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

April 5, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-Apr-05 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 5 April 2006 Mercredi 5 avril 2006

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION

IMMIGRANTS

AGRICULTURE FUNDING

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

COURT SECURITY

LONG-TERM CARE

BORDER SECURITY /

SÉCURITÉ À LA FRONTIÈRE

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

OMBUDSMAN AMENDMENT ACT (CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'OMBUDSMAN (SOCIÉTÉS D'AIDE

À L'ENFANCE)

KEVIN AND JARED'S LAW

(CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT), 2006 /

LOI KEVIN ET JARED DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES SERVICES À L'ENFANCE

ET À LA FAMILLE

OMBUDSMAN AMENDMENT ACT (SCHOOL BOARDS), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'OMBUDSMAN (CONSEILS SCOLAIRES)

KEEP YOUR PROMISES

AT THE PUMP ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR L'OBLIGATION

DE TENIR LES PROMESSES ÉLECTORALES À LA POMPE

OMBUDSMAN AMENDMENT ACT

(HOSPITALS AND LONG-TERM CARE FACILITIES), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'OMBUDSMAN (HÔPITAUX

ET ÉTABLISSEMENTS DE SOINS

DE LONGUE DURÉ

E) VISITORS

PAT COATES

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

HOUSE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

NORTHERN ONTARIO

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

HEALTH PREMIUMS

DUFFERIN-PEEL CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

AGRICULTURE FUNDING

WASTE DISPOSAL

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

NORTHERN ONTARIO

BEAR HUNTING

GASOLINE PRICES

COMMUNITIES IN ACTION FUND

BORDER SECURITY

AIR QUALITY

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

BORDER SECURITY

LONG-TERM CARE

COMMUNITY MEDIATION

LANDFILL

COURT ORDERS

LONG-TERM CARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR L'ACCÈS À LA JUSTICE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): In the wake of Gerard Kennedy's resignation as Minister of Education, Sandra Pupatello inherits his legacy of

underfunded program announcements and policy commitments.

After two and a half years, Gerard Kennedy has left Ontario's education system burdened with policy and contractual commitments beyond the fiscal ability of

school boards, leading inevitably to deficits in every school board in the province. He leaves in his wake a multi-million dollar funding shortfall that school boards have to deal with as a result

of his peace-at-any-cost labour deals.

His only major piece of legislation in two and a half years, Bill 78, robs school boards of a meaningful role, undermines the authority of school board trustees,

strips away the independence of the Ontario College of Teachers, does away with qualifying tests for new teachers and downloads numerous responsibilities to school boards without any commitment of

resources.

After two and a half years, rather than delivering on his promise to provide services to autistic children, this minister is fighting autistic children in the

courts. Rather than improving services to special-needs students, this minister presided over the clawing back of special-needs funding from school boards across the province. And rather than

adequately funding transportation for Ontario students, this minister has ignored the appeals of the Ontario School Bus Association and has forced hardship on parents and students throughout rural

and northern Ontario.

He has yet to deliver on the promised funding to keep rural and small schools open; he deflects responsibility for the imminent closing of those schools.

This minister mastered the art of the announcement --

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

IMMIGRANTS

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): On Monday, March 27, I had the privilege, alongside Minister Colle, to attend and participate in a

conference held by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. The conference, entitled Diversity in the Workforce: Our Economic Advantage, was also attended by

several prominent members of the Toronto business community.

Topics of the conference included what employers need to know about Ontario's changing workforce, and how employers can tap into new markets using diversity as

leverage.

For too long, immigrants' global education and experience was not properly recognized or appreciated. The McGuinty government recognizes the real benefits that

newcomers bring to this province, and the government has worked hard to help newcomers to Ontario through several initiatives, including the launch of the www.ontarioimmigration.ca website, which

provides newcomers and potential immigrants with the information they need to get started in Ontario, and signing the first-ever Canada-Ontario immigration agreement, which will result in 920

million new federal dollars over the next five years to help Ontario newcomers settle and upgrade their skills and language.

In fact, the Ontario government invests more in programs and services for newcomers than any other province, and we will continue to work hard to help newcomers

reach their full potential and put Ontario in a better position to compete in the global market.

AGRICULTURE FUNDING

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): Today in Ottawa, 10,000 farmers are converging on Parliament Hill. Farmers were ignored when they

surrounded Queen's Park the week before the Ontario budget. They are hoping to get a better hearing from the Harper government. They certainly can't get a worse hearing than the McGuinty government

gave them.

Two weeks ago, farmers across Ontario were angered and disappointed by the fact that the government's "pay more, get less" budget did nothing to address the

crisis in farming. Joe Hickson is a grain and oilseed farmer in my riding. He says that farmers in Ontario need $300 million in relief, or roughly $100 for every consumer. That's less than $2 a

week. When the opposition asked why farmers had been left out of an $85-billion budget, they were told to ask the federal government for help. The provincial Liberal government's message to farmers

is clear: "You are on your own."

Farmers are not known for sitting around. There's an old saying, "If you want something done, ask a busy person." To this we can add a new saying, "If you want

something done right, ask a farmer."

Although the Queen's Park protests were ignored by the provincial government, they did catch the attention of federal politicians. Here is what yesterday's

federal throne speech had to say about agriculture: The federal government "will respond to short-term needs, create separate and more effective farm income stabilization and disaster relief

programs and work with producers and partners to achieve long-term competitiveness and sustainability."

The McGuinty government thinks that by ignoring farm protests, they have successfully passed the buck to the federal government. They are mistaken. Soon they

will be called to the table to participate in securing the future of agriculture --

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

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Mr. John Milloy (Kitchener Centre): I am pleased to rise in the House today to highlight an important conference on domestic violence that took

place in my community last week. The conference was hosted by Waterloo region's Catholic Family Counselling Centre, or, as it's known, the CFCC. I was pleased to attend the opening dinner with our

colleague the Honourable Sandra Pupatello.

The CFCC, with its partner agencies, has taken a leadership role in providing a first-in-Canada one-stop approach to helping eliminate family violence. To

highlight their approach, CFCC invited Casey Gwinn, director of victim services for the San Diego county district attorney's office and national director of the President's Family Justice Centre

initiative. Casey Gwinn's successful vision of collaborative and coordinated care for victims of family violence has served as an important model for work under way in Waterloo region. I

congratulate CFCC's board chair, Jim Hallman, and executive director, Cathy Brothers, for their successful conference. I would also like to thank Staff Sergeant Sean Tout of the Waterloo Regional

Police Service and Casey Cruikshank of St. Mary's hospital's domestic violence and sexual assault treatment centre, who helped organize the event.

Together with the elder abuse team of the community care access centre, Women's Crisis Services of Waterloo Region, the Community Action Program for Children,

and CFCC's credit counselling program, they have launched this new method of delivering support to victims of family violence.

COURT SECURITY

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I rise today to condemn the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services for his completely

inaccurate comments yesterday in response to my question on court security. The minister had the gall to stand in this House yesterday to accuse our party of downloading court security to

municipalities when we were in power.

Nothing could be further from the truth. On January 1, 1990, court security was formally downloaded from the province to the municipality in which the court is

located by none other than the Liberal government of David Peterson. In fact, Minister Kwinter sat at the cabinet table during this time and did absolutely nothing to stop this transfer of

responsibility.

I can assure the minister that the policing community is not fooled by these Liberal games. The minister has sat on the Thomas report on court security since he

assumed his current cabinet position. Instead of acting on this report, which includes several options for sharing court security costs, he has chosen to take any possibility of any funding for

court security completely off the table.

I would respectfully request that in the future the minister get his facts straight before attempting to rewrite the history books on the solid Progressive

Conservative record on policing in Ontario.

LONG-TERM CARE

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): The member for Glengarry-Prescott -- oh, the member for Timmins-James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I know I lost some weight, Speaker, but not that much.

Interjections.

Mr. Bisson: I'm glad somebody has noticed; I tried so hard.

I rise in the House today for a very serious matter that I know other members in this assembly have been approached on. I, like many other members, have been

approached by the Extendicare nursing homes in this province, specifically in my constituency in Timmins and also in Kapuskasing. They are circulating petitions signed by the residents within those

particular facilities calling on the government to keep the pledge it made in the last election to refund the money removed from personal nursing care that was there to assist people in those

institutions.

Specifically, they are asking the government to fix the oversight in this last budget, where they had a chance to address this and find the $306 million required

to fund the more than 20 minutes of daily care for residents, time that is deeply needed to care for people in our institutions.

There is an old saying that goes, "We judge a society by the way it treats those who are the most vulnerable." I think this government had an opportunity in the

last budget to do something that was right for those seniors who have built this province, this country and their communities.

I join with the voices of those who have signed this petition and call on our provincial government to fund the dollars necessary to provide the level of care

needed within these particular institutions so that our seniors can be well cared for.

BORDER SECURITY /

SÉCURITÉ À LA FRONTIÈRE

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): I rise today to express my disappointment about Prime Minister Stephen Harper's inability to

stand up for Ontario on the issue of American passport proposals.

Last week, our Prime Minister met with President Bush during his visit to Mexico. I was disappointed to see that the Prime Minister refused to defend the

interests of Ontarians and Canadians when he gave in to Mr. Bush's passport plan without a fight.

I'm sure that all members of this Legislature are aware of the important role that tourism plays in the Ontario economy. In 2004, Ontario welcomed more than 21

million American visitors, who collectively spent $3.3 billion in our province.

Les statistiques demandent que, de nos jours, les voyageurs américains planifient leurs vacances 48 heures d'avance. Je présume que ça prend plus

que 48 heures pour l'obtention d'un passeport aux États-Unis. Compte tenu que moins de 25 % des Américains ont un passeport valide, l'industrie du tourisme en Ontario sera

sérieusement affectée par ce changement.

