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

November 20, 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-20 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 20 November 2006 Lundi 20 novembre 2006

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHILD DAY

POLISH VETERANS

YOUNG OFFENDERS

ARTS FUNDING

FIREFIGHTERS

FORMER PREMIERS' GRAVESITES

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

LEADING WOMEN, BUILDING COMMUNITIES AWARD

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

VISITORS

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SKILLS TRAINING

FOR ABUSED WOMEN

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

EMPLOYMENT

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

HYDRO RATES /

TARIFS D'ÉLECTRICITÉ

COAL-FIRED GENERATING STATIONS

ENERGY CONSERVATION

VISITORS

EDUCATION FUNDING

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

INJURED WORKERS

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

COAL-FIRED GENERATING STATIONS

CHILD ADVOCATE

MANDATORY RETIREMENT

HUMAN RIGHTS

VISITORS

PETITIONS

HEALTH PREMIUMS

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

PROSTATE CANCER

POVERTY

BORDER SECURITY

MACULAR DEGENERATION

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

COMMUNITY MEDIATION

LANDFILL

TUITION

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ELECTORAL SYSTEM

REFERENDUM ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LE RÉFÉRENDUM

RELATIF AU SYSTÈME ÉLECTORAL

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHILD DAY

Ms. Lisa MacLeod (Nepean-Carleton): Since 1954, the UN and UNESCO have recognized November 20 as universal child day, which is "to be observed as a day of worldwide fraternity and understanding

between children." In Canada, it was initiated in 1993 by Canada's first female Prime Minister, Kim Campbell, through the Child Day Act to ensure that we as legislators are aware of our duty to protect the basic human rights of children in our

country and that we celebrate how children enrich our lives.

As I drafted my remarks today, I was assisted by my 20-month-old daughter, Victoria, who insisted she be able to bang on my computer while I wrote. Talk about enriching my life. Looking at her big blue eyes, I

saw with absolute clarity why we as legislators have a very special obligation to care for our province's children and, in particular, children in the most vulnerable of circumstances.

I point this out because it is important that when we as legislators make promises to children -- whether it is to eradicate child poverty in 10 years or to fund autism treatment for children over the age of six

or to appoint an independent children's advocate -- those promises must be kept. Impressionable children rely on us. We are their protectors. I urge all members of this assembly to think of how we can help better serve our province's children.

If I may conclude by reading from the

preamble of the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child: "Mankind owes to the child the best it has to give."

POLISH VETERANS

Mr. John Milloy (Kitchener Centre): I rise today to congratulate the members of Kitchener's Royal Canadian Legion Polish Veterans' Branch 412, which recently celebrated its 60th anniversary.

As members of this House are aware, veterans of the Polish armed forces, who had fought valiantly during the Second World War, came to Canada after 1945, and many chose to settle in my community of

Kitchener-Waterloo. Members of the existing Royal Canadian Legion at that time, Branch 50, welcomed these brave Polish veterans and assisted them in establishing their lives in the new community. Branch 50 also helped the Polish veterans open

their own branch in downtown Kitchener.

Recently, I had the honour of attending a ceremony to mark the 60th anniversary of Branch 412. The contribution of these veterans was recognized through a photo retrospective as well as a celebration of Polish

culture -- a culture which continues to flourish in my community.

I want to offer congratulations to the Royal Canadian Legion Polish Veterans' Branch 412 president, Wladyslaw Magier, and the executive officers. I'd also like to acknowledge Canadian Polish Congress president

Maria Pruchnicka-Karczmarczyk, ladies' auxiliary president Halina Jach, gala chair Krystyna Piotrowska-Freiburger and many others for their efforts in celebrating the past 60 years.

I must conclude with a special tribute to our local Polish veterans in Kitchener and across Waterloo region who sacrificed so much during World War II and continue to offer so much to our community today.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Two weeks ago, Eugene Kelly, a popular Hamilton musician and father of two, was planning to leave with his wife on a romantic getaway to Puerto Rico.

Instead, he is on life support and hasn't regained consciousness since he was swarmed by up to five teenagers outside a pizza store, brutally beaten and left in a pool of blood.

Media reports in the Hamilton Spectator indicate these same teens have been terrorizing neighbourhoods since Halloween. Youths too afraid to give their names have told the media, "Everyone knows these guys and

knows not to say anything about them," because of fear. Two young offenders charged in the vicious assault were granted bail; a third will get his hearing this Wednesday.

If the McGuinty government has any compassion for victims and any desire to send a message that violence, intimidation and threats to public safety are not acceptable, you send a message to all young offenders

by setting a strict policy directive. All bail for vicious crimes should not only be opposed but should be appealed if granted.

The McGuinty Liberals closed the PC government's successful youth strict discipline camp, and under this government we've seen a 68% decrease in young offenders being held in sentenced custody, at a time when

young offenders are increasingly involved in violent crime. While people worry about the safety of their neighbourhoods, this government is sending a message that they can't count on Mr. McGuinty and company to listen.

ARTS FUNDING

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): The March 2006 budget of the McGuinty government invested $2.5 million in the arts facility for Orléans. On May 23, I had the pleasure of delivering

these funds to Christine Tremblay, the executive director of Arts Ottawa East, and to the Mouvement d'implication francophone d'Orléans, at an event held in my riding. Friends and colleagues gathered to show their support for the arts and for

a project that will give our community a venue in which we can celebrate our talents.

Orléans has been anticipating such a facility for more than 20 years. In October, Ottawa city council gave their final approval for an Orléans arts centre, paving the way for the construction of a

$36.8-million facility to begin next spring. The new facility will include a 500-seat performing arts theatre, space for the visual arts, a large municipal art gallery, a pottery school, rehearsal space, a second 100-seat theatre and

administration space for Arts Ottawa East and MIFO. It will be a place to learn, to create and to share our achievements with the community.

Arts education contributes to success for students across the curriculum. It leads to measurable gains in student motivation, better attendance and reduced dropout rates. It enhances student engagement, fosters

tolerance and respect for diversity, and builds self-confidence. Arts education also contributes to building a creative economy and creative communities.

I am proud that our government considers arts education to be a top priority. That is why the need for this facility was recognized in this year's budget, and now we are seeing this dream of the residents of

Orléans become a reality.

FIREFIGHTERS

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): Firefighters across Ontario are receiving mixed messages from the McGuinty Liberal government. All the Liberals voted for my Bill 111 last month, and they are

telling firefighters they are sympathetic to their call for presumptive legislation, which would guarantee firefighters and families are compensated if they develop an occupational disease like cancer. But firefighters don't want the McGuinty

Liberals' sympathy; they want action on Bill 111. They want Ontario to have presumptive legislation like other provinces already have for their firefighters.

The McGuinty government could learn a thing or two from a young woman named Caleigh LeGrand, a student at the University of Western Ontario in London. Caleigh is working on a project in support of firefighters,

Bill 111 and the fight against cancer. It's called Save Your Own Hero.

On November 27, from 2 p.m. till 3 p.m. on Western's main campus, Caleigh will be promoting awareness of these vital issues with the full support of the London fire department and the university's chief of fire

prevention and emergency management. As well as mounting displays and launching an interactive website, Caleigh will be selling gift cards for $10 donations to the Canadian Cancer Society in the name of a friend or loved one.

I urge members of the public in London and across Ontario and all MPPs to visit Caleigh's website as of November 24 and make a contribution. The website address is www.saveyourownhero.blogspot.com. For

firefighters who risk their lives to keep us safe, I hope young Caleigh's passion and conviction will inspire the McGuinty Liberal government to move ahead with presumptive legislation as detailed in my Bill 111.

FORMER PREMIERS' GRAVESITES

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): A few weeks ago, when I was in Kingston for a meeting of the Eastern Ontario Municipal Association, I took the time to visit the gravesite of

Canada's first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald. It was an impressive site, well marked and with the Canadian flag flying above it. There were visitors, both local and international, taking the opportunity to learn a bit about this historic

leader.

Over the summer, I visited the gravesites of Ontario's former Premiers and, sadly, the same level of markings and such were not present. As presented on Global Television recently, there was nothing at the

burial site of former Premier Thomas Laird Kennedy to indicate that he had served in the position of Premier. As well, during my visit to Mitchell Hepburn's gravesite at St. Thomas, I noted the lack of recognition of his contributions to

Ontario.

Just as Canadians benefit from the proper markings of the gravesites of former Prime Ministers, both in terms of history and visitation, so can Ontarians benefit from the proper markings of the final resting

places of Ontario's Premiers.

I would like to thank all my colleagues from both sides of this House who joined me on these tours this summer, and I would particularly like to thank my legislative assistant, Kerry Towndrow, for helping me to

reach each of these sites throughout Ontario. I would encourage all members and indeed all Ontarians to go out and visit these gravesites and share in the rich history and leadership of these men who represented Ontario.

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): Today Ontario Progressive Conservative leader John Tory unveiled a practical plan to address the many challenges faced by our foreign-trained professional and

skilled immigrants living in Ontario. The plan, A Time for Action, will make a measurable difference in the lives of skilled immigrants and of all Ontarians. The John Tory plan will, among other things, speed up the process of integrating skilled

immigrants with new measures to begin the accreditation process in their countries of origin prior to arrival in Canada; better focus and increase provincial government support to help integrate them into our economy and our society; and remove

the obstacles faced by newcomers when they enter the workforce, including establishing and expanding the various doctor assistant programs.

If we want newcomers to Ontario to have their expectations met and to fulfill their true potential, and if we want to meet our responsibilities to them, we must recognize that this must be a priority of the

Ontario government. This is about skilled immigrants themselves, their families and the future of Ontario and its economy. We welcome this report tabled by John Tory and look forward to broad support by all Ontarians and all members of the

Legislature for this plan.

LEADING WOMEN, BUILDING COMMUNITIES AWARD

Ms. Deborah Matthews (London North Centre): This year Sandra Pupatello, the minister responsible for women's issues, created the Leading Women, Building Communities Award to recognize women who

have made exceptional contributions in their communities.

