a fine gentleman; I've known him for years. The problem you've got here is that he's investigating the corporation of which he's the chairman. That's the problem

here.

Interjection.

Mr. Tory: He's hired them; he's their client. What silliness is this? You don't understand.

Here is what we have in the latest --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Order. I will not warn the Minister of Health again.

Mr. Tory: Here's what we have in the last instalment. CBC gets documents about the lottery corporation through freedom of information. CBC tries to interview Duncan Brown and they're

physically ejected from the property. Mr. Brown reconsiders, and in the interview he finally agrees to give, he says that he's never seen this documentation ever before.

These things have happened on the watch of all three political parties. It goes back to 1993 or something like that. It is not about politics; it is about the integrity of lotteries, the integrity of the

tickets, and being able to satisfy the buying public. Why won't you order an outside independent forensic audit instead of asking this company to investigate itself? Why won't you do that?

Hon. Mr. Caplan: I am a little bit surprised that Mr. Tory has no confidence in KPMG, one of Canada's leading audit firms. In fact, I know that Mr. Tory has used KPMG to do the annual reports

for Rogers Communications. In fact, KPMG is also the audit firm for the Ontario PC fund.

So I think that Mr. Tory, on one hand, engages a firm which has an excellent reputation, which is able to do that. Mr. Gough, on behalf of the shareholders, the people of Ontario, engages KPMG to do this kind

of work. Also, in addition to that, we have an independent officer of this Legislature with full authority and power to conduct the kind of review to get to the bottom of the matter and to move as quickly as possible to provide some insight,

because whatever action needs to be taken, I want to assure this member and all Ontarians, will be taken to protect the public interest.

Mr. Tory: KPMG is a fine firm, but if the shareholders are going to retain them on an independent basis to investigate the lottery corporation, it should be you who are retaining them on

behalf of the shareholders and not the corporation itself. You don't understand. They are going to submit their report to the very people who are being investigated here, or who should be.

What I'm trying to do is hold you to account here for the failure to take this seriously enough and to put in place the independent, outside investigation done by the shareholder, which is you, not the

chairman of the board. The measures as announced last month are not going to address this scratch ticket situation. It was never addressed at all. Mr. Brown assured us that everything had been done.

The OLGC provides a billion dollars in funding to arts and culture groups, not-for-profit groups, hospitals, schools and so on. They are the people who are going to take it in the ear if you don't act on this.

You have an obligation to protect the integrity of this system. Why won't you order that independent audit and do it now?

Hon. Mr. Caplan: In fact, we don't have just one but we have two independent -- one is an officer of this Legislature who has shown himself to be a tireless advocate and to do some excellent

work. I have full confidence.

I'm surprised that Mr. Tory and the Conservative caucus do not have confidence in André Marin, an officer of this Legislature charged with these responsibilities who is undertaking this kind of work. I am

shocked that Mr. Tory and the Conservative caucus do not have faith and confidence in their own party's auditor, who is conducting the kind of forensic review which he calls for.

In fact, Mr. Brown and OLG came out with a seven-point plan to protect security and to provide the confidence of Ontarians, be they shareholders or be they lottery players, in the lottery system. I want to

assure Mr. Tory, I want to assure this House and all Ontarians that if further actions are required, they will be taken to protect the public interest.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Acting Premier.

Hon. Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): Deputy.

Mr. Hampton: Deputy Premier, two days ago, the Premier was patting himself on the back over his too little, too late one-cent electricity rebate for paper mills. Today, northern Ontario

communities learned just how weak the Premier's announcement really is. In the two days since the announcement, Bowater and Tembec, two companies that were happy to appear with the Premier, have announced mill closures or more job cuts. These are

on top of the 45,000 direct and indirect forest sector jobs already destroyed under the McGuinty government.

Deputy Premier, if the Premier's one-penny electricity rebate is just what the doctor ordered, according to the Premier, how come forest sector companies are already laying off more workers?

Hon. George Smitherman (Deputy Premier, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I want to say to the honourable member that I think it is his strategy typically to take a wide variety effort,

a comprehensive response and approach to the challenges we are all conscious of related to the forestry sector, and shrug off another billion dollars. This is really, in a certain sense, what is the heart and the culture of the party he

represents: to diminish the efforts that have been made and to appropriately acknowledge that it's going to take a significant effort on the part of all partners, I dare say including the federal government, to ensure that the sector moves forward

in a way that is strong.

We know it faces many challenges. That's why on a comprehensive basis our government has responded this week with an additional resource with respect to the challenges of energy cost, and previous initiatives

that have outlaid a serious amount of provincial investment, to send a very strong message about our desire to work in partnership with all of those who agree that it's important to make sure that Ontario has a strong and stable forestry sector.

There is of course significant work to be done, acknowledging very --

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

Mr. Hampton: The Deputy Premier talks about other investments. This government keeps talking about $500 million in assistance. Only 3% of that $500 million has been taken up by the industry.

That's what they think of your so-called announcements.

This morning the McGuinty government let those working families down again in another crass exercise in media spin. The Minister of Natural Resources had the nerve to say that northern forest sector

communities have gotten off relatively scot-free. Tell that to the 45,000 workers who are out of a job under the McGuinty government. That shows just how out of touch you are.

I think the McGuinty government owes northern Ontario forest sector workers and communities an apology for this crass exercise in media spin. Deputy Premier, when will those laid-off forest sector workers get

that apology from the McGuinty government?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: One would only have to spend a week around this place to fail to hold to appropriate suspicion any comment offered by the honourable member that didn't come with a

transcript. I think the evidence of the minister's commitment and our government's commitment to people employed by or benefiting from the economic advantage of the forestry sector is the fact that, as a government, we have contributed over $1

billion to ensure that it is there in the future.

An example of the challenge we have with the honourable member's information is that in his first question he talked about a new announcement from Tembec when in fact the only announcement which is new is that

Tembec has announced that they're reopening for eight weeks.

The circumstances are clear. We have a challenging circumstance in the north and in the forestry sector. We're working very co-operatively and proactively to provide resources that will ensure that the sector

is able to move forward on a more stable basis. We recognize there are many challenges and we commit to continue to work together in partnership --

The Speaker: Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr. Hampton: The Deputy Premier talks about working together. The only thing that is resulting from the McGuinty government's work on this file is that more workers are being laid off.

Here's what happened in Thunder Bay the next day after the Premier's announcement: Bowater sends a letter to its workers about a site-wide restructuring that would mean more job reductions; not new jobs, not

mill reopenings, not job restoration -- more job cuts. I ask the Deputy Premier this question again: If the Premier's forest sector announcement is "just what the doctor ordered," according to the Premier, if northern Ontario is getting off

scot-free, how come Bowater and Tembec are announcing more job cuts immediately after the Premier's announcement?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: There he goes again. Even in the course of the two questions he's asked, he's made it up. He has chosen to use different language to characterize what he presented as a

quote. This is exactly what we expect all the time from the leader of the third party. He talks about Tembec, yet he's not prepared to acknowledge that Tembec has made an announcement about people coming back to work for a period of time.

With respect to Bowater, there is no presentation from the honourable member that acknowledges that in partnership, respecting the fact that we have made resources available to the forestry sector to assist

them in transforming their operations so they're viable in the long term, Bowater has been a participant in that, signalling their desire to move forward and provide important and stable employment for people.

We're working together on that basis with $1 billion in provincial investment to demonstrate our commitment to the people in these communities.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr. Hampton: Every time the Deputy Premier opens his mouth on these issues it demonstrates once again just how out of touch the McGuinty government is. I've got the Tembec press release.

They're going to reopen for a brief period because they've got timber rotting in their yard. But it says in the press release that as soon as that timber is sawn, they're not going to just lay off the workers, they're going to give them

termination notices, meaning no more job.

I say again to the members of the McGuinty government: What does it say about the Premier's latest forest sector announcement, where he patted himself on the back, and just after he made the announcement,

Tembec announced that these workers are going to be terminated?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: The honourable member wants to read one line but not the rest of it. Tembec also committed, as they work to enhance market conditions and circumstances, about their

dedication toward the mill's reopening. We want to work in partnership with those who have a vision for an environment for a sector that is more positive.

