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

April 23, 2008

39th 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 2008-Apr-23 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 23 April 2008 Mercredi 23 avril 2008

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EMPLOYMENT

BLENHEIM AND DISTRICT

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

TELUS CUP

EDUCATION FUNDING

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

TRANSIT FUNDING

CIBC LABOUR DISPUTE

PESTICIDES

TRANSIT FUNDING

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

SOCIAL POLICY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT

ACT (CERTIFICATION), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

(ACCRÉDITATION)

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

VISITORS

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELIZABETH BAIN

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

ABORIGINAL RIGHTS

ABORIGINAL RIGHTS

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

ABORIGINAL HEALTH CARE

RENEWABLE ENERGY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

ABORIGINAL HEALTH PROMOTION

PESTICIDES

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

AIR QUALITY

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

CONSUMER PROTECTION

PETITIONS

LORD'S PRAYER

POPE JOHN PAUL II

HOSPITAL FUNDING

FIREARMS CONTROL

LORD'S PRAYER

FIREARMS CONTROL

LORD'S PRAYER

PHYSICAL EDUCATION

LORD'S PRAYER

HOSPITAL FUNDING

LORD'S PRAYER

LORD'S PRAYER

LORD'S PRAYER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LEGISLATIVE REFORM /

RÉFORME LÉGISLATIVE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EMPLOYMENT

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Remember those job losses we've been talking about in manufacturing–194,000 well-paying manufacturing jobs leaving Ontario since 2006? For the first time in 30 years, Ontario's unemployment rate is higher than the national average, and the startling news is that Ontario is straddling the line of have-not status. That is the legacy of the Liberal government and their high taxes and big spending.

The latest casualty of this tax-and-spend policy is Dell. Eleven hundred Dell employees in Ottawa got pink slips today. That's 1,100 parents, recent graduates and residents of the city of Ottawa who will be jobless in three months. I need to know, and so do my constituents, what this Liberal government's plan is for the people who go home tonight to their spouses and their children and face the reality that there will not be a paycheque to pay the mortgage, the groceries or the university bill.

The Liberals need to wake up. We are now in Dalton McGuinty's recession. The economy is not as rosy as the Liberals would have us believe. They won't take these job losses as proof. Will they take yesterday's Bensimon Byrne announcement that it is indeed slowing as proof? Mr. McGuinty's high taxes, his big spending and his lack of focus have caused residents in my community, and his, to lose jobs today.

Will he own up to his poor financial planning and deliver a real economic stimulus package so the workers at Dell and so many across Ontario who have lost their jobs won't face more months of uncertainty on the unemployment line?

BLENHEIM AND DISTRICT

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Mr. Pat Hoy: Tomorrow night, the Blenheim and District Chamber of Commerce will be holding their annual awards dinner to honour four individuals for their outstanding contributions.

Shannon and Bryan Prince have been named citizens of the year. Shannon is the curator of the Buxton National Historic Site and Museum. She is involved in joint Underground Railroad projects with York University, the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center in Cincinnati and with Millersville University and several historical organizations in Pennsylvania.

Her husband, Bryan, a descendant of slaves who came to Canada prior to the American Civil War, is a historian and author. He has lectured extensively in many parts of Canada and the United States on black history and is active in numerous local organizations.

Stan Uher is being honoured as entrepreneur of the year. Since 1989, Stan has owned and operated a classic car restoration shop in Blenheim. He has restored several pre-war funeral coaches and fire trucks and is currently completing restoration of a 110-year-old Chatham-built Gray-Dort for the Chatham-Kent Museum.

Dennis Guy is the agriculturalist of the year. He is a renowned radio broadcaster, including 15 years with the Ontario farm network, providing comprehensive farm and marketing news. I am pleased to recognize these four leaders for their contribution to the social and economic prosperity of Chatham—Kent.

TELUS CUP

Mr. John Yakabuski: Last Monday evening I had the honour of participating in the opening ceremonies for the Telus cup in Arnprior. The Telus cup, as you know, is the national championship of AAA midget hockey. Over its 30-year history, it has hosted over 180 future NHLers such as Joe Sakic, Daniel Briere, Dany Heatley and Sidney Crosby. No doubt some of the players competing this week will also be NHL stars of tomorrow.

I must tell you how proud we are to be hosting the Telus cup in the beautiful town of Arnprior, where the mighty Madawaska meets the majestic Ottawa. I want to take this opportunity to thank the town of Arnprior for their support of this prestigious event, and event chair Glenn Arthur and his committee, as well as the over 200 volunteers, giving of their time and efforts. Congratulations and thank you. You've done a tremendous job. Without those who give so much of themselves, events such as this one just don't happen.

Our gratitude goes out to title sponsor Telus and the many local businesses and organizations whose generosity and support are so very important. As I was speaking with Glenn earlier today, he mentioned that he was overwhelmed by the support of the people of Arnprior and area.

Congratulations and best of luck to all the players and coaches. You're already champions. A special thank you to the parents. Without the commitment and dedication you give your children, their participation would not be possible. I urge each and every member of this assembly and all the people of Ontario to tune in to TSN or RDS this Sunday afternoon at 4 o'clock, and you will see the best midget hockey in the world.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Bruce Crozier: I recently heard a quote by John Ralston Saul referring to the importance of our public education system. He said: "We need more than ever to look at the public education system as the primary tool we have to ensure that children are able to grow up to become citizens."

I know this sums up this government's approach to our public education system quite nicely. We must ensure that our children, and in my case my grandchildren, have what they need to succeed in their education and in life.

With this in mind, I'm pleased that the Windsor—Essex Catholic District School Board in my riding now receives $42 million more than it did in 2003, despite a decline in the number of students. Further, the Greater Essex County District School Board in my riding now receives over $63 million more than it did in 2003, despite a decline in the number of students.

These enrolment declines are a fact of life for most school boards and are projected to continue for the next few years. A major factor for the decline is simply changing demography. Despite this, the McGuinty government continues to invest more in our publicly funded education system so that boards can change their operations, if necessary, but also to ensure that students have better support. This is the right approach to take, and we'll continue to take it to ensure success for the children of our province.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

Ms. Sylvia Jones: The McGuinty Liberals are once again bullying the opposition and not listening to experts like the children's aid society. In the social policy committee yesterday afternoon, during clause-by-clause of Bill 12, the Access to Adoption Records Act, my colleague Norm Sterling, the member for Carleton—Mississippi Mills, tabled several excellent amendments that were defeated by Liberal members.

It was obvious that by stonewalling the Progressive Conservative amendments, the Liberal members of the committee were following orders. The amendments were to ensure that children who were abused, removed from their family and subsequently adopted could be automatically protected from having their personal information disclosed to the abuser without their consent.

These amendments were defeated by London—Fanshawe Liberal Khalil Ramal; the Liberal member from Guelph, Liz Sandals; Oak Ridges—Markham, Helena Jaczek; and Brampton—West, Vic Dhillon. The member from York South—Weston, Laura Albanese, was present for the debate on the bill, then left the committee room moments before the vote on our amendments, and returned following the vote. Sometimes actions speak louder than words.

Bill 12 is supposed to be a fix-it bill needed by the Liberal government because they didn't get it right the first time and were taken to court. Our PC amendments were in your original bill, but for some reason known only to the uncaring Liberal government, victims of abuse will no longer have the protection they deserve from the abusers.

TRANSIT FUNDING

Mr. Joe Dickson: This week is Earth Week. It is a great opportunity for everyone in this chamber, as well as across Ontario, to think about how important the health of our planet is to the future as well as to our children.

But for the McGuinty government, we don't think about the environment on one day of the year; we realize that thinking green is something that must become second nature to all of us. The environment must be a significant consideration in all that we do.

This is certainly the case when you look at Metrolinx, which is bringing together 12 transit systems in the development of a regional transit plan for the GTA, extending from the east in Durham region to Hamilton.

In this year's budget, this government announced its commitment to provide funding for the first two lists of recommended projects by Metrolinx, for a total funding of almost $800 million. These projects will undoubtedly lead to reduced traffic congestion, reduced smog and greenhouse gases, and cleaner air to breathe.

Metrolinx makes up one third of this government's vision of sustainable growth and prosperity for the greater Toronto region and Durham and Hamilton. The other two components are made up of the greenbelt and the Places to Grow plan. Together, these three important initiatives truly signify how important the health of the environment is to this government and how we aim to think green every day of the year.

CIBC LABOUR DISPUTE

M me France Gélinas: I rise today in solidarity with the 62 CIBC employees, mostly women, who have been on strike in Sudbury for over 14 weeks.

The workers have called for a modest wage increase. These women presently make $13 an hour. The two sides are 50 cents apart; 3.8%. CIBC says they can't afford the workers' demands. Yet, in 2007, the bank made $3.3 billion in profit and gave their shareholders 25% increases. We know where CIBC's priorities stand. The NDP believes that Sudbury's working families should be their priority.

Let's put the 50 cents in perspective. In 2006, the CEO of CIBC made over $9.4 million for his salary. That's $4,500 an hour. It would take a striking worker 10 weeks of full-time work to make what the CEO makes in a single hour. The previous CEO retired with a pay package of $52 million. That's more than those 62 striking workers will make in their lifetime.

Linda Denton, a CIBC employee for 22 years, says: "I never believed it would go on this long, but CIBC has proven their arrogance. They just won't talk to us. They're trying to break the union, break the women."

I urge CIBC to sit down with the Steelworkers. It is time to treat these women fairly.

PESTICIDES

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I rise today to speak about our government's move to reduce exposure to toxic chemicals by banning the sale and cosmetic use of pesticides.

This legislation, if passed, would make Ontario's pesticide rules among the toughest in North America, and more importantly, it would replace a patchwork of municipal bylaws across Ontario. Under the stewardship of the Premier and the Minister of Environment, and with the support of organizations like the Canadian Cancer Society and the Ontario College of Family Physicians, our ban builds on the leadership shown by those municipalities that introduced bans or imposed restrictions on cosmetic pesticides over the past several years.

In my own riding of Ottawa Centre, I was pleased when in 2002 the city of Ottawa council adopted a three-year pesticide reduction strategy to encourage all community members to voluntarily reduce the use of cosmetic pesticides on private property. Although the city of Ottawa has not banned the cosmetic use of pesticides, the community has actively been working to promote a healthier, greener and safer city for everyone to live.

Yesterday alone I received numerous e-mails from constituents who expressed their support for this proposed legislation. Many constituents in my riding pointed out that the long-term health of their families far outweighs any challenges they may face in maintaining their lawns and gardens.

As we celebrate Earth Week, I want to encourage all community members in Ottawa Centre and beyond to visit the environmental registry and comment on the proposed legislation.

TRANSIT FUNDING

Mr. Mike Colle: It being Earth Week, I would like to comment on how important it is for our government to continue to invest in public transit in Toronto and the greater Toronto area. I am pleased to join my colleague from Ajax—Pickering in supporting improved transit in Durham and area also.