Along with MPPs Chris Bentley, Khalil Ramal and Steve Peters, I was pleased to honour 38 dynamic women from London and Elgin and Middlesex counties with this award. These are women who have made an important and

positive difference in the lives of women and girls in our communities.

This inaugural year's award winners include women like Helene Berman, Helen Connell and Anne Cummings, who promote women's and girls' health and well-being through education, community service and research;

women like Joan Smith, Barbara Rankin and Erin-Rankin-Nash, who have actively supported women's political involvement; women like Nancy Miller and Betsy Reilly, who provide young girls with guidance, mentoring and opportunities for empowerment;

women like Yasmin Hussain, Lorin McDonald, Afsaneh Azari and Huda Hussein, who work hard to promote social inclusion within our community; women like Susan McPhail, Darlene Ritchie, Leone Westby and Lorna Bruce, who help the most vulnerable women

in our community find dignity and hope; and women like Mary Catherine Ann and Diehl Elkin, who work hard to make communities free from violence for women and children.

I would like to congratulate all of the award winners for working to make our community stronger. They inspire others to become leaders.

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Mr. Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East): I rise today to speak about what the McGuinty government is doing to aid new Ontarians to help them grow and thrive in the new economy. Giving new Ontarians

the tools and opportunities to succeed is why the McGuinty government has committed to investing an additional $14 million into 24 new bridge training programs over the next three years to help over 3,000 new Ontarians get into their field of work

sooner. This, teamed with the investments of over $34 million since 2003 to help more than 6,000 newcomers to Ontario, shows that the McGuinty government is on the side of new Ontarians and is getting results.

The McGuinty government understands the obstacles that new Ontarians face, which is why these programs include an emphasis on the improvement of language skills, which help to prepare new Ontarians for their

written and oral exams and, in turn, allow them to gain employment in their related fields more swiftly.

A quick glance at the previous government's record toward new Ontarians shows that they did nothing to remove barriers facing internationally trained professionals. They even cut adult education spaces by 80%.

They also made apprenticeships more costly, putting up further barriers to the success of new Ontarians.

It has been our commitment to break down those barriers and show new Ontarians the respect that they deserve. There is always more to do --

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

VISITORS

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield (Minister of Transportation): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: It's my honour today to introduce the Honourable Kevin Falcon, the Minister of Transportation for British

Columbia, and his executive assistant, Rob MacKay-Dunn. Welcome to the Ontario Legislature.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

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 evening sittings

this week, that the question on this motion be put forthwith and without amendment or debate, and that if a recorded vote is requested by five members, the division bells shall be limited to five minutes.

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

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I move that the House shall meet from 6:45 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Monday, November 20, 2006, Tuesday, November 21, 2006, and Wednesday, November 22, 2006, for the purpose of

considering government business, and that at 9:30 p.m. on each of these days, the Speaker shall adjourn the House without motion until the next sessional day.

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

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells ran from 1349 to 1354.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): All those in favour will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Balkissoon, Bas

Bentley, Christopher

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Brownell, Jim

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Chudleigh, Ted

Colle, Mike

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dunlop, Garfield

Elliott, Christine

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Klees, Frank

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Runciman, Robert W.

Sandals, Liz

Scott, Laurie

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Tory, John

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yakabuski, John

Zimmer, David

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

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

DiNovo, Cheri

Horwath, Andrea

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Murdoch, Bill

Prue, Michael

Tabuns, Peter

The Deputy Clerk (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 48; the nays are 8.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

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.

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

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(g), notice for ballot item 64 be waived.

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

VISITORS

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'm wondering if the House would join me in giving a warm round of applause to the Craighurst Women's Institute, who are

joining us in the east gallery today.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod (Nepean-Carleton): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Today we've got in our presence Maureen Tourangeau from the great city of Ottawa. She's here today with the Canadian

Cancer Society, Ottawa unit, of which I used to be a board member. Please welcome the Canadian Cancer Society from Ottawa.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SKILLS TRAINING

FOR ABUSED WOMEN

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Economic Development and Trade, minister responsible for women's issues): Almost two years ago, on December 13, 2004, our government introduced our

four-year, $68-million domestic violence action plan. In that plan, we committed to a new pilot training program to help abused women succeed in the workforce and gain economic independence.

Today I'm pleased to report that we've delivered on this commitment. It's another example of how our government is taking action to prevent domestic violence and better support women who have been abused.

I've heard from so many women who have made the difficult decision to leave an abusive relationship that one of their biggest concerns, after their personal safety and the safety of their children, is being

able to provide for themselves and for their families.

This morning, I visited George Brown College in Toronto to announce that our government is investing $4 million over two years in 10 domestic violence employment training pilot projects in Ontario. This is

very good news for women. This pilot program will assist hundreds of women who have experienced, or are at risk of experiencing, domestic violence to rebuild their lives and achieve economic independence. It will help women gain confidence, new

skills and good jobs. These are positive changes that make a real difference. We're opening doors by helping women get the skills they need to work in the banking industry, retail, food service, hospitality and tourism.

The program offered at George Brown College will train women to be residential air-conditioning systems mechanics. It will offer a well-paying and much-in-demand skilled trade.

The projects are designed to help a wide range of women who have experienced abuse. Some will focus on reaching francophone, aboriginal, ethnocultural communities, rural, northern women and women with

disabilities. They will benefit from a learning environment sensitive to their needs as they recover from abuse. They will also have access to support services, such as counselling, to assist in their recovery.

One of the unique aspects of this pilot program is the three-way partnership between a violence-against-women group, training organization and the employer. So this morning, with George Brown College, we had

Direct Energy, and the senior vice-president was there. They will actually be offering the placements for these people in this program. As well, we had Nellie's Shelter, a Toronto abuse centre. All of them were participating to provide the women

who enter the program the supports required -- in some cases, transportation, child care, counselling services -- everything these women need to get their foot moving towards economic independence.

This partnership model reflects our government's vision that preventing domestic violence is a shared responsibility. This new pilot program is one of many initiatives to promote women's economic independence

and prevent domestic violence. We are investing $4.2 million to provide information technology and pre-apprenticeship training in the skilled trades for low-income women who are unemployed or underemployed.

We're also funding improvements to shelters and housing, enhancing counselling services and training professionals to recognize the signs of abuse earlier and give women the support they need.

Just last week, the government announced a very innovative public education campaign aimed at children and youth and the adults who influence them. The goal, again, is to change attitudes and break the cycle

of violence.

These efforts reflect the government's commitment to ensure that women and their children can live free from violence and that they can rebuild their life with new-found skills and greater confidence.

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott (Whitby-Ajax): On behalf of John Tory and the PC Party, I'm happy to respond to the minister's statement today regarding her announcement of a skills training program to

enable vulnerable women by equipping them with the ability to develop and sustain economic independence.

As is understood by every member in this House, the safety and well-being of all women in the province of Ontario is at its core a non-partisan issue. We must work together to ensure that vulnerable women and

their children are protected. One way to ensure that is to provide them with the tools they need to create and maintain a life independent from the men who seek to control them.

I am, therefore, happy to hear that this government has taken a step in that direction with this initiative, and I would encourage the minister to ensure that her government follows through on all the

commitments they have made to help victims of domestic violence.

I should mention that under our previous government we introduced the women in skilled trades program, an initiative that is still in place today. This announcement sounds like it is building on the

fundamental ideas motivating our creation of that program -- specifically, the idea that furthering women in the job force and affording them exciting opportunities in fields that have been historically less accessible should be a priority in

government.

We also introduced the Domestic Violence Protection Act and increased spending in this area by 70%. We are proud of the women in the skilled trades program, and we are proud of our record on this domestic

violence prevention file.

I will say in closing that we as public servants have a role to serve for all vulnerable people in the province of Ontario, and I would urge this government to remember many vulnerable communities that have

been forgotten under their watch. Consider the 1.2 million Ontarians without a family doctor and autistic children and their families. I would encourage this government to move forward to honour the many, many promises that have simply gone

unfulfilled since they took office.

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): This announcement certainly constitutes another small piece in the file on violence against women. The problem, we know, of violence against women deserves

our full attention, not piecemeal measures and pre-election announcements like this minister is bringing to us today. In fact, barely 50% of the commitment that this government made to stopping violence against women has even been invested in the

province of Ontario. Of course training opportunities are crucial for women who have fled a cycle of violence in the home and who need gainful employment and financial security first and foremost after the safety of their family is taken care of,

but the odd pilot project is just not going to cut it. We need to see full funding for these kinds of initiatives that women across the province can take advantage of, not piecemeal pilot projects here and there, not just websites where people can

tune into the computer to find information. We need real, sustainable programs from one part of this province to the other, and that's what the minister needs to start working on.

Certainly the initiative announced today is not something that we're going to be critical of, except for saying that it's too little and too late. A program like this is not, obviously, going to stop the root

causes of violence against women, but of course, for those few women who can access the announcement today, it will help a little bit.

There are many crucial recommendations from stakeholders, from experts and from coroners' juries that are missing from the Liberal strategy on violence against women. Women's groups want to see the government

take real action on core issues, the bread-and-butter, bricks-and-mortar issues in violence against women. Housing and income supports must exist for women and children who flee for their safety. We need more second-stage housing and transitional

housing. In my community alone, the minister will know that we lost an entire second-stage housing program. There's over half a million people in the city of Hamilton, and now, as a result of family services going down the tubes, we've lost dozens

-- dozens -- of second-stage housing units in the city of Hamilton, and they haven't been replaced by the minister.

I urge the members of this House and the minister to take a look at another program that's taking place right now in this country in the province of Alberta. It's called the Alberta flee fund, and it is a

comprehensive program. It leaves nothing to chance when ensuring that women have the support and resources they need to turn their lives around. Without money and a place to live, women remain in violent relationships just so that their children

will be housed and fed. That's not acceptable. Albertans in abusive situations can get 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week help through Alberta Works. All they need to do is call a toll-free number, and the fund will cover them as long as they're

eligible. They can get to safety immediately, start their new life and set up a new household.

