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

April 11, 2005

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2005-Apr-11 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 11 April 2005 Lundi 11 avril 2005

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GREENBELT

MEMORY PROJECT

TAXATION

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

BARBRA SCHLIFER

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INQUIRY INTO POLICE

INVESTIGATIONS OF COMPLAINTS

OF SEXUAL ABUSE AGAINST MINORS

IN THE CORNWALL AREA ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 PRÉVOYANT UNE ENQUÊTE

SUR LES ENQUÊTES POLICIÈRES

RELATIVES AUX PLAINTES DE MAUVAIS

TRAITEMENTS D'ORDRE SEXUEL

INFLIGÉS À DES MINEURS

DANS LA RÉGION DE CORNWALL

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FOOD SAFETY

ORAL QUESTIONS

GREENBELT

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION

LOBBYISTS

LABOUR LEGISLATION

AUTISM TREATMENT

GROW BONDS PROGRAM

HIGHWAY 69

FOREST INDUSTRY

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

ROYAL BOTANICAL GARDENS

HYDRO SECURITY DEPOSITS

TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

PETITIONS

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

CONTROL OF SMOKING

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

GASOLINE PRICES

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

STUDENT SAFETY

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

CONTROL OF SMOKING

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

STUDENT SAFETY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MANDATORY GUNSHOT WOUNDS

REPORTING ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LA DÉCLARATION

OBLIGATOIRE DES BLESSURES

PAR BALLE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GREENBELT

Mrs. Julia Munro (York North): Constituents from across my riding have been asking me how the Liberals drew the boundaries of the greenbelt.

Were the lines based on science? Were they drawn to protect sensitive areas? Were the boundaries drawn to protect farmland or to stop urban sprawl? The only honest answer I can give them is that I

do not know. The McGuinty Liberals won't tell us how they drew the boundaries. Often they are unclear on why we even need a greenbelt. Their reasoning seems to vary depending on their audience. The

PC caucus has outlined in this House many examples of arbitrary and ridiculous greenbelt boundaries. Many were drawn without thought, and all were drawn in secret.

My constituents are concerned about the secret process of boundary drawing and the corruption that a secret process risks. They want to know that government

decisions, even if they disagree with them, are made fairly and impartially.

We only have to look to the federal Liberals in Ottawa to see what happens when there is no public oversight of decisions and spending. Let's hope that the

Liberals in Ontario learn from the federal experience that transparency is the best policy.

MEMORY PROJECT

Mr. Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East): It's a pleasure to speak on the Memory Project. The Memory Project is a partnership between the Dominion

Institute and the Ontario Seniors' Secretariat to educate Ontario students about the tremendous price our veterans paid for our freedom. The Memory Project will help ensure that we never forget,

through a number of stories.

The project also works to highlight the many moving personal stories that people endured in their migration to Canada. Many of these people came to Ontario

knowing it is a place of promise and opportunity. This government works every day to ensure that the dream lives on.

I recently read, on the project Web site, one of the stories about the Second World War from Jim, of Mount Albert, Ontario. Here are Jim's recollections of

Carpiquet:

"Somewhere near Bray, we were in reserve, getting reinforcements, laying mines, doing some patrolling and generally thinking how lucky we had been to survive

those first hectic days of June (D-Day ... 1944) wherein we had lost over 450 men, killed, wounded, captured ... in a period of two days. Gone were ... familiar faces, those you knew well and those

you knew by sight or reputation."

Stories like this can be found on the Web site. Memories of the wars and of human experience will live in perpetuity through this project.

TAXATION

Mr. John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): Eighteen months ago, in the 2003 provincial election, Dalton McGuinty looked every taxpayer in the eye more

than 200 times and said, "I won't raise your taxes." He broke that promise and brought in the biggest tax increase in Ontario's history. Now that we're filing our taxes, the millionaire is getting

a 1% provincial income tax increase and the hard-working single mom with two kids is getting whacked with a 24% tax increase.

We don't need any lectures about taxes from self-styled progressives on the Liberal side of the aisle. Even with this new tax, is our health care system getting

any better? No. Liberals refused to create a segregated fund and have diverted much of that money to other ministries, such as $3 million for an exercise video at the Ministry of Tourism and

Recreation, let alone the sewer pipe scandal that has been talked about in this place.

Let me tell you that John Tory will not take one cent out of health care with his plan to scrap this illegal tax. John Tory will replace this incompetent

government with a government that has a plan for health care. John Tory will take a new, constructive approach to our dealings with our federal government and with incoming Prime Minister Stephen

Harper. Stephen Harper makes one, single phone call to the government of Ontario and the Brinks trucks start to head down the 401 to Queen's Park. If Stephen Harper can do that as Leader of the

Opposition, imagine what he would do as Prime Minister of this great country, and what a difference that would mean to our hospitals, our nurses and our doctors.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): I rise today to speak about our government's recent introduction of Bill 183, the Adoption Information

Disclosure Act, an example of the McGuinty mandate to bring Ontario's laws into the 21st century. Fundamentally, Bill 183 distinguishes the right to know from the right to a relationship by

allowing more open access to adoption records for adult adoptees and birth parents.

The Adoption Council of Canada, an umbrella organization for adoption in this country, fully supports Bill 183. As Sandra Scarth, chair of the council, has

stated, "Like all good legislation, Bill 183 supports the will of the majority while providing protection for the minority."

Societal norms and expectations have changed dramatically since 1927, when Ontario's adoption disclosure system was last amended. Because of our government's

reforms, thousands of people who were adopted in Ontario will soon be able to have more information about their personal histories.

Our proposed legislative amendments to the Child and Family Services Act and the Vital Statistics Act balance the right to know with the individual's right not

to be contacted. We're giving Ontario's adoptees something most people take for granted in our society; that is, the ability to know their own identity and to know their own history.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): As each day passes, one thing becomes more and more apparent to the voting public, the

hard-working people who dutifully pay their way so that government can provide the services that people need. What they expect in return is honesty and integrity. What they are getting is neither.

What has become painfully apparent to them is this: Liberals, whether they govern in Ottawa or in Toronto, just can't be trusted.

In Ottawa, we learn more details each day about how the federal Liberal government has taken tax dollars and used compliant agencies to filter that money back to

the Liberal Party. The people of Canada are outraged, as well they should be. In that same vein, here in Ontario the McGuinty government has earned the title of world's worst promise-breakers.

They promised not to raise taxes; they have broken that promise. They promised to maintain hydro rates; they have broken that promise. They promised openness and

transparency in government; they have broken that promise. They promised to fund autism treatment beyond age six; they have broken that promise. They promised to keep rural schools open; they have

broken that promise. There are many more broken promises too numerous to mention in this statement.

People in my riding of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, and indeed across the province, are saying, "What can we do to get rid of these rascals?" I say to them that

the time will come when we can send the Liberals packing and take the first steps in restoring trust and integrity to government.

BARBRA SCHLIFER

Ms. Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth) Twenty-five years ago today, Barbra Teena Schlifer was returning home after celebrating her call to the

bar of Ontario. It had been a day of dreams fulfilled, and marked the start of an exciting future. Committed to social justice, she and her friends Patricia Ashby and Frances Rapaport planned to

open a law practice that would provide representation to people who were abused, oppressed and marginalized. But that night, Barbra Schlifer was brutally sexually assaulted and murdered in the

basement stairwell of her apartment building. Her senseless death sent shockwaves through Toronto and the country.

Barbra's death forever changed the lives of those who were close to her and increased their commitment to the principles and values they shared with her. Her

friends became determined that she would be remembered for the difference she would have made as a lawyer. They decided to create a clinic in Barbra's honour that would carry on her dedication to

help women affected by violence, and in September 1985 the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic opened its doors.

The clinic was designed as a holistic, comprehensive and coordinated service where women who had experienced violence could receive counselling and legal

services. Twenty years later, the clinic has grown in size and significance. It serves 3,000 women a year. In addition, the clinic is active in public education, training and advocacy on a wide

range of issues on behalf of women survivors.

On this 25th anniversary of her death, we pay tribute to the memory of Barbra Schlifer. We reflect on the woman she was and how her life was cut short by

violence, and we reflect on how the doors to the clinic that was created to commemorate her remain open because so much remains to be done to end male violence against women, which cost Barbra her

life and continues to take the lives of too many women.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Wayne Arthurs (Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge): I rise today to speak about this government's commitment to ensuring the continuing strength of the

province's automotive industry, ignored by the former government, and to building the most skilled and productive workforce in North America, sadly neglected by the former government.

Recently, the Minister of Economic Development and Trade and the Premier announced Ontario's participation in General Motors' $2.5-billion Beacon project. As

part of the McGuinty government's Ontario automotive investment strategy, we invested $235 million to support General Motors. On their end, General Motors is committed to maintaining jobs over a

total footprint in a single jurisdiction. That means they're making a commitment to all of their plants in Ontario, which is good news for communities such as Oshawa, St. Catharines, Ingersoll and

Windsor.

More than that, this investment by GM is good news for the entire province. The province of Ontario depends on the auto sector to drive our overall wealth and

prosperity.

Michael Worswick of the Waterloo Centre for Automotive Research said, "The only way that we can remain competitive is through technology," and this announcement

helps do that. As a result of this announcement, Oshawa will be able to design, build and test cars in a way that only exists in Detroit at the moment.

The future of the automotive industry is innovation. With this announcement, the McGuinty government is ensuring that Ontario will be at the forefront of a

globally competitive industry that drives our economy.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): There isn't a day goes by that I don't read something about the crisis our farmers are in. In my

riding, I have oilseed and grain producers, livestock and poultry farmers, fruit and vegetable producers and, yes, even sugar beet farmers, who work very hard every day to ensure that Ontarians

have fresh food for their tables.

We have seen farmers descend upon Queen's Park to express their frustration with the current situation. The crisis they are facing is one that resulted from

years of poor government leadership and lack of vision.

Fortunately, there was some good news for farmers last week. Last week, our Minister of Agriculture made two announcements that will help farmers cope with the

crisis. The McGuinty government is streamlining farmers' retail sales tax exemptions when purchasing eligible food-related goods, services and insurance for their businesses. In addition to the $88

million that was delivered in March, the government is also providing $79 million in funding through the market revenue program to ensure that eligible grain and oilseed producers receive the

provincial government's full share of 40% of the 2004 program benefits prior to spring planting.