It certainly underscores the importance of what our government is doing in transit. This year alone, we have committed $393 million to transit funding in the city of Toronto, and $2.7 billion to help the city of Toronto improve and expand transit. We also give over $314 million every year out of our gas tax to municipalities for public transit.

In the Move Ontario 2020 program, for the first time in the history of a project of that nature, which is over $17 billion, our government will pay 100% of the capital cost of building the subways and light rail transit systems across the GTA, including the rebuilding of the Eglinton crosstown light rail transit, which the previous Harris government in 1997 ripped out of the ground when the subway was already under way in my riding. Mr. Harris ripped it out of the ground. We are now going to put it back, provide jobs, clean the air and do something about gridlock, after Mr. Harris ripped the subway out of the ground in 1997.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Michael Prue: I beg leave to present a report from the Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills and move its adoption.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Tonia Grannum): Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr7,

An Act to revive 827291 Ontario Ltd.

Bill Pr8,

An Act to revive 719226 Ontario Limited.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed? Agreed.

Report adopted.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

SOCIAL POLICY

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I beg leave to present a report from the Standing Committee on Social Policy and move its adoption.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Tonia Grannum): Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 12,

An Act to amend the Vital Statistics Act in relation to adoption information and to make consequential amendments to the Child and Family Services Act / Projet de loi 12, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les statistiques de l'état civil en ce qui a trait aux renseignements sur les adoptions et apportant des modifications corrélatives à la

Loi sur les services à l'enfance et à la famille.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1348 to 1353.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): All those in favour will rise one at a time and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Opposed?

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 60; the nays are 17.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I declare the report carried.

Report adopted.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: I move that the Blind Persons' Rights Amendment Act, 2008, be read for the first time.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): As required, we need to have a bill introduced in both languages. I would just ask that the honourable member introduce the bill tomorrow.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT

ACT (CERTIFICATION), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

(ACCRÉDITATION)

Mr. Hampton moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 65,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, 1995 with respect to certification of trade unions / Projet de loi 65, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1995 sur les relations de travail en ce qui a trait à l'accréditation des syndicats.

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

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member for a short statement.

Mr. Howard Hampton: The bill amends the Labour Relations Act, 1995, to allow the Ontario Labour Relations Board to certify a trade union as the bargaining agent of the employees in a bargaining unit without directing a representation vote if it is satisfied that more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit are members of the trade union on the date on which the application is made.

Under the present act, a representation vote is required and those—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon. Michael Bryant: I move, pursuant to standing order 9(c)(i), that the House shall meet from 6:45 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 23, 2008, for the purpose of considering government business.

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

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1401 to 1406.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): All those in favour will please rise one at a time and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): All those opposed.

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 54; the nays are 26.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I declare the motion carried.

Agreed to.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the member for Dufferin—Caledon, I would like to welcome today the grandparents of page Rheanna Kendrick: Nancy McArthur, Tom Needham, Mary and Ron Kendrick.

On behalf of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, family members of page Laura Shum: Eric Shum, King Shum, Sui Lin Shum.

On behalf of the member of Don Valley East: Mr. Andrew's grade 4 class from La Citadelle.

On behalf of the leader of the third party, we welcome the Chiefs of Ontario today: Angus Toulouse, John Beaucage, Stan Beardy, Arnold Gardner, Denise Stonefish, Chris McCormick, Glen Hare and Mike Morris.

On behalf of the member from Durham, friends of page Michael Louws: Peter Vogel and Abegail Vogel.

Welcome, as well, on behalf of page Georgia LaMarre, to her grandmother, Gail Hawks, and her mother, Tracy LaMarre.

On behalf of page Prakash Pandya: Yogini Pandya, Kamlesh Pandya and Tejas Pandya.

As well, we would like to welcome members from OECTA as guests of the member from Kitchener—Conestoga: Warren Grafton, Mike Devoy, Patrick Etmanski, Ken Hambleton, John Payne, Judy Perkes and James McCormack.

On behalf of the member for Nipissing and the member for St. Paul's: again, Chief John Beaucage, Bob Goulais, Monica Lister and Patricia Campeau.

On behalf of the members, I take this opportunity to recognize the member from Timiskaming—Cochrane on his 60th birthday today. Happy birthday.

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Yesterday, following the oral question period, I committed to review the Hansard of proceedings both in response to a point of order from the member from Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington and due to my own concerns about the general tenor of parts of yesterday's question period. I have now done so, and I want to address the House on the issue of the tone and language that characterized a portion of yesterday's proceedings. I'm going to do so in the broad context of standing order 23, a rule that was brought up a number of times yesterday and seemed to enjoy a degree of currency it does not usually have.

Like I am doing now, Speakers before me on numerous occasions have addressed the House concerning parliamentary language, civility in debate and mutual respect among members. Most of the time we do a pretty good job on those accounts, but there are occasions when the issues of the day do seem to provoke the House into a state that sometimes results in language being used that, in retrospect, most members would not have used or would regret having used. Yesterday, unfortunately, was one of those days.

Standing order 23 serves in a very general sense as a guideline for what is broadly acceptable speech and behaviour in this House. One might summarize its underlying philosophy in the following terms: Temperance is the hallmark of good debate. Despite the heat of the moment and occasionally flared tempers, we all have a responsibility to be mindful of this. As Speaker, I will be more vigilant and proactive on this account.

The other day I asked the House also to be mindful of the people who come to the assembly to watch our proceedings in person or who watch the TV broadcast of the Legislative Assembly. Those people also deserve our respect and are entitled to expect that the public business of the province be conducted in a civil environment where different points of view are tolerated and considered.

Standing order 23 tells us how to accomplish this, and I'm pleased that so many members had reference to it yesterday. The use of intemperate language, the making of allegations, suggesting untoward motives and generally participating in a way that causes disorder in the House are all demeaning to the institution and all of us who serve here at the will of our constituents.

As I and my predecessors have done so many times before, I again implore all members to appreciate the great privilege we have of being members of this House and to work toward making this place the best it can be, even at its most contentious times.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELIZABETH BAIN

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is to the Premier. As you know, there remain a significant number of unanswered questions surrounding the crown's decision not to call witnesses or present evidence in the Robert Baltovich murder trial. And today we learned that last fall, the crown offered Mr. Baltovich a deal of one day in jail if he would tell them where Elizabeth Bain's body was.

Premier, do you have any concerns about how the crown handled this, at first plea-bargaining a murder charge down to one day in jail, and then throwing in the towel at the start of the trial?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I will refer this to the Attorney General.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question, remembering that this is a tragedy for the Bain family, who, years ago, lost their very young daughter. For Mr. Baltovich, after a process over an extended period of time, he has been found not guilty, and we hope he will be able to get on with his life.

This was a process that started with a trial and went through an appeal at which a new trial was ordered. That new trial proceeded. As a result of certain evidentiary rulings made by the presiding trial judge because of changes in the law, evidence was not available to the crown. The crown did what was in the interests of justice and of the highest professional standards, and advised the court of that fact as quickly as possible, and the jury rendered the only verdict that could be rendered, which was the finding of not guilty.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I didn't hear any concerns there about plea bargaining and a one-day sentence with an alleged murderer.

Yesterday, in defending the crown's decision to pull the plug on the prosecution, the Attorney General said it was "justified because of evidentiary rules based on changes in the law." We've looked at those rulings—made two months ago, by the way. It's difficult to see where they justify collapsing the prosecution.

I ask the Attorney General today to be more specific in explaining why the crown proceeded in the way it did.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I simply say this: that the crowns who were prosecuting this case have done so very diligently throughout a long process. They concluded, on the basis of the evidentiary rulings, that at the end of the day, the evidence that was available for introduction was not such as to justify further prosecution.

It is the duty and obligation of the crown to advise the court of that fact as soon as possible and to ensure that the court is apprised of that fact. The court did what needed to be done, and the verdict rendered by the jury was the only one available.

I would say that it does not serve any purpose to engage in a line-by-line analysis of who did or did not say things over the years this case has taken.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I suspect the Bain family might have a different perspective on that.

Earlier today, when the Premier was asked on a call-in radio show about a public inquiry into the situation, he said, "It's a very legitimate request." I would suggest it's more than legitimate; it's absolutely necessary. The crown has acted in a bizarre manner here: the plea-bargain deal; the collapse of prosecution two months after court rulings and after a jury had been empanelled; they're signing on to an agreed statement of fact that Paul Bernardo shouldn't be called as a witness; and on and on.

Mr. Baltovich now wants a public inquiry. Your Premier believes it's a legitimate request. Elizabeth Bain's family and friends want answers, and the public has a right to know.

Minister, will you do the right thing and call a public inquiry?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Not surprisingly, the Premier did not dismiss out of hand without further information a very legitimate and serious request in a tragic case. Before providing my advice to the Premier—I provided my initial impression yesterday—I want to say to the Bain family and to Mr. Baltovich that I am going to take the necessary time to thoroughly consider all aspects of the request and suggestion to determine whether a further review or inquiry would offer anything further than this public process already has to strengthen the administration of justice. Then I will be providing my advice to the Premier on this matter.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. I want to talk to you about a mum I talked to this morning who is an adoptive parent of a child who is a ward of the children's aid society. The child—I will call her Joanna—is 12 years old. She was abused badly by her parents, violently, before she was the age of four. Her mum works with her every day to overcome the post-traumatic stress disorder which she now suffers from. Her mum tells me that her chronological age may be 14, but her emotional age is probably about five or six years younger.

Why, Madam Minister, are you not going to protect people like Joanna from their abusive parents finding out their adoptive name when they turn the age of 19?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, this question belongs to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I wanted to say to the honourable member on the other side that our government is concerned, but we believe that this bill strikes an appropriate balance between the privacy and the protection. There are indeed existing mechanisms in our new legislation that address the concerns raised by the member. For example, our new adoption bill allows for all adopted adults to register a no-contact notice or a notice of contact preference. Under the proposed legislation, there is a $50,000 fine for an individual who breaches a no-contact notice.

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: I am told by workers at the children's aid society that many of these abusive parents are habitual drug users. There is much mental illness with regard to these people. With all due respect, I don't think a no-contact order will have any effect on their ability to contact or wanting to contact their child.

I understand that there is an abuser in this situation and there is a victim. Why are you on the side of the abuser?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Again, I think that our bill strikes a very appropriate balance. By the way, we've spoken to the privacy commissioner about our bill and she is on board with us. She is very supportive of it.

It's also important to note that provinces like British Columbia, Alberta and Newfoundland have adopted the same legislation with a no-contact provision in the act, and they all report that the no-contact notice has been a successful solution to any concern regarding the protective measures, and that this no-contact provision in the act has been respected and they are very satisfied with it.

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: The Gatehouse child abuse investigation and support site here in Toronto doesn't agree with you. They understand these victims and their fears, and program director Angela Gallant told me that allowing abuser information about the victim risks revictimization and retraumatization. The victim must have the power to direct any contact themselves; otherwise, these victims will have to take steps like changing their name or leaving the country. She suggested that all legislation must be victim-centred. The victim must have the power to decide when they ever have any contact with their abuser. It shouldn't be the abuser who is making this decision.