The proposed border security plan threatens a key component of our economy in Ontario. I am shocked that the Prime Minister would admit defeat on this issue

after only one meeting with President Bush. I call on Prime Minister Harper --

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

Mr. Bill Mauro (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): Like many other members in the Legislature, I have had more than a passing interest in the US

government's western hemisphere travel initiative.

The requirement to have a passport or a single-purpose travel card can, and likely will, have a very negative effect on tourism, and business owners and

communities all across Ontario, including Thunder Bay, which I have the pleasure of representing in this Legislature. Thunder Bay is a mere 30-minute drive from the US border and has a significant

amount of cross-border travel at all times of the year, but specifically in the summer months.

Recently, as we are all aware, Prime Minister Harper met with President Bush in Cancun to discuss, among other things, the western hemisphere travel initiative.

I think many of us were very surprised by the apparently meek capitulation on this very important issue by our new Prime Minister. While it may not be of significance in Alberta, it is obviously of

great importance in Ontario.

If this initiative could be more substantially linked to improving the safety and security of our people and our countries, it would have much more support. Not

only is it not supported in Ontario but it is roundly criticized by many public officials in the US itself as having little impact on improving security.

Like many northern communities, Thunder Bay has always faced its economic challenges. The tourist industry has always provided a stable, predictable component to

the economic base of Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario. Why Prime Minister Harper would not lobby President Bush for at least a delay in its implementation is a surprise to all of us. It is not

too late to reverse his stand and begin to more forcefully represent the interests of Ontarians and Canadians.

Mr. Bruce Crozier (Essex): Despite the intransigence of the Bush regime and the fact that our Prime Minister is waving a white flag on these

border issues, I want to tell the Legislature what state governments and provinces are doing in this respect.

I am co-chair of the subcommittee on security with the Council of State Governments, midwest section. Eleven state governments, three of which are Ohio, Michigan

and Minnesota, along with Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Ontario, have met on this issue. We've done something about it. What we have done is to advise the President of the United States and the Prime

Minister of our country that when it comes to the United States Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, we feel it should be delayed. It should be held back until such time as we can agree on an

appropriate method of border security.

We haven't given up -- not like the federal governments on both sides. We're working to make our borders more secure but at the same time keeping for the

citizens of two countries that have lived peacefully together the ability to cross each other's border and not be inhibited in doing that.

We won't quit, notwithstanding what the federal government might do.

VISITORS

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I'm delighted to introduce to you and to the distinguished members

representatives of the very successful Portuguese Canadian Credit Union: Mr. Antonio Carvalho, Mr. Rendeiro and Mr. Santos.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

OMBUDSMAN AMENDMENT ACT (CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'OMBUDSMAN (SOCIÉTÉS D'AIDE

À L'ENFANCE)

Ms. Horwath moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 88,

An Act to amend the Ombudsman Act with respect to children's aid societies / Projet de loi 88, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'ombudsman en ce qui a

trait aux sociétés d'aide à l'enfance.

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

The member may wish to make a brief statement.

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): Very briefly, the bill amends the Ombudsman Act to allow the Ombudsman to investigate any decision or

recommendation made or any act done or omitted in the course of the administration of a children's aid society. It comes up as a result of some of the discussions around Bill 210.

The government decided not to do this, notwithstanding the Ombudsman's wishes and my own amendment, so I thought it would be appropriate to introduce a private

member's bill to ensure that this issue remains top of mind.

KEVIN AND JARED'S LAW

(CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT), 2006 /

LOI KEVIN ET JARED DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES SERVICES À L'ENFANCE

ET À LA FAMILLE

Mr. Jackson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 89,

An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act and the Coroners Act to better protect the children of Ontario / Projet de loi 89, Loi modifiant

la

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

Loi sur les coroners pour mieux protéger les enfants de l'Ontario.

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

The member may wish to make a brief statement.

Mr. Cameron Jackson (Burlington): Members would be familiar with this legislation, which I tabled and which was passed unanimously in May

2004. It deals with the issue that when a child dies when in the care of a court-ordered access permit of an abusive parent, there would be an automatic coroner's inquest and the victims' justice

fund would allow the family to have standing.

This bill has been named in honour of Kevin Latimer, who was two days short of his second birthday when he died on February 2, 2004, at the hands of his

father. It's also named today in honour of Jared Osidacz, who would have turned nine yesterday had he survived the tragic but brave efforts he made to save two women in an abusive situation on

March 18 of this year. This bill is named Kevin and Jared's Law in their honour.

OMBUDSMAN AMENDMENT ACT (SCHOOL BOARDS), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'OMBUDSMAN (CONSEILS SCOLAIRES)

Mr. Marchese moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 90,

An Act to amend the Ombudsman Act with respect to school boards / Projet de loi 90, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'ombudsman en ce qui a trait aux

conseils scolaires.

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

The member may wish to make a brief statement.

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): The bill amends the Ombudsman Act to allow the Ombudsman to investigate any decision or recommendation

made or any act done or omitted in the course of the administration of a school board.

KEEP YOUR PROMISES

AT THE PUMP ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR L'OBLIGATION

DE TENIR LES PROMESSES ÉLECTORALES À LA POMPE

Mr. Bisson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 91,

An Act to provide for an interim freeze in the price of certain petroleum products / Projet de loi 91, Loi prévoyant le gel provisoire du

prix de certains produits pétroliers.

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

The member for Timmins-James Bay may have a brief statement.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I certainly do have a brief statement. We know that in opposition many Liberal members rose in this

House and introduced bills calling for all kinds of measures to deal with gas prices. Speaker, you know that gas prices are again rising. They're up to $1.05 in my community; about $1.01 here in

Toronto.

This particular bill is actually a very good one that I supported in opposition. It was introduced by Mr. Bartolucci. I introduced this bill and it died on the

order paper when the government prorogued the House, so I have to reintroduce it. The bill freezes the price of petroleum products at the price of those products on April 5 -- today -- and the

freeze applies for 90 days from the day the bill comes into force. This would give time for the government to put some pressure on the gas companies to lower the prices. I'm looking forward to Mr.

Bartolucci's support on this bill.

OMBUDSMAN AMENDMENT ACT

(HOSPITALS AND LONG-TERM CARE FACILITIES), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'OMBUDSMAN (HÔPITAUX

ET ÉTABLISSEMENTS DE SOINS

DE LONGUE DURÉ

E) Ms. Horwath moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 92,

An Act to amend the Ombudsman Act with respect to hospitals and long-term care facilities / Projet de loi 92, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur

l'ombudsman en ce qui a trait aux hôpitaux et aux établissements de soins de longue durée.

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

The member may wish to make a brief statement.

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): Currently under the Ombudsman Act, the Ombudsman may investigate decisions, recommendations, actions and

omissions of governmental bodies and may exercise other powers necessary for an investigation. The bill amends this act to give the Ombudsman the same powers in relation to hospitals and

long-term-care facilities. My interest in doing so stems from some issues in my own community around Chedoke Continuing Care Centre and Mr. Malleau and some of the challenges of getting good health

care for the people of Hamilton.

VISITORS

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): I'd like to welcome in the gallery Shereen and Dennis Airth from my riding of Hamilton East. They're the

parents of my legislative page, Elyse Airth. For the information of the House, Dennis Airth was the very first firefighter to receive the provincial Medal for Good Citizenship, and we should all

congratulate him on that.

PAT COATES

Mr. Tim Peterson (Mississauga South): I just wish to inform the House that yesterday, Pat Coates, a great Liberal, a great political activist,

was buried in Mississauga. Pat suffered from diabetes, lost both of her legs, lost her sight, but never lost her spirit as she continued forward and left a tremendous legacy to all of us.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to put

forward a motion without notice regarding private members' public business.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Mr. Bradley has asked for unanimous consent to put forward a motion dealing with private members' public

business. Agreed? Agreed.

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

public business: Mr. Sterling and Mr. Jackson exchange places in order of precedence such that Mr. Sterling assumes ballot item 33 and Mr. Jackson assumes ballot item 30, and that, pursuant to

standing order 96(g), notice be waived for ballot item 33.

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

members' public business: Mr. Sterling and Mr. Jackson exchange places in order of precedence such that Mr. Sterling assumes ballot item 33, and Mr. Jackson assumes ballot item 30, and that,

pursuant to stand order 96(g), notice be waived for ballot item 33.

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

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing

order 9(c)(i), the House shall meet from 6:45 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 5, 2006, for the purpose of considering government business, despite the fact that I am on House duty.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Mr. Bradley has moved government notice of motion 90. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion

carry?

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1359 to 1404.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Balkissoon, Bas

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoy, Pat

Jackson, Cameron

Klees, Frank

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Martiniuk, Gerry

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McNeely, Phil

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Orazietti, David

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Peterson, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Gregory S.

Sterling, Norman W.

Takhar, Harinder S.

Tory, John

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wong, Tony C.

Wynne, Kathleen O.

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

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Horwath, Andrea

Kormos, Peter

Marchese, Rosario

Prue, Michael

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 66; the nays are 5.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

NORTHERN ONTARIO

Hon. Rick Bartolucci (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I am delighted to rise in the House today to inform members of the latest

actions of our government to strengthen northern Ontario's economy and improve the quality of life for northern residents.

Once again, it was clear in our third budget that this government recognizes the tremendous potential of the north. Our investments in this region are

continuing to build a strong foundation for prosperity now and into the future.

Through the refocused northern Ontario heritage fund, for example, we are continuing to work with northern entrepreneurs, companies and business organizations

to help create jobs and foster economic development.

Just last week, it was my great pleasure to join my colleague David Orazietti, the member for Sault Ste. Marie, to announce a $15-million Northern Ontario

Heritage Fund Corp. investment in a tourist attraction that will be part of the city's major waterfront tourism and commercial project. When completed, this innovative development will benefit

Sault Ste. Marie and the region in a number of ways. It will create additional synergies with our tourism markets in the northern United States. It will attract more visitors to northern Ontario,

and it will generate hundreds of new job opportunities.