This government recognizes and values the contribution that our agriculture sector makes to the economic and social well-being of every Ontarian. We are fully

committed to working with all members of the industry to create a stronger, more sustainable future for our farmers, food producers and our communities.

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): The leader of the official opposition has been in the House for two weeks now. He knows exactly where his

seat is, but he still seems incapable of providing us with an indication of where he stands on anything. We know how he likes to criticize everything -- and I especially enjoy it when he criticizes

his own party's record -- but, for the life of me, I can't seem to figure out what he stands for. He simply answers questions with lame, stock responses like, "Well, I don't know," or "It's not my

position to know the answer."

This isn't anything new. Back in January, when asked about the infamous 407 deal cooked up by Frank Klees, he said he didn't know the history of the deal well

enough to comment on it -- obviously, the member for Oak Ridges must be hiding his light under a bushel basket in caucus these days. When asked about his position on the OMA deal or new investments

in hospitals, he said, "You should ask the OMA."

The people of Ontario want to know what public health care services John Tory is going to cut to keep his privatization promise to remove $2.4 billion from the

health care budget. They want to know why his party voted against Bill 8, which enshrined accountability in our health care sector. They want to know why he wants to reinstate Jim Flaherty's

ill-conceived private school tax credit.

The leader of the official opposition knows where his seat is. Isn't it about time that he told the people of Ontario where he stands?

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

INQUIRY INTO POLICE

INVESTIGATIONS OF COMPLAINTS

OF SEXUAL ABUSE AGAINST MINORS

IN THE CORNWALL AREA ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 PRÉVOYANT UNE ENQUÊTE

SUR LES ENQUÊTES POLICIÈRES

RELATIVES AUX PLAINTES DE MAUVAIS

TRAITEMENTS D'ORDRE SEXUEL

INFLIGÉS À DES MINEURS

DANS LA RÉGION DE CORNWALL

Mr. Baird moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 185,

An Act to establish a commission to inquire into the investigations by police forces of complaints of sexual abuse against minors in the Cornwall

area / Projet de loi 185, Loi visant à créer une commission chargée d'enquêter sur les enquêtes menées par des corps de police sur les plaintes de mauvais

traitements d'ordre sexuel infligés à des mineurs dans la région de Cornwall.

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

The member from Nepean-Carleton.

Mr. John R. Baird (Nepean-Carleton): A commission was promised during the last election; it was promised when the appeal period ended for the

last case. But we have yet to see an announcement. This bill, which is a repeat of the Gary Guzzo bill -- Gary, who was, of course, the hard-working member for Ottawa West-Nepean, fought so hard on

this issue -- is just a gentle reminder to the government that they made a commitment that should be fulfilled.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from

6:45 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Monday, April 11, 2005, Tuesday, April 12, 2005, and Wednesday, April 13, 2005, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

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

All those against, say "nay."

I think the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1350 to 1355.

The Speaker: The government House leader has moved government notice of motion number 333. All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be

recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Baird, John R.

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jeffrey, Linda

Klees, Frank

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, Dave

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Munro, Julia

Orazietti, David

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Smith, Monique

Sorbara, Gregory S.

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yakabuski, John

Zimmer, David

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

The Deputy Clerk (Ms Deborah Deller): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Craitor --

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Mr. Speaker, what is that?

The Speaker: We added Mr. Craitor. It was an error of the table, and we want to correct that.

All those against, please rise one at a time and be checked by the Clerk.

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Horwath, Andrea

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 62; the nays are 7.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: For the tenants at 355 Melvin, who have been without gas, heat or hot

water for more than five days, I rise to seek unanimous consent for second and third readings of Bill 170, the Fred Gloger Tenant Protection Amendment Act (Vital Services), 2005.

The Speaker: The member from Hamilton East has requested unanimous consent. I heard a no.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FOOD SAFETY

Hon. Steve Peters (Minister of Agriculture and Food): The McGuinty government is committed to the safety of Ontario's food supply. This has

been and continues to be one of our highest priorities. We are determined to support healthier Ontarians and encourage consumer confidence in our products. That is why we commissioned Justice

Roland Haines to conduct a review of Ontario's meat inspection system in January 2004. When his report was released last July, we committed to acting on his recommendations.

Today we are marking another milestone in the significant progress we are making on those recommendations. I'm pleased and proud to announce that we are

establishing the office of the chief veterinarian of Ontario. Dr. Deb Stark will assume the role of chief veterinarian on May 2, 2005.

The chief veterinarian of Ontario will lead animal health and related food safety initiatives for the province, and work co-operatively with our counterparts

in the federal government, other provinces and other ministries, and especially with Ontario's chief medical officer of health, Dr. Sheela Basrur.

We are also realigning the structure of the ministry so that it truly has a new food safety division, a separate and distinct division of the Ministry of

Agriculture and Food. The former Tory government had the opportunity over the past 10 years, but they chose to deliver a scattered approach to food safety. We are cleaning that up. The division

combines the policy, program and operational aspects of food safety, allowing us to provide a truly farm-to-fork food safety system.

Previously, these responsibilities were spread throughout the ministry. With the new division dedicated to food safety, we will be better able to coordinate

policy, scientific activities, inspection, industry education and training, and compliance and enforcement. We also will be better able to coordinate efforts with our counterparts in the provincial

government, other provinces and the federal government.

We are showing a strong commitment to food safety and to the people of this province. We are very proud of our record when it comes to food safety, and we've

made great strides, some of which were begun even before Justice Haines released his report. Here is a short list of our accomplishments:

We proclaimed the Food Safety and Quality Act and introduced new, stronger meat regulations. This addressed Justice Haines's first recommendation, and several

others, including licensing and regulating non-federally registered meat processors.

The first group of meat plants, including those that are currently licensed by the province, will need to comply with the new regulation by June 1, 2005, and

all others by October 2006.

We are providing up to $25 million in transitional assistance over three years to assist processors in meeting those new requirements.

We introduced a new, practical food safety program for small to medium-sized food processors called the HACCP Advantage, which aims to prevent food hazards

before they happen. Two operations are now certified under the program, and more are in progress.

We are providing $4 million to the Ontario Cattlemen's Association to help maintain the province's dead stock collection system to avoid potential

environmental and health hazards.

We are also realigning the structure of the rest of the ministry in order to meet the McGuinty government's commitments and priorities of building strong

communities and fostering innovation and prosperity, to follow through on what we've heard from stakeholders at the Premier's summit last December in preparing for the future, to better align our

efforts to support the full value chain that is the modern Ontario agri-food system, and to make the most of the people and resources we have.

I want to emphasize that there will be no reductions in staff or in our field presence. Our government is simply working smarter with the resources we have.

With this new food structure, we will be better able to work with our partners in the public and private sectors to take directions in the future of Ontario's agri-food industry, new directions

that are going to help move all of us forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Responses?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I would like to address the Minister of Agriculture's announcement today, in which he is responding to the Judge

Haines report and recommendations on the province's meat regulation and inspection system. I'm pleased to see that this government is continuing to build on our government's commitment to

continually strengthening Ontario's food safety system, providing safe food for Ontarians. As a government, we were pleased to introduce the new food safety legislation that would continue to

enhance Ontario's strong food safety system.

We understand the importance of enhancing Ontario's already strong food safety system by continually updating standards and inspection programs by using new

sciences and technologies to minimize risk to both public health and the economy. But I would be remiss if I didn't remind the minister that Judge Haines's report and its 113 recommendations were a

result of the review of meat regulations and inspection. This review was intended by the Liberals to replace the full public inquiry they promised during the election campaign. What can I say?

Another Liberal broken promise.

For everyone's benefit, it is important to recognize that Judge Haines concluded that the meat produced and consumed in Ontario was, for the most part, safe

and free of hazardous contaminants, and I agree that today's announcement will only continue to contribute to what we already agree is most important: quality food for all Ontarians. But I'm

confused: In the 2004 budget, Minister, your government slashed safety net support for crop stabilization by $50 million, a 33% cut, at a time when the Ministry of Agriculture saw their

administrative budget skyrocket by $11 million, or a 68% increase. We allowed meat inspectors to work on contract so they could do their jobs. You've changed the way meat inspectors do business;

they are once again part of the public service. Maybe you've forgotten what it was like the last time the public service went on strike and meat inspectors could not do their job. Should this

happen in the future, our farmers will once again suffer.

I've said before and will say again that our Minister of Agriculture and Food, Steve Peters, was once an advocate for our farmers, but since becoming a member

of the Liberal cabinet, he has turned his back on our farmers. The minister last week made an announcement of $79 million for safety nets but has made no commitments beyond that and into this

planning year. I ask the minister, what is he going to do to help our farmers? It's obvious that he has absolutely no long-term plan. The minister signed the Agriculture Policy Framework just over

a year ago. It was the future of safety net support for our farmers, and I'm hearing from our farmers all over the province that this CAIS program just doesn't work.

The minister's answer is to do another review. How many reviews will it take before our farmers are listened to and given the type of program they require?

Farmers are our number two generator in the Ontario economy -- the auto industry, of course, being number one -- and they deserve some certainty and support from their government. Mr. Speaker, I

ask you again, what is the Minister of Agriculture going to do to support our farmers for the 2005 crop year and for future years? Minister, what is your long-term plan for agriculture in

Ontario?

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I want to respond to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. I too want to draw

attention to the fact that there are 113 recommendations in Judge Haines's report, and I want the minister to remember what he said on July 22, 2004: "I have instructed ministry staff to begin

implementing this report as soon as possible, and I'm calling on everyone involved in food safety to help make this happen." You made it sound then like you would be implementing the whole report.

What we see today is a miniscule piece of the report.

I actually want to read recommendation 111 from Judge Haines: "I recommend that the provincial government consider the establishment of an Ontario food

inspection agency that would assume responsibility for all activities associated with ensuring food safety." Then we have the minister's announcement today, which, frankly, falls far, far short of

what Judge Haynes recommended. He recommended a stand-alone agency with proper funding and mandate. Are we getting that? No. He recommended an independent food inspection agency; he said it would

ensure consumer confidence in our food supply and ensure markets for our producers. Are we getting that? No.