Madam Minister, you also have not included any provision in Bill 12 with regard to multiple adoptions. When one sibling becomes 19, they may have younger brothers and sisters who may be affected by the information of the adoptive name.

Why won't you change this bill? Why would—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I understand the concern of the member in the opposite party. Prior to entering into politics, I was a nurse working in the delivery room. I saw a lot of these young mothers giving their babies away. But no one gave their baby away without having the dream that one day they will be reunited with their baby.

So I want to say to the member of the opposite party that we have looked at his concerns, we have talked to our stakeholders, we have talked to the privacy commissioner, and they are on board with us. There are enough provisions, and also other measures in other legislation—other protective measures within the law—that are available to those who want to continue to be protected. I think that we have struck the right balance.

ABORIGINAL RIGHTS

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, Platinex Inc. announced that under the Ontario Mining Act, it has staked an additional 72,000 acres of crown land adjacent to Webequie First Nation, Marten Falls First Nation, Eabametoong First Nation, Neskantaga First Nation and Gull Bay First Nation.

The Premier will know that Platinex is the mining exploration company which sued Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug First Nation for $10 billion and played a role in the jailing of the Kitchenuhmaykoosib First Nation leadership.

My question: Why weren't the First Nations I mentioned consulted and accommodated by the McGuinty government before Platinex was allowed to register these new mining claims?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Hon. Michael Bryant: I do want to address elements of the member's question. I want to start, Speaker, by acknowledging, as you have, Grand Chief Angus Toulouse, regional chief for Ontario, and grand chiefs as well as chiefs from across the province and supporters of KI Chief Donny Morris and council.

There is obviously a particular culpability that rests with the government of the day when it comes to injustices endured, and sometimes conquered, by First Nations. I would say that while there are no elected angels here, I am certainly accountable for the state of affairs, and I will say that we have worked and we will continue to work to see that chief and council are released from prison so that we can get on with finding a way to have chief and council and the entire KI community come to a resolution of this matter.

Mr. Howard Hampton: Forgive me, but I didn't hear an answer to the question. What First Nations want to know, particularly the additional First Nations who now find they will have to deal with Platinex, is: Did the McGuinty government fulfill its constitutional duty to consult and accommodate First Nations' interests before Platinex was allowed to register these new mining claims?

I know why there was no answer. There was no answer because the McGuinty government failed again to do its constitutional duty to consult and accommodate First Nations.

But my next question is this: Has the minister notified the affected First Nations that their traditional lands have been staked and are now, under the Ontario Mining Act, wide open for mining exploration by Platinex?

Hon. Michael Bryant: I'm going to answer the member's question. I will say, however, that at some point the specificity may require me to refer it to the Minister of Mines. For now I will say this: The Premier has already said that a change to the Mining Act is absolutely necessary. It is the case that the Ontario Superior Court found that the government of Ontario had in fact met its consultation requirements. But it is my view and it is this government's view that the minimum constitutional requirements as a government and as a policy are simply just that—a minimum.

The goal in every case has got to be to try and facilitate an agreement: an agreement so as to recognize the self-determination of First Nations; an agreement so as to recognize the necessity of, in this case, the economic opportunity for a First Nation; but at the end of the day, to try and achieve an agreement. Yes, we will pursue the constitutional minimums, of course. But the goal is to get an agreement.

Mr. Howard Hampton: This is bizarre. First Nation leaders are in jail, the mining company which is at the centre of this has 72,000 additional acres of mining rights now, equivalent to more than half the area of the city of Toronto, and the McGuinty government seems to think that all you have to do is get an agreement.

There are rights and interests here. I did not hear an answer to the second question: Have First Nations been notified? In fact, no, they haven't, because on that issue again, the McGuinty government is missing in action.

So I ask this question: With First Nation leaders in jail simply because they tried to stand up and defend their aboriginal rights, with the mining company getting more mining exploration rights, can the McGuinty government tell us why they continue to put mining interests ahead of First Nation interests in Ontario?

Hon. Michael Bryant: I know that there are many First Nations leaders, chiefs, and individual supporters of First Nations and non-aboriginal descent who are here in support of the KI chief and council. We opposed the incarceration of the KI chief and council. With respect to their release from prison, as soon as the appeal was filed, which could only be filed by the parties, the Attorney General filed a motion to expedite the appeal and has already indicated that the crown will be taking the position of supporting the appeal so that they can be released. We are taking steps to see that they are released.

We did oppose their incarceration. I personally made every effort to try and facilitate a resolution, however imperfectly, that would have avoided that incarceration, and I will continue to make these efforts to try and resolve the situation.

ABORIGINAL RIGHTS

Mr. Howard Hampton: To the Premier again: The leadership of KI beg to differ with the minister about the positions that the government of Ontario, the McGuinty government, has taken with respect to the incarceration of the leadership.

The question I have for the Premier is: Today First Nations leaders, environmentalists and concerned Ontario citizens gathered here at Queen's Park to voice their anger at the McGuinty government's failure to properly consult and accommodate the rights and interests of First Nations—in this case, the KI First Nation and Ardoch Algonquin First Nation—regarding mineral exploration on their traditional lands. My question is this: Why hasn't the McGuinty government issued a stop order and removed the lands in question from mineral exploration and begun the consultation that you failed to do in the first place?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think I owe to the leadership present and the people who have gathered on the front lawn some response before I refer further questions to my colleague. Let me just say this to those present and those who have a direct interest in this: We have inherited here in this province an imperfect history when it comes to the relationship between government and our First Nations and our aboriginal communities. We have assumed responsibility hitherto not fully assumed and certainly not as earnestly as we have. We have established a separate ministry; I have a new minister in place.

We have established some wins, I would argue, in terms of dealing with the aftermath of the Ipperwash tragedy. We have arrived at a new conclusion to our gaming agreement. We've also inherited an imperfect system when it comes to how mining claims are dealt with in Ontario. We have to address that, but I don't want the leadership to doubt for one instant our determination to find a better way.

Mr. Howard Hampton: Premier, there's one problem with everything you say: These issues didn't crop up overnight. You've been the government now for almost five years, and for over five years people like myself and the member for Timmins—James Bay have been raising these issues. The McGuinty government has made announcement after announcement, but you've failed to act. Yesterday, on Earth Day, you would have received a letter from many prominent Canadians—Margaret Atwood, Sarah Harmer, Cathy Jones, Stephen Lewis, among others—and the letter states: "We do not believe that mining should supersede the rights of people to protect their homes and their health."

Premier, why has the McGuinty government failed to listen to those people? Why have you failed to listen to First Nation leaders who've asked you over and over again to make these changes? Why do we continue to see mining exploration companies getting more rights and more privileges, while First Nation leaders are in jail?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Hon. Michael Bryant: The discussion with respect to Mining Act changes is one that I have had with the Ipperwash commission implementation committee, which included and was asked for by grand chiefs, and we talked about exactly that. We talked about exactly how that consultation would take place. I indicated on behalf of the government that in fact the discussion would not be the usual one whereby the government gives, historically, over the past 100 years plus—the First Nations leader would be lucky to receive a heads-up as to what the government's intentions were.

Instead, our approach is to collaborate from the beginning of this process to ensure that First Nations leadership is very much a part of how we make these changes. We've made that commitment and we're working together to achieve just that.

Mr. Howard Hampton: Once again there is a glaring problem with what the minister said. You showed up in Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug with a document that you had drafted; you put it down on the table and you basically said to the leadership of Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, "Sign here." There was no consultation. Chief Donny Morris is very clear: It was unilateral.

"Sign here and there shall be mining exploration in your traditional territory." Now, both KI First Nation and Ardoch First Nation have asked the McGuinty government to establish a joint panel to deal with the issue of mineral exploration and mineral development on their traditional lands. The letter to the Premier yesterday, from Margaret Atwood and others, requests the same joint panel.

Can the Premier tell us: Why has the McGuinty government refused to establish the joint panel requested by the First Nations?

Hon. Michael Bryant: Firstly, the member is mistaken if he suggests that in my first visit up there with Grand Chief Beardy I put any document on the table. On the contrary: I received a proposal from the KI chief and council and I listened, and at the end of that I suggested that we could find agreement, I knew, on a number of points.

Secondly, with respect to a joint panel and entering into consultations, I just said that that's exactly what we're doing right now. I want to be very clear: This government is engaged in consultation with First Nations leadership when it comes to changes to the Mining Act. Secondly, all efforts were made first to listen and then to try and come to an agreement with Chief Morris and council. That's why he said on May 5 that he appreciated the government's efforts and the three times that I went up there, and the countless phone calls and letters that were exchanged—imperfectly, I recognize. However, we have tried and will continue to try to achieve a resolution.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is to the Attorney General. Yesterday, as you know, the Liberal members of the social policy committee voted against our amendment to the Access to Adoption Records Act, which would have allowed a disclosure veto to victims of child abuse who are removed from their parents by the children's aid society and later adopted.

This means that children who have been sexually or physically assaulted, even tortured, by their parent can do nothing to prevent that parent from—to quote the children's aid society, "To learn their names at age 19 and track them down." This is despite the fact that one of the fundamental principles of the Victims' Bill of Rights of your ministry—and surely these young people are victims—states that, "Victims should be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect for their personal dignity and privacy by justice system officials."

Minister, why won't your government afford the same rights of privacy to these young people that you have afforded to other victims of crime in the Victims' Bill of Rights?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: The Minister of Community and Social Services, please.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Again, it's a very difficult bill and it was a very difficult discussion. We have consulted with a lot of our stakeholders. We have consulted with other provinces. British Columbia, Alberta and Newfoundland have this provision in their act. Because of the no-contact notice and the fine attached to it—and you have to remember, those are not children; they are 19 years old and over. So they are now adults and they are able to make their own decisions. We are told by these other provinces that the no-contact notice has been a successful solution to any concerns regarding protective measures.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Again, I would like to address my question to the Attorney General because I believe this is something within his bailiwick and something I would respectfully ask him to look into.

The rights to privacy protected within the justice system by the Victims' Bill of Rights are there, but there's no right to protection within the adoption system. Why are you allowing this incredible inconsistency between these two situations when you're dealing with victims of crime in both instances, especially given the vulnerability of these people, whose vulnerability continues past age 19?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Again, we're dealing here with adults. We have a no-contact provision in the act, and there is a $50,000 fine attached to it.

We have just got the e-mail from the privacy commissioner, and she is fully in support of Bill 12 as it currently reads. Also, in addition to the measures that are contained in the proposed legislation, there are other protective measures within the law that may be available should adults feel they are at risk of harm, like for instance a restraining order pursuant to the Criminal Code. Again, three provinces have this disclosure veto in their act, and it has been respected because of the fine and the no-contact provision in the act. So we are following what other provinces have done.

