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

November 23, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-Nov-23 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 23 November 2006 Jeudi 23 novembre 2006

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

LONG-TERM CARE /

SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉE

LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED

LONG-TERM CARE

LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED

LONG-TERM CARE

LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COURT FACILITY

EXPLOSION IN VANKLEEK HILL /

EXPLOSION À VANKLEEK HILL

RELEASE OF PSYCHIATRIC OFFENDER

COMMUNITY COLLEGES

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 107

PEEWEE BASEBALL CHAMPIONSHIPS

WINE ATLAS OF CANADA

UKRAINIAN GENOCIDE

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

DIRECT ELECTION OF THE NIAGARA REGIONAL CHAIR ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR L'ÉLECTION AU SCRUTIN GÉNÉRAL DU PRÉSIDENT DU CONSEIL RÉGIONAL DE NIAGARA

COMMUNITY RIGHT TO KNOW ACT (DISCLOSURE OF TOXINS

AND POLLUTANTS), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LE DROIT DU PUBLIC D'ÊTRE INFORMÉ (DIVULGATION DES TOXINES ET DES POLLUANTS)

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

CYSTIC FIBROSIS

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

VIOLENT CRIME

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

FOREST INDUSTRY

WASTE DIVERSION

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 107

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

TAXATION

BIRTH CERTIFICATES

CYSTIC FIBROSIS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

DISABILITY BENEFITS

SHELL CANADA EXPANSION

PETITIONS

LAND TITLES

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

COMMUNITY MEDIATION

HIGHWAY 26

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

HEALTH PREMIUMS

SCHOOL FACILITIES

LONG-TERM CARE

COMMUNITY MEDIATION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ORDER OF BUSINESS

TRADITIONAL CHINESE

MEDICINE ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LES PRATICIENS

EN MÉDECINE TRADITIONNELLE CHINOISE

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

LONG-TERM CARE /

SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉE

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): I move that, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should commit to a plan of action to invest in an effective capital renewal

program for Ontario's 35,000 older long-term-care beds (structurally classified as B and C beds) so that they meet the 1998 design standards and so that all residents can have a home to live in with the comfort and dignity they deserve.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mrs. Witmer has moved private member's notice of motion number 27. Pursuant to standing order 96, Mrs. Witmer, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mrs. Witmer: This is an issue about which I feel very passionate. It is in response to the proposed new long-term-care homes legislation, Bill 140, in which the McGuinty government has failed in

particular to address the needs of the 35,000 residents who currently live in older B and C homes. Not only does this bill fail to meet their accommodation needs, it actually places a cloud of uncertainty over the future of their homes.

Under the act's proposed limited licensing scheme, about half of the province's long-term-care homes will be given a licence that expires in 10 years, with no plan for what happens before or after. Indeed the

legislation, after seven years, allows the government unilaterally to decide to do anything it wants, for whatever reason it wants, including closing the home or moving the beds to another community. In response to this, there is a call to action

from those in this province who live in these homes and from their families and the staff. They feel like Ontario's forgotten people.

We have 35,000 residents who will now continue to call a three- or four-bed ward home, and there is no commitment, no plan at the current time from the government to begin the structural renewal of these homes.

The lack of a plan or commitment to funding to begin the structural renewal of these older homes stands in stark contrast to the actions that were undertaken by our Progressive Conservative government beginning in 1997. We introduced new design

standards in 1998 and provided $2.1 billion to build 20,000 new beds after no new beds had been constructed for 10 years. We also provided the money to rebuild 16,000 of our oldest beds, which were classified as D beds.

These new design standards that we introduced in 1998 responded to the needs of residents and their families. Indeed, we consulted with the residents in order to make sure that they would be able to live in

dignity, safety and comfort, and when we consulted with them in 1997, they told us this: "We want to stop living our final years in a dormitory-style accommodation, the three- and four-bed wards." In fact, they said to us, "Even university

students today have better accommodation than we do, as they live in private and semi-private rooms." They said they wanted to stop having to back their wheelchairs into the washroom. They wanted to stop sharing that washroom with at least eight

other people. They said, "We can't even turn our chairs in a circle to reach the sink." They said they wanted to stop having to line up to catch the elevator to get to lunch or dinner and to do so a half-hour before mealtime, only to have to wait

in the basement for another half-hour to get into the dining room.

We listened to these residents and their families. That's why we introduced the new design standards in 1998. That's why today 36,000 residents live in homes with 20,000 new beds and 16,000 of the D beds that

were rebuilt to meet the new 1998 design standards. We had a plan. We made a financial commitment, and we worked in co-operation with the residents, the families and the people in the sector. Today these people enjoy private or semi-private

bedrooms. They have ensuite washrooms with a turning circle to accommodate their wheelchairs. They have ensuite dining rooms, therapy and lounge rooms. In the dining rooms, they eat in areas where no more than 32 people gather, and they avoid the

lineup and the elevator ride. They have fully twice the square footage of space per residence compared to older homes.

These people who do not today have the same quality of life and the same comfort, these other 35,000 people in the B and C homes, deserve the same quality of life. I am asking this government to step forward

today and make that a commitment in order that these 35,000 people, some of our most frail and elderly, can appreciate the same quality of life that 36,000 other residents already do.

In fact, in this bill the government talks about creating more homelike environments where all residents can live in comfort and dignity, but that's not happening under this legislation, because they are

ignoring the forgotten 35,000 residents who live in the older homes I have just described, three- and four-bed wards with no ensuite bathroom. I believe that today these people deserve to live in a modern, new home. They deserve the physical

home-like environment of the newly constructed homes that today meet the new 1998 design standards. These 35,000 people should not be treated like second-class citizens.