By comparison, Ontario is way behind on this file. Alberta shows how seriously it deals with the problem through a long list of items it will pay for to ensure that anyone can escape violence and rebuild one's

life. Emergency transportation to a safe place such as a women's shelter is provided. If the shelters are full or if there isn't one available, then hotel accommodation is immediately arranged for the woman. A $56 allowance is there to cover

incidental expenses for the woman and her children as they flee. Emergency items such as prescription drugs, dental, optical services and child care are covered. Relocation costs are covered, even to other places in Canada if necessary if the

woman is determined to have to be leaving the province of Alberta for her own safety and the safety of her children. There's a $1,000 allowance used to help set up a new home. The damage deposit is provided to help to secure a rental apartment if

necessary. Financial help provides for food, clothing, shelter and other basic needs that are going to help the woman and basically free her from the expectation to work initially so she can take care of the well-being of herself and her children

before moving into employment. A $50 monthly benefit is provided, recognizing that Albertans fleeing abuse are not necessarily ready to go to work. To start a new life, there's $430 per month for telephone costs and $60 per month for

transportation costs to enable anybody to make a call for help or to travel for counselling and make legal appointments and any other issues that need to be covered off if women are actually going to successfully leave an abusive household.

So employment and training services are available for jobs as well, not dissimilar from the pilot project this minister is announcing today. But the bottom line is, there's a heck of a lot more that needs to

be done on the violence-against-women file.

I would ask the minister to put her mind to putting together some kind of comprehensive plan, not the plan she has announced and reannounced and not yet fully funded in Ontario that women's groups have been

critical of because they see it as piecemeal and ineffective. We need a real, sustainable program that every woman across the province can rely upon to successfully leave an abusive relationship.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): We have with us today in the Speaker's gallery four US state legislators here on a legislative exchange of the Midwestern Legislative Conference. They are

Senator Brad Burzynski, from Illinois; Senator Jay Emler, from Kansas; Representative Bill Huizenga, from Michigan; and Representative Karen May, from Illinois. They are joined by Susan Evans, from the Canadian consulate in Chicago, and Ilene

Grossman, who is with the Midwestern Legislative Conference of the Council of State Governments.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EMPLOYMENT

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Acting Premier, and our friends are about to see why they call this "question period" and not "answer period." The government's

forestry announcement today is leaving an awful lot of people cold. Under your watch, more than 4,000 direct forestry industry jobs have been lost across northern Ontario due to high electricity prices and many other factors. For those who have

lost their jobs and are struggling with the loss of a paycheque and with high energy rates, the Minister of Energy says to them, "Go and buy a blanket and drink some wine." For those struggling to keep their jobs, the government is paying only lip

service to their concerns.

For example, after this, the third announcement this government has made in the last couple of years, not one of them being sufficient, Cec Makowski of the CEP, the paperworkers' union, says it's too little,

too late. He says you've waited so long that employers are left with little choice but to accept a deal far below what is required.

Why won't this government come forward with a comprehensive plan on jobs for northern Ontario and for the forestry industry? When is it coming?

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy): This initiative that the Premier announced today will help the forestry sector, which has been particularly hard hit by a range of variables, including

the price of the dollar and the decreasing demand for newsprint throughout North America, to deal with a particularly difficult circumstance they have found themselves in to date. Today, the Premier announced $140 million that will assist that

industry as it transitions itself to a future marketplace, upgrades its capital stock and generally makes investments in energy efficiency. Taken together, the government has invested over $1 billion in the forestry sector, which is helping that

industry deal with a very, very difficult set of circumstances.

This government remains committed to working with that industry and the people of northern Ontario as the industry transitions not only in Ontario but indeed across Canada and throughout North America.

Mr. Tory: Cec Makowski from the paperworkers' union says that it won't save a single job, and a professor from Lakehead, Livio Di Matteo, says that this program "won't make much of a

difference," to quote him. The difficulty of ignoring these issues, as you have done, and leaving it to these piecemeal kinds of announcements is that everything you come up with is insufficient to deal with the real issues. Northern Ontario is in

crisis and needs a real, comprehensive program to deal with this.

There are serious problems across the rest of the province as well. Eastern Ontario, for example has seen more than 4,000 jobs lost in the last year and a half: 910 jobs at Domtar, 1,290 at Cascades in

Cornwall, 250 jobs at Masterbrand Cabinets in Peterborough. The announcement today does nothing for people in these communities who have lost their jobs.

Since December 8, 2005, we have been asking for a comprehensive jobs plan for the province. Where is it?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: There are challenges in the economy, but I would remind the member that since we took office we've had a net increase in employment in Ontario of 250,000 employees, something

the Leader of the Opposition cannot ignore.

Not only has that occurred, but by the investments our government is making -- for instance, $500 million in the automotive sector, which has leveraged $7 billion of new automotive investment -- Ontario is now

the leading jurisdiction in North America, with respect to our friend from Michigan. We have become the leading jurisdiction in North America --

Interjection: Don't tell the people of Michigan.

Hon. Mr. Duncan: Ward's Automotive predicts we will.

I remind the member, you voted against that and your party voted against the budget provisions for that.

The forest sector has been buffeted by challenges that are meeting the sector throughout the world. This government has come to the table with more than $1 billion that will help that industry -- and, more

importantly, the people who depend on it for their livelihoods -- transition to a stronger and brighter future.

We're proud of our record. We'll defend that record.

Mr. Tory: The fact of the matter is that the paperworkers union says not one job will be saved. A professor from Lakehead says it's not going to make any difference. And the other fact of the

matter is that you refuse to acknowledge and bring a plan forward on 130,000 manufacturing jobs that have been lost under the McGuinty Liberal government in the past year alone in this province. It's a disgraceful record and you've brought forward

no plan whatsoever to deal with it. You call it a cycle, you call it a little bit of contraction, the Premier says it's inevitable, but no comprehensive plan from you. The Premier, who says Ontario should never lead from the back of the pack, has

presided over a government that has us 10th out of 10 in economic growth this year in this country.

To the Acting Premier again: 347 days ago this Legislature passed a resolution with all-party support calling on you to bring forward a comprehensive jobs plan. Where is it? We've seen no such plan. When is it

coming at last?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: Two hundred and fifty thousand net new jobs since we took office, in spite of a rising Canadian dollar -- that's a record to be proud of. Let me remind the Leader of the

Opposition, under your government 8,000 jobs were lost in the north alone. If you want to get quotes about what we announced today, let me give you a few.

Ron Stern, the president and CEO of St. Marys Paper: "I appreciate the province's effort to help our industry through these difficult times. This program will help us deal with our costs and move us toward

greater energy efficiency."

David Paterson of Bowater: "The McGuinty government has acted decisively with programs to encourage critical new investment to make wood costs more competitive. Today's announcement is a significant step

forward for the Thunder Bay operation and will support our ... initiatives designed to bring our assets to a more competitive position."

This government has responded proactively and positively to a tough situation. We will stand behind the people of northern Ontario. We will work for their jobs, unlike --

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

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): I'm sure the 130,000 families who have lost the jobs will be very comforted to see you breaking your arm patting yourself on the back for all that you

claim you've done. You've done nothing for them.

My question is for the Acting Premier. This morning, a water main breakage flooded Lake Shore Boulevard and snarled traffic for thousands and thousands of people during the morning rush hour. The main burst in

as many as four places, according to the Toronto Star website. Staff sergeant Dan Cole said, "We're not sure where the breaks are. They keep popping up. There's mud all over the road."

As many as 2,000 pipes burst each year in the city of Toronto alone. My question to the Acting Premier is this: There is currently a $19-billion infrastructure deficit, which your Premier said he would fix.

That's more than double what it was when your party came to office. Your Premier promised to fix the infrastructure deficit. It has doubled since he's been in office. When are you actually going to do something about it so people don't get caught

in these nightmares on Lake Shore Boulevard or anywhere else? When are you going to act?

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): It takes a lot of chutzpah from a member and a party that downloaded onto municipalities, large

and small, around this province. You transferred your problems, sir, onto hard-working taxpayers from around this province, but this government stood up for local communities and local people and came out with a $30-billion infrastructure

investment plan which is making a difference right around this province. I can tell you, it's despite this member and this party opposing these kinds of measures. We've taken these kinds of actions, working collaboratively, providing a number of

different investment tools for and with our municipal partners.

Now, the member could help. He could call his friend Steve Harper and make sure that the federal government honours its Canada-Ontario agreement to the tune of over $1 billion so that we could invest even

more. But I don't think this member has the gumption to stand up to his friend Steve.

Mr. Tory: This government will get to $30 billion on propaganda ads, hotel rooms and logo changes long before they invest a nickel in infrastructure. The fact is, the infrastructure deficit of

this province that causes water main breaks like that has doubled since Dalton McGuinty has been Premier of Ontario. That's what is going on. Now, the expert water --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Stop the clock. I know it's Monday, but the rules are the same: I need to be able to hear the member placing the question. Order. The Minister of Economic

Development will come to order. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Tory: We had an expert water panel report released in July 2005, 486 days ago; 486 days of ignoring yet again another group of people hired to give us some advice on this kind of thing.

This government sits and does nothing about our water infrastructure, and thousands of people in Ontario are interrupted in their drive to work today, they sit there for hours, and the water infrastructure sits untouched by a McGuinty government

that has allowed the infrastructure deficit to double on their watch. When will the government keep its promise, and when will they respond formally to the expert water panel report? When is that going to happen?

Hon. Mr. Caplan: Clearly, the member doesn't know what he's talking about. This is the first government to take serious action to address an infrastructure problem which you, sir, and your

party tried to download onto municipal communities. This government has taken action.

We did seek advice from experts for water investment, and we are working with -- and I know that this is a foreign concept to this member and his party -- our partners at the Association of Municipalities of

Ontario. I myself have met with the executive of AMO to develop a water strategy for this province. We've shared with them the directions. We're talking with them about how we can respond, how we can deliver the kind of investment strategy that

has been lacking under the previous government for the past eight years.