What we we're getting, once again, is a Minister of Agriculture and Food who has no plan for agriculture, no plan for farming, so what he tries to do is

announce and reannounce all sorts of things that still don't amount to a plan. Here, there is no plan for food safety. Despite what Mr. Justice Haines recommended to the government, there is no

plan for food safety. When we take these series of announcements, reannouncements and partial reannouncements, there is no plan for agriculture, no plan for Ontario's farmers.

I want to contrast this with what Premier McGuinty said before and during the election campaign. He said that he had a strategy for Ontario's rural and

agricultural community, that there were going to be investments in the rural and agricultural community, that there were going to be investments to help implement nutrient management issues, that

there were going to be investments in rural infrastructure, that the market for Ontario corn growers, for example, was going to more than double.

All of these promises were made. All of this was in this pre-election statement. What is the situation today? We have ethanol producers in Ontario. Are they

purchasing double the amount of Ontario corn? No. They're importing subsidized corn from Ohio and Michigan.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. There's a lot of chattering in the Legislature today. I'd like to hear the leader of the third party make his response to

the Minister of Agriculture's statement. Could I ask, if you choose to speak, to do it outside?

We'll start the clock again.

Mr. Hampton: As I said, under the McGuinty government, has the market for Ontario corn doubled? Do Ontario corn producers see an increase in

the price for their corn? Do they see more of a market for their corn? No. Ontario corn producers who live within sight of the ethanol plant in Chatham are going broke while that ethanol plant

imports subsidized corn from Ohio and Michigan. That is the reality of what is happening under the McGuinty government.

I say again today that with this announcement Judge Haines provided a very good framework: 113 recommendations for better food safety in Ontario. Do we see the

adoption of a strategy for better food safety in Ontario today? No. Do we see even the adoption of five of Judge Haines's recommendations today? No. No strategy; no plan for farm safety. Do we see

a strategy, a plan for the survival of Ontario's farmers, whether they be beef farmers, grain farmers, oilseed farmers, fruit and vegetable farmers -- do we see this plan that the McGuinty

government promised before the election? No. What we see is beef farmers going broke, oilseed and grain farmers having a very difficult time, fruit and vegetable farmers having a very difficult

time and corn producers going broke while the McGuinty government allows ethanol producers to import subsidized corn from Ohio and Michigan.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GREENBELT

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): A question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: I'm going to send over, via a page, map 6 of your

final greenbelt plan. Let me describe what this map indicates.

On Lake Simcoe, there lies an 800-acre parcel of land that your own greenbelt map identifies as a natural heritage system. That means that virtually the entire

plot of land, according to your own map, is a sensitive wetland and forest. As you can see from your draft greenbelt plan, this project is protected as part of the greenbelt map area. However, in

your final greenbelt map you personally made an exemption to pave over this pristine wetland and forest. Can you tell us why that land is exempted?

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, minister responsible for seniors): Let me just say that what we did was add a

million acres of protected greenbelt land, farmland and environmentally sensitive land for generations to come. We are more than pleased to look at any particular issue this member may have. We

have already offered to that caucus an opportunity to have a full briefing on the greenbelt, the science behind the greenbelt. We're more than prepared to do that. All I can tell you is that we

will certainly take a look at this particular situation. But I can tell you that we had a consultation process that was absolutely second to none. During the greenbelt task force hearings we had at

least eight or nine public hearings, during the legislative process itself, during development of the plan. This bill has had more consultation than just about any other bill coming through this

House, and we are very proud of the greenbelt that we protected for the people of Ontario.

Mr. Hudak: The minister always defaults to tab 1 and talks about how the greenbelt is to protect sensitive areas. We want to make sure that

sensitive areas are protected. That's why I'm asking you here today why you have made an exemption. Why does the Dalton McGuinty government want to pave over an 800-acre property on the shores of

Lake Simcoe that your own maps identify as sensitive wetlands and forest and natural heritage area? Minister, please tell me, how could you make this exemption, and upon what science is your

exemption based? Or is it simply political science?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: First of all, it's that party that voted against the greenbelt legislation. It's that party that doesn't want to protect

the environmentally sensitive lands and the good agricultural farmland in the GTA. This party, while in government, did the right thing. We were the first party in over 30 to 40 years to take a

good hard look at this particular situation. We wanted to deal with the gridlock, we wanted to deal with the sprawl. We did that. We are protecting over 1.8 million acres of land, when you include

the Oak Ridges moraine and the Niagara Escarpment. Exactly the same science was used as was used in developing the Oak Ridges moraine by that government, by that party, about three or four years

ago. We stand by the greenbelt and stand by the science behind the greenbelt, and we are very proud for the generations to come.

Mr. Hudak: Minister, I'm going to send over a couple of photographs of this property, which show the sensitive wetlands and forest that exist

along the shores of Lake Simcoe in Georgina. You talk about gridlock. The only gridlock that exists on this land would be from ducks and from deer. I want to know, we want to know, the general

public wants to know why you have made the decision to pave over this 800-acre pristine wetland. You made the exemption, Minister. I've got to ask you, have you had an individual meeting with the

owners of this property, have your political staff had an individual meeting with the owners of this property or, to your knowledge, did Premier McGuinty have a secret meeting with the owners of

this property?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: First of all, I don't know what property he is specifically talking about. All I can tell you is that it is the policy of

this government that sensitive environmental lands are protected and are part of the greenbelt area. We are more than pleased to look at a particular situation that the member may have pointed out.

I have no idea as to what particular piece of land he is talking about on this map. We are very much in favour of what we have done, and this is a government that acted to make sure that the

greenbelt is protected for generations to come. That's the premise that we went on.

We're not like that party, that basically wants to pave over the greenbelt area, that basically wants to make sure the sprawl and gridlock that has existed in

this part of Ontario for the last 30 or 40 years will continue indefinitely. We are against that. We're in favour of the greenbelt legislation and in favour of the greenbelt plan, and we're very

proud of that.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr. Hudak: Back to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: I'm rather curious that you say you don't know what property this is. It is

a massive 800-acre exemption that you, as Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, personally exempted from the greenbelt. It is a massive, gaping hole in your greenbelt map. Initially it was

covered in the greenbelt. Now, in your final greenbelt map, it's wide open for development.

On November 2, 2004, you received a letter from the owners of this property asking you to exempt this land, and within a couple of months that land was

exempted. I'll ask again the question I just asked you: Have you individually met with the individuals? Did the Premier or the political staff? If you don't know the answer, can you get back to us

in the House tomorrow? And what was the science behind wanting to pave over this pristine wetland?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: First of all, I don't know what specific piece of land he is talking about. He has shown me a great big map here. If it is

environmentally sensitive land, it needs to be protected. That is the whole theory behind the greenbelt.

We used the best science available from the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Agriculture. We want to make sure that environmentally sensitive

land is not going to be paved over in the future. Too much of that has happened in the past. It's precisely for that reason that we made the pledge in our platform in 2003 to make sure there was an

area around the greater Toronto area that was going to be protected for generations to come.

We have lived up to that commitment. We've added a million acres of land to the 800,000 acres of land that already existed at that time. We are proud of the

greenbelt area. What I would like to know is, does this member speak for his party or does he speak for his leader? Are they in favour of the greenbelt or not? That's what I'd like to know.

Mr. Hudak: Our position is clear: We want to ensure that environmentally sensitive land is protected.

You, sir, as an individual, as the minister, as the sole arbiter, made the decision in your legislation to be the judge and jury, personally, over what gets

exempted and what does not. So you chose to exempt this land, this 800-acre pristine wetland and woodland to be paved over. You yourself said, "If it's environmentally sensitive, we'll protect it."

Your own map calls it a natural heritage area, as a wetland and woodland.

Tell us in the House today, based on your very own map, will you ensure that that land is protected and not developed? Or is all this talk about science

nonsense and it's all about political science? Which one is it?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: As I mentioned before, we'll certainly take a look at the situation that this member has pointed out here. As far as I'm

concerned, all of the land that is contained within the greenbelt area is either protected from an agricultural viewpoint or from an environmental viewpoint, or an existing use was already there

prior to it becoming part of the greenbelt area, as has happened in a number of the settled communities within the greenbelt area.

Once again, what we have done is what no other government has done in the past; that is, we included an additional one million acres of land in this area

around Toronto to make sure that the gridlock and the sprawl do not continue ad infinitum and, second, to make sure that these areas are protected for future generations.

We are more than prepared to look at this particular area, but I can tell you that the greenbelt is something we are extremely proud of. Maybe one day that

member and that party will be proud of it as well.

Mr. Hudak: I think people would be proud of the greenbelt if they had confidence that it was based on good environmental science instead of

the Dalton McGuinty Liberal political science behind your land decision. This is a case in point. The science shows it's a pristine wetland. It is a forest listed in your documents as a natural

heritage area -- 800 acres along the shores of Lake Simcoe now slated for the bulldozers under Dalton McGuinty's government. Minister, we want to have faith in the science behind this plan. Will

you today commit to sending this to a legislative committee so all members of the House can be satisfied that your decisions are based on real science and not political science?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: As I've indicated to the member before, we are more than prepared to have a briefing with the member and his caucus and

all of the people involved from the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Agriculture, to go over how the greenbelt was developed and where the limitations of the greenbelt were exactly

put in. So far, that meeting hasn't taken place. We hope the member will take us up on that particular offer to meet with us so that he can see that the science that's behind the greenbelt and the

millions of acres of land that are going to be protected as a result of this legislation is the right thing to do, not only for this generation of Ontarians but for many, many generations to

come.

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Last week, we learned a lot about your credibility deficit: how you

made promises before the election in order to get people to vote for you and then after the election you forgot about the promises. Today, I want to ask about your government's ethical deficit.