Northerners have a vision for achieving prosperity. It is a priority of our government to help them realize that vision.

Few industries in this province demand more vision and long-term commitment than the mineral industry. Fortunately for all of us, Ontario's mining exploration,

production and service companies consistently demonstrate their talent for achieving results that benefit the entire province. In 2005, the value of Ontario's mineral production was $7.2

billion.

For almost a century, Ontario has led metal production in Canada, but the mineral industry is a global one, and on that stage too this province is a leader.

Once again this year, Ontario ranked in the top 10 of the world's most favourable mining jurisdictions.

The best minds in the industry are constantly working on new ways to ensure that Ontario's mineral industry remains a front-runner. This is an industry with an

unrelenting commitment to innovation.

As the minister responsible for mines, I am especially proud of two recent initiatives by our government. The first is Ontario's mineral development strategy,

which I released last month at the annual Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada convention here in Toronto. This strategy builds on this government's current initiatives, programs and

services to help ensure the mineral sector's continued strong economic performance. The strategy outlines a series of key strategic objectives and action items, which we will now begin to

implement. An important aspect of the strategy is a proposed engagement process that aims to promote good mineral sector relations with aboriginal communities.

The mineral development strategy benefited from extensive collaboration with key stakeholder groups, whose time and efforts I appreciated very much. I want to

thank one group in particular for their contributions; namely, the Ontario Mineral Industry Cluster Council. The members of this council have also been the driving force behind another exciting

initiative that will have far-reaching benefits for the mineral industry.

I am delighted to report that the council members' vision for a national centre of leading-edge mineral industry research and development in the north took a

giant step forward towards becoming a reality with the news from our government's 2006 budget of $10 million to help launch the new Centre for Excellence in Mining Innovation at Laurentian

University. The centre will build on the considerable industry and academic resources that already exist in Sudbury to harness the skills of the best and the brightest in mineral industry and

research institutions around the world. Mere days later, on the strength of the support from our government, Inco Ltd. stepped forward with its own announcement of $5 million for this mining

centre. I cannot overstate the value of this project to the mineral industry nor the level of support from all stakeholders.

I would like to take just a moment to draw attention to two other initiatives in the 2006 budget that will continue the momentum of progress that has been

spurred through the northern prosperity plan.

In all parts of the province, roads and highways are vital for development. In the vast north, the highway network is especially crucial as the social and

economic lifeline of many communities. This year, our government will invest $357 million in northern highway rehabilitation and expansion projects. This represents the largest annual investment

ever in the history of this province. I am also pleased that as part of Move Ontario, a new infrastructure initiative by our government, northern municipalities will receive $56.5 million in

immediate, one-time funding for road and bridge repairs and upgrading.

Northern Ontario's tremendous potential lies not only in the richness of its mineral wealth, forestry and extensive network of fresh lakes, but in the

ingenuity of its residents. I am proud that our government is both responsive and responsible in helping build opportunity and prosperity in this region. Thank you.

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

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): It's my pleasure this afternoon to respond to the statement made by the Minister of Northern

Development and Mines. First of all, I'd like to talk about tourism. He brought up tourism in his statement, talking about a new project in Sault Ste. Marie, and I'm pleased to see that. However, I

would like to point out that tourism is very important for northern Ontario. It's important not only for northern Ontario; it's important for Parry Sound-Muskoka; it's important for Niagara, for

Toronto, for Ottawa. It's important for many different areas of Ontario. So I ask the minister, what happened to the tourism budget in this latest budget that was announced just last week?

Well, I can give you the answer to that, because I happen to have the budget handy here. I see under the Ministry of Tourism that the budget went from $261

million to $161 million: a $100-million cut to the budget of the Ministry of Tourism. So I say, if tourism is so important -- I would say in the north especially important -- why was the budget cut

by $100 million?

Just a couple of weeks ago I was on a three-day northern loop, and I stopped in the town of Cochrane, a beautiful town. I know they have a world-class polar

bear centre there; I think the last government had a lot to do with providing the funding for that. I met with the council. I knew the polar bear centre was there, so on the way up I was looking

for signs that would direct me to it. I didn't see any signs. So I asked the council, "How's it going?" and they told me that the first year they were doing pretty well. The first year they had

14,000 visitors, and the second year they had 19,000 visitors. I said, "Where are the signs?" They said, "Well, we only have $25,000 to market this world-class attraction."

I say that's a real shame. If they had some partnership money with the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines perhaps, or the Ministry of Tourism, then

they would be able to promote this world-class attraction and generate some dollars for the province and for the Cochrane area, and it would be a net benefit for the province of Ontario. So I say

it's a real shame that the government has cut this $100 million out of the budget of the Ministry of Tourism.

I'm pleased that mining is doing well in Ontario, and I would say that a new mine doesn't open in one year. In fact, it doesn't open in even three years, the

length of time that the government has been in power. The minister mentions that we're in the top 10 in the world for mining exploration. Well, we used to be number one, so we've gone from number

one to somewhere in the top 10; he didn't say exactly where. But I say that a lot of the results we're seeing in the mining sector right now are because of all the various programs that were put in

place by the past government, like reducing the mining tax rate by 50% and providing a reduction of corporate income tax for resource companies. Mr. Wilson, the past Minister of Northern

Development and Mines, had a lot to do with that, and past minister Hudak.

The new remote mines were provided with a 10-year tax exemption and reduced tax rates to encourage mining. I would say that with the De Beers mine at

Attawapiskat, that program had a lot to do with encouraging that new mine. We of course have put in place a flow-through tax regime for mineral exploration. When I was up in Timmins at the

pre-budget consultations, I heard from people in the mining business that they want to see Ontario more competitive with Quebec, where they have a more generous program for flow-through share

deductions. But also there were some other programs we put in place, like Operation Treasure Hunt, which really paid off. So there were a lot of programs put in by the past government. We're now

seeing the benefits of all those programs that were put in place.

Minister, I'm going to run out of time very quickly, but there's a lot more work to be done. I also heard in Timmins there's a tremendous skilled labour

shortage in the mining sector, and a lot of work has to be done to address that problem. Your energy policy is really hurting mining. It's certainly very much hurting forestry. Agriculture is a

significant industry in the north as well, and agriculture used to be able to benefit from the northern Ontario heritage fund investments. Under the changes this government put in place, they no

longer can get investments for capital and infrastructure. I heard that on my recent northern tour.

Look what the province of Quebec just did, in comparison, in their recent budget. They balanced the budget, but they also invested $1 billion in the forestry

sector over the next four years. So Quebec, both in mining and forestry, is doing more than Ontario, and balancing the budget.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I'm pleased to respond to the comments made by the Minister of Northern Development and Mines both in

regard to tourism and mining. I just want to remind the minister that, yes, the mining industry is doing quite well in Ontario, as they are across North America and other jurisdictions, based on

the price of base metals and based on the price of precious metals.

We went through very bad times for a long period of time where both base metal and precious metal prices were low, and it didn't matter what government did at

the time: If the price of metal is low, you're not going to attract the kind of investment you need in exploration, and if you don't attract the amount of money you need in exploration, you're not

going to get the kind of developments that are eventually going to happen when it comes to bringing some of the new ore bodies into production.

Here we are today, in this particular year and for the last couple of years, having a pretty good time in mining. I look at the city of Timmins, and certainly

the buzz is, when you talk to people in the community -- the real estate people, the business people and others -- there's lots going on in the mining sector. A lot of people are coming back into

the community, and we certainly are grateful for that.

But I don't want this government to think that all of a sudden some policy that the government put in place today, yesterday or two years ago is responsible

for that, because the minister will know that it takes six to 10 years before a mine actually comes into production. The prospector goes out in the bush, he finds an interesting deposit, goes out

and raises some money, does some diamond drilling, and eventually somebody options the property. There's a long process before it ever comes to a mine. I'm sure the minister will know that in fact

that does take some time.

I would say that successive governments have done a lot to respond to the mining industry. I was part of the government when Minister Martel was Minister of

Northern Development and Mines. I know that Mr. Wilson, under the Tories, and now Mr. Bartolucci have done a lot to try to assist the mining industry, because we do understand how difficult an

industry it is when it comes to attracting investment, and I think we do what we can.

But I do want to be critical on one point, and that is on the aboriginal front. The minister said in his statement -- of course, I can't find the paper when I

need it. I don't have my glasses, because Michael is gone with the ones that I borrow all the time. But it does say -- and I'm trying as best I can.

Interjection.

Mr. Bisson: Oh, thank you. Let me see if I can put Yak's glasses on. Yeah, that works.

"An important aspect of the strategy is a proposed engagement process that aims to promote good mineral sector relations with aboriginal communities." Well,

you've had an opportunity, Minister, to do that, and for the Premier to do that. I introduced a bill in this House on the issue of revenue-sharing, which was one part of trying to find a way to

allow development to happen around our aboriginal communities when it comes to mine development. Your government saw fit to kill that bill when they prorogued the House, and now you've created this

whole new process that supposedly is going to be the be-all and end-all when it comes to dealing fairly with aboriginal communities. Well, I'm not as hopeful as some, because, as we're going

through this process, you're continuing the same old practices that were in place that have infuriated First Nations communities over the years as you go into these new discussions. I would guess

that by the end of November 2007, we will be no nearer to finding a solution to this issue than we were at the beginning of this particular term.

On the issue of tourism, I guess it's the same as mining when it comes to First Nations communities. They hear these announcements and they say, "What does it

mean to me?" How much tourism development do we see in First Nations communities? How much mining development do we see that actually benefits First Nations communities? Very little. For example,

in the communities of Moosonee and Moose Factory on James Bay, there is a huge opportunity, as there is in other places, to attract tourists in order to benefit not only the Ontario economy but the

local aboriginal communities. We don't see the amount of attention being put in place that is needed to support the local business communities, the entrepreneurs and the other individuals involved

in tourism to get activities going in that particular part of the world that would benefit those communities when it comes to tourism.