This government treats very seriously, amongst a number of things, the almost $1-billion fund of the Canadian-Ontario municipal rural infrastructure fund, over $1.3 billion through low-cost OSIFA loans, and

much more --

The Speaker: Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr. Tory: The minister comes here with these windy answers, and he talks all about a strategy that he himself has personally presided over. The only problem with this great strategy you've

presided over is, you've done nothing; absolutely nothing. You've done nothing. The fact is --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre will come to order. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Tory: The fact is, there are more than 5,000 kilometres of pipes in the city of Toronto, and half of those are more than 50 years old. Your government has yet to enact any of the

regulations to Bill 175, the Sustainable Water and Sewage Systems Act,

an act that was passed by our party that laid the groundwork for addressing the very deficit you talk about. When are you going to put through these regulations and get on with

the job of renewing the water infrastructure of Ontario so that people can have proper infrastructure and not sit in traffic jams because pipe after pipe on street after street bursts on your watch? When are you going to do something about it?

Hon. Mr. Caplan: This member and his party download. This government provides much-needed dollars to municipalities for investment. I was able to give you a partial list, and I'd like to

expand on that: $81.5 million for water and waste water projects in COMRIF intake one; $1.3 billion for investment in water and waste water right across the province of Ontario through the Ontario Strategic Infrastructure Financing Authority.

I'm sorry that the member opposite finds this amusing, but I've got to tell you, the approach that we've seen from the previous government compared to this one was one of downloading as opposed to action. It's

with our municipal partners that we are indeed renewing Ontario to repair the legacy that unfortunately --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

HYDRO RATES /

TARIFS D'ÉLECTRICITÉ

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): My question is to the Deputy Premier. Today we heard an announcement on the part of the McGuinty government with regard to its new policy when it comes

to electricity pricing for northern Ontario industry. I can tell you that, by most accounts, listening to the people of northeastern and northwestern Ontario, it's a complete letdown. You've continued down the path of driving hydro rates up. It

has caused thousands of jobs to be lost, 45,000 jobs to be specific. And what have we got? We've basically got the government coming back and announcing something that is going to have almost a nil effect when it comes to saving those jobs that

were lost up to now.

The northern mayors, industry -- everybody was unanimous. Everybody in northern Ontario told you that what you needed to do was to get the price to $45 per megawatt. You didn't do that. Our question to you is

very simply this: Why didn't you? Why did you let the people of northern Ontario down?

Hon. George Smitherman (Deputy Premier, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I think that before the honourable member chooses to speak for all the people of northern Ontario, he should

take into consideration what some of them had to say today in response to the announcement. Everybody agrees that this is a challenging issue, but here's what Ken Buchanan said. He's the president of Buchanan Forest Products. I believe he resides

in the north:

"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 our region. Our sawmills need

pulp and paper operations to use the wood chips they produce, and this helps to ensure that."

We're very mindful of the challenges the forest industry is facing, and the Minister of Energy listed those. In addition to today's announcement: $350 million in loan guarantees; $150 million over three years

for the forest sector prosperity fund; $75 million annually for construction and maintenance costs of primary and secondary forest access roads; $70 million in one-time stumpage fee reduction; $10 million a year to enhance the forest resource

inventory. The point is, we recognize the needs of this sector, and that's why we're responding in a comprehensive way. And it would be nice if, in supplementary, the honourable member could acknowledge that he is not the voice for every person in

the north.

Mr. Bisson: I can tell you clearly that we speak for far more people in northern Ontario than the McGuinty government does. I want to share with you a couple of quotes from other northerners

who happen to see things the same way. This particular one you might know: Jamie Lim, the president of the OFIA. She says, and this is an interesting quote: "Right now, Ontario companies are investing, but it's not in Ontario." That speaks

volumes. It basically says that electricity prices have gone through the roof and, as an effect of that, companies are investing outside of Ontario.

I say again, we asked you specifically. The people of northern Ontario, the mayors, industry, unions -- everybody was on side. Why didn't you deliver?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: For the purposes of debate, the honourable member is only able to bring in quotes that are not current from today's announcement. Why is that? He stands today and says

that his party speaks for more people in the north. I think that's a little bit of an outrageous circumstance -- giving the decision points of the people in the north -- with respect to their democratic responsibilities.

Here's what Jim Lopez, the president and CEO of Tembec, said today: "The program announced today is a significant step both in terms of closing the gap on power rates with competing jurisdictions and helping

companies generate the funds that will support investments to make their mills less dependent on purchased energy. We applaud and thank Premier McGuinty and Minister Ramsay for their leadership, their perseverance and their support."

The point is, everybody's right in acknowledging that the forest sector has real challenges, and it would be very much more fair if they acknowledged that today's announcement has met with agreeable response

from many, an acknowledgement that responding in a comprehensive way is the best response to address the underlying challenges for Ontario's very prominent forest sector.

Mr. Bisson: It doesn't hide the reality that hydro prices continue to go through the roof. This announcement is going to do nothing to bring the workers back in the sawmill sector and in most

of the paper sector across Ontario. We have seen thousands of layoffs across the north and in other places in Ontario when it comes to electricity prices, and your government is tinkering at the edges. I've spoken to some of the people that you

talked to, and what they're saying is that this is akin to being in a river when you're about to go down and a twig comes by and you grab it. At the end of the day, you're still going to go down.

I say to you again, what are you going to do to respond to the very direct issue that was raised with you and asked of you by the people of northern Ontario when it comes to electricity prices, which is to

match what they asked you for at 4.5 cents per kilowatt hour all in?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy): The member opposite and his leader have more positions on this than the Kama Sutra.

Let me tell you what your leader said about regional pricing. Let me tell you what he said. He said it means that not only will the cost of electricity itself rapidly move up, but the cost of transmitting the

electricity would increase as well.

The price of industrial electricity is lower today than it was two and a half years ago when we took office. The price is expected to go down. This government has invested more than $1 billion in the forest

sector industry.

Let me give you a couple of more quotes, further on that issue, from a number of the forest sector leaders. Ken Buchanan has been quoted. John Weaver: "We applaud the efforts of the Premier and Minister Ramsay

to find ways to improve forest industry competitiveness." That's John Weaver, president and CEO of Abitibi-Consolidated.

The industry has been challenged by everything from a higher dollar to a whole range of other factors. This government has --

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

Mr. Bisson: To the Deputy Premier -- and imagine that: a Liberal accusing a New Democrat of taking multiple positions. How laughable. You're the party that, when in opposition, was opposed to

the Conservative Party policy on electricity. You campaigned against it, you said you were going to reverse it, and now what you're doing is accelerating at 100 miles an hour.

To the Deputy Premier, I say it again in regards to what people in northern Ontario are saying. This is from Livio Di Matteo, who says, "My gut feeling is that most of the closures that have occurred are going

to stay in place."

It's clear that this is not going to work. I ask you again, when are you going to do what the people of northern Ontario asked you to do, and that is to get an electricity price in at 4.5 cents per kilowatt

hour, all-in?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: With all due respect to the honourable member, he relies on the advice of a professor who says that their gut instinct is this, that or the other. We'd rather rely on

those who are involved in making independent investment decisions on a daily basis with respect to Ontario's forestry sector. We acknowledge there are serious concerns there. That's why we've had a comprehensive response over a period of several

different initiatives.

I'd put the words of Ken Buchanan, a well-known figure in northern Ontario who runs Buchanan Forest Products, up against the gut instinct of a professor from a university. Here's what Buchanan said, to remind

the honourable member: "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 communities in our region."

Today's announcement is an acknowledgment of our willingness to work alongside communities in the north and the forestry sector. We made important progress today and we acknowledge that this sector will

require us to continue to work with them in strong partnership on behalf of Ontario.

M. Bisson: C'est clair que le ministre ne veut pas répondre à la question. On sait qu'il y a des milliers d'emplois qui ont été perdus au nord de l'Ontario à cause de

votre politique faisant affaire avec l'électricité.

Si on regarde ce qui est arrivé à Weyerhaeuser, à Dryden, 385 emplois ont été perdus. Cette annonce ne va rien faire pour renverser ces pertes d'emplois. À Domtar, à Nairn

Centre, où mon ami M. Charlie Angus et moi avons été jeudi passé, 255 employés ont perdu leur emploi. L'employeur dit que c'est à cause du prix de l'électricité. Cette annonce ne fait absolument rien pour

répondre aux besoins de cette industrie et de ramener ces travailleurs à l'ouvrage.

Je vous envoie cette liste de ceux qui ont perdu leur emploi à travers la province. Je vous demande encore, allez-vous changer d'idée et faire ce qu'on vous a demandé, d'amener le prix de

l'électricité selon le 4,5 cents le kilowattheure qu'on a demandé au nord de l'Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Mr. Duncan: I remind the member opposite that on his watch, 14 mills shut down under the NDP, and what did they do in response to that? They cancelled the forestry management agreement

and road funding. And what else did they do? They raised industrial electricity prices 40% in three short years. Under our watch, industrial electricity prices have come down.

We are investing in conservation; we are investing in new technologies and renewable resources. As long as one person is looking for a job, as long as one family is hurting because of a layoff, this government

won't rest. That's why we've invested $1 billion, that's why the announcement is well accepted by the industry, and that is why we will continue to pursue an aggressive approach to solving the problems of that industry for the working men and

women of the north who depend on that industry for their livelihoods.