ABORIGINAL HEALTH CARE

M me France Gélinas: My question is for the Premier. The Chiefs of Ontario are in Toronto this week for their planning sessions on health care. Grand Chief Stan Beardy is here right now. He is urging the government to invest in the existing aboriginal health access centre and to fund a new aboriginal health access centre. Why won't the Premier agree?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'll refer this to the Minister of Health.

Hon. George Smitherman: I thank my honourable friend for the question and welcome those chiefs and others who are here in the Legislature today.

I had a fantastic opportunity just a few weeks ago in Thunder Bay to meet with Grand Chief Beardy and many others when we announced that the Menoyawin Health Centre in Sioux Lookout, a $100-million hospital project, is moving forward to the stage for tendering, getting very close to this substantial new investment.

I indicated in a speech that followed that certainly in the Ministry of Health's budget, in partnership with other government ministries that participate in the AWHS strategy, as an example, there are additional investments available to keep pace with some of the challenges that are being experienced by First Nations communities. Over the course of the year, in concert with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and other government ministers, we anticipate being in a situation to further enhance the quality and access to health care services enjoyed by First Nations populations in Ontario.

M me France Gélinas: My question was specifically about aboriginal health access centres. AOHC, the Association of Ontario Health Centres, has also asked the government to eliminate what they call the second-class status of aboriginal health access centres and the community they serve. According to AOHC, the funding for aboriginal health access centres has been flatlined since 1997, limiting their ability to reach tens of thousands of aboriginal Ontarians in need of care and support. Why won't the minister agree to eliminate the second-class status of First Nations communities by investing in existing aboriginal health access centres and funding new aboriginal health access centres?

Hon. George Smitherman: The honourable member knows very, very well about our government's investments in expanding the community health centre model in the province of Ontario, and we are in the midst of doubling those. On the particular matter where the member speaks about flatlining and this two-tier status, I don't think that the story is quite as clear as that. Certainly when we funded pay increases for nurse practitioners, we sought to do that across all the models of primary care where they are involved.

But I will take a good hard look at the situation raised by the association of community health centres and by the honourable member, and I will endeavour to get back to the member and see if there are adjustments that are necessary to make sure that the investments in the aboriginal health centres are taking place at par with those investments that we've been making in community health centres.

I just want to remind the honourable member, as she knows and I've had a chance to say in the presence of the community health centre community, that while we are very committed to building those which we have announced, it's not our government's intention at present to be adding more community health centres beyond the 28 which have been announced but are not yet fully operational.

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Mr. Jim Brownell: My question is to the Minister of Research and Innovation. Minister, our government recognizes that we as a society have a responsibility to the environment and to future generations. We realize that natural resources are limited, and as such, we have dedicated ourselves to a wide variety of innovative energy initiatives. The Premier has often stated that there are incredible opportunities to be had as we move towards green technology and renewable energy production. Already we see companies across Ontario revolutionizing the way our society produces the energy we rely on in our daily lives.

Verdant Power, in my riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, is one of those companies creating revolutionary solutions. They are taking the idea behind a wind turbine and combining it with the reliability of constant flow of our rivers by placing the turbines underwater. This is an important project for my riding and Ontario. What is the Ministry of Research and Innovation doing to help make this innovative idea a reality?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to tell the House that the world is seeking new forms of renewable energy. We have to wean ourselves away from using dirty fossilized carbon. We know the traditional ones that have been accepted: solar and wind and biomass, all of which have challenges. But there's an innovative company called Verdant, and they have a demonstration project in the fine city of Cornwall.

I tell people that the wind does not always blow but the river always flows, and as a result, they have come up with this new free-flow turbine technology which is actually like trying to put a windmill in the river, underneath, and of course the current makes the turbine turn, and the turbine always turns. Unlike wind power, the turbine is always turning and producing this wonderful form of electricity. I've invested, through our ministry, some $2.2 million through our innovation demonstration fund to prove this technology.

Mr. Jim Brownell: It was a great day indeed when you came to my riding and we together made that announcement at St. Lawrence College overlooking the mighty St. Lawrence. This technology has obvious implications for harnessing the power of the abundant rivers in the province of Ontario. This project is an example of what we can achieve through the commitments of our communities to make a greener Ontario while at the same time bringing innovative ideas to the global market. The St. Lawrence River has been a major contributor of life in my riding for hundreds of years.

Thanks to some visionary thinking and timeless Ontario ingenuity, it is now also a source of clean, responsible energy. With initiatives such as these, our province can capture a leading share of the international market for clean energy production.

Can the minister outline the benefits for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry and the global ramifications of the Verdant Power project?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I think the world can beat a path to the door of Cornwall. I can see that the world, looking for renewable sources of energy, will want to look at this new form of renewable energy that they can tap into.

The demonstration project that we have funded will be for 15 megawatts. It will power some 11,000 homes. It's wonderful in Cornwall, because they have the mighty St. Lawrence there, and they also have the connection to the grid because of the hydroelectric power that's already there.

I was particularly pleased, because of the leadership of the member, that St. Lawrence College is one of the partners here. We're going to have to educate a whole new generation of skilled workers who will be able to take the job opportunities that are present from the new forms of renewable energy that the world, I say, is demanding of us in the 21st century. I would say to the young people of Ontario that Ontario is a jurisdiction that embraces the vision of Earth Day. I'm so proud to be part of a government, and to be with the member, in driving new jobs into Ontario.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. The Bank of Canada slashed its main rate again today, about 50 basis points, and warned that serious economic slowdown is just beginning. In Ottawa, 1,000 technical workers were handed pink slips this morning, adding to hundreds of thousands of recent job losses. Given these very blunt economic indicators, does the minister believe that Ontario will soon be in recession?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I would say, first off, that it won't be my place to speculate. What I will speculate about is exactly the impact that the Ontario government can have with investors who are looking around the world to invest and asking why they should choose Ontario and why now. What we recognize is that, yes, we know we have challenging times afoot in certain sectors. We also know that other sectors are doing very well. We are in net new jobs in the order of over 450,000.

I will tell the member opposite to look very clearly at the five pillars that we've identified for economic growth in Ontario, substantial investments that are targeting sectors for growth and where this government is prepared to help bring jobs to Ontario.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I wasn't suggesting that you speculate, Minister. I'm suggesting that you look at the economic indicators that we're all faced with. My pessimism does not lie with the people of Ontario but with this government, which thinks it knows best.

All the economic indicators show that your programs are failing. Every major bank is preparing for the worst. Minister, how do you justify the continuation of stale policy in light of these new realities?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: What I will say is that we had an individual in this House, followed by an entire party—the official opposition—who speculated that the advanced manufacturing strategy would not turn into jobs. In fact, in Milton, Ontario—in that very member's backyard—Roxul insulation, with our investment and their investment, is creating 100 new jobs and a great new product for sale around the world. That's what this government did.

I appreciate the pessimism on that side, but what this side sees very clearly is the level of innovation available in Ontario companies today. With a little bit of help from their friends in this government, we're prepared to help with expansion and new innovation so that we can sell products around the world. We'll take on his pessimism any time of day, because this is a government that is working for business in Ontario.

ABORIGINAL HEALTH PROMOTION

M me France Gélinas: My question is for the Minister of Health Promotion. Why isn't the Ministry of Health Promotion involved in promoting the health of First Nations communities in Ontario?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I thank the member opposite for the question. The First Nations communities are certainly one of our priorities in this province. The Ministry of Health Promotion has many different programs that are aimed at the different communities. All our programs in this particular ministry apply equally to the aboriginal community in Ontario, because we consider the aboriginal community in Ontario to be part of the communities and part of our family in Ontario. They are no different from any other community.

In my different conversations and in listening to the opposition, I get the feeling that the opposition thinks and believes that the aboriginal people are not part of this province and are not part of the people our general program deals with. I have to let you know that my ministry is focused on all the people of—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: How can the Minister of Health Promotion talk about "We are all equal"? First Nations youth are committing suicide at eight times the rate of the rest of Ontarians. Type 2 diabetes is five times higher within the First Nations than the rest of Ontario. Heart disease is 1.5 times higher within the First Nations, and tuberculosis is 10 times higher in First Nations communities.

The Chiefs of Ontario know that they need a focus on the key determinants of health. They know that the healing requires culturally appropriate health promotion. Why won't the Ministry of Health Promotion respect its obligations to the First Nations of Ontario?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Again, I will say to the member opposite that this ministry and the government of Ontario is quite cognizant of issues that face First Nations people. We are quite cognizant that the First Nations people have a higher incidence of suicide rates and a higher incidence of many other issues that affect our population, and we continue to work.

In my particular ministry, we are committed to working with the aboriginal leaders and communities to advance common goals on tobacco control, healthy eating, active living, addiction prevention and increasing aboriginal participation in sports and recreation. In fact, the Ministry of Health Promotion has invested a total of $3.2 million in a number of programs designed to help aboriginal communities. I myself have been to many aboriginal community centres and have been involved. I have been to the aboriginal—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

PESTICIDES

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: My question today is to the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday, you introduced Bill 64, legislation that would ban the use and sale of cosmetic pesticides throughout the province. But, Minister, I'm hearing concerns from my residents in our communities about some parts of your proposal. The Ontario Medical Association, the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario and the Canadian Cancer Society are all saying we should reduce our exposure, especially for our children, to unnecessary toxins like the cosmetic pesticides that are used to get rid of the few weeds in our front lawns.

Minister, the residents of my community, though, want to know why, if this government says it's concerned about protecting our families from exposure to unnecessary risk posed by cosmetic pesticides, they would consider exempting golf courses from the ban. Isn't this supposed to be about getting cosmetic pesticides off our land?

Hon. John Gerretsen: First of all, let me compliment the member for the excellent work that he has been doing in his riding for the last five years.

Yes, it is correct that the ban on the use and sale of cosmetic pesticides, which will potentially include about 80 active ingredients in over 300 products, will be the toughest legislation in North America. We are making an exception with respect to golf courses, as we clearly said in our platform commitment during the campaign last year. However, golf courses will only be exempt if they file with the ministry—and this will be set out in regulations later on—an integrated pest management plan that will clearly indicate how they intend to reduce the use of pesticides over a number of years. That's all still to be worked out in regulations.

This legislation is primarily about preventing unnecessary health risks, particularly for our children. Children are much more likely to play on their own lawns, their backyards, schoolyards etc. They need to be protected more than anyone—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you.

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: Minister, I'm sure my constituents are going to be very happy to hear that golf course operators are going to be treated in a fashion that will keep them responsible.

The other thing that I'm hearing, Minister, from my community is concern about how this whole matter is going to be enforced. With so many homes, schoolyards and parks in each of our communities, how will we know that the law is actually going to be followed? Parents in the community want certainty that their children are playing in safe places and as free as necessary from these unnecessary risks. Kids run around. They play and they explore when they're outdoors, and they're much more likely to come into contact with cosmetic pesticide residue.

How will parents have certainty that when their kids are outside playing, the environment is as safe and clean as possible and free from these harmful products?