I put this challenge to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and I put the challenge to the Minister of Tourism: We have been asking for a long time

that a special fund be set up for aboriginal communities so that others in those particular areas, including Moosonee, which is a non-aboriginal community as far as a municipality, are able to draw

down funds from the province to help them develop their infrastructure and their marketing plans to be able to benefit from the tourist industry as tourists go into the northern part of the

province. I say tourism is a great part of our economy, but it certainly ends approximately north of Highway 11. We need to figure out some way to plug the aboriginal communities into the process

so they are also able to benefit.

And I want to thank Mr. Yakabuski for his glasses.

VISITOR

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): It's my distinct pleasure to introduce the grandfather of page Charlotte Curley from the riding of

Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound and the town of Owen Sound, Bill Holmes, who is in the west visitors' gallery today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. In the budget statement, an amount of $400 million was announced for

road and bridge repairs and upgrading. Can you confirm that every single dollar of this amount will in fact be spent on roads and bridges, as stated in the budget?

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Finance, Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): Every dollar.

Mr. Tory: I think the Premier and the minister know full well that part of the problem with this year-end March madness spending is that you

have no control over the money and what happens to it. The Auditor General has commented on this before.

Your colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs confirmed in a recent news story in the Kingston Whig-Standard, and I quote from that story, "Kingston's MPP

says the city can spend a surprise $4.85-million grant announced in the provincial budget indirectly on a downtown entertainment centre." The

article goes on to quote the Minister of Municipal

Affairs as saying, "Maybe it wants to reallocate that money and do other things with it. That's totally up to the city to decide."

My question was to the Premier, but the minister has just said that every dollar of this money was for roads and bridges, no ifs, ands or buts. Can you confirm

whether or not, if these people wanted to take this money and put it into an arena or, frankly, to more of your $100,000-plus club that you're expanding so fast, they could in fact do whatever they

want and that your previous answer was incorrect? Which is it?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: The answer is still the same. What differentiates us from them is that we trust our municipal partners.

Mr. Tory: I was only quoting your own colleague sitting right back there, who is quoted in the newspaper. I'll read it to you again: "Maybe it

wants to reallocate that money and do other things with it. That's totally up to" them "to decide."

The truth of the matter is that you've been going around telling Ontarians that you can guarantee them that there will be thousands of kilometres of roads --

by the way, much less than needs to be done -- and hundreds of bridges that can be fixed, but your Minister of Municipal Affairs tells quite a different picture. The auditor has previously

commented on the fact that one of the problems with this year-end March spending madness you go on is that it has to be unconditional. Can you tell us today, are there any conditions whatsoever

associated with this money -- the answer must be yes if your previous answer was correct -- or in fact are the municipalities able to do whatever they want with it, which means we won't get the

kinds of road and bridge repairs that you've said? Which is it?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: The money we're providing to municipalities is for roads and bridges, and we trust them to use it for what it's meant

for.

Here we have the Leader of the Opposition, who before the budget said that we should balance the budget and cut taxes; that's what he said before the budget.

This is a party that left a $5.5-billion deficit, and we're cleaning up that mess as well. The Leader of the Opposition wants to have it both ways. He wants to say that you can cut $2.5 billion out

of health care -- that's what he wants to do -- and he wants to say that you can increase spending on programs and services.

We have a clear plan. First, we're eliminating the health care deficit, and we're doing it in a planned and deliberate way. Secondly, we're eliminating the

education deficit and the infrastructure deficit. Finally, according to plan, we will eliminate the fiscal deficit, working with our partners, municipalities --

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

HEALTH PREMIUMS

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier. It seems it's actually the ministers going one by one, but never

mind. That's another subject.

Could you explain why our men and women in the armed forces, who do not use Ontario's health care system, are forced by you to pay the McGuinty health tax? Do

you approve of this policy?

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Finance, Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): As we've said from the beginning, this is a tax that

applies to every citizen of the province equally. It is being used to invest in health care services that serve all the people of this province. All that money is being used to improve our

hospitals, add family health teams and provide for more doctors and nurses right across the province. It's money that's being well spent.

Interjection: Community health centres.

Hon. Mr. Duncan: And community health centres. It is money that is being wisely used to invest in our health care system, not just for today,

but into the future. All Ontarians, whether they are in the armed services now or in the future, contribute to that and they also benefit over their life from the services we make available and the

improvements we have made to health care in this province.

Mr. Tory: Obviously, the minister does feel it's appropriate that we should charge the men and women in the armed forces, who are over there

serving all of us and placing themselves in harm's way every day. Their health care is covered by the federal government. You think it's appropriate that, in addition to that, they should pay the

McGuinty health tax. They should be treated, as you put it, the same way as all other people in Ontario, notwithstanding the fact that their health care is provided by somebody else.

I just want you to confirm again that you don't think there's anything wrong with this, that there is no inequity here and that it's perfectly fair that these

men and women, getting the health care in the circumstances they do, should be charged the health tax just like everybody else. That's your policy. Please confirm that.

Hon. Mr. Duncan: I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition is not advocating that they shouldn't pay Ontario income tax either.

What we are saying is that all people in this province benefit from our health care system over the long term. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition --

Interjection: What would he cut? What's he going to cut?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: That's the question: What would he cut with that $2.5 billion?

This tax is applied fairly and evenly across all individuals in Ontario. It's invested in services, including, the Minister of Health tells me, a family health

team at the Petawawa base. I imagine the Leader of the Opposition would cut that.

It's important that all of us invest in our health care. Our health care system is improving day by day because of the investments of this government, and

we're going to continue to make those investments to ensure that the members of our armed services and their families have access to high-quality health care everywhere throughout Ontario.

Mr. Tory: The fact of the matter is, what we're hearing here is a lot of rhetoric, because you can't defend the position you've taken. It

starts from the fact that the health tax itself was, of course, brought in in direct violation of a promise made by the Premier of this province -- then the leader of the Liberal Party -- not to

raise taxes at all. But worse than that, now that you've brought it in in direct violation of your own promise, you have a situation where you are making these men and women in the armed forces,

who are serving us and who have their health care funded and looked after by the federal government -- and you know it -- you are making them pay a tax that is being paid, yes, by every other

person in the province, but those people don't have their health care looked after by the federal government.

You have a chance right now to stand in your place and say this is wrong and that you're not going to treat these people, who are serving us, in this fashion.

Why don't you get up and treat them properly, in the manner they deserve, and say you're going to stop charging them the McGuinty health tax?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: Like all Ontarians, they pay the health premium. Their parents, their children, their grandparents benefit from the system.

This is about a system of health care that serves all Ontarians. It's about a system that we will not cut $2.5 billion out of, the way you will, Mr. Tory. It is about a system that saw billions of

dollars in cuts by the previous government, cuts that have affected everyone, including the families of the men and women who serve in our armed services.

We will invest in health care to ensure that when those young men and women return to Canada, they have a quality health care system that is second to none,

that they too can benefit from, the way their grandparents and parents benefit, because I know and believe that they see that as being a priority --

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

DUFFERIN-PEEL CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Education. Allow me to congratulate the new Minister of Education

on her appointment. I wish her better luck in this portfolio than she had in her last portfolio.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Stop the clock. Order. Order.

The leader of the third party.

Mr. Hampton: Your government, the McGuinty government, has asked the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board to make significant cuts to

educational programs for students. My question, Minister, is this: Will the McGuinty government be taking over this school board if the trustees refuse to make these cuts?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Education, minister responsible for women's issues): Let me say --

Applause.

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: I can't believe you're clapping; I'm enjoying that while it lasts.

First of all, let me say a very special congratulations to my colleague Gerard Kennedy. I am really gratified to be able to step in after the kind of tone he

has set in education. A very good example of that is this very board that the leader of the third party is asking about today. I think he has set us on exactly the right track. I have a wealth of

experience with this individual named Bill McLean who was sent into that board, an individual whom I happen to have known for many years. I am looking forward to having a look at the report that he

has developed, and we're giving that board time as well to look at the report that Bill McLean developed. We're going to be speaking very soon.

Mr. Hampton: Minister, your report from Bill McLean calls on the school board to increase class sizes, fire vice-principals, scrap adult

education and cut over $2 million from the reading recovery program for young children who are having difficulty learning to read. The trustees don't want to do this; they want to put children

first. My question again: If the trustees refuse to implement these kinds of damaging cuts, is the McGuinty government going to take over the school board?

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: I hope this board will take from my comments today the kind of tone that I think the previous Minister of Education

managed to extend to all boards in Ontario. We anticipate working with our partners to develop what is our priority as a government, and that is better education for kids. What that means in the

end is, we are going to have smaller class sizes, and we are well on the way. We will have a lower dropout rate, and we are well on the way.

This board in particular has seen a tremendous increase in funding for the first time, unlike when you were the government; you did a wholesale,

across-the-board cut to all transfer payment partners. We are not operating that way. We are significantly increasing funding to school boards. For that additional funding, we are looking for

things in return. We're going to get those things because we will work with those partners. We are prepared to work with this board. I look forward to our very first meeting.

Mr. Hampton: Minister, you may call it working with boards, but cutting $1 million out of adult education, cutting $2 million by deferring

maintenance on school buildings, cutting $2.6 million from school cleaning, cutting $2 million from the reading recovery program, which is for those kids who are having difficulty learning to read

-- that doesn't sound to me like working with the school board; that sounds like draconian cuts.

Minister, in your last portfolio you were either unwilling or unable to do away with the clawback of money from the poorest kids in the province. What are you

going to do to avoid these kinds of damaging cuts to these children, their schools and their futures?

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: I think we need to set some of the information straight. This particular school board, the Dufferin-Peel Catholic board,

has received a 19% increase in funding since we became the government. That school board has seen a 3% increase in enrolment. It has not been an issue of money. I look forward to working with this

board so that we can collectively determine what will be in the best interests of these students.