Last week, after six months of gathering dust, Bill 133, the spills bill, was suddenly, without any debate, referred sideways to a committee. It's the bill

that your close friend and top political fixer, Warren Kinsella, is getting big corporate bucks to oppose. It's one of those bills that was up for discussion at cabinet last week, at the time that

you gave Mr. Kinsella the keys to the cabinet meeting. You gave us your word at the time that Mr. Kinsella didn't discuss the bill. Premier, what proof can you offer the Legislature and ordinary

people across Ontario that Mr. Kinsella had nothing to do with this bill?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The leader of the NDP would have us draw something untoward and

nefarious connected with the fact that we are taking a bill and sending it to out to committee in the most transparent way possible to elicit some advice and proposals and suggestions from the

public.

I would also want to remind the leader of the NDP that one of those proponents for sending the bill out to committee was Marilyn Churley. She put out a press

release. Her press release specifically said, "The government needs to move forward with this legislation. Let's get it to committee and make sure it does what it is suppose to do."

I recommend to the leader of the NDP that he speak with his environment critic so they can get their act together when it comes to this particular piece of

legislation.

Mr. Hampton: Premier, you might want to read more into that press release, because it calls for debate and then for amendments at committee.

What you've done is shuffle it off to neverland. It sat there for six months and gathered dust until last week, when you invited Warren Kinsella to cabinet, and then there was a motion to send it

sideways. Premier, I asked you earlier, do you have any proof that Mr. Kinsella had nothing to do with this manoeuvre on the spills bill? You have no proof. So I want to ask you this: Every cabinet

meeting has minutes. Will you disclose what it is that Mr. Kinsella talked about to members of cabinet?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: In addition to ensuring that Bill 133 goes out to committee at the earliest possible opportunity, where we can engage

Ontarians further, the member should also know that it was listed on the Environmental Bill of Rights registry for a period of 30 days, and then it was extended for a further 30 days. We are

determined to get this right, we are determined to move forward with it and we look forward to getting the leader of the NDP's support when it comes to voting for it on third reading.

Mr. Hampton: We want to know what Warren Kinsella had to say to cabinet, because he had lots to say otherwise. Last month, Mr. Kinsella and

the powerful interests he represents had a secret meeting with the finance minister. The finance minister didn't tell the lobby, "You spill, you pay." What he said was, "Not to worry; the bill is

going nowhere."

Now that we're into the Gomery commission, people are demanding a little higher standard in terms of accountability from governments. By the looks of things,

your spills bill is up the creek and your ethical standards are down the river. Will you disclose the cabinet minutes where Warren Kinsella attended cabinet? He's not a member of cabinet. I think

we're entitled to know, what did he tell cabinet ministers? What was he there about? We know that he wants to lobby your government to get rid of the spills bill, so please tell us, what did he

have to say at your cabinet meeting?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I know the leader of the NDP has a particular challenge today. There is a very small news hole available -- most of the

media will be dominated by stories coming out of Parliament Hill -- and he's looking for any kind of hook, no matter how specious and unsubstantiated.

I said last week in response to a question that, yes, Mr. Kinsella did come before cabinet. He did make a presentation and, I will say again, it had nothing

whatsoever to do with the issue that the member opposite is raising today. I will repeat once more: It had nothing to do with Bill 133 -- nothing.

LOBBYISTS

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): To the Premier. Once again the Premier, who is renowned for breaking his promises, says to the people

of Ontario, "Trust me."

I want to ask you not just about Mr. Kinsella but about some other Liberal insiders who are making big bucks, working for the wealthy and the powerful lobbying

your government. Mr. Bob Lopinski: Four months ago, he was your director of issues management. Now he is lobbying for Bruce Power. Six days before Lopinski signed on as Bruce Power's lobbyist, a

deal to restart the two mothballed reactors at the Bruce nuclear station went to cabinet for discussion. This is a $2-billion deal.

We think you should be listening to ordinary Ontario families, but it looks as if you are listening to paid lobbyists like Mr. Kinsella and Mr. Lopinski.

Premier, can you tell us, please, what is your word on this deal? Does Mr. Lopinski have nothing to say to cabinet ministers about approving Bruce Power's deal?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): We have a number of people we consult with respect to ensuring that we

get public policy right. We've consulted Bob Rae, who did a very good job for us with respect to recommendations on post-secondary education. We consulted Richard Johnston. We consulted Marion

Boyd, who came forward with some recommendations of great importance to us. We consulted Mr. Romanow. We consulted Bill Davis. We consulted a number of people of a variety of political stripes, all

of whom have helped us lend shape to good public policy, and we will continue to do so in the future.

Mr. Hampton: The Premier tries to confuse those people who have been asked to do an investigation with paid --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Member from St. Catharines, would you come to order, please.

Mr. Hampton: The Premier wants to confuse people who have been asked to do an investigation or do a report with paid lobbyists. There is a big

difference. The paid lobbyists are there on behalf of the wealthy and the powerful and couldn't give a damn about the public interest.

I want to ask you about another paid lobbyist. We know about Andersen Consulting, otherwise known as Accenture in Ontario. They ripped off the Ministry of

Community and Social Services to the tune of tens of millions of dollars on a computer system. Now you are considering a multi-million dollar contract to build an information system for the Family

Responsibility Office and you refuse to rule out Andersen Consulting, otherwise known as Accenture. They changed their name after they got caught. Who is lobbying for Accenture? None other than

Phil Dewan, your former chief of staff.

I ask you again, Premier, are you listening to the ordinary folks who don't want to be ripped off to the tune of tens of millions of dollars again, or are you

listening to the backdoor insider lobbyists who are being paid big bucks by the wealthy and the powerful?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Something I failed to mention earlier is that we have also spoken with Buzz Hargrove on a number of occasions and got some

very good advice on that score. He is getting the cold shoulder these days from the NDP, but we're pleased to listen to everybody and to distill that into some wisdom and make sure that we get

public policy right.

I know that the member opposite is just doing his job, but I can tell you that we are devoted to the public interest. We consider ourselves open and

accessible. We will hear from anybody we think has something to offer with respect to getting public policy right. But at the end of the day, we will remember the people of Ontario, we will keep

their interests first and foremost in our minds and we will ensure that those interests breathe life into all our public policy.

Mr. Hampton: Premier, I am doing my job, and I want to tell you about Andersen Consulting/Accenture. They were kicked out of Florida for bad

deals. They were kicked out of Ohio for bad deals. In New York, they're under investigation. New Brunswick cancelled a $60 million contract with them. They are under investigation in Texas. Then

there's Nebraska and Virginia, and then they ripped off the public of Ontario. But you seem to be throwing down a welcome mat to them. Why? Because your former chief of staff is their paid

lobbyist.

I ask again, Premier -- we've heard about the $10,000-a-plate private dinners with the developers; we know about Warren Kinsella; we know about Bob Lopinski;

and now there's Mr. Dewan -- whom are you listening to, the paid lobbyists who have lots of money and lots of power or the ordinary folks of Ontario who are increasingly worried about where your

government is going?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Just to set the record straight on a couple of items: First of all, with respect to Mr. Lopinski, he is not authorized by

the conflict commissioner to begin to lobby us here at government for a full year after his departure. I know the leader of the NDP knows that.

Second, with respect to Accenture, he may be aware of something that I'm not aware of. When it comes to the matter of dealing with the Family Responsibility

Office, we've had that overseen by a fairness commissioner. We're not exactly sure who has applied for this work. We're not supposed to know that. I'll await the outcome of that. If he has access

to insider information, then perhaps he'd like to share that with us. But we will ensure that this is overseen by a fairness commissioner, because we think that is the responsible thing to do.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): My question is for the Minister of Labour. Bill 144 will not promote economic prosperity, as you

claim. It will, however, stifle economic growth and job creation at a time when our province is suffering from an ever-increasing tax burden, rising dollar, increasing hydro rates and unparalleled

global competition. That's reinforced in a letter that I received from the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, who represent 8,300 members who employ over 380,000 people. In their

letter, they express concern "that the uncertainty created by changes to the labour code will discourage investment, employment and growth, further contributing to the industry's and the province's

economic woes."

Minister, will you listen to the concerns of the CRFA and the other members of the business community, such as the Coalition for Democratic Labour Relations,

and withdraw this job-killing legislation?

Hon. Christopher Bentley (Minister of Labour): Unlike the party opposite or the third party, we listen to all participants when it comes to

labour relations. We're determined to restore fairness and balance to our approach to labour relations in the province of Ontario. That's why, immediately after becoming Minister of Labour, I

listened to business groups, such as the ones she outlined, and labour groups.

The package of reforms in Bill 144 is fair and balanced. With respect to all of those outside of the construction industry, apart from getting rid of the

poster and the salary disclosure, what the bill provides is an effective remedy where an employer engages in conduct that effectively removes the democratic right of workers to decide for

themselves whether or not they want to be members of a union. I can't imagine any responsible individual opposing that important democratic initiative.

Mrs. Witmer: This bill definitely does not restore fairness or balance. It takes away the democratic rights of workers to a secret ballot

vote, but it also sends a very strong signal around the world that Ontario is no longer open for business. Surely, you remember the Rae government and their Bill 40. It effectively killed 10,000

jobs in this province.

Minister, if you are not prepared to withdraw this bill, will you commit that you will send this bill to committee for public hearings in order that

substantial amendments can be made to ensure that Ontario remains an attractive destination for job creation and investment for our people?

Hon. Mr. Bentley: In fact, we're determined to ensure economic prosperity in the province of Ontario, as is clear not only from our labour

relations initiatives but from many of the initiatives pursued by other ministers such as Minister Cordiano in the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade.

I'd say, secondly, that Ontarians do remember the time of the previous government, where they were determined to have a one-sided approach to labour relations

that does not promote economic stability. In fact, the history of this province was built on a labour relations regime that respected labour and management interests and worked for the best

interests of the people of Ontario.

With respect to the specifics of Bill 144, I would hope that the honourable member would not keep trying to suggest that Ontario is not the place to invest,

because that will not help support economic prosperity in the province. All that bill does for those areas outside of construction is ensure that if that small, tiny minority of employers decides

to remove a worker's democratic right to choose, there will be a remedy, and there must be a remedy, for that type of conduct.