Only the honourable member can pretend his way through this as he does. Very many days he likes to talk about how Ontario, as an example, is the only jurisdiction facing these circumstances, when we know that

very recently in Quebec 10 sawmill closures were made.

The point is, we know there are very serious circumstances for the forestry sector. The demonstration of our commitment is the comprehensive response we have engaged in, not just one announcement with respect

to energy but also serious commitment on our part to address the costs associated with getting timber out of the bush, and also with resources to allow these organizations to make investments that will ensure that their productivity is enhanced

and that costs are lowered. This is the dedication we have to the forestry sector, and we will continue --

The Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary.

Mr. Hampton: The McGuinty government uses words like "making it up." So I want to quote the Ontario Forest Industries Association, where it says it "doesn't know of any mill that will reopen

as a result" of your scheme. The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers say your scheme won't save a single job in forestry. Today's Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal says, "Clearly, what McGuinty offered ... is not enough," and calls the Premier's

forestry policies "pale in comparison with demonstrated need and obvious solutions."

Industry leaders, union leaders and municipal leaders said they needed $45 a megawatt hour in order to sustain the industry. Can you tell us why the McGuinty government, after all this deliberation, after all

the media spin, couldn't deliver $45 a megawatt hour, couldn't even get close?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: The honourable member doesn't quote Ken Buchanan, president of Buchanan Forest Products, who said, "This is great news for Ontario's forest sector. It helps us stay

competitive. It will keep jobs in the north. This is good for our industry and a `win' for the communities in the region."

We acknowledge there are serious challenges with this industry. We've been working very diligently over a period of time with affected communities and the companies that are there. We recognize there are

international challenges and that there are things we can do. Accordingly, we've sought to be a strong partner, not like the federal government sitting on the sidelines and doing nothing to help this sector, but working very vigorously to bring $1

billion of resource forward, to support lower energy costs, to support organizations that transform themselves to lower operating costs and be more competitive, to support reduction in costs with bringing the product in from the bush.

We recognize these challenges. We stand in solidarity with those individuals who are affected, and we will continue, as a government, to move forward with initiatives --

The Speaker: Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr. Hampton: The McGuinty government says it stands in solidarity with those workers. You've destroyed 45,000 of their jobs and you're busy destroying more of those jobs on a daily basis.

Here's what the chief of northern economics at Lakehead University had to say about the Premier's announcement: "I don't think this is going to do very much." Here is what the Chronicle-Journal newspaper said:

"Lest anyone think McGuinty's announcement will make `the big difference' to that industry, one read of the devastating memo Bowater sent to its Thunder Bay employees the same day McGuinty flew into town dispels the notion in a hurry."

Deputy Premier, one way to make a difference for northern Ontario forest workers is to pass today's NDP opposition day motion, which calls for a job protection commissioner to sustain jobs and a reasonable

hydro policy that can sustain jobs. My question is, will members of the McGuinty government support our opposition day motion, or are you going to let these workers down again and destroy more --

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

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: We'll let all members speak for themselves on the issue of the vote, but coming from the honourable member, now he's turned his ever-changing energy policy into a

reasonable one. This is the umbrella that he seeks to operate under, because he changes his position on this point, as my colleague the Minister of Energy has said often.

He likes to quote from professors. Well, here's a quote from Michael Power: "We think on balance this will make a big difference and allow us to move forward on other fronts to ensure that we remain

competitive."

The point is that we're working hard with the forestry sector in northern Ontario, recognizing the challenges that they face. We've been prepared, point by point by point, to work together and to meet the

challenges. We will continue, through the leadership of our colleague the Minister of Natural Resources, through the work of the Minister of Energy, through the leadership of the Premier and our colleague the Minister of Economic Development, with

a view towards making sure that we move forward in a fashion which sustains our forestry sector and, in a very competitive environment, ensures that it's there to provide important stability for people in the north and other parts of Ontario.

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 107

Mrs. Christine Elliott (Whitby-Ajax): My question is for the Deputy Premier. Today, in one of the last few remaining hearings of the justice policy committee on Bill 107 before the debate gets

choked off, we heard from a great many groups and individuals who are fiercely opposed to your government's decision to invoke closure. I should say, these are people who brought a fresh perspective, who brought information to the committee that

we had not heard before. So any suggestion that you've heard it all, that you don't need to hear any more, was completely negated by the evidence from these people this morning.

For example, we heard from Operation Black Vote Canada, which stated in their submission:

"We find the Liberal government's action undemocratic and unconscionable. The Attorney General stacked the first days of hearing with his supporters for Bill 107....

"My community has been completely shut out."

A former MPP from York East, Gary Malkowski, an individual representing the Canadian Hearing Society, who is also deaf himself, was passionate in his pleas for you to cancel the motion. "I cannot believe you

are doing this," he repeatedly stated.

Deputy Premier, it's one thing to say that you want to move forward with this legislation, but you're muzzling the public from expressing their views on human rights. You and I both know that the right thing

to do is to listen to these individuals who are pleading with us to be heard. Why won't you cancel this motion and let them be heard?

Hon. George Smitherman (Deputy Premier, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): To the Attorney General.

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General): Again we hear from the opposition about concerns about the process that will lead to the reform, but nothing about the reform itself. I've yet to hear a

single thing from the member about how Bill 107 may or may not be improved; how in fact we can take a human rights commission, a legal support centre and a human rights tribunal system that might be improved.

I know they have concerns about the process. What about the delay of eight years to reform the human rights system that was visited upon those same people during the eight years in which that party was in

power? What about the delays that are affecting the people who go to the human rights system, in some cases eight years? We heard yesterday from someone who was before the human rights system for some 10 years. My concern about process, Mr.

Speaker, is a process being faced by victims of human rights discrimination, and the purpose of this reform is to address those delays in a meaningful way. With this bill, we'll be able to do just that.

Mrs. Elliott: Again to the Deputy Premier: We also heard in committee today from Elizabeth Bruckman, who is a staff lawyer with the Parkdale legal clinic, and her evidence was quite revealing.

She advised the committee that when she and a number of other presenters attended the technical briefings on the amendments to Bill 107 that were arranged by the Attorney General's staff last week, they asked a number of questions of the staff

about the legal support centre that the Attorney General has promised. Surprisingly, they were advised that it's too soon to know what form the legal support centre will take but certainly that not everyone will be represented by a lawyer --

notwithstanding the two statements made by the Attorney General in this Legislature that everyone will be represented by a lawyer.

Deputy Premier, do you have any idea whatsoever how much this centre is going to cost, how it's going to be funded, what form it's going to take or how it's going to operate?

Hon. Mr. Bryant: Well, that person was at a technical briefing, and that is the point. We are sitting down with people, for those who want to sit down with us, and trying to get the

information and work with them to put together a human rights system that draws upon their expertise. They want to talk about more process and more process; they want to talk about more committee hearings. We're having more committee hearings. We

said that there would be more debate and there is more debate. The question is, at what point do the Legislature and the government say that after 44 years it's time to take a bill, bring it to this Legislature and let the people decide, through

their members of provincial Parliament, what the human rights system is going to look like?

We've heard a lot of talk over the years from the NDP, who did nothing about that. We heard no talk about the subject from the Conservatives, who also did nothing about it. Now we've got a bill before the

House. It has been here for more than 200 days. We've had committee hearings. We will have more. We'll have more debate and we'll have more amendments. I look forward to getting members' input on this. But we have got to move forward with the

human rights reform.

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

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is to the Deputy Premier. Yesterday, when you announced the cancellation of hearings on your human rights scheme and quashed debate, you

tried to represent that June Callwood, a member of the Order of Canada, was in support of the government. But I have June Callwood's letter from yesterday, where she says:

"I am concerned with some sections of" Bill 107, "and I assumed these would be addressed in scheduled hearings over the next few weeks.

"To my great dismay, these hearings have been cancelled, and the government will not have the benefit of listening to thoughtful analysis of those elements which could in future cause some injustice....

"I beg you, I urge you, to reschedule the hearings."