We have set the bar very high across Ontario. My colleague before me and every member of this caucus -- we will be relentless. We will have great education,

and we will work with our partners in the education sector to make it happen, and that includes working with this board. I look forward to my very first meeting with this board. We will find a way

to make it work, because nothing is more important than those students and the services they will have available to them in that school.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr. Hampton: Minister, do you know what? That sounds like the kind of answer we used to get from Conservative Ministers of Education. They

used to talk about working with the board, and then they would read off the list of cuts. Here is the list of cuts again: adult education, $1 million; deferring maintenance on school buildings, $2

million; cutting vice-principals out of the schools, $2 million; cutting cleaning out of the schools, $2.6 million; and finally, cutting the reading recovery program for kids who are having

difficulty learning to read, $2 million.

Tell me, do these cuts have anything to do with improving education? Do they have anything to do with improving the opportunities for these kids? It doesn't

seem to me to be so. How could these cuts possibly lead to better opportunities --

The Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: I just want to remind this member what many of us in the House know: Education in Ontario today is a very different kettle

of fish than it was when we began this government two and a half years ago. I will use my own hometown as an example: We are building schools finally. We are increasing the number of teachers

across Ontario to historic record levels, so that we can provide smaller class sizes from JK to grade 3, and we are delivering on what we said we would do.

This is a very different education system today. You walk into a classroom today and there is hope, peace and stability, and parents understanding that they

will have classes every day. There is a four-year contract across the board in an affordable manner for parents to understand that we are serious about education. Please don't for a moment try to

compare that to where we were even four years ago. There is a feeling of hope and there is encouragement --

The Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Hampton: Minister, five other boards are in a situation similar to this board: the Toronto Catholic board, the Upper Canada public board,

Brockville and Cornwall, the Wellington Catholic board, the Bluewater public board and the Algonquin and Lakeshore Catholic school board, and I can tell you that we've been contacted by many other

boards of education.

I want to ask you again: It seems to me that keeping our schools clean and safe is important. How does cutting $2.6 million out of school cleaning and $2

million out of school maintenance make our schools clean and safe for these children?

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: I think we need to be clear in particular about the board you want to chat about; that is, the Dufferin-Peel Catholic

board. There's a 3% increase in enrolment of students; there has been a 19% increase in funding. That causes us to want to ask some questions, which we have done through this individual, Bill

McLean from the Niagara area, who is very well respected. I have watched his work for many years.

He has tabled a report. He has asked some questions, and he has been delivered some answers. I think it's fair now that the board look at the report and that I

get an opportunity to look at the report. I hope, in the three or four hours I've been the minister, that I will be doing that very soon. I expect to be able to sit with the board and arrive at how

we are going to resolve this problem. We have a 3% increase in enrolment and a 19% increase in funding. I think it's fair that we ask some questions. But I will tell you, we will work for the

students in Dufferin-Peel. That I guarantee you.

Mr. Hampton: Before the election, Dalton McGuinty promised adequate education funding. He also promised a standing committee of the

Legislature to review education funding every year and make sure it was adequate. So far, your government has broken both of those promises. So instead of firing custodians and cleaners, instead of

firing vice-principals, instead of cutting the reading recovery program and the adult education program in the school system, how about keeping your promise and establishing a standing committee of

the Legislature to ensure that education funding is adequate so you don't have to make these kinds of cuts? How about keeping that promise, Minister?

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: I am marvelling at what you are saying in the House today, because it is on record. Our finance minister tabled another

budget. All of the budgetary documents from the last two years are tabled in this House, and if you read the lines, it will tell you that we have had a 20% increase in per capita funding in

education. That is our record as a government. And it isn't just about the money; it's making sure that that money comes back to us in the form of quality. That means we want smaller class sizes,

lower dropout rates and enhanced test scores. And guess what? In two and a half years, we are starting to see those results.

I believe that our Premier is the education Premier, and the former Minister of Education has done significant heavy lifting to make this happen. This

Dufferin-Peel Catholic board has received 100 million new dollars since we became the government. I look forward to working with this board. We are going to make it happen together, I guarantee

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): My question is for the Premier. I was pleased to have been involved early in helping to bring a

school of pharmacy and a satellite medical school to our community of Kitchener-Waterloo, but I did share the surprise of residents, who learned that they would be paying $30 million through their

property taxes to pay for the construction of the provincial pharmacy school, with no contribution from the province. And they are now being asked to pay $19 million of the satellite medical

school, with the province only contributing about one quarter of the cost. My question, Premier: Has the provincial government changed its funding policy for the construction of post-secondary

buildings, and are you now requiring that municipalities pay the lion's share of what is clearly a defined provincial responsibility?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Christopher Bentley (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): Thank you for the question. I think all the people in

Kitchener-Waterloo owe the member from Kitchener Centre, John Milloy, a great deal of thanks for the work he did. This government committed to increase medical spaces by 15%; we're increasing them

by 23%. Jurisdictions from throughout Ontario wanted to be home to those spaces, and who's getting some spaces? Kitchener-Waterloo. For the first time in the history of this province,

Kitchener-Waterloo will be home to medical school doctor education. I think that's a fabulous message for the people of Kitchener-Waterloo.

Did we tell everybody at the beginning exactly what capital funding was attached to them? We certainly did, and I'm happy to speak to it in the

supplementary.

Mrs. Witmer: I would ask the minister, who obviously has no response and has just gone to ask the Minister of Health what he should say, to

clarify your policy on this issue of downloading your provincial responsibilities to the hard-pressed municipal taxpayers in the region of Waterloo. They simply want to know if the provincial

policy has changed in regard to what is clearly a defined provincial responsibility. Are you now expecting them to pay all or three quarters of the cost, and will future medical schools that are

also satellites be asked to do the same?

Hon. Mr. Bentley: In fact, the process was simple. We made the budget announcement. We asked who was interested. Jurisdictions throughout the

province wanted the spaces. Every space came with an operating allotment and a capital allotment. Everybody knew, in advance, exactly what the province could do in terms of capital, including the

partners in Kitchener-Waterloo. What decisions are made locally may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. This province was clear and transparent. I can tell you, those spaces are in demand

everywhere. We could have allotted all the spaces to just one jurisdiction because they wanted them all. The people of Kitchener-Waterloo made it clear: They wanted to be the home of medical

education. They know what a great economic benefit it is. They know that doctors stay where they're trained. They knew that, for the first time in history, they had a unique opportunity. Thanks to

John Milloy, they're going to have that opportunity, as long as the member --

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. I can wait. We have members who wish to ask questions. Order. New question.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): My question is for the minister of women's issues. Last Sunday, Francine Mailly of Ottawa and her three

children were murdered by her estranged husband. Francine first complained to the Ottawa police in 2002, and as recently as February police were aware of the danger that Francine's husband posed.

Following the Hadley inquest, whose recommendations you've never yet implemented, the former government set up the Domestic Violence Death Review Committee. In 2004, the committee reported on the

need for better training of front-line workers, specifically for police and child welfare workers. Two years later, funding is still inadequate and a fraction of what you promised. Minister, how

many more women must lose their lives before your government takes the necessary measures to fight and prevent violence against women?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Education, minister responsible for women's issues): I very much appreciate this question. To the people in

Ottawa who have had to deal with this tragedy, our government, every member of this House, extends our deepest sympathy, because this is a tragedy, and we need to stop this from happening.

What I am most proud of in our domestic violence action plan, the one area of the four pillars of this plan that will have the most immediate impact on all of

us, is in fact the training section. The almost $5 million we are putting into training is significant and it is the first time in the history of the Ontario government that it is being done by us.

We are developing excellence that we know exists in the field, bringing it together and setting a provincial standard for this training of front-line for those who deal with domestic abuse. This is

significant. So far, we have launched two panels. I am happy to give more detail in the supplementary.

Ms. Horwath: Minister, the bottom line is that there is no shortage of reports, recommendations and ideas that need to be implemented, but the

reality is that you're simply not flowing the funding. You promised $68 million; you've only flowed $26 million. In 2004, your own death review committee provided many concrete recommendations that

could save women's lives. Now it's 2006. From Brantford to Ottawa, still, more women and children have been murdered. How many more communities across Ontario, from Brantford to Ottawa, are going

to have these devastations occur? How many more women and children are going to suffer at the hands of their abusers before you start taking some of these recommendations more seriously and

implement them?

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: I am always happy to set the record straight, because the information this member is advancing is simply inaccurate. Let

me be clear: The death review committee, which this government is continuing the funding of, became the basis for a significant part of the domestic violence action plan. If this member were truly

interested, as opposed to just waiting to ask when there is a tragedy, would actually take the time to research what our government is doing in this area -- line up the reports and all the

recommendations from the death review committee, and you will see it reflected almost in its entirety in our domestic violence action plan. That is important, because we have to stop these

deaths.

The most significant way that we will make change the soonest is in the area of training. We have launched our training panels. We have one here, one block

away, affiliated with Sunnybrook and Women's College Hospital for front-line workers in health care. We have two additional --

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

AGRICULTURE FUNDING

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. For quite some time now, I've been hearing from some of the farmers in

my riding about many issues, but more importantly CAIS, the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program. They're saying that it's not working for them.

I understand that during the last federal-provincial-territorial ministers meeting -- that's all of the agricultural and farmer representatives -- the federal

government and the provinces agreed that CAIS programs need to be changed. Yet, yesterday, or actually today during a press conference, it appears that Minister Strahl of the federal government was

urging farmers to help him convince the provinces that the program needs to be eliminated.

Minister, a challenge to you: Can you explain our government's position on CAIS and how long it has been going on?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I'm very happy to have the opportunity to address what I think is a

very important issue. I think it's most unfortunate -- more than unfortunate -- that the federal minister has decided to play politics with this issue that is so very important in the agriculture

industry.