Mr. Bisson: I'll tell you what's resting in northern Ontario: the thousands of workers who have lost their jobs because of your hydroelectric policies. For you to come into this House today,

as you did in northern Ontario, and announce a policy that falls short of what was asked for by the people of northern Ontario is a letdown to the people of northern Ontario. For three long years, while mills shut down, people lost their jobs and

local economies got hammered -- but you continue to duck the question. I ask the minister: Why didn't you deliver the $45-dollars-a-megawatt industrial rate to sustain jobs that was asked for by the people of northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: This government has responded in a multiplicity of ways to the challenge faced by the forest sector industry. Let me reiterate for the member opposite, who has acknowledged

that the challenges in that industry go well beyond the price of electricity. Let me tell you, the $1 billion -- everything from roads through to energy efficiency for that industry, which is now well accepted by the industry, by communities in

the north, recognizing the enormous challenge that that industry faces -- has been the appropriate response in a timely fashion that is assisting this industry, an industry that is suffering in Quebec, Newfoundland, Saskatchewan, Texas, throughout

North America. This is the appropriate response. It gives a competitive edge and prepares the north for a future that's brighter in the pulp and paper industry because of that investment, because of this government working for the north in such a

proactive fashion.

COAL-FIRED GENERATING STATIONS

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is for the Minister of Energy. I noticed that the Acting Premier made comments saying that you guys only rely on real expert

testimony and advice. Well, Minister, your Premier has had quite a time spinning a new tale every day about his coal shutdown policy and the expert advice he got on it.

This is about credibility and integrity. I'm going to read to you what you said to me and the members of the committee on estimates, Minister. I asked you, "You're talking about your coal promise. You said you

consulted with a number of different people. I would like to know who those people were." Your reply was, "I'll provide you with the full list, but I can tell you, we had lots...."

Minister, is a promise made to a committee of this Legislature for you people the same as a promise made to the people of Ontario: one that you can break when you are out fishing for votes?

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy): This government remains committed to closing down coal-fired generation in Ontario, as I said last week, and I'll say it again. The Premier

acknowledged, quite properly, that it has been a challenge to meet the timelines as originally outlined. That being said, we remain committed to the goal. Already there's a 17% reduction in the amount of time coal-fired generation is used in the

province. We have seen a 28% decrease in SO 2 , a 34% decrease in nitrous oxide and a 15% decrease in CO 2 .

We remain committed to eliminating coal-fired generation in Ontario in a timely fashion, in a way that protects the reliability of the system in Ontario, recognizing the enormous health benefits we will

achieve as a result of the policy commitment.

Mr. Yakabuski: Minister, I'd appreciate it if you'd just quit spewing out your own emissions and answer the question.

Your own colleagues in this House are having to answer questions in their own ridings about your Premier's integrity, about your Premier's commitment. He has said that he relied on the advice of experts. Then,

Minister, I'm asking you: You committed to a committee of this Legislature to reveal those names so that people could make their own judgment. Minister, either give us the names now or admit that they never existed, that you and your Premier made

the whole thing up, because you will say anything and you will do anything just to get a vote. Will you admit that or reveal those names now?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: What we acknowledge is that the coal-fired generation remains a major challenge to all governments and all parties, and the elimination of that coal-fired generation is in

everyone's interests, from a health perspective, from an environmental perspective.

We remain committed and have asked the power authority for its independent advice on how best to achieve the shutdown of coal-fired generation. That has proven to be a most challenging goal but it is one that

we remain firmly committed to in the interest of the health of all Ontarians and in the interest of a cleaner environment, which serves the interest of all the people of this great province.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr. Peter Tabuns (Toronto-Danforth): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Friday's quarterly OPG report demolishes the claims of your Chief Energy Conservation Officer, Peter Love. In

his report, Mr. Love attributed a decline in power usage to your government's conservation efforts. But OPG president, Jim Hankinson, says that along with more moderate weather, "the decline in activity in some sectors of the economy also held

down the overall demand for power." Your very weak efforts were not even mentioned.

Minister, will you admit that just about the only thing you've done to reduce demand for power is to eliminate 136,000 good-paying manufacturing and resource sector jobs? Will you admit that?

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy): This government has worked hard at bringing conservation in electricity to Ontario. I will remind the member: 57,000 megawatt hours saved annually with

in-house conservation projects; 9,000 megawatt hours saved this summer with the industrial demand response program; 50,000 megawatt hours saved this summer through Hydro's summer challenge -- that's the equivalent of 5,000 homes -- 12,000 megawatt

hours saved exclusively through London Hydro's fridge retirement program.

There's been growth in our economy over the last few years, including the last year. It's the first time where there's been overall growth in the economy that we've seen decreases in the actual rate of growth

in the electricity being used.

Conservation is an enormous challenge. We remain committed to it. That's why we created the conservation bureau. That's why we've invested $2 billion in conservation. That's why we will continue on with this

program. It's important for our health, environment and economy.

Mr. Tabuns: Minister, you can recite as many lists as you want. If you don't have impact, you don't have impact.

OPG is not the only energy body that takes issue with your chief conservation officer. According to the IESO's 18-month outlook -- the report was released on October 2 -- "Despite the record peak demand set

this summer, the reduced energy-intensive industrial load has led to lower energy demand in 2006 and throughout the forecast." In other words, your very weak efforts don't even hit the radar for the IESO.

Will you admit that your conservation plan is a failure, that the only thing you've done to reduce demand is devastate Ontario's manufacturing and resource-based regions?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: This member, who prior to coming here wrote us a letter and applauded our pricing policy --

Interjection: I remember that.

Hon. Mr. Duncan: I remember that. I've got the quote right here.

Let me tell you -- you weren't here so I can't blame you -- your friends who were here at the time all voted against Bill 21, our Energy Conservation Responsibility Act. Mr. Kormos, Mr. Marchese, Mr. Bisson

were here in the early 1990s. Between 1993 and 1995, Ontario Hydro ended all conservation initiatives. For instance, the R-2000 homes, project cancelled; power saver month, project cancelled; refrigerator cashback, project cancelled;

energy-efficient lighting, project cancelled; street lighting, project cancelled.

We have said that achieving a culture of conservation is an enormous undertaking. What we are doing today should have started in the early 1990s. Had it, we'd be much further along. That being said, we are

going to proceed to aggressively pursue energy conservation in the interests of the economy and in --

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

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): I'd like to bring to members' attention, in the members' west gallery we have Bob Frankford, who was the member from Scarborough East in the 35th

Parliament.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): I have a question today for the Minister of Education. On November 6, you came to Oakville to see the great staff and the students at Oakwood Public School.

We were all pleased to see that you were able to visit the school, and we were all able to see that the McGuinty government is reaching every student in Oakville through the investments we've provided in my community. Oakwood Public School is in

the heart of the Kerr area of Oakville. It offers a number of great initiatives, including the Breakfast for Learning program and the all-star reading program. It's got one of the best parent involvements in all of Oakville.

During your visit, you met with members of the Halton board and the Halton Catholic board. After the visit, I heard great positive feedback from those who met you. They feel that finally there is a government

that is listening to what is happening in our community.

As you know, one of the topics you discussed was the issue of growth. Can you share with this House some of the investments that the McGuinty government has made to address the concern of growth?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne (Minister of Education): Thank you to the member for Oakville. It was a great pleasure to visit Oakwood, and I will always remember that little stair climber in the

reading resource room; I think that is a brilliant idea for kids who need to blow off some steam.

We've made a number of investments in Halton, including about a 4% increase in transportation to both the public and the Catholic boards. But the Halton board is a classic poster child for one of the problems

with the funding formula when we were elected. In the way boards were able to expand and build new schools, the funding really was only generated for boards that were expanding evenly across their jurisdiction. There was a problem with boards that

had pockets of growth. So one of the major changes we've made that has benefited Halton is that we've created a new grant in the funding formula called the growth schools grant. What we've done is, we've listened to the boards that were having

this issue of one area growing and one area of declining enrolment, and we changed the way the funding mechanism works so that in this growth schools grant, this year we are going to provide $10 million that will support $137 million of new school

construction that will specifically address boards like Halton.

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

Ms. Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): The McGuinty government is clearly reaching every student across Ontario, from Oakville to my riding of Nipissing. You recently came to the great riding of

Nipissing, and during that time we visited four different school boards, four different schools. We visited Almaguin Highlands Secondary School in Sundridge; we visited Saint-Thomas-D'Aquin in Astorville, St. Theresa's in Callander and

l'Odyssée in North Bay. The tour was a tremendous success and the feedback has been great. All were so impressed by your commitment and your knowledge of the field. The investments the McGuinty government is making in my riding are certainly

making a difference in boosting student achievement.

Minister, you will remember Almaguin Highlands Secondary School; it was one of the schools we visited. There's been much talk about Almaguin of late because it is, as you know, on the prohibitive-to-repair

list. This school services the southern part of my riding. It offers many student success initiatives and has a strong focus on the technical field. Can you tell this House some of the investments that we're making with respect to new schools and

what the process is for dealing with some of our older schools such as Almaguin?

Hon. Ms. Wynne: It's really easy to be enthusiastic about public education in this province when you see arts programs like Peter Camani's classroom and the cooking classroom of Kelly Maki.

They are just fantastic teachers doing just a great job.

The issue of prohibitive-to-repair is the one I want to address, because it specifically speaks to the issue in Nipissing. The age of some of the facilities and the fact that some repairs haven't been done

have meant that there are schools where it would cost more to replace the school than to build a new one. There is currently a list of schools that has been prepared across the province. What the ministry is doing right now is talking to the

boards around the province to make sure that the schools that should be on that list are indeed on that list. What we'll do is, once that list has been vetted and we understand that the correct schools are on the list, the boards will be able to

apply for funding to retire schools on the list. They will be able to replace the school on the same site or nearby, replace several schools with one new school, or close the school and expand into new facilities. That process is underway now.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): My question is for the Minister of Health. Since the introduction of Bill 102, we have said that your drug reform bill was all about cost

containment and not about improved access for patients to drugs. We are now hearing from hundreds of retired federal public servants who have been contacting us to express their shock that the provincial government is going to discriminate against

them by denying them the same benefits under the ODB plan that apply to all other retirees. You are going to ask them to foot the bill for their drugs when they purchase them, and then they're going to have to seek reimbursement from the federal

plan, which will only cover 80% of their costs.