Deputy Premier, is this the McGuinty government's definition of "justice" and "human rights" in Ontario: "justice denied"?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: The honourable member apparently doesn't subscribe to the widely held notion that justice delayed is justice denied. He stands among those who have acknowledged that it is

their desire, it is in their interest, to stop the progress and advance of a bill. This is the interest that he takes, but he does not acknowledge that to the people of Ontario. The person beside him, who many days leads that party, has very aptly

demonstrated that, and that is in the record of this place. He has put on record that it was his desire that people should turn old. But the reality is that many have, because this issue has been around for a long, long time and has not received

the consideration that it needs.

June Callwood has an expectation of some enhancements of the bill. That point of discussion is coming soon through the actions that we've taken. A legislative committee will have the opportunity to consider

the perspectives that have been brought forward, to make alterations and to bring back a bill for third reading that has been enhanced as a result of a considerable amount of process.

Mr. Hampton: I don't know whom the Deputy Premier is trying to fool, but this bill has now been time-allocated. There won't be any time to hear these thoughtful suggestions from people who

care about human rights. There will be almost no time in committee to deal with these amendments.

Here is the reality: An unsuspecting person in Ontario who picked up Toronto's Globe and Mail today would think that there are going to be hearings. An unsuspecting person who picked up the National Post would

think that there are going to be hearings. An unsuspecting person who picked up Metro would think there are going to be hearings. An unsuspecting person who picked up the Toronto Star would think there are going to be hearings. In fact, that is a

fraud. There are not going to be any hearings. There's not going to be any more deliberation. There's not going to be any more discussion.

I say again to the McGuinty government, is this your definition of the protection of human rights, the protection of democracy: simply shut it down, deny it and pretend that it might happen some day?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: To the Attorney General.

Hon. Mr. Bryant: The leader of the third party talks about unsuspecting people. An unsuspecting person tuning in to the legislative channel in 1991, listening to the NDP minister responsible

announce that human rights reforms were coming, might have been led to believe that human rights reforms were coming. An unsuspecting person who heard that the Cornish report had been filed before this Legislature under that government might have

thought that reforms were coming. That unsuspecting person would have been fooled into thinking that that government cares a whit about reforming the human rights system -- so clinging to the status quo today that they will do everything in their

power to derail this bill.

We will not allow that party to derail human rights reforms overdue for too many years. We will have committee hearings continue. We will have clause-by-clause hearings when amendments can be heard, and it

will come back to this House --

Interjections.

The Speaker: We can wait. We'll just wait. The member for Timmins-James Bay, I won't warn you again.

New question.

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Mr. Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Yesterday in Markham, you announced that the McGuinty government will be expanding programs to

further help newcomers in gaining employment. The number of newcomers in York region has steadily increased over the years. In the period 2001 to 2005, 43,000 new immigrants settled in York region; 58% of the new immigrants to the region were of

the economic class, which means the majority of them are skilled workers.

Minister, having taken groundbreaking steps to address the issue of registration and licensing for regulated professions through the introduction of Bill 124, the Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act, I

see you have also partnered with the Toronto Region Immigrant Employment Council to coordinate projects which will help employers connect with skilled newcomers. Could you tell us about this $1.75-million investment to expand programming to help

employers tap into the wealth of talent and skills of newcomers?

Hon. Mike Colle (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): The member from Thornhill is so right in that there's really been a dramatic paradigm shift in the settlement patterns of immigrants.

Now, many immigrants are going directly into York and Peel regions in great numbers, and most of them are very skilled. That's why we've teamed the Toronto Region Immigrant Employment Council to connect small- and medium-sized business with the

highly skilled foreign-trained newcomers.

This $1.75-million investment would ensure that the small businesses that don't have the time and all the resources to do the background work will now get that support. There will be workshops, there will be

human resources available so that small business will win in York region and Peel region, and so will the talented newcomers. It's a win-win situation.

Mr. Racco: Yesterday, when I was in attendance, I saw that Ratna Omidvar, the executive director of TRIEC and the Maytree Foundation, had indicated that this investment will help them provide

the tools and resources to help small and medium-sized employers better equip and retain skilled immigrants. Minister, could you tell us who are the partners in this expanded program and how this will be a win-win situation for small business in

the 905 and, in particular, the region of York and the region of Peel, where most of those people are going to live?

Hon. Mr. Colle: The critical thing here is that there's a landmark report put forth by York region called Growing Pains. The commitment we've made -- and we're delivering on that commitment --

is ensuring that as the regions grow and the number of newcomers grows, we also give the service agencies the ability to help those newcomers find employment. So it's a direct investment, along with organizations like COSTI, ACCES, TRIEC, the city

of Markham, the Brampton Board of Trade, the Markham Board of Trade. They're providing the job connection, because ultimately these newcomers want a job. So this investment means there are going to be more jobs and more opportunity for

newcomers.

As you know, in Markham itself, two newcomers from Hong Kong over a dozen years ago created ATI industries. Those two newcomers now employ 3,200 people in the city of Markham. That's the kind of investment we

make in newcomers. When we invest in newcomers, we invest in cities, we invest in Ontario.

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Minister, you're aware of the McGuinty strategy of saying anything to get elected. After

all, you were the first member of the promise-breakers' club by allowing housing on the Oak Ridges moraine. On June 16, you enhanced your legacy. You promised in a news release to compensate Caledonia homeowners and to have detailed

recommendations within three days. It has now been 159 days -- no recommendations, no money.

I have a letter from a Caledonia homeowner. They sold their house. I quote: "I had no choice but to accept an offer $25,000 below bank appraisal.... Now I wish to be compensated...." Minister, will this

homeowner be compensated, or is this yet another McGuinty broken promise?

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the member very much for the question he has just posed. As he well knows, a number of different ministers and ministry

people have been meeting with the committee in Caledonia. I had a meeting with the mayor there some time ago, and with a number of other people as well, to make sure that the program that is going to be put in place will be beneficial to all those

individuals who were affected in one way or another by what's happening in Caledonia. We're working on the details of that particular program, and that program will be announced as soon as it's available.

Mr. Barrett: Minister, your news release was last June. This is all about your credibility. I have your news release right here. This message is on your letterhead: "Assistance will go to

households directly affected by the blockade."

Minister, you received a letter from my constituent. He lives next door to the occupied site. I quote: "I was both shocked and annoyed when I was told we were not directly affected by the occupation. The value

of our property has gone down to ground zero. The buyout of Douglas Creek ... land has directly affected the future property value of our home."

Minister, you didn't answer. You just sent this letter to Minister Ramsay. You've created a false hope by giving a false promise. Have you no self-respect? Why will you not stop passing the buck? Why did you

promise compensation if you have no intention of keeping your word?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: As the member well knows, there has been a business recovery plan in place that was looked after by the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, who was immediately on

the scene when this happened back in the spring. There has also been a counselling program to assist those individuals who in one way or another felt they were physically or emotionally affected by the goings-on that are still happening or

happened in Caledonia. We are working on the plans as well for the recovery program, as we set out in our release of June 16. It will happen.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Ms. Cheri DiNovo (Parkdale-High Park): My question is for the minister responsible for housing. Today is National Housing Day. National Housing Day was established to raise awareness of the

thousands of people living on our streets without housing and without adequate food and health care. There are 122,000 households waiting for housing, most of them within the $300- to $400-a-month rate. Minister, can you tell me how many of your

so-called affordable housing units actually fall in that $300- to $400-a-month rental rate?

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I can tell you this: I had the opportunity yesterday to speak to the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association conference, and the

reaction to the various programs that we have announced, that we're funding, and that units are actually being occupied by individuals -- this is an organization primarily involved in providing non-profit housing across this province. They seemed

to be extremely well pleased by the actions this government has taken so far.

There's always more work that can be done. I can tell you, one of the things we have done is to put pressure on the federal government in every meeting I have had with the minister responsible for CMHC to,

number one, make sure that the SCPI funding -- the Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative, primarily for homelessness -- will continue after March 31. It's the first issue I ever raised with her. Secondly, I've asked that the legacy funding

with respect to the social housing out there will be made available so that the existing social housing --

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

Ms. DiNovo: This is why they call it "question period" and never "answer period," because I didn't hear an answer to my question.