I just want to read for the members what Minister Strahl said two weeks ago. He was part of this statement where ministers are also determined "to move forward

on transforming CAIS." Today he says he wants to scrap it. I am here today very confident in our position. We are committed to working toward programs that work for farmers. That has been our

commitment for weeks and months. We want to sit down with the federal government.

This is a diversionary tactic. We need money. We have it on the table, and we want the feds to bring their money to the table now too.

Mr. Levac: Minister, I'm glad that you quoted from his very own press release the words he used some time ago, and I know you have been

pushing for several months the multi-year strategy to help our farmers, which they have been asking for.

I'm also aware that you have been asking our farmers to support you in your efforts to push the federal government to come to the table as partners, as Chuck

Strahl said in his previous press release. During the federal minister's press conference this morning, Minister Strahl said that he needs the provinces onside to make good on the throne speeches

to create separate and more effective farming income stabilization and disaster relief programs.

Minister, I know that our farmers have already been in, talking with you, and you have called them in to meet with you as well. I also know that our province

has come forward with a $125-million assistance package before the agreement to help them out immediately. Why is Minister Strahl attempting to divert attention away from his responsibilities at

the federal level and putting it back on the backs of the provinces, when we've already stepped to the plate?

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: I'm very happy to read from the letter that I wrote to Minister Strahl on March 27, just last week, where I made it very

clear that the province of Ontario is committed to working with the federal government and our counterparts on a new agricultural framework that will support the agriculture industry. This is an

industry that's stressed, and Ontario is willing to move forward with a strategy to support them.

I have written to the minister. I've made it very clear that Ontario is prepared to roll up its sleeves. We're at the table; we have money there. It's time for

them to come to the table with money for an agreement that's going to support farmers in Ontario the way they deserve to be supported. This tactic to divert attention and say, "Go back to the

province" -- we are there; we are at the table, and we want Minister Strahl to come. I'm going to be meeting with him on Monday. This is the point I will make to him again when I see him on

Monday.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): My question is to the Minister of the Environment, about solid waste disposal. In your platform, you

said, "We will divert 60% of waste from landfills within five years." One of the first acts of your government was to close down a landfill site which had been through the environmental process,

the Adams mine site. Our province is facing a looming garbage crisis. What steps will you take to dispose of waste from the greater Toronto area when the US border closes?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten (Minister of the Environment): I'm pleased to have a chance once again to speak to the issue. It has been a long time

that I have spoken on behalf of our government, indicating that it is not acceptable that waste from this province travels across the border. We are working closely with municipalities that

currently do ship their waste to Michigan to develop the tools that they need. Each and every day, municipalities come forward with very good diversion plans. That is key. We need to reduce the

residual waste that we have in this province. I have been working with those municipalities, and I very much look forward to having a chance to talk about the good communities across this province

that are increasing waste diversion, developing wonderful facilities like the Peel integrated waste facility that I recently had an opportunity to work with. The community of York-Durham has a very

good plant. Communities right across this province will meet that challenge, and we look forward to being their partner in that battle.

Mr. Sterling: But you made the promise that you were going to reduce the waste by 60%, and you're not going to do that. You're going to break

that promise, like many other promises.

Waste Management corporation is about to apply for the right to triple the size of their landfill site at Carp Road, in the west part of the city of Ottawa.

Waste Management and the city of Ottawa say that the existing and expanded landfill site does not and will not take garbage from the greater Toronto area. The thousands of people who live within

smelling distance of this site don't believe the city or the Waste Management corporation. Crisis or no crisis, will you guarantee that you will not alter the present permit or give a future permit

to allow this to happen: GTA garbage to come to the landfill site at Carp --

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): The question has been asked.

Hon. Ms. Broten: It is very rich to be asked this question by a member who was part of a government whose plan was to dump waste in a

lake.

Since we have taken office, in October 2003, the Ministry of the Environment has approved the environmental assessment for the expansion of Ottawa's Trail

landfill, which was a very good environmental assessment. Perhaps you were asleep when that landfill was expanded. The terms of reference for EAs of seven other landfills in this province,

including Niagara-Hamilton, Sault Ste. Marie and Algonquin Highlands, have all been approved. Certificates of approval for five waste transfer facilities, including one in Toronto, have also been

approved.

With respect to the Carp Road landfill, that EA has been acknowledged by the Waste Management corporation. They have requested that the minister enter into an

agreement to make the EA apply to the proposed expansion of the Carp Road landfill. That is good news for the residents of your community. We will have a full examination of the issues associated

with landfill --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): A question to the Attorney General: Today, here in the Legislature, we have the former chief commissioner

of the BC Human Rights Commission, Mary-Woo Sims. She's here in Toronto today, at Queen's Park, because she, like so many others, is so greatly concerned about the proposed changes to the Ontario

Human Rights Commission. You see, similar changes took place in BC, and the results have been disastrous, incredibly negative consequences for people who had real need for human rights protection.

Attorney General, will you retreat from these proposals and work with the groups that rely upon your commission to produce reforms that work for everyone, and not just a few?

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General): I welcome our guests from Ontario and from out west to the Legislature.

I want to assure everybody of the good news, that in fact for the first time in a very long time, a provincial government in Ontario is going to be making

changes to our human rights system that are going to improve access to our human rights system and improve the ability of the human rights commission to do its job, not only of bringing those who

don't observe the human rights code before the human rights tribunal, which is a power they would retain, but also of promoting human rights. That's why people like Mary O'Donoghue, Chair of the

human rights

section of the Ontario Bar Association, has said that the changes proposed are timely and well-designed to solve current system problems.

Ontario will reap long-term benefits from these changes. That's why Cynthia Wilkey of the Income Security Advocacy Centre said that this initiatives marks the

first time in almost two decades that a government has stepped up to address the long-standing dysfunctional plague of our Ontario Human Rights Commission.

Mr. Kormos: It's real nice to hear that the lawyers are onside. The problem is that the victims of discrimination aren't onside. You are

slashing and burning, and you're going to dismantle the commission with your direct-access proposal.

Since your announcement six weeks ago, group after group, individual after individual who works out there on the front lines, on the street, on the ground with

victims of discrimination and racism, amongst other things, has been condemning your proposal. Why won't you back off, sit down with these folks, consult in a way that you haven't consulted, and

develop reforms that are going to work for everyone, not just your lawyer friends?

Hon. Mr. Bryant: I want to assure all members of this House that the last thing this government is going to do is follow the model that was

set by the NDP government. What the NDP government did, firstly, was to say they wanted to reform it. They had an entire commission put in place, and Mary Cornish put forward a number of

recommendations, which this government is finally going to implement.

But what we're not going to do is what that government did during the last three budgets when they had carriage of the human rights commission. In the

third-last budget, they cut it by $1.5 million; in the second-last budget, they cut it by another $800,000; and then in the last budget Laughren got his hooks in one more time and cut it again --

more than $3 million in cuts. We won't take any advice from that party when it comes --

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

NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. David Orazietti (Sault Ste. Marie): My question is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. As you know, the recent provincial

budget is providing more resources than ever for northern Ontario communities to meet the challenges we face. My riding of Sault Ste. Marie was starved of new high-paying jobs and new opportunities

to grow and prosper under the past two governments. The Conservative government's dismal election results in northern Ontario are a clear indication of how northerners feel about the poor job they

did in our region. When the NDP had the chance to help our region, they took $60 million from the northern Ontario heritage fund and put it into general revenue.

One of our greatest tools for creating jobs in the north is the northern Ontario heritage fund. In Sault Ste. Marie, thanks to the support of our Premier and

the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, the NOHFC has provided $3 million for the new wind tower, $2 million for Flakeboard expansion, $3 million for the Sutherland Group and, most

recently, $15 million toward the --

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): I'm sure there's a question. The Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): That is a very, very good question from a very, very good member.

I am pleased to say that again this year our government will be contributing $60 million to the northern Ontario heritage fund. So far, our government has

approved over $126 million from the northern Ontario heritage fund toward 532 projects that have resulted in the creation of 4,768 new jobs in northern Ontario, something we should all be very,

very proud of.

In fact, just last week, as the member was saying, I was in Sault Ste. Marie to join him as he made a $15-million announcement in a new tourism attraction in

Sault Ste. Marie. This project will ensure that there are new synergies created in the industry, that there is co-operation with the northern United States and that there will be new job

opportunities created in Sault Ste. Marie, thanks to the member for Sault Ste. Marie.

Mr. Orazietti: The city of Sault Ste. Marie enthusiastically welcomes the waterfront development, known as the Gateway project, and here's

what the Sault Star had to say about the project:

"The $54-million development, supported by a record $15-million provincial grant, should be a major drawing card to Algoma and northern Ontario....

"When it is completed, Borealis expects to attract 200,000 visitors every year.

"Borealis is an idea whose time has come, finally."

Minister, as you mentioned, this new attraction will be a huge tourism draw for northern Ontario. There's a concern, however, that the project will be

completed the same year that the US Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative is set to be implemented. Despite the fact that many visitors who will enjoy this new attraction will be travelling from

within Canada, many other potential tourists from the United States would face having to possess a passport to get back into their own country. It seems our own federal government is not being as

helpful as it might be to keep our borders open. What is our government doing to alert Ottawa as to the implications of acquiescing to the US passport proposal?

Hon. Mr. Bartolucci: To the Minister of Tourism.

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): To all members who live along the

United States-Canadian border, this is a very important question. Indeed, according to the Canadian Tourism Commission, it could cost us 7.7 million US visitors between 2005 and 2008, $1.8 billion

and as many as 7,000 jobs in Ontario. So I am directing a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada asking him to reconsider the position that he announced after his meeting with the President of the

United States.

The good news is that there are people on both sides of the border -- elected representatives I suspect, of all political stripes and business people from both

sides of the border whom I've spoken to and others have spoken to -- and we're going to try to convince the Prime Minister that indeed he should change his position on this particular issue and

stand up for Canada.