Hon. John Gerretsen: The best enforcement mechanism is the fact that we're going to ban the sale of these products as well, and as early as next spring.

I should compliment the leadership that many municipalities have shown in bringing forth some 30 different bylaws across this province, but all of those bylaws basically only deal with the use. Our new law will deal both with banning the use and the sale of these non-essential pesticides.

We will also focus on education. We have set out a budget of about $10 million over the next four years, which will be exclusively used to educate people on the proper use of these particular materials etc.

Enforcement obviously will be part of it as well. We have included in our budget nine additional inspectors. As well, we hope to be working with the municipal world, which was going to use their own enforcement officers with respect to the bylaws that they've already passed, and we hope to use them—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Your Premier promised in 2003 to unclog emergency rooms and, today, five years later, you have rehashed that unfulfilled promise without giving any details, any timeline or any implementation plan. I ask you, Minister, what are the benchmarks you have set to achieve this goal and what are the targets you have set to confirm that you have achieved success? I didn't hear them.

Hon. George Smitherman: First off, I want to thank the honourable member for her question. I really want to say that I think it's a good day dawning in the province of Ontario when opposition parties and governments alike have come to the conclusion that using benchmarks and targets is an appropriate way to drive improvement in health care. We want to thank the honourable member for her encouragement on this point.

We received great encouragement last week from the Wait Time Alliance, which gave Ontario an A rating for their efforts around wait times. That is a compliment to Dr. Alan Hudson and thousands of people on the front lines of health care who have made these improvements. Under his leadership, and using similar approaches, we have every intention of unlocking the challenges with hospital emergency rooms and building on some of the successes that we've achieved in the honourable member's own community at Grand River, where we have substantially enhanced the performance of the ER already. We have more work to do and we're getting on with that work.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: There was a lot of hot air, a lot of puffery and a lot of empty rhetoric this morning. I would say to you that I've heard from some of the emergency room doctors and staff already today and they're not comforted, nor are their patients. Every day we read about another emergency room crisis. You've had five years. You have no plan. You have no details.

I would ask you again: What benchmarks did you provide today, what goals are you going to achieve and when will we know that you've achieved them? Because up until now, people continue to suffer. You've taken no action, and your Premier has not kept his promise.

Hon. George Smitherman: I want to thank the honourable member, especially for her admonition about use of colourful language and the temperament of the Legislature. I do want to acknowledge that the honourable member just ran an election campaign that didn't have emergency rooms mentioned in the campaign platform and actually promised to eliminate $3 billion of health care expenditure. We can imagine what the implications would have been.

Our objective is based on a vision of a circumstance in Ontario where patients have greater confidence that when they go to the emergency room, they will be served in a timely way. But to achieve that is to offer all the complementary strategies, like offering people a more appropriate alternative to going to the emergency room in the first place. We're going to continue to invest in community-based care, to enhance access to those things.

We're going to work on issues like mental illness and addiction, to enhance the capacity of the communities to resolve these issues, and unclog those capacities in our emergency rooms with timely and appropriate measures, all of this to follow under the leadership of Dr. Alan Hudson.

AIR QUALITY

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. The minister recently said that he would deal with the beaching process that causes clouds of dust over Hamilton, but this will not solve the main problem. When will the minister enforce the emission laws and when will this ministry issue an order that addresses the serious pollution coming from the industrial stacks in Hamilton?

Hon. John Gerretsen: I'd like to thank this member for his continuing interest with respect to the air quality in the province of Ontario and in Hamilton as well. As I indicated to the member before question period today, as a matter of fact the ministry is currently in the process of issuing an order against Dofasco to deal with this situation. That will be set out in a letter to him, in response to a letter that he wrote some time ago, within the next day or so.

But I think we should also recognize the fact that over the last two years, we have introduced 59 new and updated air standards—which was the biggest move on air toxins in this province in over 30 years—to deal precisely with the kind of situation that he's talking about.

There are still issues out there. Air quality will always be an issue. It's not just an issue that's created here as a result of the industries that are located in Ontario, but also in the Ohio Valley, as he well knows.

We have put strict limits into place. Those limits will be increased over the next number of years, and particularly, more stringent limits—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: On April 18, an

article in the Hamilton Spectator suggested that the issuing of an order may address the pollution that occurs from the process called beaching, but it does nothing about the daily air pollution suffered from the lack of secondary emission control systems on the stacks that certain companies in Hamilton had promised to do before and haven't complied.

The only order that this ministry should be issuing to ArcelorMittal Dofasco and others in Hamilton is the one that deals with the emissions from the stacks, melt shops, coke ovens and blast furnaces. Why hasn't this minister issued those orders?

Hon. John Gerretsen: As I mentioned before, the ministry has issued an order or is about to issue an order with precisely the kind of issues that he's talking about. The company has been ordered to put in more effective pollution controls and improved operating practices dealing with all of the issues that he talked about here.

We take the issue with respect to air quality in the province and in the city of Hamilton very seriously. That's why we've increased the standards over the last couple of years, and that's why we're taking the action that we've taken just within the last couple of days with respect to the order. We want Dofasco and the other steel producers to adhere to these new standards so that we can have the best possible air quality for the people of Ontario and the people of Hamilton.

CHILDREN'S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Khalil Ramal: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. The Children's Hospital at London Health Sciences Centre lost two pediatric cardiologists in December, which caused a great deal of concern among families across southwestern Ontario. The hospital has been able to recruit three new doctors who will be joining the hospital by the end of the summer.

Can you please tell me and the House what you are doing to improve children's health in Ontario?

Hon. George Smitherman: I thank the honourable member from London—Fanshawe for his keen interest in the issues related to children's health. Like many others, and particularly those individuals in London, I was concerned that in December the Children's Hospital at London Health Sciences lost two pediatric cardiologists. We congratulate them for their recruitment efforts and the news that three cardiologists will be joining, making sure that that capacity at London stays very strong.

Three initiatives that are noteworthy that we've advanced with respect to children's health are the three new childhood immunizations, which we've spoken of often, saving families up to $600 per child; our newborn screening, where we've gone from worst to first and dramatically enhanced our capacity; and our pediatric wait time initiative, which builds on the successes that we've had with wait time agendas, where we've got 2,300 additional procedures with about $4 million, enhancing access for pediatric services. These are examples of improvements to children's health in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I know that my constituents in London—Fanshawe will be pleased to welcome those three new doctors to our city. As you know, good-quality health care is very important to my constituents.

While we are very appreciative of having these additional doctors, our community of London is still short of doctors. Can you tell the House and the people of Ontario what you're doing to improve the shortage of doctors across this province?

Hon. George Smitherman: I have to say to the people of London that we have to thank them because, as one of our medical schools, they've been so engaged in working co-operatively with the coming to life of a medical school satellite in the community of Windsor, which is an example of enhancing the capacity to train more doctors. We've also got many residents who are active in London and surrounding communities learning their trade and moving forward to independent practice.

We had some very exciting data that came out yesterday from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. It showed that the number of doctors practising in group environments has grown by 181% since 2003-04; more than 6,600 doctors are now practising. The great news is that last year, fully 82% of them took new patients, including 265,000 new patients. Two examples in London where they are absorbing some additional capacity are the Thames Valley Family Health Team and the London Centre of Hope Family Health Team. I think it's very fitting that we see the group model coming to life in a profoundly powerful way for our patients.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, yesterday in Hansard you referenced that stakeholders were consulted regarding the amendments to Bill 12. Would the minister please share with the House which stakeholders agreed with removing the

section protecting the identity of children who suffered from abuse and were subsequently adopted?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: This consultation has been going on since 2004. We have consulted with adoptive parents, we have consulted with those who were adopted, we've consulted with the privacy commissioner, we've consulted with the children's aid society, we've consulted with as many stakeholders as we could, and we consulted them again with this legislation to make sure that this time we have it right. This legislation that we're moving forward with is in compliance with the privacy commissioner's advice and also with the court decision.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Minister, are these the same stakeholders that you consulted on Bill 183, and subsequently you ended up having to go to court, which is the only reason we're doing Bill 12 now? I ask: Specifically which stakeholders consulted on removing that section? The children's aid societies have said they have grave concerns with the legislation as written.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Of course, when we consult with our stakeholders, we consult with many stakeholders. They don't all agree with us 100%. That's why we have amendments coming from the New Democratic Party and we have amendments coming from the official opposition, and of course they are opposed to it. That's why this government, after consulting, will listen to everyone, and we're coming with Bill 12, which we believe strikes an appropriate balance between privacy and the protection of everyone's rights. I'm very pleased to move forward with Bill 12. This has been waiting for—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr. Gilles Bisson: To the Minister of Energy: Minister, we've had in all our ridings many energy marketers knocking on people's doors. In this particular case a senior's door was knocked on. When she said she wanted to check with her husband to see if she would sign the contract, the energy marketer said, "Why? Are you stupid? Can't you make the decision for yourself?" and tried to force her to sign. Do you think that's appropriate in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Gerry Phillips: No, it isn't. I certainly would encourage the member to give me any further information on that. It's inappropriate behaviour. It shouldn't happen, and we must take steps to stop that. I would say to all of us that there's an organization called the Ontario Energy Board. They regulate these people, as I think the member knows. But that's inappropriate behaviour and we need to find ways to stop that. These organizations are required to deal fairly with the population.

So I would say to the member: Let me know about that, but particularly, if you don't mind, let the Ontario Energy Board know about anything that happens like this. The regulated responsibility is to ensure the ethical behaviour of these retailers, so let's make sure that happens.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Each and every one of us in this House has either called that particular organization or has tried to deal with the energy marketers themselves. What you end up with is always the same: More energy peddlers knocking on somebody's door, insulting seniors, trying to force people to sign contracts that they shouldn't be signing.

A simple question: Don't you think it's high time that, as a government, you change the law in this province to not allow that kind of practice so that seniors are not preyed on and people aren't called stupid because they want to talk to their husbands about a particular contract?

I acknowledge, by the way, that most members in this Legislature maybe have had similar experiences to the ones you've had, but the Ontario Energy Board has been given the legislated authority to deal with it. They should, and will, welcome comments from you or your constituent. I'll undertake to ensure that I reinforce with them the need to be very vigilant in terms of the practices of these retailers. Ontarians deserve fair practices and we should ensure that that happens.

PETITIONS

LORD'S PRAYER

Ms. Laurie Scott: "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the current Liberal government is proposing to eliminate the Lord's Prayer from its place at the beginning of daily proceedings in the Legislature; and

"Whereas the recitation of the Lord's Prayer has opened the Legislature every day since the 19th century; and

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer's message is one of forgiveness, of providing for those in need of their 'daily bread' and of preserving us from the evils that we may fall into; it is a valuable guide and lesson for a chamber that is too often an arena for conflict; and

"Whereas recognizing the diversity of the people of Ontario should be an inclusive process, not one which excludes traditions such as the Lord's Prayer;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, ask the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to preserve the daily recitation of the Lord's Prayer by the Speaker in the Legislature."