AUTISM TREATMENT

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Today the Toronto Sun featured a number of Ontario families who live with autism and are facing financial

ruin trying to pay for treatment.

Lillian Wagman is a plaintiff in the Deskin-Wynberg court case. Both of her sons have autism. When Michael turned six, he was arbitrarily cut off his IBI

treatment by your government. His parents now pay $2,500 a month privately for his IBI, for his brother David's speech therapy and for specialized nursery school for David as well.

Premier, you made a very specific promise to parents like this that you would end the discrimination against their children, that you would continue to pay for

IBI treatment. Are you going to do that, or are you going to drive them into financial ruin?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Let me tell you what we have done. We have doubled investment in

services to help these children. We have reduced waiting lists for assessment by 72%. We've increased the number of children thus far receiving IBI treatment by 25%. We've created a new program for

school-aged children, which has been embraced, by the way, by every single school board. We have hired 139 new autism spectrum disorder consultants to help our teachers and educational assistants

make sure they're meeting the needs of students who have been diagnosed with autism. Those are the things that we have done thus far in order to help families better help their children who are

affected by autism.

Ms. Martel: Premier, this is about the very specific promise you made to Nancy Morrison during the election, that you were going to end the

discrimination against autistic children over the age of six. That's a promise you've done nothing about except to break.

You see, a number of parents voted for you on the basis of that promise. In a letter to the editor today, Thomas Gibson, who is a former Ontario deputy

minister, wrote that both he and his wife -- and she was in a wheelchair and incapable of speech at the time -- went to the polls to vote Liberal because their grandson is severely autistic and

they thought he was going to get IBI. Brad and Cynthia Boufford of London voted Liberal because they believed you when you said that you were going to end the discrimination against six-year-olds.

Imagine their surprise and anger when your government, Premier, cut their son Jordan off his IBI when he turned six last May.

This issue is all about a specific promise you made when you were looking for votes. Now that the election is over, Premier, are you going to make good on the

promises that you made to these families?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: In addition to reducing our waiting lists by 72% -- and we agree, we have more to do -- in addition to increasing the

number of children receiving IBI services by 25% -- and we agree, there is still more to do -- I want to bring to the member's attention, if she might be inclined to listen, that notwithstanding

Dr. Rozanski's recommendation that we spend $250 million more for special education services, we increased that to $365 million.

Beyond that, I am proud to say that we are now providing high-needs support to 2.8% of Ontario's student population. To our knowledge, nobody anywhere on the

face of the earth is spending as much money as we are to support high-needs students -- 2.8% of our student population.

We are proud that so far we've spent about $1.7 billion more in our first year on the job to meet the needs of students. I know that there's more to do, and we

look forward to doing it.

GROW BONDS PROGRAM

Ms. Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): My question today is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Over the last 15 months, residents

of northern Ontario have witnessed a great deal of activity and a number of great initiatives launched by our government for northern Ontario.

Most recently, our government announced an innovative grow bonds program. These bonds are currently on sale, and loan applications are now available for small

to mid-sized businesses in the north. But some residents and businesses in my riding have expressed concern that the bond purchase and business loan application periods are too short and have asked

for a longer bond purchase and loan application period to be granted. What is our government doing to ensure that the northern Ontario grow bonds program is given every possible chance of

success?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): The member for Nipissing is right: We have heard a number of comments

associated with our original timelines.

As you know, this is a government that listens to northerners. We value the opinions of northerners. As such, I'm pleased to tell the members of the House

today that in response to the request by northerners, both northern investors and businesses, we have announced an extension of the bond sales and loan application periods for the northern Ontario

grow bonds. Northern residents will have until April 18 to buy bonds at a competitive rate of 4% interest over five years that is fully guaranteed by the government, and northern businesses will

now have until May 6 to submit loan applications that will help grow their businesses, create new jobs and reignite the northern economy.

Ms. Smith: Minister, that's great news, and I appreciate that. Grow bonds are an important part of our northern prosperity plan and are a

great initiative to stimulate economic investment in the north by investing in our small and mid-sized companies.

The reaction in my community has been great, with at least two of my local municipalities making significant investments. My local chamber of commerce is also

taking a lead role. Could you share with the House today the reaction of other northern communities to the grow bonds program?

Hon. Mr. Bartolucci: Indeed, our government has lived up to its commitment to northerners by not only providing the wherewithal to bring

prosperity to the north, by not only providing the empowerment to bring prosperity to the north, not only by providing the plan to bring prosperity to the north, but also by bringing a vision

filled with hope and promise for a better future.

We have been most encouraged by the commitment and leadership demonstrated by a number of municipalities that have stepped forward to purchase large bond

amounts. In doing so, they have invested in their own future. We look forward to seeing the new business investments and jobs that this program will bring to the north.

We just have a reminder to all northerners that this is the last week to buy those bonds. We encourage them to go on-line; we encourage them to go to their

government offices to pick up those application forms. By investing in grow bonds, you invest in the future of northern Ontario.

HIGHWAY 69

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): My question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. When you were in opposition, you

demanded action on the four-laning of Highway 69 from Sudbury to Parry Sound. Well, Minister, you are now in a position to do something about it. You are the minister responsible for the northern

roads program. Can you tell me when we can expect Highway 69 to be four-laned from Parry Sound to Sudbury? When will the four-laning be completed?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): If I weren't political and didn't want to give a political answer, I would

simply say that laying one inch of asphalt between Sudbury and Parry Sound would be more than the previous government did in its eight years. However, I'm not going to do that, because Highway 69

is a very important initiative that our government is committed to. Let me tell you that since we took the reins of government, there have been more projects on Highway 69 between Sudbury and Parry

Sound than ever in the past. There has been more commitment to four-laning than was ever the case by previous governments. I invite the member from Parry Sound-Muskoka to come and visit northern

Ontario, to come and visit the riding of Nickel Belt, and he will see first-hand the projects that are going on. They are real projects. They're four-laning projects, something that never happened

in the past.

Mr. Miller: I didn't hear anything about the timetable -- and that was what my question was about -- for the completion of Highway 69 to Parry

Sound. I would like to quote the January 5 Northern Life newspaper, where it says that as a matter of fact, CRASH 69, which was co-chaired by Bartolucci, called for it to be completed in seven

years, but now all we hear is silence. It goes on, "Premier Dalton McGuinty has no intention of keeping his promise to Sudbury to four-lane Highway 69." I ask again, when can we expect Highway 69

to be four-laned from Sudbury to Parry Sound? Is this just another broken Liberal promise?

Hon. Mr. Bartolucci: It's anything but a broken promise; it is a real commitment. For the first time ever, you have a government in Ontario

that is committed to four-laning Highway 69 from Sudbury to Parry Sound. For the first time ever, you have a government that signed a SHIP agreement that allows for projects to move ahead on

Highway 69. For the first time ever, you have a real commitment of real dollars. Let's go back a little bit in time to November 2002, when the former Premier of Ontario, Ernie Eves, came to Sudbury

and made an announcement Highway 69 would have a commitment of $100 million each year in every Tory budget. But the 2003 Tory budget had no commitment to dollars, no mention of Highway 69 and no

commitment to the four-laning. The reality is that this government believes that if you make a commitment, you follow through with that commitment. I am proud of our Premier's and our government's

commitment to northern Ontario and to Highway 69.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): We say in French, "Plus ça va, moins ça change" -- the more it goes, the less it changes --

because I haven't seen the money in the Liberal budget for this highway.

My question is to the Premier. You would know that your Minister of Natural Resources has decided to reallocate timber from existing sawmills in northern

Ontario to Tembec and Domtar so that they can create larger supermills. This past week, in an interview with the Timmins Daily Press, he was asked why people were upset and why people in those

communities were fighting to save the mills. "They're putting all their energies into the past," said David Ramsay to the Daily Press about the citizens of Chapleau, Opasatika and Kirkland Lake. He

further said, "This plant will close ... that's it. We need to start thinking about the future," and that these people's minds are in the past.

I say to you, Minister, and to you, Premier, that it's a future where we know the McGuinty Liberal government is doing all it can to take wood from communities

like Opasatika, Kirkland Lake and Chapleau, shut down those mills and give it to large multinationals so they can create supermills. My question is, why are you telling northerners who are fighting

for their communities and their future that they're living in the past?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): The Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): First of all, nothing could be further from the truth. We have a Minister

of Northern Development and Mines -- excuse me -- a Minister of Natural Resources and a government that truly care about the people of northern Ontario, that are committed to ensuring that we find

solutions to the very complex problems we have. That's why the Minister of Natural Resources established the Minister's Council on Forest Sector Competitiveness. He awaits those recommendations. He

will study the recommendations and move forward once he studies them.

Let me be perfectly clear: This is a government that is committed to the longevity and the economic growth of all of northern Ontario.

Mr. Bisson: In fairness to you, Minister, I would agree: We have a Minister of Northern Development and Mines. What we don't have is a

minister in charge of natural resources. What we've got is a minister who kowtows to the larger lumber companies across northern Ontario and says to northerners, because they're fighting to support

their communities and save the jobs in their towns, that they're living in the past.

I'm going to put it right to you, Minister, as clear as I can make it: What is the matter with your government? Why is it that you won't stand up for northern

Ontario, those communities, and say to the lumber companies that you are not going to allow them to transfer this wood and that you're going to allow the communities to reorganize and find new

buyers for those particular mills so that we can keep those jobs in those communities?

Hon. Mr. Bartolucci: Obviously, I disagree with my critic in his supplementary question. We have a wonderful Minister of Natural Resources who

works extremely hard to ensure longevity and prosperity for all of northern Ontario. We will work through these problems. We will establish an opportunity, a milieu, an atmosphere of positive

growth in northern Ontario. We've started that already with our northern prosperity plan. Listen, if you ever want to compare records with anybody, you can compare the 1990-95 records of the former

NDP government, when 14 mills were closed.

But do you know what? We're not living in the past. We're living in the present, for the future. We've put an economic plan together called the northern

prosperity plan, where we will ensure --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Member for Nickel Belt, come to order.