BEAR HUNTING

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I have a simple question for the Minister of Natural Resources: Are you in favour of reinstating the

spring bear hunt?

Hon. David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources, minister responsible for aboriginal affairs): No.

Mr. Miller: Minister, in the 2003 campaign, you provided an interview to the Northern Daily News in Kirkland Lake on Monday, September 29,

2003. You were asked the same question, "Are you in favour of reinstating the spring bear hunt?" and you gave a very different answer to the question. Your response was, and I have it here in

writing, "Yes. The decision to cancel the spring bear hunt was arbitrary, whimsical and entirely political. It was done without consultation with the industry and without sound scientific data....

Since the cancellation, we have seen an increase in nuisance bear complaints in the north and now we are being told that the study of nuisance bears won't be made public until after this

election."

This is also now a public safety issue. Minister, you made a campaign promise. Was this just another of the many broken promises made by your party to get

elected?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: This must be a sheep in bear's clothing, I think, who is asking me this question today, and it's interesting. I think the

member should note that as the bears begin to wake up now, as the winter is over, so do the bear hunt questions that come in the spring. It's an annual thing with the opposition.

It is kind of rich that this question comes from the party that decided to cancel that spring bear hunt. As the member knows, and as I've learned more about

this, the simple fact is that the people of Ontario do not accept hunting down a mammal when the mammal is rearing its young. It's as simple as that. As we all get more informed about that, we

understand that hunting is a great cultural and sport activity, but people don't like hunting down a mammal when it's rearing its young. That's why we have seasons for it. We harvest just about as

many bears now in our extended fall hunt as we would do in the spring.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): That was interesting.

My question is to the Premier. Many of your caucus members in opposition introduced various bills in this House to deal with rising gas prices at that time in

the province of Ontario. I've reintroduced a bill again today, one of the bills that was introduced, I believe, by Mr. Bartolucci that would freeze the price of gas at today's rate. It would allow

it to go down, but it would freeze the price so that it wouldn't go up for at least 90 days, to give your government the power you need to look into why prices are going up and to do something

about it. Are you prepared to allow this bill to pass speedily today, so that we can at least make sure the price of gas doesn't go up any higher than it is now?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): For the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield (Minister of Energy): Thank you very much for the question. It's quite understandable that people are concerned,

because the gasoline prices are rising.

When I looked into the issue, I discovered that at one time there were actually 40 refineries in Canada, and we're down to 17. The other issue that we've got

is that we import about 30% of our gasoline from Quebec. So we end up in a very tight supply-and-demand issue. There's no question that we have to make some very significant changes as we move

forward to deal with this issue.

There are challenges also within the supply. There's no question we've got challenges with dealing with supply just in the US. They have increased by 1.3% over

the 5.4 billion barrels that they use daily. It's a huge issue that we all need to get behind and deal with in a constructive way. Certainly --

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Thank you. There may be a supplementary.

Mr. Bisson: Premier, you had a lot to say in opposition, along with all of your backbenchers at the time, on solutions to deal with this

issue. Now you've been the government for three years. You had an opportunity to pass these bills when you became the government. None of your members decided to put them forward. So I decided to

help; I reintroduced them. Then you killed them when the House was prorogued. Now I'm reintroducing.

The price is going up. You have an opportunity to do something. Your members had some good ideas. They said, "Freeze the price of gas for 90 days. Don't allow

it to go any higher than it is now so that we can, as a government" -- at that time you being the Liberals -- "do something about it." Well, you've got the limo. You're in the driver's seat. Are

you going to do anything about it, or was this just more rhetoric from you in opposition?

Interjection.

Hon. Mrs. Cansfield: I think my colleague in environment said, "Isn't it rich?" I guess it must be a rich day today, from the comments coming

from across the floor, because in their time they actually increased the taxes by 30%.

I would like to think that as we deal with this there are some actual things that folks can do to make a difference. For example, in the city of Toronto you no

longer can idle beyond three minutes. Even the weight that you carry in your car can have an impact upon the amount of gasoline that you use -- I mean, the start-up. There are so many things that

you could do. You would think that the member would be very interested in helping to look at how you can conserve, as opposed to how you can exploit, your use of gasoline.

Mr. Bisson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I do believe she's reading the Tory briefing book.

COMMUNITIES IN ACTION FUND

Ms. Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): My question is for the Minister of Health Promotion. This winter, I had the privilege of announcing funding

through the communities in action fund of $9,500 to the Laurentian Ski Hill Snowboard Club to run their Experience Our Hill program. Our funding allows the club to provide 200 North Bay youth from

low-income families with an opportunity to try skiing or snowboarding as a healthy and fun physical activity. Last winter, I had the opportunity to attend the North Bay Nordic Ski Club, as it

received communities in action fund grants of $10,000 to increase physical activity and sports participation rates in North Bay by assisting in the purchase of cross-country ski equipment to make

it easier for teachers to take their grade 5 and 6 classes out to the North Bay Nordic Ski Club. With the purchase of 50 new sets of rentals, the Nordic club can now accommodate an entire class at

the same time, and is contributing to the fitness of our youth as well as the long-term sustainability of the club.

Minister, can you tell me how the communities in action fund grants are helping the youth and adults in the north?

Hon. Jim Watson (Minister of Health Promotion): I want to thank the member for Nipissing very much. As members of the House know, the

communities in action fund was created a couple of years ago under our government by my predecessor, Mr. Bradley, to increase levels of physical activity within Ontario. The fund helps to remove

barriers, particularly from children, youth and low-income families. Under Premier McGuinty, the north is no longer relegated to second-class status. It is given a priority and, in fact, the ratio

of funds in the north per capita is 10 times greater than in any other part of the province. In the northern region, 44 of the 145 CIAF grants for 2005-06 were awarded, including one to North Bay.

I congratulate the honourable member. The North Bay Canoe Club introduced 565 children to war canoeing. It's a great program to get young people physically active in our province.

Ms. Smith: Minister, I know that my community is certainly benefiting from the CIAF program.

Another example of the great work we're doing locally has been undertaken by NADY and has contributed, through the YMCA, to the total wellness for disabled

youth and adults project. We have contributed $22,500 through a grant that has allowed the project to engage disabled adults and youth in active living through fitness and aquatic activities. The

project reduces the inequities and barriers to participation and has helped the Y in its recent purchase of fitness and conditioning equipment specially modified to serve the needs of people with

disabilities.

Minister, I'm sure there are community leaders across the province with great ideas for programs designed to increase physical activity right now. Will the

CIAF program be continuing into a third year?

Hon. Mr. Watson: I'm very pleased to announce that the McGuinty government is committing another $5 million to the CIAF program in this fiscal

year. We are expanding the program to include colleges and universities, conservation authorities and municipalities who partner with not-for-profit organizations. In over two years, more than 300

organizations have benefited.

I have to say, two days ago, the honourable member for Lanark-Carleton called the program "useless," "a charade," and said, "Grants are handed out on a very

partisan basis." Maybe the member from Lanark-Carleton could explain to the Lanark County Therapeutic Riding Program why their grant was useless or why the Lanark Health and Community Services for

low-income families grant was useless. When the member for Lanark-Carleton talks about "useless," he certainly knows what he talks about, because his riding received $114,000.

This is not a partisan project; it's an opportunity for young people --

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

BORDER SECURITY

Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): My question is for the Premier. The Premier is aware that a new American law requiring a passport or

secure pass card for cross-border travel to the US is, to quote him from today's Globe and Mail, "not a good thing" for tourism. Does the Premier think it's a good thing for his members to engage

in gratuitous attacks on the Prime Minister of Canada which mischaracterize his position when he's been the one who's been representing all of Canada to seek a solution to this problem?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): This is a serious issue; so serious, in fact, that we will be very

serious in our approach to this. We think the Prime Minister is sadly mistaken with respect to the approach that he's taking. We think this has the potential to cost us thousands of jobs and

hundreds of millions of dollars.

I can tell the member opposite that I've had the privilege, in my capacity as Premier, to speak with some of my counterparts south of the border recently --

including Governor Jennifer Granholm -- at a meeting of the Great Lakes state governors in which I participated. I raised this issue as well. I can tell you that those governors on that side of the

border are also very concerned about this issue. They understand that on their side of the border, it means jobs and dollars as well.

It is important that we aggressively approach the federal government in this regard and shake them, figuratively speaking, so that they better understand the

economic consequences and the job consequences to this province. For that, we will never apologize.

Mr. Arnott: Does the Premier seriously believe that the Prime Minister of Canada didn't push the issue as hard as he could with the President

of the United States last week?

We would all hope that a solution can be found before the end of the year to ensure that our tourism industry isn't harmed by this new US law. I've called upon

the provincial government to try to help in this regard. However, if we're not successful and the US government will not grant Canada an exemption, what then? What is the government's contingency

plan? Why did the government ignore the tourism industry's request for marketing dollars through the Ontario Tourism Marking Partnership Corp. in the most recent provincial budget?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I know the member opposite understands that the principal responsibility for addressing these international issues lies

with the federal government. Our job is to make sure that we are being clear, that we are being unequivocal, in expressing to the federal government the potential consequences of this new US

policy.

What we will continue to do is work as actively as we can -- together with our tourism authorities and those employed generally in the tourism industry in our

province -- with our counterparts on the other side of the border, and therein, I refer to my colleagues, the governors, and their economic interests as well, so that we can, together, make the

federal administrations on both sides of the border better understand the potential devastating consequences of proceeding with that policy.

Maybe we have a different view on this side of the House, but as far as we're concerned, this is not over; this has just begun.