I'll restate my question: How many units have you brought forward for 122,000 waiting households in Ontario that they can actually afford, that is, $300 to $400? That's the rate affordable by ODSP earners, OW

and minimum wage earners. They're waiting for your housing. You promised 20,000 units. I'd like to know if there's even one unit at the $300- to $400-a-month rental rate.

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: Let's just take a look at the facts. The facts are that since we've come into office, we have added 3,300 rent supplement units to the system for low-income individuals.

The fact is that 130 projects are currently being built right across this province that are going to supply housing for 6,500 individuals. The fact is that through the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, over 2,200 units are going to be made

available for individuals with mental health issues. The fact is that we've got a rent bank that has kept 6,600 families and households in their place who would otherwise have been evicted.

We have started the process. We are going to deliver on our housing allowance program. We are going to deliver on the affordable housing units that we set out in our campaign. A lot of work has been done and

more work needs to be done. We want to make sure that the vulnerable in this province are adequately housed, and it will happen.

RENEWABLE FUELS

Mr. David Orazietti (Sault Ste. Marie): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, today you announced the opening of the Prince wind farm near Sault Ste. Marie, with an investment

worth almost $400 million, demonstrating the co-operation our government achieved with Brookfield Power. Energy projects such as this and the recently announced $135-million cogeneration facility at Algoma Steel allow companies to benefit from

their investments through our clean and renewable energy strategy.

Here's what Harry Goldgut, CEO of Brookfield Power, had to say: "The completion of the Prince wind farm represents a major achievement for Brookfield Power.... In a little over a year, we have constructed

Canada's largest wind farm. It's a tribute to the members of the local community, our employees and construction partners and ... in particular, the Ontario government.

I know that our government is committed to bringing more renewable energy online because it not only helps boost our generation capacity in the province but also has positive environmental impacts through a

reduction in greenhouse gases.

Minister, with today's announcement, where does Ontario stand when it comes to the amount of wind generation produced in Canada?

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy): I want to thank the member for Sault Ste. Marie, especially for sharing the quote of Harry Goldgut, the CEO of Brookfield Power, with respect to the

Prince wind farm. Let me say to the member from Sault Ste. Marie, thank you for your commitment to making this happen. I wish the Leader of the Opposition was so strong in his advocacy in his riding for wind power.

Something happened yesterday at about 3:15 in the afternoon: Ontario went from being last in Canada in wind energy to being first when that power was hooked on to the grid at about 3:15 in the afternoon. Last

to first in three years: When we took office we had 15 megawatts of wind and today we have 482; by this time next year, it will be over 1,300 megawatts. That's how you reduce emissions associated with coal. That's how you move this province

forward on an environmental and health perspective.

Mr. Orazietti: On behalf of my community, I want to thank the minister for his leadership in addressing our energy challenges. He's doing an outstanding job, in stark contrast to the previous

Tory government, which brought no new generation online. In fact, between 1995 and 2003 our installed generation capacity fell by about 6%. At the same time, electrical demand increased by about 8.5%. The NDP built no new electrical supply in

Ontario, ended all conservation initiatives that would have saved Ontarians 5,200 megawatts by 2000, paid $150 million to cancel the Manitoba power agreement, and drove hydro rates, as the member from the third party likes to say, through the roof

by 40%. Despite the past government's abysmal record and our continued efforts to be bring more renewable power online, the leader of the third party tries to pass off our announcements, like the one today, as "very modest" and a "public relations

exercise."

Minister, can you clarify for the House what projects like today's announcement mean for Ontario's economy?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: First of all, Mr. Speaker, a good chunk of this wind farm is in your riding. You too, I know, have for many years worked on these types of projects.

We've launched two renewable RFPs that resulted in 18 successful projects. Others would like to have you believe that they're not being built, but I can tell you that they're up and running, and the rest that

aren't are coming on stream. Why? Because we think it's important to clean up the air, unlike the New Democrats, who closed all opportunities.

They did nothing on renewables. When they're up north they want to keep the coal plants open, and when they're down south they want to close the coal plants. I am trying to find parliamentary language which

will reconcile the inconsistency in that position but, unfortunately, like so much the leader of the third party says, it's irreconcilable with fact.

The fact is that one government in this country has moved forward on renewables like no other. It's the McGuinty government, in the interest of our environment and in the interest of public health.

COAL-FIRED GENERATING STATIONS

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is for the Minister of Energy. You made a solemn promise to the standing committee on estimates on September 26 to reveal the names

of those so-called energy experts, and so far you have failed to honour that promise. Yet you proudly, through your deflecto agency, the OPA, want to tell everybody about the consultants you've hired at $1,500 a day to advise you with regard to

the energy policy and the integrated power system plan going forward.

Minister, if you're so quick to put out the names of these agencies that you're paying $1,500 a day to sit and advise -- and it's quite an eclectic group, I might add -- then why are you not willing, as you

undertook to the standing committee, to name the names of the energy experts that advised you on your failed, ridiculous, impossible, undoable, "Say anything, do anything to get a vote" coal plan?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Order. We can wait. Government House leader. Order.

The Minister of Energy.

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy): We think it's important to fund participation in public consultation around our power system plan. I think it's important to provide funding to

environmental groups to have a say in these matters, I do, and I think it's worth the money. I think it's worth the money to fund groups that have come out opposed to some of the decisions the government has made. Why? Because we believe -- by the

way, intervener funding was something your government established in principle, and you should be proud of that. We think it's important to hear from these people.

Some of them have publicly opposed the government's plan, and we want to hear from them. These are very technical, complicated issues. The government, through the OPA, the rate base, spends a lot of money to

develop plans. We think, to give other groups in the community the opportunity to respond in an informed, meaningful fashion, they should be funded even though in many cases they don't agree with the government's policy.

Mr. Yakabuski: He's not the Acting Premier but he certainly fancies himself a premier actor. Again no attempt to provide this Legislature with the information we've asked for.

Minister, what you are doing here, spending $1,500 a day with this eclectic group of consultants that the taxpayer is picking up the bill for through the rate base, is building another premierial shield around

Dalton McGuinty so that when you guys screw it up again, like you screwed it up with the coal plan, you're going to have somebody to blame, but this time you're going to give us the names.

Minister, I'm asking you again -- a solemn promise to a standing committee on estimates -- to provide the names of those who led you to make the decision to make a promise that was undoable. Give us the names,

or just prove that you'll say anything, you'll do anything, to get a vote. And you know what I'm telling the people of Ontario? You're going to do it again.

Hon. Mr. Duncan: I think it's important to hear from environmentalists. I think it's important to hear from local distribution companies. I think it's important to hear from engineering

experts. And, by the way, these groups, I can assure you, don't necessarily support what the government is doing. In fact, I think it's a principle on something that's this important that we give them the opportunity to come to not only the OPA

but eventually the Ontario Energy Board with expert advice, commentary, some of which won't be coincident with what the government's policy is.

I would remind the member opposite that your government hired some consultants on the energy file. I remember the American dream team on nuclear power. I say $1,500 for an environmental group is a lot better

than $40 million for a team of Americans who not only didn't fix the nuclear situation, but arguably made it worse, because none of them, it turns out --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

New question?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Mines. The failure of the McGuinty government to properly consult Ontario First Nation communities, as required by

Supreme Court of Canada decisions, forced Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug First Nation to go to court to defend themselves against a $10-billion lawsuit launched by a mining company, Platinex. Now, as part of a court-ordered resolution, the people of

Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug are developing a consultation protocol in conjunction with Platinex and the Ontario Ministry of Mines. But, what a surprise: You, as Minister of Mines for Ontario, refuse to sign the consultation protocol.

My question, Minister: Since Ontario is a signatory to Treaty 9, which covers Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug's traditional lands, will you, the Minister of Mines, commit to personally signing the consultation

protocol in keeping with the nation-to-nation spirit that Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug deserves?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): The leader of the third party knows very well that there is ongoing litigation regarding this matter and, as part of that

litigation, the court required a consultation process, which is still ongoing. As this is a litigation matter, I would rather not comment on it, because I think it would be inappropriate.