It's signed by many people from my riding of Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, and I thank them for their signatures.

POPE JOHN PAUL II

Mr. Bob Delaney: In line with your drive for increasing collegiality in the chamber, I'd like to join with my colleague from Newmarket—Aurora in this petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the legacy of Pope John Paul II reflects his lifelong commitment to international understanding, peace and the defence of equality and human rights;

"Whereas his legacy has an all-embracing meaning that is particularly relevant to Canada's multi-faith and multicultural traditions;

"Whereas, as one of the great spiritual leaders of contemporary times, Pope John Paul II visited Ontario during his pontificate of more than 25 years and, on his visits, was enthusiastically greeted by Ontario's diverse religious and cultural communities;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to grant speedy passage into law of the private member's bill by Oak Ridges MPP Frank Klees entitled

An Act to proclaim Pope John Paul II Day."

It's signed by many people, particularly out of the Polish community in western Mississauga. I'm pleased to sign it, support it and ask page Rheanna to carry it for me.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Frank Klees: In that same spirit of collegiality, I would participate in supporting a petition that was circulated by my colleague Bob Delaney, the MPP for Mississauga—Streetsville. I'm pleased to support the petition and to read it into the record.

"Petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly:

"Western Mississauga Ambulatory Surgery Centre.

"Whereas wait times for access to surgical procedures in the western GTA area served by the Mississauga Halton LHIN are growing despite the vigorous capital project activity at the hospitals within the Mississauga Halton LHIN boundaries; and

"Whereas 'day surgery' procedures could be performed in an off-site facility, thus greatly increasing the ability of surgeons to perform more procedures, alleviating wait times for patients, and freeing up operating theatre space in hospitals for more complex procedures that may require post-operative intensive care unit support and a longer length of stay in hospital;

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

"That the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care allocate funds in its 2008-09 capital budget to begin planning and construction of an ambulatory surgery centre located in western Mississauga to serve the Mississauga-Halton area and enable greater access to 'day surgery' procedures that comprise about four fifths of all surgical procedures performed."

I am pleased to affix my signature and support the member, as well as the member from Halton, in this proposal.

FIREARMS CONTROL

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: I have a petition to stop unlawful firearms in vehicles.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas innocent people are being victimized by the growing number of unlawful firearms in our communities; and

"Whereas police officers, military personnel and lawfully licensed persons are the only people allowed to possess firearms; and

"Whereas a growing number of unlawful firearms are transported, smuggled and found in motor vehicles; and

"Whereas impounding motor vehicles and suspending driver's licences of persons possessing unlawful firearms in motor vehicles would aid the police in their efforts to make our streets safer;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to pass Bill 56, the Unlawful Firearms in Vehicles Act, 2008, into law, so that we can reduce the number of crimes involving firearms in our communities."

I support the petition. I affix my signature and ask Bethany to carry it for me.

LORD'S PRAYER

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: I have petitions provided to me by St. James' Anglican Church, Central Presbyterian Church, St. John's on the Hill United Church and St. Andrews Galt Presbyterian Church, which read:

"Whereas Premier Dalton McGuinty has called on the Ontario Legislature to consider removing the Lord's Prayer from its daily proceedings; and

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer has been an integral part of our parliamentary heritage that was first established in 1793 under Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe; and

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer is today a significant part of the religious heritage of millions of Ontarians of culturally diverse backgrounds;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to continue its long-standing practice of using the Lord's Prayer as part of its daily proceedings."

As I agree with the petition, I affix my name thereto.

FIREARMS CONTROL

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I have a petition to stop unlawful firearms in vehicles.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas innocent people are being victimized by the growing number of unlawful firearms in our communities; and

"Whereas police officers, military personnel and lawfully licensed persons are the only people allowed to possess firearms; and

"Whereas a growing number of unlawful firearms are transported, smuggled and found in motor vehicles; and

"Whereas impounding motor vehicles and suspending driver's licences of persons possessing unlawful firearms in motor vehicles would aid the police in their efforts to make our streets safer;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to pass Bill 56, the Unlawful Firearms in Vehicles Act, 2008, into law, so that we can reduce the number of crimes involving firearms in our communities."

I support this petition, and I will sign it and hand it over to Marco.

LORD'S PRAYER

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: "Whereas the current Liberal government is proposing to eliminate the Lord's Prayer from its place at the beginning of daily proceedings in the Legislature; and

"Whereas the recitation of the Lord's Prayer has opened the Legislature every day since the 19th century; and

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer's message of forgiveness and the avoidance of evil is universal to the human condition; it is a valuable guide and lesson for a chamber that is too often an arena of conflict; and

"Whereas recognizing the diversity of the people of Ontario should be an inclusive process, not one which excludes traditions such as the Lord's Prayer;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, ask the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to preserve the daily recitation of the Lord's Prayer by the Speaker in the Legislature."

I agree with this petition. I am pleased to add my name and give it to Thomas, the page.

PHYSICAL EDUCATION

Mr. Kim Craitor: Thank you for recognizing me. My petition is titled "Physical Activity Petition," and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas, over the past 25 years, obesity rates have more than tripled for Canadian children between the ages of 12 and 17; and

"Whereas, in Ontario, less than half of students beyond grade 9 take gym classes, a small fraction are involved in school sports programs, and adolescents who are inactive at school are unlikely to be physically active elsewhere; and

"Whereas Canada's Physical Activity Guide recommends that adolescents get at least 60 minutes of moderate physical activity daily; and

"Whereas a second compulsory physical education credit for secondary schools would result in an increase in adolescents being active;

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

"That the Ministry of Education add a second compulsory physical education credit for secondary schools."

I'm in support of this. I'm pleased to sign my name and give this to the page to take down.

LORD'S PRAYER

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: I have petitions provided to me by the Cambridge Christian School, First United Church and St. Luke's Anglican Church, which read:

"Petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Premier Dalton McGuinty has called on the Ontario Legislature to consider removing the Lord's Prayer from its daily proceedings; and

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer has been an integral part of our parliamentary heritage that was first established in 1793 under Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe; and

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer is today a significant part of the religious heritage of millions of Ontarians of culturally diverse backgrounds;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to continue its long-standing practice of using the Lord's Prayer as part of its daily proceedings."

As I agree with this petition, I will sign same and provide a copy to Ida.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Joe Dickson: "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Central East local health integration network (CE-LHIN) board of directors has approved the Rouge Valley Health System's deficit elimination plan, subject to public meetings; and

"Whereas, despite the significant expansion of the Ajax-Pickering hospital, its largest in its 53-year history, a project that could reach $100 million, of which 90% is funded by the Ontario government, this plan now calls for the ill-advised transfer of 20 mental health unit beds from Ajax-Pickering hospital to the Centenary health centre in Scarborough; and

"Whereas one of the factors for the successful treatment of patients in the mental health unit is support from family and friends, and the distance to Centenary health centre would negatively impact the quality of care for residents of Ajax and Pickering; and

"Whereas it is also imperative for Rouge Valley Health System to balance its budget, eliminate its deficit and debt and realize the benefits of additional Ontario government funding;

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

"That the Rouge Valley Health System continue to provide the current level of service to our Ajax-Pickering hospital, which now serves the fastest-growing communities of west Durham; and

"That the Ajax-Pickering hospital retain the badly needed 20-bed mental health unit."

I shall affix my signature to that and pass this to Jordynne.

LORD'S PRAYER

Mr. Mario Sergio: I have received another petition. I guess it's one of those petitions that's very popular.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the current Liberal government is proposing to eliminate the Lord's Prayer from its place at the beginning of daily proceedings in the Legislature; and

"Whereas the recitation of the Lord's Prayer has been an integral part of our spiritual and parliamentary tradition since it was first established in 1793 under Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe; and

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer's message is one of forgiveness, of providing for those in need of their 'daily bread' and of preserving us from the evils that we may fall into; it is a valuable guide and lesson for a chamber that is too often an arena for conflict; and

"Whereas recognizing the diversity of the people of Ontario should be an inclusive process, not one which excludes traditions such as the Lord's Prayer;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to preserve the daily recitation of the Lord's Prayer by the Speaker in the Legislature."

I will affix my signature and will deliver this to the House.

LORD'S PRAYER

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: I have petitions provided to me by Patricia Boughen of Cambridge, David and Karen Kovats of Cambridge, and Valley View Manor of St. Jacobs. The petitions read:

"Whereas Premier Dalton McGuinty has called on the Ontario Legislature to consider removing the Lord's Prayer from its daily proceedings; and

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer has been an integral part of our parliamentary heritage that was first established in 1793 under Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe; and

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer is today a significant part of the religious heritage of millions of Ontarians of culturally diverse backgrounds;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to continue its long-standing practice of using the Lord's Prayer as part of its daily proceedings."

As I agree with this petition, I will sign same and provide a copy to Prakash, the page.

LORD'S PRAYER

Mr. John Yakabuski: I'd like to thank Pastor Charlie Nolting and the parishioners of St. John's Augsburg Lutheran Church, which is also my church, for this petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the current Liberal government is proposing to eliminate the Lord's Prayer from its place at the beginning of daily proceedings in the Legislature; and

"Whereas the recitation of the Lord's Prayer has opened the Legislature every day since the 19th century; and

"Whereas the Lord's Prayer's message of forgiveness and the avoidance of evil is universal to the human condition; it is a valuable guide and lesson for a chamber that is too often an arena of conflict; and

"Whereas recognizing the diversity of the people of Ontario should be an inclusive process, not one which excludes traditions such as the Lord's Prayer;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, ask the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to preserve the daily recitation of the Lord's Prayer by the Speaker in the Legislature."

I support this petition, affix my name to it and send it down to the table with Bethany.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LEGISLATIVE REFORM /

RÉFORME LÉGISLATIVE

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 22, 2008, on the amendment to the motion by Mr. Bryant to amend the standing orders.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Further debate?

M. Gilles Bisson: Je veux dire premièrement que je suis un peu triste qu'on est dans ce débat-là aujourd'hui. Je sais que dans mon temps ici à l'Assemblée—ça fait 18 ou 19 ans—on a eu l'occasion au moins à deux ou trois reprises d'être dans une situation où on était en train de changer le Règlement de la Chambre.

Je veux dire droit au début de ce débat que les changements eux-mêmes aux règlements me concernent un peu moins que ce qui va arriver à la période des questions, et je vais en parler en plus de détails plus tard.

Cette place, cette Assemblée, du temps que je suis arrivé ici en 1990 comparé à aujourd'hui, est très, très différente. Il y avait un temps où la coopération entre le parti du gouvernement et les partis de l'opposition était beaucoup plus développée, parce que les règlements du jour reconnaissaient une couple de faits très importants qu'on a besoin d'avoir dans l'Assemblée.