I ask you, today, Minister, in response to the hundreds of letters that we are receiving: Why are you discriminating against these federal pensioners while the others are still going to have full coverage?

Hon. George Smitherman (Deputy Premier, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'd like to take this opportunity just at the beginning of my response to welcome all those doctors who are here

as part of the Ontario Medical Association's Doctor Day.

Indeed, we have sought to gain the same result from the federal government vis-à-vis their employees as the federal government employees enjoy in Quebec and Nova Scotia. This would be an equitable

quo -- federal employees, that is -- in terms of their current benefits and also costs. But I do acknowledge that we are working to try and obtain a greater degree of support from the federal government for the responsibility of providing drug

benefits to their pensioners in line with what they're doing with respect to the provinces of Quebec and Nova Scotia. Our motivation here entirely is equity for Ontarians, with equitable access for those pensioners, and we'll work to ensure that

that is what occurs.

Mrs. Witmer: If it's equity you're looking for, if you look at the

article in the Ottawa Citizen on November 1, yes, Nova Scotia and Quebec did take similar steps. However, they shifted the

cost not just to the federal government; they shifted the cost to all employers, and they didn't single out just federal pensioners.

So I ask you again, Minister: What are you prepared to do in order to make sure that these federal pensioners are not made to feel like second-class citizens in the province of Ontario and be forced to pick up

part of their drug costs that are not going to be reimbursed by the federal plan?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: In the latter part of my answer, I already committed to that. But what I didn't hear from the honourable member was a commitment on her part to support an initiative

that's designed to ensure that the people of the province of Ontario, all of them, are receiving the same degree of financial support vis-à-vis the federal government in its responsibilities to its pensioners. The matter at hand is a matter

of tens of millions of dollars, and we seek here in Ontario to be able to use those resources to expand access to a broader range of drugs. I would say on this point that although Bill 102 has only very recently passed, we are already in a

position in our province to bring in new drugs to the formulary.

But again, I tell the honourable member that it's completely our intention to ensure that federal pensioners are receiving exactly the same circumstances as we go forward, only we are seeking the federal

government to play a bigger role in sharing those costs, consistent with what they're doing in other provinces, because we think this is important equity on behalf of all the people in Ontario.

INJURED WORKERS

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): My question is for the Deputy Premier. Before the last election, Liberal MPPs promised workers that a Liberal government would restore cost-of-living

indexing to workers' compensation cheques. Three years have come and gone since then and injured workers are still waiting for that promise to be kept. Deputy Premier, will the McGuinty government keep its promise to injured workers and introduce

legislation to index the compensation payments that injured workers receive?

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

Hon. Steve Peters (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, perhaps she should look to her right and look down in front as to who started the downward spiral for injured worker benefits in this

province. We can look with pride to the work that Bill Wrye and the Liberal government put in place, and then in 1994, the NDP introduced the Friedland formula. So judge not. That was further accelerated by the Conservative Party in 1998. So look

at yourself in the mirror, I say to the honourable member, and look at who has caused this dilemma that the injured workers find themselves in.

We've been working very closely with the injured workers' groups and the WSIB. One of the first things that we did when we took office was to bring the affairs of the WSIB to order. I commend the WSIB for the

efforts that they've made. We've seen increases that were put in place on January 1 --

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

Ms. Horwath: The minister claims to be working closely with injured workers. What he would know is that injured workers don't want more finger pointing; they want their cheques protected from

inflation. That's what they want.

Since your government has done nothing to address this issue, I'm going to be introducing a New Democratic Party private member's bill which is going to index WSIB for injured workers to the cost of living.

Minister, why is the McGuinty government leaving it to a private member of the New Democratic Party to introduce indexing for injured workers through cost-of-living legislation, when you should and could have brought forward similar legislation

yourself, which is exactly what injured workers want?

Hon. Mr. Peters: I just can't believe this member, that the party that really put it to the injured workers is now standing up and trying to be their biggest advocate. We have been working

very closely with the WSIB. As an example, we've seen changes made to the rates for injured workers' expenses: a 10% increase in transportation allowance; a 2.6% increase in personal care and independent living; guide dog and support dog

allowances; maximum clothing allowance increases from $255 to $500; elimination of a room and board allowance; and the removal of the $600 cap. As well, we've moved forward on our initiative to bring the financial affairs of the WSIB in order,

something that you had no handle on at all when you were in government. We're very conscious of it.

I would say to the honourable member that we do have a new chair in place at the WSIB. I've had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Mahoney, the new chair of the WSIB, and I've asked Mr. Mahoney to bring forward

to me options as to how we can go forward to further improve benefits for injured workers.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Today is National Child Day. It's a day that marks the adoption in Canada of the

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1993. This year's theme is "The Right to Be Heard!" and calls on all Canadians to listen to the voices and ideas of children and their participation in society.

The McGuinty government strongly supports children in Ontario. The Ministry of Children and Youth Services was created by the McGuinty government in 2003 to better coordinate that support. The Best Start plan

is a good example of how this commitment is being turned into tangible action in our communities across the province. Minister, could you give us an update on the status of the Best Start plan?

Hon. Mary Anne V. Chambers (Minister of Children and Youth Services): I'm very pleased to have this opportunity not just to recognize National Child Day but also to thank my colleague the

member for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex not just for her advocacy but also for her leadership for early learning and child care in rural areas. In fact, her success rate and the success being enjoyed by her communities is really quite admirable; it's

outstanding. They are at almost 90% of their three-year target in the first year of the early learning and child care expansion initiative in this province. That is as a result of their commitment to their kids and my colleague's leadership. We

will be expanding that program with more child care subsidies, more programs to engage communities in lower --

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

Mrs. Van Bommel: Thank you for your kind words. Certainly, as a grandmother and a parent in a rural community, trying to raise children in a rural community, I understand how very important

the Best Start program has been to my riding and how appreciated it is by the parents of the communities in my riding. But also, Minister, Best Start is really only one example of what this government is doing in supporting children in Ontario. I

was wondering if you could tell us what other programs and initiatives your ministry is pursuing to improve outcomes and success for Ontario's children.

Hon. Mrs. Chambers: As an example, children are being diagnosed for hearing impairment at the age of four months now, not two and a half years, as it used to be. That's very significant. More

than 4,800 more kids are receiving complex needs care and therapies through our children's treatment centres. Kids with autism are no longer being discharged from IBI services at age six, which is what the previous government had provided in terms

of services for them. In fact, right now, approximately 60% of the kids receiving IBI services are aged six or over in this province. We have extended the powers of the provincial auditor to protect kids who are in the care of our children's aid

societies. We have introduced and passed legislation which will be proclaimed at the end of this month, again, to provide more permanency for children in care, more accountability for children's aid societies and a more independent, transparent

The Speaker: Thank you. New Question.

COAL-FIRED GENERATING STATIONS

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, we're going to try this again. Your Premier used the shield of so-called expert testimony

to justify a policy that has proven to be unattainable and ridiculous. What the people of Ontario are now asking is for you to follow though on your commitment to give the names of those so-called experts who led you to believe that this was a

doable thing, because the change in energy policy as a result of your failed commitment has cost the people of Ontario billions of dollars.

Minister, you told a standing committee of this Legislature -- you are quoted in Hansard -- that you would provide the names of those people. Will you do as you told the standing committee under testimony and

provide those names, or admit that they were all made up, that they don't exist? What is it, Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy): What the people of Ontario are calling for is an elimination of coal-fired generation, and we are moving in that direction. We acknowledge and accept

responsibility for the fact that the dates we set out were difficult to achieve. We're moving forward in a fashion that will close the plants. We sought the assistance of the independent Ontario Power Authority. Our plan is clean air; their plan

is coal forever. We've had enough of that. We're going to continue to work towards achieving the policy objective of eliminating coal-fired generation in Ontario.

Mr. Yakabuski: Minister, this question is not about policy; it is about honesty and integrity and respect for this Legislature. You told a standing committee on September 26 -- you're quoted

in Hansard -- that you as the Minister of Energy would undertake to provide those names. This is not about your energy policy. We can debate that another time, and I can assure you we will. This is about your honesty, your integrity and your

respect for this Legislature. We have visitors from another country. Show them that when you make a commitment to members of this body, you will follow through. Provide those names or admit once and for all that you made the whole thing up, that

you will say anything, that you will do anything if it means a vote for the Liberal Party here in the province of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Duncan: I can assure you that air quality is not made up. I can assure you that climate change is not made up. I can assure you, unlike the member opposite, that we will continue to

pursue the challenge of elimination of coal-fired generation. We are bringing to bear all of the resources available to us to do that in a timely fashion that protects the integrity of Ontario's electricity system. It's time to keep moving

forward. We've got a 17% reduction already, and we're going to continue to move in that direction. We believe that it's in the public interest from a health and environmental perspective, and we will continue to work to achieve that very noble

goal.

CHILD ADVOCATE

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Today is National Child Day. The McGuinty government pays lip service to the needs of

Ontario children, but has yet to fulfill its promise of an independent child advocate. The McGuinty government promised this would happen as far back as 2004. So my question is very simple: Why has the McGuinty government broken its promise to

children? Why doesn't Ontario have an independent child advocate?

Hon. Mary Anne V. Chambers (Minister of Children and Youth Services): I thank the member from Hamilton East for her question and for her genuine interest in this matter. I am going to be

encouraging you to provide us with the support we will need for very speedy passage of this legislation, which I am anticipating will be coming forward in the very, very near future.

Ms. Horwath: I appreciate the minister's desire to get the legislation forward, but that desire has not been fulfilled over the past several years, and I'm really wondering who it is that's

holding up this legislation from coming forward. The reality is that children and youth in Ontario have no one independently overseeing their issues and concerns, no one to tell you to stop clawing back the national child benefit from low-income

kids.

Your government promised independence for the children's advocate, but you didn't deliver. When -- and I don't want to hear "in the near future"; let's have a detailed date -- will you finally keep your

promise and give the children's advocate full independence, as you promised?