Hon. Mr. Bartolucci: -- that the industries in northern Ontario grow in a very productive, strong way so that the economies of northern

Ontario will, for the first time in a long time, have that optimistic support of government working with them to ensure that we recognize and reach the potential of northern Ontario.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): My question is for the Minister of Finance. Our government has been leading the call for fiscal

fairness for Ontario. Ontarians from all walks of life are taking notice. We have been seeking some redress to close a $23-billion gap between what Ontarians pay to the federal government through

taxes and what they get back in federal spending in Ontario. We have called on federal government MPs to take this message to their government. Minister, media reports this morning suggest that our

government has reached a deal with the federal government on issues of concern to Ontario. Can you give this House an update on conversations with the federal government?

Hon. Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance): The first thing to say is, I did have a very productive meeting with Minister Volpe on the weekend. I

think, as a result of the meeting, he has decided to become a much more aggressive advocate, explaining to his own government the realities of the $23-billion gap and the burden that Ontario

carries right now in relation to that gap. I think I did convince Minister Volpe that there are nine areas in particular that our governments could begin to negotiate. I think I did convince

Minister Volpe that he needs to work diligently to get the Prime Minister to open up doors for discussion with the Premier of this province.

I wouldn't say we've reached an agreement or any deal. Certainly, that would be a misrepresentation of our meeting. But you know, it's one small step that we

took yesterday toward dealing with this very serious problem.

Mr. McNeely: Obviously the federal government is more eager to try to close the books on this issue than it ought to be, and not all of our

issues will be resolved in one meeting between ministers.. But the campaign for fiscal fairness is gaining steam. Minister, can you tell me what came out of your meeting with Minister Volpe?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: It was a meeting primarily about politics and the political realities that Ontarians and the nation are confronting. I had

an opportunity to list very specific items including investment in Ontario's infrastructure; investment in post-secondary education, investments to help us meet our Kyoto commitments with the

elimination of coal, investments in a new immigration agreement and investments in a labour market agreement. The good news -- and I have to commend Minister Volpe for this -- is that he said he

was willing to listen and to take that argument and those views to the Prime Minister. We are hoping that something positive will come out of that.

ROYAL BOTANICAL GARDENS

Mr. Cameron Jackson (Burlington): My question is for the Minister of Culture. Like many of us who live in the greater Hamilton and Halton

regions, we have expressed concern about the future of the Royal Botanical Gardens, and had anticipated the report of the review committee discussing its mandate. There has been concern expressed

by just about everyone that this report does not in any way change the mandate and does not provide any additional funding. It is causing confusion and concern as to the future. Your multi-year

commitment is very unclear as to which level of government is to pay, with too many strings attached. You can't use capital dollars to buy picnic tables and expect to meet your payroll. You can't

use research dollars to cut grass. Madam Minister, it would appear that that report offers no real hope for us to save this important cultural icon. Are you prepared to seek the necessary funds to

keep the RBG open this summer?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur (Minister of Culture, minister responsible for francophone affairs): First of all, I want to say that we were pleased

to receive the report. The report is a combination of extensive research conducted by the committee. I want to take this opportunity today to thank the co-chairs of this review committee for their

wonderful job and especially those who have contributed, by their knowledge and by their experience, to the outcome of the report.

We know also that Royal Botanical Gardens plays a very important role for the city of Hamilton and for the whole province. I think it's too early to speculate

about the outcome. We know that the board has received the report and will give their opinion on the recommendations.

Mr. Jackson: Minister, there have been real questions raised about the independence of this report, by virtue of the presence of one of your

ADMs on the committee and the suggestion that one of the conditions going into the review was that there be no new money put into the board, which is why so many people are concerned that you

haven't changed the mandate. We don't have a couple of months here to consider this. The RBG is having difficulty meeting its payroll. On Friday, they barely made their payroll. As you know, they

pay once a week. They are not paying their utilities; they're not paying their payables. This coming Friday, they will not have enough cash to pay their employees and their payroll. They're going

to have to start laying people off. So I ask you, Minister,will you at least take the limited dollars that you are committed to and flow those now, because they have a serious cash flow problem --

either $159,000 per month or $460,000 quarterly. Will you at least stand in the House today and make that commitment so they're not laying off people and can make their payroll this coming

Friday?

Hon. Mrs. Meilleur: I'm very pleased to see that the member from Burlington has a renewed interest in the RBG. We have seen the RBG have a

deficit for the past four or five years, before we got into power. That's why I have asked for a review to be done. We have received the report, and we are waiting for the review of the

recommendations by the board in both the Hamilton and Halton regions.

I just want to remind the member of what he said about the RBG when they were in power: "What I find difficult, is I would hope that we're not going to pay the

deficit of the RBG when we're going to allow our hospitals to run increasing deficits. I don't think that's appropriate."

HYDRO SECURITY DEPOSITS

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Energy. There is a new Ontario Energy Board policy that is inflicting a

great deal of pain on hydro customers across this province, especially for low- and modest-income families. Municipal hydro companies like Hamilton Hydro now demand and hold for a full year

significant cash security deposits from customers who are late paying their hydro bills more than once in a 12-month period. This exorbitant cash requirement can amount to hundreds of dollars or

more on top of late-payment interest charges. The policy is the utilities' new cash cow, and quite frankly, this beast needs to be tamed.

Minister, will you order a review of the OEB policy that siphons security deposits from customers who are late paying a couple of bills? Or will you do nothing

for the hard-pressed Ontario hydro customers who are being gouged by millions under your current policy?

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): The question of security deposits is a multi-faceted one that can, indeed, I

concur with the member and the proposition of her question, be an unfair penalty on those who are required to put up security deposits. What makes it challenging is that the costs not paid by the

individual consumers are paid by the other consumers. So there's always a balancing act with respect to that.

We are examining a number of issues with respect to fairness toward consumers who run into financial difficulties with their local distribution companies

across a whole range of issues. Certainly, this is a matter that is worthy of ongoing discussions, as it has been for a number of years. I believe the Ontario Energy Board ought to be concerned

about these matters, as we are.

I remind the member that when there are unpaid bills to a local distribution company, the people who wind up paying for them are other ratepayers, and

oftentimes it's other ratepayers of modest means. So it's a difficult balance to find, one that requires, in my view, constant surveillance and oversight, both by the regulator, in this case the

Ontario Energy Board, and by government.

Ms. Horwath: I would submit that currently the security deposit is being abused, quite frankly, and it's hurting people who are good, loyal

customers, who are wanting, but struggling, to pay on time. They haven't had a default or a disconnection, but if they can't pay their hydro bill within two weeks, the utility then threatens to cut

off their service. If late one more time, customers have to pay a security deposit or lose their hydro. These deposits aren't held in trust. The utility uses them instead as a bit of a bank to

finance its operational needs. In Hamilton, the newly merged hydro company currently holds $11 million in security deposits. Its own financial statements acknowledge that credit losses are usually

only about $600,000 a year.

I ask you again: Will you review the policy that allows hydro companies to collect far more in security deposits than they need from the people who can least

afford it?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: We certainly will review those policies; we always do. I reviewed them for the period 1990-95. Security deposits went up then

too.

I fully concur that we should be reviewing these policies. I do on a routine basis. The Ontario Energy Board has a well-defined mechanism for input, both by

consumers and utilities. These matters are of great concern to anyone in this House who wants to see fairness on these matters, ensuring that balance between those who don't pay their bills and

those who do, who then have to pay the costs for those who don't pay their bills. I concur with the premise of the member's question, that there has to be fairness. We certainly will undertake to

review and continually scrutinize these policies, as any government that is concerned about consumers would. This government certainly is concerned about consumers, both large and small.

TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): My question is for the Minister of Education. Since 1999, I've made the commitment to continue to meet with teachers

in my riding, and I visit schools on a regular basis to do lessons in grades 5, 9 and 11.

The teachers I've been talking to have continually told me that they're very happy that this government is getting rid of the so-called PLP, the professional

learning program, also known as teacher testing. They also expect, and are very co-operative in understanding, that there should be some program in place to deal with that. Teachers felt that the

process was extremely unfair and ill-advised, and at best did nothing for the improvement of the education learning situation for the kids in Ontario. They felt that it was nothing more than

punishment from the previous government because they decided to deal with them in the way they did.

You announced in December that you were terminating that program. Minister, what program has the government proposed to replace the PLP to ensure that our

teachers remain the best-trained in Canada, and ultimately to benefit the learning of our kids?

Hon. Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): We all know that the previous government wasn't afraid to traffic in those kinds of places, to

exploit people's feelings. Sure, teacher testing sounds like an attractive program to people who have been tested by teachers, and maybe they want to be able to get some back. But nowhere in the

world is there a test that tells you that someone is capable. What does make somebody a capable teacher is a professional development process, which was contradicted in every single way by the

previous government.

We have moved ahead with the intensive training of teachers. We had, for example, almost 8,000 teachers show up -- volunteer their own time -- last summer to

get literacy and numeracy training. We will have provided, by the end of the year, professional development to more teachers than any government has in the recent past. But more importantly, we're

looking at an induction program from when teachers start their careers -- we appreciate the work that they do -- right through to the later career. There should be a continuous program of teacher

development, and the proof, for the well-being of students, should be how many teachers actually take the training. On that count, we've done very well.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. I'm quite capable of watching the time. Members are given equal time. The member.

Mr. Levac: Thank you for answering the question. If anyone on the other side had cared to listen, you were saying that there is a replacement

program on its way and it's being developed in co-operation and consultation with all the organizers and the people who are involved in education.

In the throne speech, the government stated that the important priority will always be excellent public education. Our goal is to make Ontario's public

education the world's best education, as quoted in our platform. This could not be accomplished through the divisive and adversarial systems that existed before. Minister, I was trapped in that

particular mode of operation, and I can tell you, as a personal experience, that I felt absolutely useless. I was made to feel as if I had not made a contribution over my 25 years in education. I

was demeaned, and I resented it.

What steps is the government taking now to work with teachers to ensure that we offer the best we can and have them be the best they can be, which in turn

allows our kids to get the best possible education, which we should all be striving for in this place?

Hon. Mr. Kennedy: I want to point out that the essence of that approach is one that was not just ignored but trampled on by the previous

government: a policy of respect for teachers and for other education workers. Frankly, it applies to any workplace but especially where we have a trust position involving students and involving

something as difficult to do as the formation of their education.