However, I believe that these discussions should be at the negotiation table, where they belong and where they are. However, it is important to recognize that the protocol is still being negotiated in good

faith by all parties and that it's not yet complete. My ministry staff have already indicated that they would be prepared to sign the completed protocol. Once the protocol is complete it is more appropriate for my ministry staff to sign what would

be a technical process agreement, and that's what we're talking about.

Mr. Hampton: Imagine this: The people of Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug go to the table in good faith, they negotiate a protocol, and then they find that the Minister of Mines for the McGuinty

government won't sign it.

Look, Minister, 18 months ago, with much fanfare and self-congratulation, the McGuinty government announced "a new approach to aboriginal affairs." You said, "Our new approach calls for working with aboriginal

people." What did you do after that? You failed to consult with this First Nation community. What happened? The court said you were in breach of the Constitution and in breach of legal rights of First Nations. Now they come to the table, they want

to negotiate an agreement and you won't sign.

I ask this question: Will you commit today to a consultation agreement that doesn't attempt to cap funding at wholly inadequate levels but fully funds the First Nation's need for legal expertise --

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

Hon. Mr. Bartolucci: The leader of the third party knows full well that Judge Smith's decision was that all three parties should work actively to try to come up with some resolution. From that

ruling to today --

Mr. Hampton: You're holding it up.

Hon. Mr. Bartolucci: The leader of the third party is giving inaccurate information when he says that we're holding it up. That's inaccurate; that is not fact. We have been at the table from

the very beginning; we remain at the table. We are very anxious to enter into that protocol agreement. There has been ongoing dialogue. For the leader of the third party to indicate otherwise is completely inaccurate, as it is not fact based on

anything. He should know better.

PETITIONS

WATER QUALITY

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): "Amend the Clean Water Act

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas every Ontarian wants the best water quality possible; and

"Whereas the goal of clean water can be achieved effectively through amendments to existing legislation; and

"Whereas the McGuinty Liberals are determined to hammer through the flawed legislation known as the Clean Water Act; and

"Whereas the McGuinty Liberals have failed to effectively address the numerous problems in the bill; and

"Whereas rural Ontario stands to suffer significantly under this poorly thought out policy;

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

"To not pass Bill 43 (the Clean Water Act) until proper funding and amendments are in place."

This is brought to me by many individuals from my constituency.

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I have a petition today:

"In Support of Skilled Immigrants -- Bill 124

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the McGuinty government is committed to establishing measures that will break down barriers for Ontario newcomers; and

"Whereas these measures will ensure that the 34 regulatory professions in Ontario have admissions and application practices that are fair, clear and open; and

"Whereas these measures will include the establishment of a fairness commissioner and an access centre for internationally trained individuals; and

"Whereas, through providing a fair and equitable system, newcomers will be able to apply their global experience, which will not only be beneficial to their long-term career goals but also to the Ontario

economy as a whole;

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

"That all members of the House support the Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act, 2006, Bill 124, and work to ensure its prompt passage in the Ontario Legislature."

I agree with this petition and will affix my signature to it, and give it to page Ian.

LAND TITLES

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): I'm pleased to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Durham, which reads as follows:

"Whereas in the current environment of an escalating problem of title theft and mortgage fraud property protections for homeowners are warranted and real measures are necessary to address real estate fraud;

and

"Whereas MPP Joe Tascona's Restore the Deed Act, Bill 136, has passed second reading in the Legislature and has been referred to the standing committee on general government; and

"Whereas among others, the Restore the Deed Act has four primary benefits:

"Reduce the harm by ensuring that the person who is the rightful owner of the property keeps the property. The innocent buyer or the innocent lender must seek compensation from the land titles assurance fund,

as is New Brunswick law.

"Prevent the fraud by restricting access to registration of documents to licensed real estate professionals who carry liability insurance, by requiring notification statements and the freezing of the

registration, as is Saskatchewan law, and by establishing a system of `no dealings' where landowners can mark their title, which can only be removed by them using a personal identification number prior to the property being transferred or

mortgaged;

"Access to the land titles assurance fund be reformed as a `fund of first resort' and be operated by an arm's-length board of directors appointed by the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, composed a broad

representation of consumer, real estate industry and law enforcement groups.

"Victims of fraud prior to the enactment of the Restore the Deed Act will be eligible to apply for compensation under the reformed land titles assurance fraud fund; and

"Whereas the McGuinty government's proposed legislation will not get the job done;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to enact the measures to protect homeowners from having their homes stolen as contained in MPP Joe Tascona's Restore the Deed Act."

I'm pleased to sign this very long petition and present it to the Legislature.

AUTISM TREATMENT

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

not receiving the support they require in the school system; and

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

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

challenging behaviours, build social skills and promote language development';

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

program in the form of ABA in the school system."

I agree with these petitioners and have affixed my signature to this.

BORDER SECURITY

Mr. Bruce Crozier (Essex): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly regarding cross-border travel:

"Whereas the United States government, through the western hemisphere travel initiative, is proposing that US citizens will require a passport or single-purpose travel card to cross the Canada-US border;

and

"Whereas a passport or single-purpose travel card would be an added expense, and the inconvenience of having to apply for and carry a new document would be a barrier for many Canadian and US cross-border

travellers; and

"Whereas the George Bush government proposal could mean a loss of as many as 3.5 million US visitors to Ontario, and place in peril as many as 7,000 jobs in the Ontario tourism industry by 2008, many of which

are valuable entry jobs for youth and new Canadians; and

"Whereas many of the US states bordering Canada have expressed similar concerns regarding the punitive economic impact of this plan, and both states and provinces along the US-Canada border recognize that the

importance of the safe and efficient movement of people across that border is vital to the economies of both countries;

"Be it therefore resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario support the establishment of a bi-national group to establish an alternative to the proposed US border requirements, and inform Prime Minister

Harper that his decision not to advocate on behalf of Ontarians is ill-advised and contrary to the responsibilities of the elected representatives in Canada."

In support, I put my signature to this petition.

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the parents of St. Paul's elementary school in Alliston have raised many issues regarding the security, cleanliness and state of repair of their school; and

"Whereas a 2003 condition assessment completed by the Ontario government identified the need for $1.8 million in repairs to St. Paul's elementary school; and

"Whereas the Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board has approached the Ministry of Education with the intention of having the school deemed prohibitive to repair as they believe the school requires

$2.28 million in repairs, or 84% of the school replacement cost; and

"Whereas there are ongoing concerns with air quality, heating and ventilation, electrical, plumbing, lack of air conditioning and the overall structure of the building, including cracks from floor to ceiling,

to name a few;

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

"That the Minister of Education immediately deem St. Paul's elementary school prohibitive to repair, secure immediate funding and begin construction of a new facility so that the children of St. Paul's can be

educated in a facility that is secure and offers them the respect and dignity that they deserve."

My mother taught at this school for 33 years, and I went to this school from kindergarten to grade 8. I certainly agree with the petition, and I want to give it to page Mariam to bring to the table.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It's been sent to me by the Service Employees International Union. It reads as

follows:

"Whereas, in June 2003, Dalton McGuinty said Ontario Liberals are committed to ensuring that nursing home residents receive more personal care each day and will reinstate minimum standards, and inspectors will

be required to audit the staff-to-resident ratios; and

"Whereas Health and Long-Term Care Minister George Smitherman, in October 2004, said that the Ontario government will not set a specified number of care hours nursing home residents are to receive each day;

and

"Whereas Ontario nursing home residents still receive the lowest number of care hours in the Western world; and

"Whereas studies have indicated nursing home residents should receive at least 4.1 hours of nursing care per day; and

"Whereas a coroner's jury in April 2005 recommended the Ontario government establish a minimum number of care hours nursing home residents must receive each day;

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

"That the government of Ontario immediately enact a minimum standard of 3.5 hours of nursing care for each nursing home resident per day."

I agree with the petitioners. I have affixed my signature to this.