Premièrement, un gouvernement majoritaire a toujours besoin, et je le dis comme membre de l'opposition, d'avoir le droit de passer ses lois. Parce que le public a choisi un gouvernement majoritaire dans une élection provinciale, le gouvernement, à la fin de la journée, a besoin d'avoir le droit de passer son programme, son agenda, à travers la législation. Mais ça, c'est avec l'œil donné de l'opposition, parce qu'il y a d'autres citoyens de la province de l'Ontario qui, possiblement—et on le sait—n'ont pas voté pour le gouvernement et ils se retrouvent avec des députés de l'opposition.

C'est notre ouvrage, c'est notre tâche comme députés de l'opposition, de regarder ce que le gouvernement nous propose comme législation, de le critiquer où il a besoin d'être critiqué, et de l'appuyer où il a besoin d'être appuyé. Quand je suis arrivé à cette Assemblée, cette Législature, le droit de l'opposition était beaucoup plus important qu'il ne l'est aujourd'hui.

Par exemple, quand je suis arrivé en 1990, les députés du gouvernement ou de l'opposition, une fois qu'ils commençaient un débat, pouvaient parler aussi longtemps qu'ils avaient besoin de parler pour faire leurs points sur un projet de loi.

Les membres du gouvernement vont dire—je le sais; j'étais là—« C'est un peu trop long, ce n'est pas beau. Quelqu'un peut prendre le plancher et peut parler pour des journées. » Mais il faut que tu comprennes que l'opposition ne faisait pas ça à toute reprise et pour chaque projet de loi. L'opposition, si elle voulait avoir des amendements sur un projet de loi et négocier une amélioration à un projet de loi qui a été proposé par le gouvernement, utilisait les règles de la Chambre pour essayer d'exercer une certaine pression sur le gouvernement pour faire les amendements nécessaires.

Je peux vous dire que, entre ce que j'ai vu en 1990 et ce que je vois aujourd'hui, il y a une grosse différence dans la manière dont l'Assemblée fonctionne elle-même. Je dirais même que cette Assemblée ne fonctionne plus comme un Parlement doit fonctionner parce que, avec les changements qui ont été faits, oui, par les néo-démocrates dans le temps de M. Rae, et qui ont été accélérés par M. Baird dans le temps de M. Harris, et même avant ça dans le temps de M. Peterson, on a ôté à l'opposition un certain droit qui a été reconnu quand on a créé les Parlements les années passées.

C'est pour dire que l'opposition, à la fin de la journée, ne peut jamais frustrer le gouvernement jusqu'au point qu'on ne peut pas passer un projet de loi, mais on a l'habilité, par la manière dont le Parlement a été créé, d'exercer nos droits comme membres de l'opposition pour garder une certaine pression sur le gouvernement pour améliorer des projets de loi. L'opposition, dans le passé, prenait très au sérieux cette responsabilité.

Ce qu'on a à cette heure, avec tous les changements de règles, c'est que le gouvernement, non seulement avec sa majorité mais avec les règles qu'on a présentement à l'Assemblée, peut passer un projet de loi très vite à cette Assemblée avec aucune conséquence, n'importe ce que l'opposition dit. Mais même plus important, cela n'a aucune conséquence de ce que le public a à dire. Cela, je pense, est très triste, et ce n'est pas la manière dont un Parlement doit marcher. Mais c'est pour un autre débat.

Je veux dire que, pour ce débat ici qu'on a aujourd'hui, pour moi la grosse question est que le nouveau calendrier qui a été proposé par le gouvernement est vraiment fait d'une manière qui va donner au gouvernement une habilité supérieure de communiquer son agenda au public, et encore frustrer l'opposition.

Présentement, on connaît la manière dont ça marche. L'Assemblée et tous les députés sont ici de bonne heure le matin. La plupart des députés sont ici au bureau à 7 h 30 ou à 8 heures et commencent leurs travaux pour se préparer pour la période des questions, préparer leur programme et d'autres affaires à l'Assemblée et faire leur travail comme législateurs. À 13 h 30, on arrive ici et on commence les procédures avec une période des questions, d'habitude, à environ 14 h 30.

La manière dont c'était désigné avec les règles présentes était pour donner à l'opposition la chance de s'organiser, de faire la recherche nécessaire pour être capable d'arriver à l'Assemblée avec des questions qui ont été préparées et réfléchies, et qu'on a organisées pour demander au gouvernement des questions qui reflètent les sujets du jour.

Le gouvernement veut avancer cette période des questions de 14 heures à 10 h 45. C'est très simple : la raison pour cela est que le gouvernement veut avoir un plus grand contrôle sur la manière dont il organise la communication avec les citoyens de la province de l'Ontario. Donc, ils vont arriver ici à l'Assemblée, ils vont entrer pour la période des questions, les questions vont être posées jusqu'à 11 h 45 et, bang, ils sont partis. Ils sont dans leur limo, ils sont partis quelque part en Ontario pour faire des conférences de presse; ils ne sont pas ici pour répondre aux médias qui sont ici chaque jour et à l'opposition sur le programme qu'ils sont en train de mettre en place.

Donc, le gros problème avec ces règles, ce n'est pas parce qu'on va commencer à siéger à 9 heures le matin pour une session. Écoute, moi, je suis préparé à 7 heures ou à 8 heures le matin. Ça ne me fait pas peur; comme tout le monde, on travaille dans notre société, et aller de bonne heure le matin au Parlement, ce n'est pas la question. Contrairement à ce que M. le Premier ministre a dit, quand il a essayé de dire que les députés commençaient leur ouvrage très tard l'après-midi, on sait que ce n'est pas vrai. Les députés sont ici de bonne heure le matin.

La question pour moi est celle de la période des questions. Si on permet à la période des questions de s'avancer au matin, ça veut dire, un, que l'opposition va avoir moins d'habilité de s'organiser pour la période des questions, et la qualité des questions jusqu'à un certain point, possiblement. Mais, deux, la pire affaire, c'est que ça bloque notre accès aux médias. D'habitude le matin, l'opposition a l'habilité d'avoir une conférence de presse et à inviter ceux et celles dans la communauté ontarienne qui ont certaines questions ou un certain dossier qu'ils veulent avancer sur le plan provincial.

On a notre conférence de presse le matin, les médias posent leurs questions, on revient ici pour la période des questions pour deux heures, deux heures et demie; on demande notre question sur le sujet, et le gouvernement a besoin de répondre. Donc, il y a tout un processus où les médias et l'opposition ont la chance de garder le pied du gouvernement au feu sur les dossiers politiques de la province de l'Ontario.

À cette heure, ça va être très difficile pour l'opposition et les médias de garder les pieds de ce gouvernement au feu. Pourquoi?

Parce que, sans l'habilité de faire entrer ses groupes le matin, parce qu'on va être ici en se préparant pour la période des questions, et, deux, parce qu'on va être là de bonne heure durant la période des questions, cela va être beaucoup plus difficile de rentrer ses groupes pour avoir cet aperçu d'une conférence de presse, d'avoir les médias qui demandent leurs questions, d'avoir une période des questions où l'opposition demande au gouvernement : « Pourquoi avez-vous fait tel et tel? » ou « Pourquoi n'avez-vous pas fait tel et tel? », et encore pour permettre aux médias l'opportunité de demander au ministre, dans ce qu'on appelle les « scrums », des questions sur le dossier du jour.

Donc, je trouve que c'est vraiment triste qu'on se trouve dans cette situation aujourd'hui où le gouvernement provincial essaie encore de limiter les droits de l'opposition.

In the time I've got left, I want to say a couple of things to my friends in the chamber who may not have been listening through translation. I understand that at times people don't like those devices.

First of all, this is not about when we're going to sit. Let's be real. The Premier got up in the House the other day and said, "I met with farmers, and they thought it was ridiculous that we only start work at 1:30 in the afternoon at Queen's Park." It's a good political point scored by the Premier that sells well in the media. Everybody kind of looks at politicians and they don't like us anyway, and he tried to reinforce among the public that somehow or other provincial members of Parliament never start work until 1:30. Well, we all know that's not true.

The reality is that members are in this assembly or in their constituency offices by 7 o'clock or 8 o'clock every morning and normally are not back at home until 8, 9 or 10 at night. Between coming to this place during the week when the House is in session, preparing yourself for question period, preparing yourself for committee, preparing yourself for debate, meeting with community groups about issues that are important to them, holding press conferences and doing the things we do here, that's why the House never sat until 1:30.

It was to give members the time to organize themselves and for the public to have access to members of the government and members of the opposition prior to question period.

There was some logic to it. The logic was that you have a question period in the afternoon. Why? Because it gives an opportunity, for those who may have a problem with a particular government policy, to come to Queen's Park in the morning to meet with opposition and government MPPs to talk about these things before question period starts and, yes, to hold press conferences here at Queen's Park, where that particular community group can hold the government's feet to the fire on a particular question. The media then get involved.

They ask questions of the community group or the provincial organization that comes in, and then they come into question period expecting that the opposition may ask questions on those particular issues that day. The government gets a chance to respond by way of answers to our questions—at times they give us answers; not always—but then the media get a second kick at the can, once we leave question period, in what we call scrums, which are happening now, as we speak, in order to hold the government's feet to the fire.

In a democracy, it's a partnership not just between the citizens in this assembly; it's also a partnership between the media and the individual's right to know what is being reported in the papers in this province and giving the media and the opposition the tools they need to hold the government accountable.

I understand that a government, especially a majority government, at the end of the day has the right to have its agenda passed. This is not the debate. I don't care about the rules that were brought into the House around this whole issue. We'll deal with that.

But the issue to me is a very simple one: For the government to be held accountable, there needs to be scrutiny, and scrutiny is done by a number of means: by question period; by the media asking questions of the government and doing investigative reporting, putting the question into the public's mind, "Is what the government proposes a good idea or is it not a good idea?" and by opposition members of the assembly standing in this House and demanding answers to particular questions of policy in the province of Ontario. This new

schedule of moving question period from the afternoon to the morning is going to very much limit the ability of the opposition and the media to have the type of access that needs to be had in holding a government accountable.

I want to be clear: I don't care if the House sits at 9 in the morning. I don't care if it sits at 8 in the morning. I don't care if it sits until midnight. I've been here long enough; I've had sessions go 24 hours a day when we had the megacity debate in this place. So to me, it's not about, "Oh, you don't want to be here at 9 o'clock in the morning." That has nothing to do with it. The issue is question period. The issue is the ability and the right for the public to know what its government is doing, and there's a process by which the public finds out.

First of all, community groups come to this place in the morning to meet with opposition members, to let them and the government members know how they feel about a particular issue. There's a dedicated amount of time where members are not stuck in this House, as we are this afternoon, when they can actually come and meet with us. That's why we have a

schedule the way that it is.

So the process here has always been—and it is in every other Legislature of a parliamentary-type system—that the people come, they have an opportunity to hold a press conference, and the media scrutinizes them in regard to what they're presenting to the media by way of questions at the end of their press conference. The media asks them questions in order to make sure they're satisfied that what's being presented by this particular organization is something that makes some sense and is valid of reporting.