We have actually set up a partnership table, which had its latest meeting last week, where teacher federation representatives, representatives from school

boards and unions, support workers, parents and students were all able to first look at some of the provincial policies we're doing. As opposed to some of the other attitudes in this House, we want

to get the job done. We want to find, as some enlightened jurisdictions have, a place to find collaborative work. That, if it's allowed to take place, is the natural way that teachers will do their

job best: in a spirit of collaboration, with the tools they have. When they close their door and they're teaching students, we want to have the best available to them. Unlocking the potential of

teachers in this province will allow us to unlock the potential of all our students.

PETITIONS

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): This follows a meeting we had on Saturday up in Orillia.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

services sector and the economies of the local communities; and

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

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

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

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

I'm pleased to sign my name to this.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas rebuilding our post-secondary education system is critical to the future of our communities and our province; and

"Whereas high tuition user fees are resulting in massive student debt; and

"Whereas Ontario ranks second-last among all provinces in terms of total PSE budget received from government grants and has the highest percentage of total

post-secondary education revenues from private sources; and

"Whereas working and learning conditions must be healthy and safe, because working conditions are learning conditions; and

"Whereas the deferred maintenance cost at Ontario university campuses is estimated to have already reached the $2-billion mark;

"We, the undersigned, support the Canadian Union of Public Employees' call on the provincial government to invest sufficient public funds that will:

"

(1) Restore public money cut from operating funds since 1995 and bring Ontario up to the national average for funding post-secondary education;

"

(2) Finance the $1.98 billion needed for deferred maintenance; and

"

(3) Provide the funding needed to continue the tuition freeze beyond 2006 and increase grants to working-class families."

I support this petition, and I affix my signature.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr. Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): I have a petition signed by 42 individuals, most of whom are my constituents, as I look through the

list. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas 20% of the adult population, or 1.8 million adults in Ontario, continue to smoke; and

"Whereas hospitality concepts like bars, pubs, taverns, nightclubs, Legions, bingo halls, racetracks and casinos are businesses with a high percentage of

patrons who smoke; and

"Whereas more than 700 businesses in Ontario have invested tens of thousands of dollars each to construct a designated smoking room to comply with municipal

bylaws;

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

"Permit properly ventilated and separate designated smoking rooms in hospitality establishments that regulate and control employee and customer exposure to

second-hand smoke."

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): This petition was sent to me by Mr. Mark Neumann, the general manager of East Side Mario's in Richmond Hill. It

reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas 20% of the adult population, or 1.8 million adults in Ontario, continue to smoke; and

"Whereas hospitality concepts like bars, pubs, taverns, nightclubs, Legions, bingo halls, racetracks and casinos are businesses with a high percentage of

patrons who smoke; and

"Whereas more than 700 businesses in Ontario have invested tens of thousands of dollars each to construct a designated smoking room to comply with municipal

bylaws;

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

"Permit properly ventilated and separate designated smoking rooms in hospitality establishments that regulate and control employee and customer exposure to

second-hand smoke."

I'm prepared to affix my signature to this petition.

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

services sector and the economies of the local communities; and

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

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

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

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

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly sent to me by Debbie Bruce of Mississauga, and it

reads as follows:

"Whereas there are no established Ontario-wide standards to deal with anaphylaxis in Ontario schools; and

"Whereas there is no specific comment regarding anaphylaxis in the Ontario Education Act; and

"Whereas anaphylaxis is a serious concern that can result in life-or-death situations; and

"Whereas all students in Ontario have the right to be safe and feel safe in their school community; and

"Whereas all parents of anaphylactic students need to know that safety standards exist in all Ontario schools, be it therefore resolved...

"That the government of Ontario support the swift passage of Bill 3,

An Act to protect anaphylactic students, which requires that every school principal in

Ontario establish a school anaphylactic plan."

I'm in support of this position. I'm pleased to affix my signature and to ask Ryan to carry it down for me.

GASOLINE PRICES

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

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

economy in key sectors such as tourism and transportation;

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

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

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

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

I affix my name in full support.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

volunteer and solve this problem concerning public safety in Ontario;

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature as well.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Ajax.

STUDENT SAFETY

Mr. Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ministry of Education has failed to ensure that students are protected from individuals whose past behaviours have directly harmed children;

and

"Whereas the Ministry of Education has chosen to ignore the children's aid society's recommendation that certain individuals not work with children; and

"Whereas the introduction of a `volunteer' into the school system must not be solely at the discretion of the principal; and

"Whereas the Liberal government promised to ensure that school boards provide strong local accountability and decision-making;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to amend the Education Act to place restrictions on the eligibility of persons who act as volunteers in

schools, and to include as a formal requirement that volunteers be subject to the approval of the school board and parent council."

I have signed my name.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): That was Whitby-Ajax; I'm sorry, to the member.

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

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

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

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

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

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

services sector and economies of the local communities; and

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

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

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

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

I'm pleased to sign my name to that.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): Mr. Atif Zia of Etobicoke forwarded this petition. I'm pleased to present it to the Legislature. It reads as

follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas 25% of the adult population, or 2.25 million adults, in Ontario continue to smoke; and

"Whereas tobacconists are private enterprise catering only to those who smoke; and

"Whereas more than 50 tobacco businesses in Ontario have invested tens of thousands of dollars each to construct a designated smoking room to comply with

municipal bylaws; and

"Whereas those smoking rooms are intended only for the sole use by smokers; and

"Whereas testing and sampling of tobacco products is vital to the functioning of those businesses,

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

"To adopt an exemption for tobacconists to Bill 164 identical to that of the province of Manitoba."

I'm pleased to affix my signature.

CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES

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

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

order to function; and

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

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

more in additional physician, emergency department and hospital visits;

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

"That the Parliament of Ontario does not delist chiropractic services from the Ontario health insurance plan, and that assurance is given that funding for

chiropractic services not be reduced or eliminated."

I affix my name in full support.

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): This is a very important issue in my riding.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

services sector and the economies of the local communities; and

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

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

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

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

I'm pleased to sign my name to this petition.

STUDENT SAFETY

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

"Whereas the Ministry of Education has failed to ensure that students are protected from individuals whose past behaviours have directly harmed children;

and

"Whereas the Ministry of Education has chosen to ignore the children's aid society's recommendation that certain individuals not work with children; and

"Whereas the introduction of a `volunteer' into the school system must not be solely at the discretion of the principal; and

"Whereas the Liberal government promised to ensure that school boards provide strong local accountability and decision-making;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to amend the Education Act to place restrictions on the eligibility of persons who act as volunteers in

schools, and to include as a formal requirement that volunteers be subject to the approval of the school board and parent council."

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MANDATORY GUNSHOT WOUNDS

REPORTING ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LA DÉCLARATION

OBLIGATOIRE DES BLESSURES

PAR BALLE

Mr. Kwinter moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 110,

An Act to require the disclosure of information to police respecting persons being treated for gunshot wounds / Projet de loi 110, Loi exigeant la

divulgation à la police de renseignements en ce qui concerne les personnes traitées pour blessure par balle.

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

Hon. Monte Kwinter (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services): I will be sharing my time this afternoon with my colleague Shafiq

Qaadri, who is the member from Etobicoke North.

Today, I'd like to speak in support of the McGuinty government's legislation to require public hospitals and designated health care facilities to report to the

police when they've treated a person for a gunshot wound.

Let's begin by looking at the situation as it exists today. Obviously, guns are lethal weapons and a danger to public safety, and yet there is currently no

legislated duty in Ontario for health care professionals to report gunshot wounds to the police. Right now, we are faced with the ludicrous situation that a mechanic who finds a bullet hole in a

vehicle must report that to the police but a doctor treating a person for a gunshot wound isn't required to do the same thing. In Ontario, health care practitioners are mandated to report incidents

of child abuse, contagious disease, violent deaths and medical conditions related to unsafe driving but are not mandated to report gunshot wounds in people. If this legislation is passed, Ontario

will become a trailblazer in Canada. At the moment, no Canadian jurisdiction requires health care providers to report gunshot wounds to the police. We are sadly behind the times.

Forty-five US states have legislation mandating the reporting of gunshot and other wounds. Why? Because police cannot adequately ensure community safety unless

they are informed of incidents that may pose a danger to people. Police need to know what is going on in the community. Being aware of wounds that result from guns will allow the police to take

immediate steps to prevent further violence, injury or death.

Let me quote from an

article in the Annals of Emergency Medicine called "Emergency Medicine and Police Collaboration Prevent Community Violence." The

article

said, "If emergency departments and law enforcement work together to enhance the reporting of crimes, this could deter potential offenders, provide police with information about violence that is

not available from another source, and help repair the wider damage done to victims from communities."

The policing community has expressed concern surrounding its ability to adequately ensure public safety when health care practitioners are not obligated to

contact the police when an individual seeks treatment for a gunshot wound. Clearly, the policing community has a stake in this issue and this proposed legislation, and they support it. The Ontario

Association of Police Services Boards, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Association of Ontario and the Ontario Provincial Police Association all support it. The emergency

medicine

section of the Ontario Medical Association also supports it for the purpose of protecting public health and safety.

Let's look at what this bill, if it's passed, will do to help rectify the situation: It would require the health care facility to report (

a) the fact that an

individual is being treated for a gunshot wound, (

b) the name of the person being treated, if it is known, and (

c) the name and location of the facility to the police as soon as it is reasonably

practicable.

Now let's look at what the proposed legislation won't do. It won't interfere with the treatment of the patient or disrupt the normal operation of the facility.

The report to police would be made orally. This is a quick and efficient way for hospitals and health care practitioners to report to the police. The natural flow of the hospital and overall

patient care is less likely to be disrupted by reporting orally, as opposed to time spent completing a written report. There is no obligation on the part of the hospital or designated health care

facility to detain the individual.

This legislation will clarify the confusion among health care practitioners in Ontario as to what the reporting requirements are for people who present

themselves to a hospital with gunshot wounds. This legislation would minimize the legal dilemma facing health care practitioners and protect health care facilities so that they can give authorized

information to the police without worrying about their exposure to liability. It does not prevent a hospital from disclosing information to the police if the hospital is required or permitted to do

so under any other legislation.