AIR QUALITY

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): This question is for the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday, you expressed grave concern about

Hamilton's airshed, yet the McGuinty government has failed to reinstate the air quality monitoring station that the Mike Harris government got rid of several years ago. Given your stated concern

yesterday for Hamilton's air quality, will you immediately commit to reinstating an MOE air quality monitoring station in the east end of Hamilton?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten (Minister of the Environment): I am pleased to talk about the efforts this government has made with respect to improving

air quality in this province. We closed the Lakeview generating facility and we are going to be the first government in North America that is saying no and stopping burning coal. That is a

significant issue to improving the airshed right across Ontario and for your community in Hamilton. I can also tell you that the community in Hamilton, as I indicated yesterday, is severely

impacted by transboundary air pollution, and we are tackling that serious issue head on.

With respect to the issue you raised yesterday, I understand that my ministry was in contact with you yesterday afternoon and early today, and that you have

received the information you required with ABP Recycling. I am very concerned with respect to that issue.

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I have petitions here, presented to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, submitted to me by Extendicare,

Speciality Care Bloomington Cove and Leisureworld. The petition reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the next two years (2006 and 2007)."

I submit these petitions. I will affix my signature and present it to page McKenzie to deliver to the desk.

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

"We, the undersigned" -- these are from Sandfield Place and Versa-Care in Cornwall -- "who are members of family councils, residents' councils and/or

supporters of long-term care in Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to increase operating funding to long-term-care homes by $306.6 million, which will allow the hiring of more

staff to provide an additional 20 minutes of care per resident per day over the next two years (2006 and 2007)."

I send this with Mark and affix my signature.

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): I want to thank Jack Cronin, who's a family member at Bay Haven Nursing Home in Collingwood, for presenting

these petitions to me.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the next two years (2006 and 2007)."

Once again, I know the residents of Bay Haven are watching. I say hello and thank you, and I agree with your petition.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I know that Zacharie Fogal, the page from Timmins, is going to be here in a minute, as soon as we have

room in the aisles. I'll introduce this petition. I have a petition that's signed by many residents from the Extendicare nursing homes, from the Schumacher nursing home in Timmins and also from the

Kapuskasing Extendicare nursing home. It's signed by many people -- Zach, I know you're going to love delivering this -- and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:" -- I do know how to read. Again, I need my long arms of the law, because the Speaker has gone with my glasses

again.

"Whereas long-term-care funding levels are too low to enable homes to provide the care and services our aging seniors" -- boy, this is hard without glasses --

"and parents who are residents of long-term-care homes need, with the respect and dignity that they deserve; and

"Whereas, even with recent funding increases and a dedicated staff who do more than their best" -- which is true -- "there is still not enough time available

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

breakfast; and

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

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

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

the next two years (2006 and 2007)."

I've signed that, and I'm giving it to Zacharie Fogal to deliver on behalf of the constituents of Timmins-James Bay.

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): It's my pleasure to present a petition on behalf the Community Nursing Home in Port Perry, where Joy Husak, Heather

Cooper and Karen Sansom -- John Dodds is the president -- and Liz Hobson and family council members Eric Timms, Mrs. Murdock, Mary Malloy and Perry Grandel presented me with a number of petitions,

which many members have read and I will read as well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the next two years ... "

I present this to Meghan to present to the table.

BORDER SECURITY

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I have a petition today. These were citizens from Ontario who had an opportunity to witness the summit of

America just recently with Presidents Fox and Bush and Prime Minister Harper.

"Whereas the United States government, through the western hemisphere travel initiative, is proposing that American citizens require a passport or

single-purpose travel card to travel back and forth across the Canadian border; and

"Whereas a passport or single-purpose travel card would be an added expense and the inconvenience of having to apply for and carry a new document would be a

barrier to many visitors; and

"Whereas this will mean the loss of up to 3.5 million US visitors in Ontario, losses of $700 million, and the loss of 7,000 jobs in the Ontario tourism

industry by the end of 2008; and

"Whereas many of the northern border states in the United States have expressed similar concerns regarding the substantial economic impact of the

implementation that's planned; and

"Whereas the safe and efficient movement of people across the border is vital to the economies of both of our countries;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support the establishment of a bi-national

group to consider alternatives to the proposed border requirements and inform Prime Minister Harper that his decision not to pursue this issue with the United States is ill-advised."

I'll affix my name to this petition.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the next two years (2006 and 2007)."

This batch of petitions was presented by Bon-Air nursing residence.

COMMUNITY MEDIATION

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly. I'd like to recognize the efforts of Habib Ramzan

and Naveed Khokhar in collecting the signatures on it. It reads as follows:

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

in the dispute; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is an excellent petition. I'm pleased to sign and support it, and to ask page Jenna to carry it for me.

LANDFILL

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): This is a petition regarding the Carp landfill site.

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

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

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

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

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

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

instead to find other waste management alternatives."

I have signed it.

COURT ORDERS

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): I have a petition to the Queen's Park Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas law enforcement is the constitutional responsibility of the provinces; and

"Whereas no police officer in Ontario has ever enforced any court order for access to a child; and

"Whereas no court in Ontario will enforce, or has ever enforced, any court order for access to a child; and

"Whereas court orders are the law of the land; and

"Whereas the province of Ontario enforces court orders for the support of children; and

"Whereas, unless court orders for access to children are enforced, parents will continue to be illegally not allowed to see their children; and

"Whereas lawyers in private practice refer non-custodial parents to the political arena;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act immediately to ensure that court orders for access to children

are respected and enforced by the province of Ontario."

I affix my signature to this.

LONG-TERM CARE

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

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

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

the next two years (2006 and 2007)."

This is from the Caressant Care long-term-care home in Fergus. I support this petition as well.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR L'ACCÈS À LA JUSTICE

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 14, 2006, on the motion for second reading of Bill 14,

An Act to promote access to justice by amending or repealing

various Acts and by enacting the Legislation Act, 2006 / Projet de loi 14, Loi visant à promouvoir l'accès à la justice en modifiant ou abrogeant diverses lois et en

édictant la Loi de 2006 sur la législation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Michael Prue): On the last occasion, Mr. Delaney, the member from Mississauga West, had finished his speech. It is now

time for questions and comments.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I remember quite well the comments made by the member in regard to his particular dissertation to this

bill. I had a couple of questions with regard to the justice of the peace provisions of this bill, because I'm one who has always believed that it was a good thing, especially in smaller

communities in rural and northern Ontario, to allow for part-time JPs. What we've seen is a shift to full-time JPs, but this bill really entrenches that. It's going to basically say that once all

of the non-presiding judges -- that means those who are part-time JPs -- are gone, that's it. They're not going to be replaced. We'll only have full-time justices of the peace, and they're going to

have to have a minimum amount of education and a minimum amount of experience to be able to practise as a JP.

I want to remind the member that JPs are not only used for court proceedings. I can understand why you want some of them to be full-time in order to deal with

the actual court proceedings, but as we all know, in rural and northern Ontario, JPs do some of the basic work that needs to be done for police officers and others in small communities where there

is no access to a justice of the peace. For example, in a community like Moosonee, where you need to have an order signed by a JP in order to do a number of things in order for the police to carry

out their work, there are no part-time JPs. They're having to do things like tele-warrants, which really don't work very well for that particular community because of the nature of the work that

they do and the place where they find themselves.

So I want to ask the member what he feels is positive about only having full-time JPs. It seems to me you want to have a mix. Yes, you want to have full-time

JPs who are properly qualified in order to hear cases as they're brought before the court, but certainly there is a role to play, I think, for part-time JPs to do some of the other work that needs

to be done, such as marrying people or helping police with court orders and other things. So I would like to hear his comments on those.

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): I'm pleased to have a few minutes this afternoon to speak on Bill 14, the Access to

Justice Act. Certainly, it's a bill that will see the modernizing of some of the aspects of our justice system. There's been a long cry in Ontario that there are areas of the justice system that

need some tuning. It's also improving people's access to the justice system. We'll certainly see that through such activities as the regulation of paralegals -- I'll comment on that in a moment --

and it will provide greater openness and transparency.

If I could just make comments about the regulation of paralegals: Certainly this will increase access to justice by giving consumers -- I've heard from a

number of consumers in my riding -- the choice of qualified legal services. A number of constituents have approached me with regard to how safe it is for what they have done in the past, and how

safe it is for what they intend to do in the future when it comes to requiring legal advice. They have certainly indicated to me the need for qualified legal service. This certainly will protect

people who require and get advice from non-lawyers.

Also, with regard to the Provincial Offences Act, the allowance here of permitting witnesses to be heard by video conference or other electronic means will

give police officers in our large rural ridings the opportunity of doing just that, at a distance. In some of these areas, especially in remote northern Ontario and in my area of eastern Ontario --

it is a large riding -- this would give the people who service those large ridings that opportunity.

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): It's a pleasure to comment on this bill, which has been before this House since October 2005. In fact, this is

rather an omnibus bill, and that's the problem; there are so many aspects to it. If you look at it, it changes a lot of schedules and functions of very complex and technical areas. I just want to

put on the record a couple of concerns I have, and I believe I can speak on behalf of this party.

The Attorney General has rejected government studies and expert opinions that regulating paralegals through the Law Society of Upper Canada would not be

appropriate. In typical Liberal arrogance, no reason has been given. Not now a profession, legal experts say that consumers as well as the profession of paralegals would be enhanced if it was made

a self-regulatory body. I think the agreement here is that it should go to the law society to be regulated initially, with the ultimate goal of trying to move it toward a self-regulatory

profession, as many professions are.

I'm also surprised at the amendments to allow the law society to disclose information on bad lawyers to police if there is significant risk of harm to anyone.

I believe that this

section should be toughened up. If anything, it needs to be strengthened, because in many cases -- indeed, my son is a lawyer -- the lawyers themselves, as a profession, need to

have more disclosure in terms of those who are in some kind of conflict with their profession, for the protection of citizens and for the court system itself.

Again, it's a very large bill. The member is trying to put on the record some of the notes of the government. But clearly, if you look at this, introduced in

2005 and here it is in 2006, this bill has a lot of amending to do. I'm sure the Attorney General knows that. There are many more arguments