GRAVESITES OF FORMER PREMIERS

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): I have a petition here from some individuals from the Windsor Community Museum, and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Premiers of Ontario have made enormous contributions over the years in shaping the Ontario of today; and

"Whereas, as a result, the final resting places of the 18 deceased Premiers are among the most historically significant sites in the province, but have yet to be officially recognized; and

"Whereas, were these gravesites to be properly maintained and marked with an historical plaque and a flag of Ontario, these locations would be a source of pride to the communities where these formers Premiers

lie buried, and provide potential points of interest for visitors;

"Now therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislature Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Enact Bill 25,

an Act that will preserve the gravesites of the former Premiers of Ontario."

As I agree with this petition, I affix my signature and send it to the Clerk's table.

MACULAR DEGENERATION

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario" -- and again, it's a petition from Dr. Tim Hillson's office in Orillia, an ophthalmologist in the city.

"Whereas age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the leading cause of blindness in the elderly and is present in some form in 25% to 33% of seniors over the age of 75. AMD has two forms: the more common

`dry' type and the `wet' type. Although the wet type occurs in only 15% of AMD patients, these patients account for 90% of the legal blindness that occurs with AMD. The wet type is further subdivided into classic and occult subtypes, based on the

appearance of the AMD on special testing. Photodynamic therapy, a treatment where abnormal blood vessels are closed with a laser-activated chemical, has been shown to slow the progression of vision loss in both subtypes of wet AMD;

"Whereas OHIP has not extended coverage for photodynamic therapy to the occult subtype of wet AMD, despite there being substantial clinical evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of this treatment in

patients with either form of wet AMD. Untreated, these patients can expect a progression in their visual loss, with central blindness as the end result;

"Whereas affected patients are in a position where a proven treatment is available to help preserve their vision, but this treatment can only be accessed at their own personal expense. Treatment costs are

between $12,500 and $18,000 over an 18-month period. Many patients resign themselves to a continued worsening of their vision, as for them the treatment is financially unattainable. The resultant blindness in these patients manifests itself as

costs to society in other forms, such as an increased need for home care, missed time from work for family members providing care, and an increased rate of injuries such as hip fractures that can be directly attributable to their poor vision.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to fund the treatment of the occult subtype of macular degeneration with photodynamic therapy for all patients awaiting this service."

I am pleased to sign my name to this and give it to Andrew to present to the table.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I have a petition here signed by residents of the extended care units in Timmins and Kapuskasing, and also by a number of families, including the

residents councils and the family councils organized by Tesca Alberton and others. It reads as follows:

"Help Put Care into a Careless Act

"The government has not listened to the voices of residents, families, staff, volunteers and others in drafting the proposed new Long-Term Care Homes Act. We all know what the residents need is more care. The

government obviously believes that instead, home needs must rule. In fact, if this act is passed, government will have more power and less responsibility and commitment to residents' care than they do now. They will leave homes with more

paperwork, less time for residents. Homes will feel more like institutions than home;

"Therefore we, the undersigned residents, families and staff and volunteers and supporters of Extendicare Timmins, need you to ask the government to make this act about what residents need most, that is care,

and to commit to providing the resources required to implement the act."

I sign that petition.

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

Ms. Deborah Matthews (London North Centre): This is a petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly regarding access to trades and professions in Ontario:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Ontario enjoys the continuing benefit of the contributions of men and women who choose to leave their country of origin in order to settle in Canada, raise their families, educate their children and

pursue their livelihoods and careers; and

"Whereas newcomers to Canada who choose to settle in Ontario find frequent, arbitrary and unnecessary obstacles that prevent skilled tradespeople, professional and managerial talent from practising the

professions, trades and occupations for which they have been trained in their country of origin; and

"Whereas action by Ontario's trades and professions could remove many such barriers, but Ontario's trades and professions have failed to recognize that such structural barriers exist, much less to take action

to remove them, and to provide fair, timely, transparent and cost-effective access to trades and professions for new Canadians trained outside Canada;

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

"That the Ontario Legislative Assembly urge the members of all parties to swiftly pass Bill 124, the Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act, 2006, and to require Ontario's regulated professions and trades to

review and modify their procedures and qualification requirements to swiftly meet the needs of Ontario's employers, Ontario's newcomers and their own membership, all of whom desperately need the very skills new Canadians bring working for their

organizations, for their trades and professions, and for their families."

I certainly agree with this and I will attach my signature to it and hand it to page Colby.

OPPOSITION DAY

MANUFACTURING AND FOREST INDUSTRY JOBS

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I move that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario recognize that manufacturing and resource jobs have formed the economic foundation of prosperity and

economic security for Ontario's working families for more than a century;

That failed provincial policies are causing that foundation to crumble;

That those failed policies have led to a recession in Ontario's manufacturing and forestry sectors and caused great hardship for Ontario's working families;

That decisive action must be taken now to keep good-paying manufacturing and forestry jobs in Ontario; and

That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario call upon the Ontario government to take immediate action to sustain jobs by providing greater institutional support to manufacturing and resource workers whose

workplaces are threatened, starting with a reasonable hydro policy that can sustain jobs and the creation of a job protection commissioner for Ontario -- as recommended by the NDP job protection act.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bob Delaney): I recognize the member for Kenora-Rainy River.

Mr. Hampton: I wish at this time to announce I'll be sharing my time with the member for Timmins-James Bay and the member for Hamilton East.

For more than a century, manufacturing and resource jobs have formed the foundation of prosperity and economic security for Ontario's working families. Now, due to changing economic conditions and failed

provincial policies, that foundation is threatening to crumble. The numerous auto parts closure announcements, including the loss of 600 jobs due to the closure of the Ford engine plant in Windsor, along with the seemingly endless sawmill and pulp

and paper mill closures in northern Ontario, are really just a symptom of a much larger problem. Ontario needs a completely new economic policy tool box to sustain and grow the kind of good-paying jobs that are at the heart of Ontario's

economy.

A Statistics Canada labour force survey shows a loss of 136,000 manufacturing jobs, more than 13% of the total in the past two years under the McGuinty government. The trend is clear and alarming, threatening

to cost Ontario as much as 100,000 more jobs in the coming years unless decisive action is taken.

Ontario's traditional manufacturing strength was based on a policy framework of stable, reasonable-cost electricity, a high-quality workforce, pro-industry trade measures, a competitively priced Canadian

dollar and something we've come to know as the medicare advantage. The quality workforce is still here, but Ontario's workers are increasingly left stranded by flawed free trade initiatives -- the latest one being the softwood lumber agreement,

which the McGuinty government endorsed wholeheartedly -- soaring hydroelectricity costs, a loonie that is skyrocketing in value and a McGuinty government that is giving away the medicare advantage. Together, these forces are delivering a knockout

blow that is leaving Ontario manufacturing and resource-based jobs and workers and communities reeling.

The McGuinty government's response has been slow and feeble at best. While about a year ago the government launched something called the advanced manufacturing investment strategy, offering loans of up to 10%

of eligible costs for introducing "leading technologies," whatever payoff will come from this patchwork program will be years down the road. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of layoffs have been implemented, with the program not even coming close to

stopping the bleeding.

The McGuinty government's hydroelectricity policy has been even more disappointing. The deregulated Harris-Eves spot market has been maintained by the McGuinty government, despite their promise that this was

dead, despite their promise that they believed in a public power system. The result of the McGuinty government continuing on with the Harris-Eves spot electricity market has been hydro rates for industrial users that have skyrocketed, and this is

never more evident than in northern Ontario.

Across northern Ontario you can find a surplus of electricity. Northern Ontario actually has more electricity than it can use. Not only that, but because most of the electricity is generated from falling

water, it is among the lowest-cost electricity, not just in Ontario, not just in Canada, not just in the United States, but among the lowest-cost electricity in the world. Electricity is generated in northern Ontario for costs under two cents a

kilowatt hour, but it's McGuinty government policy to force the paper mills and pulp mills, which in many cases are located right beside the hydro dam, to pay six and seven cents a kilowatt hour for electricity that is generated right there beside

the mill at only two cents a kilowatt hour. Meanwhile, these mills have to compete with mills from Quebec, Manitoba, British Columbia, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan, where hydro rates are much more reasonable.