You may be asking why we have not included the mandatory reporting of knife wounds in this legislation. Unfortunately, legislation such as this would greatly

increase the workload of health care practitioners in the sense that all cutting, slashing and stabbing wounds would have to be reported, even those resulting from meal preparation. This would be

very time-consuming. Because all gunshot wounds must be reported, medical practitioners are not required to make decisions on the nature of an injury or to take on investigative responsibilities

that are more appropriately suited to police officers. That's why my ministry has decided not to include it in our proposed legislation.

This bill, if passed, is just one more example of the McGuinty government's commitment to delivering real, positive change that will make Ontario communities

strong and safe. Protecting the public and ensuring safe communities is a primary focus of the McGuinty government. If passed, this legislation will make Ontario the first province in Canada to

have mandatory reporting of gunshot wounds. It will make this province and its communities safer, stronger and more liveable.

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North): It's my privilege also to rise in support of Bill 110 on the mandatory reporting of gunshot wounds. I

would like to support and also salute Minister Kwinter for his efforts in bringing forward this important legislation. I'd like to echo his sentiments and urge all members of the Legislature to

support the McGuinty government's proposed legislation that will make it mandatory for hospitals and prescribed health care facilities to report gunshot wounds to the police.

In 2002-03, there were almost 200 cases admitted to Ontario acute-care public hospitals with injuries resulting from firearms. About 100 of those cases were

the result of assault, 70 were accidental and 30 were self-inflicted.

It has been the belief of some that the majority of individuals who are shot in the process of committing a criminal act do not and will not go to the hospital

to receive treatment out of fear of being identified, questioned or reported to the police. Yet statistics show clearly that this is not the case. For example, an American report called Do

Criminals Go to the Hospital When They Are Shot? looked at the issue. After interviewing about 2,300 male inmates from five different jails across the United States, it found the conclusions that

14.5% of them reported having been shot, and that of that 14.5%, 91% said that they actually went to the hospital seeking care for those injuries. This would seem to indicate that criminals will

still seek hospital medical treatment for injuries sustained from the discharge of a firearm, regardless of their fear of being reported to the police.

Indeed, 45 American states have some form of law for the mandatory reporting of gunshot wounds and in fact other wounds. Yet we have no such provision in any

jurisdiction in Canada. As we see it, as the minister sees it and as the McGuinty government sees it, there is a need to balance these two competing interests. The law enforcement communities need

to balance the goals of effective law enforcement and public safety, and the health care professionals need to protect personal information and the integrity of the patient-physician

relationship.

Patient confidentiality is not -- I repeat, not -- an absolute right in Canada. Exceptions have been defined and broadly accepted by the public as well as the

medical profession. For instance, if a person, including a health care practitioner, has reasonable grounds to suspect that a child is or may be in need of protection against abuse, he or she must,

by law, promptly report the suspicion and information to the children's aid society. Incidences, for example, of reportable contagious diseases, such as HIV and syphilis, must also be reported to

the medical officer of health. Medical practitioners must report to the registrar of motor vehicles the name, address and clinical condition of a patient who, in the opinion of the practitioner,

has a condition that makes it dangerous for that person to drive; for example, epilepsy. Suspicious and violent deaths must also be reported to a coroner or police officer. All of these

requirements protect the public, as will this legislation, if it is passed.

As Minister Kwinter has said, it's important to note that the proposed legislation would, if passed, require hospitals to orally report to police the name of a

patient who has been treated for a gunshot wound, if it's known, and to give the name and location of the facility. This report would be made as soon as it is practicable and would not disrupt

normal hospital operations.

The policing community supports this legislation overwhelmingly because, if passed, it will improve the quality of life in our cities, towns and rural areas by

giving the police the tools they need to keep our communities safe. It will support the police in their efforts to increase community safety and allow them to take immediate steps to prevent

further violence, injury or death.

The Ontario Medical Association, of which I am a member, also supports it because it resolves a source of conflict between health care workers and law

enforcement officials.

This is worthy legislation because it will make Ontario's communities and citizens safe, and it clarifies the reporting obligation and protects health care

providers from liability. This legislation furthers the McGuinty government's goal of delivering real, positive change that will make Ontario strong, healthy and prosperous. Through it, we are

protecting the public and ensuring safe communities. We are improving community safety by mandating the reporting of those who have been involved in violent incidents involving firearms. What's

more, this legislation, if passed, is likely to minimize the legal and ethical dilemma facing medical staff.

For all these reasons, I'm urging all members of the Legislature of Ontario to support the speedy passage of Bill 110, the mandatory reporting of gunshot

wounds.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm quite surprised. What was it, 11 or 12 minutes on a leadoff for a community safety bill? I thought the

government would have a lot of reasons to promote this bill. But I will have my opportunity very shortly to do our leadoff, and I look forward to that time.

I should say at the outset that although there are a number of amendments we would have liked to see made to this bill, we will support it even at this

particular stage. It's an area that 45 states in the United States have moved toward, and we think it's time that the provinces -- Ontario and hopefully other provinces -- have the same type of

legislation in the future.

I look forward to the opportunity, in a few moments, to discuss this bill, to read some things into the record that I want read in and to talk a lot about

community safety in general. That's what my comments will be about today: not only on mandatory reporting of gunshot wounds, but on things like the lack of the 1,000 police officers that this

government promised, the conditions around a facility in the province that's being closed and that may have an impact on the community safety of citizens, as well as some areas around safe drinking

water that I'd like to discuss. I look forward to that and will be taking

part in the debate in just a few moments' time.

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I too look forward to seeing this debate develop. I know the Tory critic, Mr. Dunlop from Penetanguishene

way -- Simcoe North -- is going to speak for the full hour allowed him on Bill 110, because I was with him and his colleague Mr. Runciman, the member from Leeds-Grenville, when they as much as

arm-wrestled the minister, trying to out-"law and order" him in that committee.

Interjection.

Mr. Kormos: They did. It was a fascinating exercise.

What I learned, though, during the course -- and it's not inappropriate. Look, we all know what happened yesterday in downtown Toronto, on Yonge Street, for

Pete's sake.

Interjection.

Mr. Kormos: You know, some guys -- and I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts it wasn't a registered firearm.

Interjection: Dollars to doughnuts?

Mr. Kormos: That much I'm pretty confident in telling you. I doubt very much if this guy who shot his victim in the buttocks, as the

newspapers politely put it, and then two innocent bystanders, apparently -- you can bet your boots that that was not a registered firearm. I'll be looking forward to seeing the investigation on

that one.

Look, at first I thought this bill was an automatic, but then we had some very, all be they brief, committee hearings, and what I learned -- and that's why I'm

interested in Mr. Dunlop's declaration that the Conservatives are going to support it. We learned that it really doesn't change anything at all, because it doesn't make reporting of gunshot wounds

mandatory, nor does it free up nurses, doctors or other health professionals from their ability to report a gunshot wound -- remember that, Mr. Dunlop? So it will be interesting to see how the

Conservatives justify their support for such a weak, meaningless, non-law-and-order piece of legislation at the end of the day.

Mr. Kuldip Kular (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I'm happy and pleased to speak on Bill 110, the mandatory reporting of gunshot wounds act,

2005. This proposed bill, if passed, would require hospitals to only report to the police the name of a patient who has been treated for a gunshot wound, if it is known, and to give the name and

location of that facility.

I used to work at the emergency department of William Osler Health Centre, Peel Memorial branch in Brampton. There I was supposed to report contagious

diseases, child abuse, violent deaths and medical conditions related to unsafe driving to protect the public.

I support this bill because it becomes important that we start reporting gunshot wounds to make Ontarians safe. I commend the minister for bringing this bill

forward. Mandatory reporting of gunshot wounds will make our communities safe and strong.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I have a couple of comments regarding this. First of all, the brevity of the opening statements is a bit

concerning. I wanted some more details about it. As we progress with this bill, exposure through members in the House highlighting some of the concerns about it will certainly help out.

Some of the key areas: First of all, I think we should move forward with the regulations for Bill 105, and assisting the policing community and the medical

community would be very necessary as well. We're still waiting for regulations with regard to that particular piece of legislation.

I also have some concerns with the way the minister opened his comments regarding firearms and the use of firearms. He more or less implied that firearms are a

completely bad thing and the cause of this whole thing and that if we address the firearms issue, much as the feds have concern, that registry will solve all firearms concerns. I think if you check

Hansard, you'll see the way it came out. It was very concerning, particularly for a lot of members with rural ridings. If they want to take issue with that, they certainly may.

What about the need for maintaining reports? Once this takes place within a medical facility, what happens then? Are there going to be follow-up reports as

well? Normally what happens is, they phone it in on a verbal report and then there will be an investigation team assigned to do a full review with the policing community. They may not do it today;

they may do it next week, when those officers are available. And what happens with the ambulance drivers who possibly delivered that victim?

Let's make it very clear: We're very supportive of making sure that those individuals who misuse firearms are punished to the full extent of the law, the way

it should be. But those individuals who comply with the laws and follow the guidelines and everything else should not be. Also, on the medical community -- the onerous reports or the maintaining of

the reports or the cost of that and how it's going to assist the whole situation may not be in the best interests. I look forward to further debate on this issue, as we gain more information on

what the minister's full intent is on the bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Reply?

Mr. Qaadri: I'd like to thank my colleagues in the House, particularly the MPP from Simcoe North, for the Tory voice, for his support in

recognizing that the McGuinty government is also getting tough on crime. I'd like to thank the MPP from Niagara Centre, from the third party, from the NDP side, with his references to boots,

dollars, doughnuts and buttocks, which is approximately the substance of what he said. I'd like to thank my physician colleague from Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale for highlighting some of the

medical aspects from a practitioner's point of view and how this bill eases the reporting. I'd also like to thank respectfully the MPP from Oshawa for raising some of the concerns of the rural

side.

In general, this is a bill that will help to strengthen communities by helping to let the authorities know firsthand on-site about gunshot wounds and how they