They then expect the opposition members to come into the House and ask questions so that they can listen not only to the question but, more importantly, to what the answer by the government is; so that the government can respond to what was raised in the morning at the press conference by the provincial organization or others who might be here.

More important, the media gets an opportunity to question the ministers as they walk out the door of this Legislature after question period, to scrutinize the answer, to scrutinize the issue, to find out what is right and what is wrong with this particular thing and then report on it so that the public is informed of what they have the right to know.

What this whole thing is about—it's not about members coming to work early in the morning, and it's not about what's in the rule changes. This is about an attempt—and they will be successful, because they are a majority—of the government to say, "We want to limit the ability of the public and the opposition to scrutinize this government by making it more difficult for them to get access to the media to tell the story."

The second thing they're going to do—I know, 12 o'clock is going to come, and you're going to see all the government limos parked outside of Queen's Park here. The ministers will be dispatched to different parts around this province in the afternoon to go out and give the good-news story of the government of Ontario.

Mr. Bruce Crozier: Doing our job.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The member just admitted, "Doing our job." What about the job of the public, sir? What about the job of the opposition?

See, this is the problem. This is the mindset of the government. They think they have a God-inherent right to tell their side of the story, without allowing the media, the public or the opposition to hold them to scrutiny. If that's what you believe democracy is, sir, I don't think you belong in this Legislature, to be quite, quite blunt.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Excuse me, I'd ask you to consider withdrawing those remarks.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Madam Speaker, I withdraw.

The point I make is that government members—and I know; I was there. Go and read the speeches in 1992. I was one of those well-tamed backbench government members like you guys, who supported Dave Cooke in probably some of the worst rule changes of this place, because I was convinced by the party apparatus and by the Premier, now-Liberal Bob Rae—

Hon. Jim Watson: And Howard.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: No, Howard was offside. He was one of the few people who was mad at Cooke over it.

But I understand how this place works. There's an extreme amount of pressure put by the Premier's office and cabinet on the backbench members about the right of the government to get its agenda through and why this is so important and, "We've got to do this because, by God, this is what Ontarians want," and everybody falls into place. I understand; I've been around.

What I am saying here is that this is a bad move for democracy. The public has the right to know, and there's a process that has been established that gives the public an ability to know, and that's done, as I said, in a very simple way. It's a partnership, with the government proposing an issue, bringing a bill or announcing a program that the media and the opposition have an opportunity to scrutinize and to ask questions, the government then reflecting and in the end either changing or not changing that particular policy or legislation.

What this is all about is the government saying, "We want to be able to control"—not the political—"the communications agenda. We want to limit the ability of the opposition to hold our feet to the fire." What is even worse is to withhold the ability of the media to do their job by limiting the opportunities they will have to scrutinize the government through processes.

At the end of the day, come 12 o'clock every afternoon, a great number of cabinet ministers and the Premier will be boarding the limos outside Queen's Park, driving down to the Island Airport or Toronto Pearson, getting on planes, travelling out in the afternoon and coming back at night in order to give the good word to the province of Ontario about how great the McGuinty government is. You know what? They've done that in some totalitarian states, and it's not good.

What is great about our system, what is wonderful about the Ontario and British parliamentary system and one of the things we're the most proud of is that we have a system of government that has inserted within the Legislature an ability to scrutinize. If you cannot properly scrutinize the government, you're in trouble in a democracy. The government may make fun of this, the backbenchers might say, "We need to do this, it's important," and the public may not even care at this point, but the point is, in the end, what we're doing is limiting the ability of the public to know what's going on.

And the less information the public has, in my view, the greater the disservice the McGuinty government is giving to the public when it comes to how democracy should work.

I am going to definitely vote against these standing order changes. And I want to make it clear: I don't care—you want the House to come in at 8 in the morning? I'll be here with bells on. You want to sit on Friday? I'll be here. Give me a question period, but it's got to be in the afternoon and it's got to be done in such a way that not only the opposition but the media have an opportunity to hold this government to scrutiny—something that I'm convinced needs to happen more and more as I take a look at how some of the files have been handled by this government, on issues such as KI and others.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Further debate?

Hon. Jim Watson: I'll be sharing my time with the Minister of Health Promotion.

I'm pleased to take

part in this debate. I would rather be talking about some of the other pressing and important issues that are facing my community in Ottawa and certainly the province of Ontario, but I do have the floor for a few minutes and I wanted to put some perspective into this debate.

I've received a grand total of zero calls, zero e-mails and zero letters on this issue. This is not a barnburner out in our community. I've checked with other colleagues and, to the best of my knowledge, none of them—or very few, if any—has actually received any calls. That's not to say it's not important, but it's not registering on the radar screen of those men and women who make up our particular ridings. It's not registering because this is not a radical proposal. We're simply asking that we modernize this institution, drag it into the 21st century, make it more efficient so that we can conduct the public's business.

Debate time is going to increase by 25% under this proposal. There will be an increase of 50% in private members' business, which is something that members have asked for for some time. We're going to eliminate evening sittings because we've heard from a number of members the challenges that evening sittings bring, particularly to those with young families. They'd like to get home to their families, if they live in the GTA, or they'd like to go to a constituency or community event. So we're going to limit evening sittings to eight days in the spring and fall sessions.

What seems to be somewhat of a point of contention amongst the opposition is that we're going to begin question period at 10:45 and finish at a set period of time, namely 11:45. I had the pleasure of working for two Speakers of the House of Commons in Ottawa as their communications director. On one of the days in the House of Commons, question period started at 11 o'clock, so 15 minutes off what we're proposing. And guess what? The system works well in Ottawa with a morning start.

The other thing is that it's very difficult for all members to coordinate their schedules, meet with constituents and individuals who want to meet with them. You're never really sure, under the current rules, when question period is going to end. It could end, perhaps, at 2:30, it could end at 3, it could end at 3:30, it could end at 4; it all depends on the routine proceedings. So we're going to make the system a little more efficient.

Just to put in perspective how many days this House sat in 2006, we sat for 106 days, more than any other jurisdiction in Canada. As individual MPPs understand, not everything takes place in this chamber and the world does not revolve around this particular institution. We have an awful lot of important work to do in our ridings and as ministers in our ministries, meeting with groups throughout the province of Ontario. While question period is vitally important from an accountability point of view, it's not going to be any less accountable by having question period start at 10:45.

Most of us start our days well before 8 or 9 o'clock. Many of my colleagues have to travel in from around the GTA, and they're up at 5:30 or 6 to make sure they get to a community event and then get back for question period. If anything, this change is going to make it more difficult for the ministries, because it's probably a lot easier to ask a question than to research the information for the answer you expect is going to come down the pipe. Unlike in the British system, we do not have advance notice of the questions. So we have to be prepared for a wide range of issues that may be in the media that particular morning and may be talked about by various groups in the province of Ontario.

Let me just quote something I saw in the Toronto Star on April 19 that really put in perspective that this debate and the sometimes feigned outrage on the part of the opposition is much ado about nothing. It's a dart to the provincial opposition parties, "For making a big deal out of the trivial; for the past few days, the Progressive Conservatives and New Democrats focused not on weighty matters such as the economy or the looming TTC strike but on the Liberal government's plans to move the daily question period from the afternoon to the morning.

The move, which will accommodate the elimination of evening sittings of the Legislature (an opposition demand), was variously denounced as 'cynical' and 'undemocratic' by the PCs and NDP. Their real concern: It will give them less time to prepare for question period. The solution: get to work earlier."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

We even had the leader of the Conservative Party, who indicated that they wanted to reschedule the hours of debate. In the Sudbury Star: "Opposition reaction to the Ontario Liberals' attempt to reschedule legislative debate to daylight hours—including moving question period to 9:30 ... from 3," which has subsequently been changed, "has been unduly petulant....

"Opposition parties need to climb down off their high horse on this one. There will be little sympathy from the public....

"Give the new hours a chance."

Mr. Jeff Leal: Sudbury's celebrating its 100th anniversary this year.

Hon. Jim Watson: That's right—a great city. I was in Sudbury last week.

What we're proposing is not particularly revolutionary. We're simply indicating that we want to make this place more efficient. As I said, I think having question period in the morning is probably going to be more difficult for ministers than it will be for the opposition, but it's the right thing to do.

I said earlier that I would much rather be dealing with some of the more substantive issues that are facing our province, particularly municipal issues, which is part of my bailiwick. I enjoy question period; I enjoy getting questions. I'm looking forward to my very first question from my critic in the official opposition, at some point, to ask about some of the important issues that are coming forward, when it comes to the fiscal and service delivery review—

Mr. Jeff Leal: Is that the member from Durham?

Hon. Jim Watson: —the member from Durham is my critic; that's right—some of the issues we're working on with respect to uploading services such as ODB and ODSP, some of the work we've done with respect to gas tax for transit companies like OC Transpo, the TTC and Peterborough Transit. In Ottawa, my hometown, last year they received $36 million in gas tax money. By 2010, there will be close to $1.6 billion in gas tax money going across the province.

I also want to explain to the public who are interested in this—again, I don't want to be dismissive, but I don't think there is a great hue and cry coming from the public on changes to the standing orders. This is very much inside baseball; it's the rules that govern our activities. The fact of the matter is that this is a very different approach from what the previous government did when it came about wanting to make changes.

Mr. Jeff Leal: What did they do?

Hon. Jim Watson: What they did was quite interesting because they had a stealth approach, where they simply came in and brought in the changes in 1997, for instance, in a somewhat underhanded way. Let me read the St. Catharines Standard:

"As disturbing as the content of the rules is, however, the sneaky manner—no other way to say it—in which the government tried to slide them through is more repulsive. The matter was originally raised by a low-profile, backbench government MPP, smoke-screened in a seemingly innocuous package of changes meant to improve the efficiency of the Legislature and avoid the undue wasting of MPPs' valuable time. It is now apparent that to avoid detection as much as possible the government tabled the proposed changes in the Legislature at 5 p.m. on June 12." That was the St. Catharines Standard editorial of June 21, 1997.

It was a low-profile, backbench government MPP named John Baird who introduced those. Whatever happened to John Baird? I haven't heard much of him lately.

Mr. Jeff Leal: He's in Ottawa.

Hon. Jim Watson: That's right. In fact, he is my member of Parliament and represents my riding.

What Mr. Baird did in terms of getting the legislative changes forward was a world of difference compared to what we're proposing. This has been a very open and transparent process.

Let's just put it in context. This is a pilot project that a committee of the Legislature will be able to review after the spring session. It's not cast in stone. We may come back and say, "It's not working, not what we expected it to be." But let's at least give it a fair chance so that we can recognize that this Legislative Assembly, quite frankly, needs to be modernized.

When I came here from a municipal background, which is a very pragmatic level of government, I was quite surprised at the amount of time that was wasted in this chamber. People were given speaking notes, and many individuals didn't know what they were voting on. It was not the most productive use of time. If we can better manage the time

schedule of this particular Legislative Assembly and allow