Hon. Mrs. Chambers: I'll not repeat my previous answer because my previous answer still stands. But I noticed with interest a member from the opposition applauding when, in fact, the primary

reason why our government felt it was necessary to introduce this legislation is because her party, the Tories, were muzzling the advocate. That's not how we protect the interests of children in this province. But I can assure you that the member

from Hamilton East has a genuine commitment, and, on my part, that we will see this legislation in the very near future.

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Due to the fact that the Minister of Energy would not even address --

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): That's not a point of order. We don't play games during --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Yes, and you may file for a late show at the table according to the standing orders any time you want before 5 o'clock.

New question.

MANDATORY RETIREMENT

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Last December, an historic bill, Bill 211, was passed in this Legislature. For those who don't

remember, Bill 211 was all about putting an end to mandatory retirement in Ontario. It will come into effect in less than one month, on December 12, 2006, and will finally bring an end to discrimination against our older workers.

Minister, forcing people to retire when they reach an arbitrary age is wrong; 65 is not what it used to be, and by no means have we reached our expiration date by that time. Some of the most active volunteers

in my riding are seniors over the age of 65. They still have a lot to give, and prove it with their contributions. When I talk to them at events in the riding, these men and women tell me that, while they enjoy the satisfaction of volunteering,

many of them miss the joys and challenges of their old positions as teachers, civil servants and the like.

For many of us, work is more than a paycheque. It provides a sense of self worth, a purpose and, in the case of older, experienced workers, a chance to mentor and guide. Minister, as we approach December 12,

please remind this House why our government chose to abolish mandatory retirement.

Hon. Steve Peters (Minister of Labour): I want to thank the member from Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh for his question. It's a very simple answer: It is the right thing to do. We made a

commitment to end the practice of discriminatory mandatory retirement in this province because it is wrong to force capable, experienced and knowledgeable citizens to stop working merely because they've reached a particular age. Somebody's skills

or abilities do not stop once they turn age 65. Furthermore, society should not lose the benefit of skilled and experienced workers and those benefits that they can bring to workplaces.

Mandatory retirement is an outdated concept in our modern society, in which we live longer and healthier lives. Our government believes that all Ontarians deserve the right to choose when they want to retire,

not just a few, such as politicians and the self-employed. As of December 12, 2006, Ontarians 65 years or older will have the choice to continue working if they so choose. Many will choose not to, as they do now. While the trend for early

retirement is growing, we believe that all Ontarians should have that right to choose when to retire.

Mr. Brownell: Thank you, Minister, for reminding us of one more way in which our government has improved the lives of ordinary Ontarians. I know that my constituents are pleased that this

government values the contributions of older, experienced workers. In fact, many of my constituents who are in this category, some of whom have been forced to retire, have a lot to say on this subject.

I have been to a number of retirement parties where the honourees have indicated that they would like to stay around a bit longer, that they felt they still had something to contribute. It is even more

difficult for those who have turned 65 since Bill 211 received royal assent last year. Were it not for the one-year transition period, these individuals may have been able to keep working, ensuring that there was one more much-needed nurse in a

hospital or educator in a classroom.

Minister, the one-year transition period has been a great disappointment to the many workers who find themselves celebrating their 65th birthdays before December 12, 2006. Could you explain why you chose to

impose a one-year transition period instead of allowing this legislation to take effect immediately last year?

Hon. Mr. Peters: I want to thank the member for the question. It is a good question. We chose a one-year transition because we had to give employers an opportunity to prepare for the date of

December 12, 2006. We recognized that mandatory retirement would require a shift in attitude and a shift in practice. Some employers, for instance, may have had to adapt their human resources policies and practices to comply with the new

legislation; others needed to discuss changes to collective agreements. Our government thoroughly considered all of the issues and concerns before embarking on this legislation and we proceeded in a manner that was fair and reasonable. For this

reason, the act was chosen to have the one-year transition for royal assent. I understand that some individuals are not happy, but we had to put the one-year transition in place to ensure that everything was in place.

I can assure the member that there's nothing stopping employers from voluntarily allowing their workers to continue working beyond the age of 65 prior to that December 12 date. The transition period was

necessary in order for us to be adequately prepared --

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

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mrs. Christine Elliott (Whitby-Ajax): My question is for the Attorney General. On April 26, 2006, during first reading of Bill 107, your proposed human rights reform legislation, you said, "We

would ensure that, regardless of levels of income, abilities, disabilities or personal circumstances, all Ontarians would be entitled to share in receiving equal and effective protection of human rights, and all will receive that full legal

representation."

Last week, in what was described by a presenter at the Bill 107 committee hearings as a public hearing by ambush, you announced certain amendments to be tabled by your government, including an amendment

regarding a proposed human rights legal support centre. As taken from your website, the proposed amendment reads, "The minister would establish a Human Rights Legal Support Centre to provide a range of services including information, support,

advice, assistance and legal representation."

Minister, the way this amendment is worded is vague at best. Will this amendment guarantee that all Ontarians will receive full legal representation by a lawyer, as promised?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Economic Development and Trade, minister responsible for women's issues): Michael, remind them about the bully bill.

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General): In the supplementary I'll remind them about the bully bill.

As members know, the rules applying to the submission of amendments require not that they be introduced on the first day of public hearings, but rather that they be introduced, subject to certain timelines, in

advance of clause-by-clause. It was in the interest of being able to discuss and debate and have people appearing before the committee consider the amendments that we introduced those amendments in advance of clause-by-clause. It was for that very

reason that we did something that, when the Conservatives were in power, they never did, which was to put those amendments before the committee. Not only did the Conservative government not put amendments before the committee in advance, but they

didn't even bother having any public hearings for any of their bills. So it is precisely because we did this that the member is able to ask her question right now and, to answer the member's question, yes, that's what I said when I introduced the

bill and I stand beside those words.

VISITORS

Mr. Vic Dhillon (Brampton West-Mississauga): I would just like to introduce some friends who are here in the gallery today: Gurminder Gill, Jujhar Mahal, Davinder Khannewala, Gurpal Singh,

Pinky Boparai, Ravi and Gurpreet Chohan.

PETITIONS

HEALTH PREMIUMS

Mr. Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas, according to the Department of National Defence, there are over 30,000 serving military personnel calling Ontario home; and

"Whereas, according to the most recent census data, there are more than 1.6 million senior citizens over the age of 65 living in Ontario; and

"Whereas the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario plans on eliminating this ... tax for all Ontarians after it forms the government in 2007; and

"Whereas, as an interim measure, the ... health tax should be removed from those who protect Canada and those who have built Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, call on the government of Ontario to immediately eliminate the ... health tax, beginning with serving military personnel and senior citizens."

I've also signed this.

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly. It comes from the Newcomer Women's Services of Toronto. I'd like to thank especially Gordon Crann and

Libby Ackerman for their help in gathering the signatures. It reads as follows:

"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'm pleased to affix my signature in support of this petition and ask Page Or to carry it for me.

PROSTATE CANCER

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): It's a pleasure to present a petition today on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Durham, which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas prostate specific antigen (PSA) tests are frequently used to screen patients for prostate conditions, including cancer; and

"Whereas there is currently a double standard because men usually pay to have a PSA test as part of a routine medical examination, while women have all cancer screening tests covered by OHIP;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, urge the province of Ontario to review its policy on funding PSA testing for men with a view to including this as a service wholly covered by OHIP," and therefore not

discriminating in any way for access to health care in Ontario.

I'm pleased to sign and endorse this and present it to Daniel.

POVERTY

Ms. Cheri DiNovo (Parkdale-High Park): I'm pleased to present this petition on behalf of Parkdale Collegiate Institute, the majority of whose students brought this to our attention. It

says:

"Whereas Canada is one of the richest nations, and yet it has one of the worst records on poverty of all the developed nations. According to Statistics Canada, 14.4% of children in Ontario live in poverty. We

want to know what you, as our government, will do to end poverty in Ontario; and

"We ask that you bring in the $10 minimum wage now."

Of course I agree with this petition, and I'm happy to affix my signature.

BORDER SECURITY

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly in support of measures to preserve cross-border travel. I especially want to thank the clients and

staff of Inter-Cultural Neighbourhood Social Services in Mississauga for having submitted this petition. It reads as follows:

"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 the 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-level 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 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 elected representatives in Canada."

This is an excellent petition. I'm pleased to affix my signature and to ask page Andrew to carry it for me.

MACULAR DEGENERATION

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

"Whereas age-related macular degeneration ... 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'm pleased to sign my name to this and present it to Kelsea to give back to the table.

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): I have a petition:

"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 affix my signature.

LONG-TERM CARE

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

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

increase operating funding to long-term-care homes by $306.6 million, which will allow the hiring of more staff to provide an additional 20 minutes of care per resident per day over the next two years (2006 and 2007)."

This is presented in the context of Bill 140 on long-term care. I'm pleased to sign and support it, and I hand it to Sarah on their behalf.

COMMUNITY MEDIATION

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I have another petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly in support of community mediation, and I especially want to thank Jennifer Leung for having

organized these signatures. She's from Starwood Drive in Mississauga. It reads as follows:

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

"Whereas Inter-Cultural Neighbourhood Social Services established the Peel Community Mediation Service in 1999 with support from the government of Ontario through the Trillium Foundation, the Rotary Club of

Mississauga West and the United Way of Peel, and has proven the viability and success of community mediation; and

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

alternative to a court dispute; and

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

greater than the small annual cost of funding community mediation;

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

Inter-Cultural Neighbourhood Social Services."

I support this petition and I'm pleased to affix my signature and to once again ask page Or to carry it for me.

LANDFILL

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): This is with regard to the Carp landfill site in west Ottawa.

"Whereas there is currently a proposal to more than double the size of the Carp landfill in west Ottawa; and

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

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

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

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

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

instead to find other waste management alternatives."

I have signed that because I agree with it.

TUITION

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I have a petition from hundreds of people, and it reads, "To Stop Tuition Fee Hikes and Improve Access and Quality In Post-Secondary Education....