The McGuinty government wonders why 45,000 direct and indirect jobs have been destroyed in the northern Ontario forest sector economy. I can tell you, and literally dozens of mill managers will tell you, their

corporations will not invest in Ontario as long as the McGuinty government continues that strategy of driving hydro rates through the roof.

I want to address some other issues. Primarily, I want to address how the McGuinty government is giving away the medicare advantage. What does the medicare advantage mean in terms of manufacturing? Well, all

you need to do is look at areas like steel or auto, where the same company may have a plant in the United States and a plant in Ontario. In the United States, they have to purchase private health insurance for their workers. In Ontario, they pay

the employer health tax. The difference between private health insurance in the United States and the employer health tax in Ontario literally works out to thousands of dollars a year per worker. In some cases, the cost saving in Ontario is $3,000

or $4,000 dollars a year. When Ford, General Motors, Chrysler and many of the steel companies in the United States talk about reducing their costs in the workplace, what do they go after? They go after the private health insurance. That's what is

happening at Ford, General Motors and Chrysler. That's what happened at US Steel. They tried to shed responsibility for purchasing private health insurance for their workers. So that's been a huge benefit to Ontario workers in terms of locating

jobs in Ontario.

But what do we see of the McGuinty government? We see, piece by piece, day by day, the McGuinty government giving away the medicare advantage. Under the McGuinty government, despite all their promises, we see

more profit-driven, private delivery of home care. We see more profit-driven, private delivery of long-term care. We see, in early ads in the newspaper from clinics and operations, Americans setting up here in Toronto, offering profit-driven

private health care.

Where's the McGuinty government? Allowing it to happen. In fact, the McGuinty government only three years ago said that any move toward profit-driven, private-finance hospitals would be a big mistake. It would

add to the cost of hospitals and drive up the cost of medicare. The McGuinty government said that a move toward profit-driven private financing of hospitals would be a bad idea. Now we see the McGuinty government promoting not the two

profit-driven, private-finance hospitals that were supported by the Conservatives but actually promoting almost 30 of these hospitals.

What does that mean for the cost of medicare? The Brampton hospital illustrates it in colour. The Brampton hospital was supposed to cost $500 million as a publicly financed hospital. As soon as you bring in

profit-driven private financing, the cost of the hospital goes up by $150 million. If you just do some simple math: 30 hospital projects, all profit-driven private finance, and let's just assume that the added cost for each one of them isn't $150

million but only $100 million for that private financing and the profits which have to come out it. Over a 20-year period, which is what these bonds are typically financed for, you're talking about an additional $3 billion being added to the cost

of the health care system.

Do you get better health care as a result of it? No. Do you get more health care as a result of it? No. What you get is profit-driven private finance, profit-driven more private delivery and a health care

system that is becoming more and more costly. That is the destruction of the medicare advantage. I leave time here for my colleagues to speak about other individual aspects of this.

The McGuinty government so far has ignored to a large extent the manufacturing and forest sector job crisis in this province. I'm happy that there are some workers here today who know at first hand about how

bad this is. They know what's happening in their workplaces. I just say to the McGuinty government that you need to have a hydro rate policy that doesn't destroy forest sector jobs, that doesn't destroy manufacturing sector jobs. You need to have

a health care policy that doesn't destroy forest sector jobs, that doesn't destroy manufacturing sector jobs. You need to have a health care policy that doesn't drive up the cost of health care by going towards more and more expensive,

profit-driven private delivery. And you would need to look at strategies like a jobs commissioner.

British Columbia was losing a lot of jobs in the early 1990s. It was actually a Social Credit government that established the office of a jobs commissioner. The jobs commissioner had the tools and the

responsibility and the resources, when a company was in trouble and in danger of laying off a lot of workers or in danger of closing the doors, to go into a community, to look at, "Are there things we can do in terms of hydro rates? Are there

things we can do in terms of getting you better financing? Are there things we can do in terms of sitting down with the union and workers and working out a new collective agreement? Are there things we can do in terms of government policy that

will give you an advantage?" Is any of that happening in Ontario today? No.

The McGuinty government stands on the sidelines while literally some of the best jobs -- jobs that are at the core of our community -- are wiped out. And about all you get from the McGuinty government is a

comment like, "Oh, I feel your pain. I really feel your pain." But working people in Ontario don't need a Premier who says, "I feel your pain." Working people in Ontario need a Premier and a government who are prepared to take action: prepared to

take action to sustain the medicare advantage, prepared to take action to ensure that we have stable and reasonable hydro rates, and a government that's prepared to take action and implement a jobs commissioner position so there is actually

somebody in government who is focused on these issues, paying attention to these issues and taking up these issues on a day-by-day community basis.

This issue, these problems, can no longer be ignored. It is affecting far too many workers, far too many communities in this province. If the McGuinty government doesn't start to take action on this front,

we're going to see the loss of thousands more good-paying jobs go that are at the heart of our community.

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): I rise today to make comments on the motion that's been put forward by the third party. I really must say that it takes some nerve to criticize the

commitment this government has made towards creating employment and furthering economic development. I would argue that the third party has no right to criticize any government after the severe damage they did to the economic stability of this

province in the early 1990s. I would also argue that this government has done everything within its power to stimulate job creation and business investment in the province, and it has made Ontario's economy more stable for both the immediate and

distant futures.

Let me start off by talking about some of the many accomplishments that the McGuinty government has rendered in the economic sector after taking office. While it is true that a strong dollar and

higher-than-expected energy costs have caused some sectors in the province to face ongoing challenges, we have been consistent in helping those industries deal with the challenges in an attempt to find viable long-term solutions. It should be

clear to everyone in this House that our government has a plan, and it's a plan that is rendering positive results in Ontario's economy.

We have remained prudent in our fiscal planning since taking office, and the result has been the creation of more than 250,000 net jobs in the province since October 2003. On top of that number -- almost

astonishing -- is that nine out of every 10 of those jobs have been a full-time, high-paying variety. We've also consistently reduced the annual unemployment rate during our term to a new four-year low of 6.6% last year.

In addition to the aforementioned jobs that have been created in our mandate already, nearly half a million jobs will be created in the province by the year 2012, thanks to several of the initiatives that we

have brought in since taking office. This includes a $1.2-billion Move Ontario plan for roads and bridges and $30 billion for ReNew Ontario infrastructure investments, as well as the many initiatives surrounding energy programs. This is in

addition to the $6.2-billion investment to improve post-secondary education and training and a $2.1-billion investment in a job skills renewal strategy. These are just a few of the many initiatives that the McGuinty government has put forward to

help stimulate employment growth and the overall health of Ontario's economy in the three years since taking office.

While our government programs have helped to stimulate the economy, we are also helping with industry-specific programs to assist in hard times. One of the industries that is vital to the prosperity of

Ontario's economy is the manufacturing sector. There have been many issues concerning the Ontario manufacturing sector, but let's not forget that there are hard times everywhere throughout the world in this industry. Ontario has been very

proactive in trying to assess and eliminate those problems. The United States lost 11% of their manufacturing jobs last year; that's in addition to a loss of 16% in Japan, 20% in Brazil and 15% in China.

So what has the McGuinty government done to combat these losses in Ontario? We have created the advanced manufacturing investment strategy, which will help with $500 million in loans to assist and ensure that

Ontario's manufacturing sector stays competitive. We've also helped it by attracting $7 billion in overall investments to the province and with a $1.4-billion labour market agreement as well. We've also helped the sector cope with rising power

concerns by an energy rate cap for large industrial in the manufacturing industry.

Let it be shown that we have also helped with fiscal support to others in need within the province. This includes committing over $1 billion in support to the Ontario forestry sector, which has helped it to

become more competitive and to secure jobs that are essential to maintaining a very strong northern economy in the province. We've also committed $140 million to help northern Ontario's pulp and paper sector to achieve greater energy efficiency

and sustainability by way of a rebate program that will allow companies to transition to competitive and sustainable performance.

I'd also like to take a minute to cite some very specific examples of economic investment in the riding of Huron-Bruce, which I represent. Through the Ontario Power Authority, we have signed a long-term energy

contract with Bruce Power -- which is located in my riding -- a $4.25-billion investment that has created 1,500 new, high-paying jobs. I can tell you that this has been received -- it is a tremendous success. The riding is rejuvenating itself. We

have gone through some very difficult times and we are revitalizing our communities in the surrounding area.

One of the things that my riding was so enthusiastic about -- we have had steady unemployment, steady loss of jobs from our rural communities. For the first time in -- I'll tell you, it's probably 15 years --

we received a grant from the Ministry of Health, a growth initiative for our hospital in Kincardine. I can't tell you the difference that makes in our community. So when I hear the leader of the third party stand up and talk about what has

happened and what continues to happen from the McGuinty government, in the riding of Huron Bruce -- I've spoken to the initiatives that we have done; I'm speaking to specifics now -- I have never seen such excitement: our new ethanol plant in

Hensall, my agricultural community. We have seen hard times, and $910 million has been re-invested back into the agricultural sector for income stabilization.

We know that we do have challenges; we recognize that. But what can we do as a government? The McGuinty government has come repeatedly to the table, but where do we see our opportunities? When I see the

excitement in my riding and the rebirth that's happening in my riding, I say to the members in the House today, it is a day for Huron-Bruce that we thank the McGuinty government for the good work that has happened. We know that those challenges

have not gone away and we know that we'll have many more to overcome, but we know that we will do it with the aid of the McGuinty government.

When I talk about the progress that the McGuinty government -- let's talk about the third party.

Interjection.

Mrs. Mitchell: I didn't interrupt them, Mr. Speaker, so I would hope that they show me the same courtesy, but I know it's difficult for them.

I know that your energy policy -- this is one of the things that has been talked about. What would my riding look like, for instance, if their position on energy came forward? I can tell you what my riding

would look like. It was just a few short years ago that we bused people in to get them interested in moving to our communities. That's what the energy policy you propose would do to my riding of Huron-Bruce.

Let's look back at the third party's spotted record. During the period from 1990 to 1995, Ontario lost 10% of its good-paying jobs in the industrial sector. In addition to that, more than 100,000 vital

manufacturing jobs disappeared during the same period, during the reign of the NDP. This contributed to a total net job loss of 74,700, compared to the 250 net gain during the NDP's term in government. That equates to a total of 1,300 jobs lost a

month.

Let me also remind the members in the House that the NDP government was responsible for carrying four consecutive budget deficits in excess of $10 billion annually. This strategy by the NDP caused Ontario's

debt to triple. Those are just some of the numbers one needs to take into consideration.

While the NDP government was in power, 14 mills were closed down in the province, costing Ontarians in excess of 700 jobs. They were also in office when the number of Ontarians working in the forestry, mining,

and oil and gas sectors was reduced by 6,000 people. They were also the party that drastically cut agricultural spending and direct income stabilization for support for my agricultural community -- an astounding 20% reduction. They increased

spending in the other areas by 20% while my agricultural community took a whack of 20%. These are indeed astonishing numbers, and they're made that much more incredible by the fact that the third party often calls themselves the party of the

worker.

As a small business owner in a rural community during the governing years of the NDP, I can tell you that I still remember the lack of stability in our economy, and I remember what our communities were

sustaining at that time.

The McGuinty government has learned from the mistakes others have been made in the past. We are continuing to be diligent in our quest to maintain a viable and stable economy that businesses want to invest in

and where people can maintain good-paying jobs. While there is no doubt that more work needs to be done -- and I do want to acknowledge that more work needs to be done -- I think that we have been able to make many strides in accomplishing these

goals that will continue to make Ontario very exciting and the proud province of Ontario our first choice of where to live.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh (Halton): As you might imagine, I don't necessarily agree with the member from Huron-Bruce, who just spoke.

Mrs. Mitchell: No. I didn't see that coming.

Mr. Chudleigh: I know you find that surprising. I'm going to start by quoting the member from Mississauga West, who was making a statement today. They talked about 200,000 new jobs created in

Ontario in their first three years of being in government. That rate is the lowest job-creation rate as a percentage in Canada, and this government was coming off the boom years of over a million new jobs created during the term of the Progressive

Conservative government. In 1995, when we took office, our first three years created 363,400 new jobs -- and we were coming off the recession years of the NDP. That's 110,000 more jobs than the Liberals created in their first three years. We're

110,000 jobs ahead of where the Liberals were; 250,000 new jobs is a dismal record.

Today in Ontario, we have low inflation. The CPI just came out today, and we're about 0.6%. We have low interest rates. By historical standards, a 6% prime rate for the bank is a low rate. Our growth rate is

projected at 1.5%, a full percentage point under where the rest of Canada or where the United States might be, and that is a dismal record. It's what you get when you put half-efforts into things. It's like the half-truths that this government is

becoming known for.

Yesterday, the Attorney General quoted the member from Whitby-Ajax as wanting to suspend hearings on Bill 107. Later, the member for Whitby-Ajax explained the rest of the story. She explained that we wanted to

suspend the hearings until the amendments were tabled so the committee could deal with the reality of what the bill was about, as opposed to the hypothetical nature that they were debating. The rest of the story: Following this, a member of the

Legislature suggested that watching this government operate was like watching a Laurel and Hardy movie. I remember the old quote from Laurel that the AG -- "This is another fine mess you've got us into, Ollie." This is the same Attorney General

who, in the summer of 2005, which was known as the year of the gun in Toronto, with the highest shooting incidence in Toronto's history, was taking bows for his recent pit bull legislation -- a dismal record.

The Premier was quoted not long ago as saying that over 1,000 jobs were lost at GM in Oshawa and calling this a "small contraction." What a dismal record for a Premier. The member for Markham at the time,

talking about municipalities which were reeling from plant closures all across this province and asking the government to do something, asking for meetings with the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, which the minister wasn't willing to

give them -- but they were asking for them -- the member for Markham referred to these municipalities as "crybabies." What a dismal record for a government to have.

The member for Guelph-Wellington, when announcing that 550 jobs were lost at Imperial Tobacco, wasn't referring to the jobs lost; she talked about how their plan was working. What a dismal record for a

government to have. Some 115,000 manufacturing jobs gone in Ontario -- what a dismal record.

Other sector job growth is some of the lowest in Canada -- a dismal record for any government. Growth rates -- a dismal record. Innuendo, half-stories and half-truths -- a dismal record. Lost jobs, "small

contractions," "crybabies" and "our plan is working" -- a dismal record.

On October 4 of next year, Ontarians will judge you on your dismal record.

Mr. Peter Tabuns (Toronto-Danforth): I am very pleased to speak in favour of the motion put forward by the leader of the NDP, Howard Hampton. When you actually look at the way the Liberal

Party has approached the economy of this province, you can only conclude that they have decided to demolish the foundations of this economy. They have decided to demolish the foundations of manufacturing in this province. They've decided that

really ensuring that there is a framework for people to work in is not of concern to Dalton McGuinty or the party that follows him.

If you look back at Ontario's history, if you look back to the beginning of the 20th century, there was a guy -- not an NDPer; a Tory -- Sir Adam Beck, who put forward the idea for Ontario Hydro. At the time,

electricity was generated in small coal plants all over southern Ontario -- very expensive power, privately owned. The price that was charged was the price the market would bear. After what was called the great coal famine of 1905, when a massive

strike in the United States stopped the flow of coal to Ontario, Beck said, "We in Ontario have to have an energy base for manufacturing that will allow us to develop the industrial base that this province needs." He brought forward Ontario Hydro,

and the Liberals fought him every step of the way. But he was right.

As the century wore on, it was clear that our party understood the essential need for a stable, publicly owned power generation utility that would set the base for industrial manufacturing and industrial

investment in Ontario. The Liberals are taking it apart piece by piece. They don't have the boldness that a Mike Harris had to take a meat axe to it. They're just slicing it away, piece by piece -- privatize this, privatize that. As new generation

is built, it's built by the private sector, not by public utilities. So we face an ongoing privatization and undermining of that stable electrical energy base you need to have good manufacturing jobs in this province.

This government is committed to a $40-billion investment in nuclear power in this province over the next few decades. I'm going to explain wh