"Whereas the Ontario Liberal government cancelled the tuition fee freeze after only two years and approved fee increases of up to 36% over the next four years; and

"Whereas tuition fees in Ontario have increased by more than four times the rate of inflation over the past 15 years; and

"Whereas a majority of Ontarians oppose tuition fee increases and support greater public funding for colleges and universities; and

"Whereas improvements to student financial assistance are undermined by fee increases; and

"Whereas the Ontario government's recent increase to student loan limits is set to push student debt to approximately $28,000 for a four-year program; and

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

"Therefore we, the undersigned, support the Canadian Federation of Students' call to stop tuition fee hikes and petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to:

" -- reduce tuition fees to 2004 levels for all students in Ontario and implement an immediate tuition fee freeze;

" -- increase public funding for post-secondary education to promote access and quality;

" -- expand access to financial aid in Ontario, especially for part-time students; and

" -- double the number of upfront, need-based grants for Ontario students."

I support this petition and I will sign it.

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

Mr. Bas Balkissoon (Scarborough-Rouge River): I have a petition 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 support this petition, and I will sign it and have page Shannon deliver it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ELECTORAL SYSTEM

REFERENDUM ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LE RÉFÉRENDUM

RELATIF AU SYSTÈME ÉLECTORAL

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 16, 2006, on the motion for second reading of Bill 155,

An Act to provide for a referendum on Ontario's electoral system / Projet de loi 155, Loi prévoyant

un référendum sur le système électoral de l'Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate?

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I believe I'm just wrapping up from where I left off when time ran out on me last week. In closing, what I want to say about this particular bill is that it

might be premature to judge whether it's going to propose this system or that system, or whether we agree with this method of selecting elected representatives or that method of selecting representatives. This is a bill not about the outcome. This

is a bill that says, "This is how we're going to go about doing something we haven't done before," which is, for the first time in many, many years, looking at how we choose our elected representatives.

Like many of the members here, I have very strong opinions, as an elected representative who's had his hands on the system and who I hope understands some of its strengths and weaknesses, on what some

proposals will or won't do and what some of their strengths and some of their drawbacks are. But I think this bill is a fair opportunity to put the debate out there and to say to people, "Bring out your best ideas. Lay them all out. Give them to

the citizens' panel," and let us see non-judgmentally what they come up with. If it's a good idea, maybe it's something we should adopt. If they decide that what we've got is what many of us here feel is one of the best systems for choosing

elected representatives in the world, and they choose to say, "Let well enough alone," many of us here would support that. But I think at this point we've left it in the hands of the citizens' assembly. I'm looking forward to their recommendations

and to debating them in the House when we've actually seen those recommendations.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): I'm here this afternoon primarily out of respect for the work our member for Lanark-Carleton, Norm Sterling, has put into this issue, and for his long service here

and his broad understanding of the issues before us with respect to, I would say, the whole discussion on democratic renewal.

Everyone here would encourage and really strongly endorse stronger participation by all the citizens of Ontario. Indeed, the recent municipal election is good evidence that some of them suffer a shocking lack

of turnout -- the public participation rate. Then you look at demographic questions. The youth: We want to encourage the youth to carry their responsibilities and indeed their rights forward and encourage them to be engaged both in elected office

and in participating in elections within their schools. I know some of the schools in my area will be having discussions on this topic.

Mr. Sterling brings a great deal of experience as a lawyer as well as an engineer, and as a long-time-service member here in the Legislature, he knows much of what he speaks. But I'm concerned about a couple

of issues which have been repeatedly brought up, and I'm not sure -- I think the government, Mrs. Bountrogianni, didn't even take their entire hour for leadoff. I'm anxious to see if Mr. Sterling takes the hour. If he does, I probably won't be

here. But the issue I find the most difficult is that the results of the referendum -- here's the deal, here's the trick to it all: If the recommendations are 60% approved -- so the threshold has become the issue, that 60%-plus, when normally in

democratic discussions, decisions are made on 50%-plus-one type of rules.

So I'm interested in the debate. We all should be interested in the debate. I don't think there's any magic answer here, but certainly democracy is something that our soldiers have fought for. At least the

politicians could be prepared to listen to make sure that we get this system right. I'm looking forward to Mr. Sterling's comments this afternoon.

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I wonder whether the member from Mississauga West would like to comment on a similar point made by the member from Durham, that the select committee on

electoral reform submitted in November 2005 a report that recommended that the government set the threshold for a referendum at at least 50% plus one in 50% of the ridings, which seemed to me like a very reasonable conclusion that all three

political parties came to and submitted to the government.

The other point we make is that, thanks to the current voting system, most majority governments in Canada gain power without winning a majority of votes. We had McGuinty Liberals win with 46.6% of the votes in

2003. The Harris government won 45% of the votes in 1995 and 1999. It would seem to me that a simple majority should be the norm, or at least what we accept, yet the government, by fiat, just a little while ago -- "the referendum is binding if the

recommended electoral system is selected in,

"(

a) at least 60% of all the valid referendum ballots cast; and

"(

b) more than 50% of the valid referendum ballots cast in" 60% of the ridings, which means at least 64 electoral districts.

I think that raising the threshold in the way that your government is doing makes it very difficult to arrive at the kind of conclusion -- or at least to arrive at changes that so many, I think, are looking

for. If that is true, why have you opted for this double super-majority threshold, where there aren't that many precedents for such a high threshold in provincial or federal referendums or plebiscites? If a simple majority was applied in

referendums and the Charlottetown accord and Newfoundland joining Confederation, including the separation of Quebec, why wouldn't it be okay in this case? You might want to comment on that.

Ms. Deborah Matthews (London North Centre): This is very exciting and very historic legislation. It is high time we took a good, hard look at the way we elect our representatives. The current

system, in my opinion, was designed for a two-party system.

I live in the riding of London North Centre. We have got a federal by-election going on now where there are four strong contenders. I tell you, what's happening is that people are thinking about how to vote

strategically. They're thinking about who they should vote for, not based on who they want to see elected but who they don't want to see elected. That kind of system I just don't think works in the multi-party system we currently have.

So I welcome this legislation. I think it's tremendously exciting. I think all members of this House should be proud that they are taking

part in what is historic. I do say that it is essential that any

changes to what is the true foundation of democracy in Ontario receive strong support from the public. I am fully supportive of the thresholds outlined in this bill, because I think that only by setting up a relatively high threshold will we have

public buy-in, will we settle the issue for a long time -- not once and for all, but for a long time.

While I think there's real support for the notion that we take a look at our voting system, I also do think that the public will pay attention. If the citizens' assembly comes up with a proposal that is good

and solid and fair, the public will rise to the challenge and endorse it.

I'm very proud to be part of a government that put this kind of change as a priority, and we'll certainly be supporting it.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm pleased to take

part in the debate today. I have no problem, as an elected member, looking at legislation or looking into new or innovative ideas and

how we might have some type of electoral reform. But I can tell you that in this House and in the province of Ontario, I believe we've had a very stable political system since the beginning of Confederation. The citizens of Ontario get an

opportunity -- I guess now it will be every four years with the changes in legislation that allows the set times for elections. The stability we've seen in the system is something that I don't really want to gamble with.

There's also an opportunity here to create a system which may cause some chaos down the road to a province that I believe has been run very well since the beginning of Confederation. Yes, we have had different

parties over the years. The previous member talked about the current system being set for a two-party system; however, in the last 15 years in this House we've had three majority governments: the Progressive Conservative Party, the New Democratic

Party and now the Liberal Party of Ontario. The people of Ontario had the opportunity to vote for that. They voted for change in each of those cases. We ended up with a government that in some cases did a good job and was re-elected, and at other

times they were tossed out.

I'm afraid that although we look at this legislation and think these wonderful things are going to happen, we do risk the stability that we have in the system.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Mississauga West, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. Delaney: I want to thank my colleague from Simcoe North. I personally echo many of his statements, but this isn't, at this stage, what we think about the outcome. This is a question now of

the process.

The member for Durham asked about the lack of a turnout. He said, "Do you get better results if more people vote?" In the 1995 Quebec referendum, some 95% of people voted. We were glad of the result, but

wouldn't you have been a little bit more comfortable with a super-majority threshold before you lost your country?

It is said in software, which is where I came from, that decisions are made by people who show up. If you show up and you cast your vote and you exercise your franchise in an election, this is about you. If

you don't cast your vote, there isn't much in the way of a democratic measure that we could conceive of that's going to make a great deal of difference to you.

My colleagues from Trinity-Spadina and, to an extent, London North Centre talked about the benefits or perceived drawbacks of the first-past-the-post system. By way of commentary, I'll say this about the

first-past-the-post system: One should never lose track of its most breathtaking benefit, which is its ability to defeat incumbents and, in so doing, provide the renewal and the change that all Legislatures need from time to time. In the debate

about what should or shouldn't be, we should be very careful not to institute a system that constitutes nothing but statism and the preservation of the status quo.

In commenting on the degree to which it should be passed by 50% plus one or a super-majority, again I point out to you that the first Quebec referendum was won by the no side with that super-majority of 60-40.

Would you like to lose your democratic traditions or your country on the basis of less than 1% of the popular vote? I think not.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): For those people who are watching the debate today, we are debating the Electoral System Referendum Act, 2006. This act follows on Bill 62, which

appointed a citizens' assembly to look into various ways of electing MPPs.

As you know, in the past, everyone in this assembly -- all 103 of us -- has been elected by a system known as first past the post, a system where the candidate who gets the most votes on election day, be that

51% of the vote or be it 45% of the vote, as long as that particular candidate has the largest number of votes, wins the day. The question comes, should the candidate have more than 50% of the votes, and what happens to the fact that more people

voted against the candidate rather than for the candidate? That brings the debate here.

Now, this bill does essentially three things. It sets up the mechanism for the referendum by setting a threshold of 60% plus one. Plus, the fact that 50% -- a little bit more than 50%: 64 of 107 ridings, which

we will be having in 2007 -- must vote 60% in favour of this part