In my own community, we have rebuilt Sunnyside Home. We have rebuilt Parkwood and Trinity Village Care Centre. We have upgraded these D homes to A homes, and the people are overjoyed. In fact, I would also

remind this government that not only have we moved forward -- and we began to do that in 1997 after consulting with residents' families and people in the sector -- but most Canadian jurisdictions today have also recognized the need to treat all of

these individuals fairly and they have eliminated or have plans to eliminate the four-beds-per-room arrangement in their long-term-care homes.

Regrettably, the Ontario government today has no plan nor has it made a financial commitment to replace our three- and four-beds-per-room arrangement where people live and sometimes share washrooms with eight

other people and have to make that trek daily to the elevator, down to the basement, in order to line up for their food and sometimes be waiting half an hour ahead.

Well, I think this government needs to take action. I think the government also needs to remember that all the long-term-care residents in this province pay the same fees. However, as I have just pointed out

today, about half of them, obviously, receive noticeably less value for their money than others.

The proposed licensing scheme and lack of an immediate commitment to funding to begin the structural renewal of older homes is bad system planning, because not only are these individuals, these 35,000 people,

being deprived of a modern new home in which to live that would allow them additional space, more privacy, more comfort and an opportunity to live with dignity; it also disregards the fact if you look to the future, the number of seniors aged 75

and over will increase by 49% by 2016. Not only do we have to renovate and rebuild these older homes, but we need to look to a future where we build more homes.

So today I would urge all members of this Legislature -- people that I know to be compassionate, caring individuals, people that I know have had visits from residents and family and staff -- to allow all people

in this province who live in our long-term homes to have the opportunity to live in homes that meet the 1998 design standards, to live in a home-like environment, in an environment where they can have small units of 32 residents at max, where they

have in-area dining, lounge areas and therapy, where they only have one or two people per room and they have a washroom, and where the whole, entire room is wheelchair accessible. I urge you today to allow these people to live with comfort,

privacy and dignity. I urge you to not let them be Ontario's forgotten.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): I'm pleased to have this opportunity to speak in support of this urgent and important resolution which has been brought forward by the member for

Kitchener-Waterloo, who is our party's deputy leader. I want to commend the member at the outset for using her private member's ballot item opportunity to highlight this essential issue which all of us should care about. The member for

Kitchener-Waterloo, as our party's health critic, has once again raised the bar for how we should use our private members' time.

It reminds me of her Bill 57, which was debated on October 29, 2004, which called for OHIP coverage for free immunizations for children, protecting them from chicken pox, pneumonia and meningitis. That

resolution passed at second reading, and less than a month later the government responded in its first budget with a commitment to implement Mrs. Witmer's recommendation. She deserves enormous credit for initiating this idea in the Legislature and

making it happen.

In the 16 years that I have been privileged to serve with the member for Kitchener-Waterloo in this Legislature, I've always shared her belief that care for our senior citizens must be amongst the provincial

government's paramount concerns. Through these years, I've had occasion to visit many nursing homes in our area. For the most part, I've been very impressed with the caring and compassion which you immediately sense in so many of these homes,

which speaks of the dedication and professionalism of the staff and management of such homes as Wellington Terrace in Centre Wellington, Royal Terrace in Palmerston, Chateau Gardens and Leisureworld in Elmira, Winston Park in Kitchener and the

Nithview Community in New Hamburg, amongst many others.

During constituency week, while the Legislature was in recess -- the week of November 6 -- I had the chance to meet with residents, families and staff of long-term-care homes in Waterloo-Wellington. We met at

Chateau Gardens in Elmira on Friday, November 10. The people in attendance expressed to me their serious concerns about the McGuinty Liberal government's long-term-care policy. They talked about Bill 140 and complained about what is in the bill

and what isn't in the bill. They gave me approximately 500 postcards, which I'm going to be sending over by page to the Minister of Health, calling on the provincial government to think about the 35,000 seniors who live in older nursing homes,

many in crowded four-bed wards. I had a chance to see one of those wards for myself. While these residents have access to the same compassionate care which other residents receive, their rooms are so crowded you can barely turn around. Surely,

these residents in these four-bed wards deserve better than this.

At the meeting at Chateau Gardens, I was asked to tell the government that they should move to establish an appropriate capital renewal program for older nursing homes, with mandatory time frames. They say that

without this commitment, the promise of comfort and dignity for all long-term-care residents rings hollow for the 35,000 residents in B and C homes. As their postcard concludes, these residents deserve a commitment and a plan now, not 10 years

from now, and I could not agree more. This is exactly the substance of Mrs. Witmer's resolution that we're debating today.

I'm aware that other MPPs wish to speak to this motion, so I will now conclude, urging all members to support the member for Kitchener-Waterloo's resolution.

Ms. Monique M. Smith (Nipissing): I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this resolution today. I also would like to commend the former minister for not fearmongering as some of the

associations have been fearmongering around Bill 140 and for keeping a civil tone in the debate today.

I do have to take exception to some of the things that she stated in her opening remarks to the resolution today. She noted that, in 1998, the Conservative government at that time had a plan for long-term care.

I would dispute that, as did the Auditor General. In fact, the Provincial Auditor in 1995 and again in 2002 criticized the former Tory government for not having a plan. I'll quote: "Although it was aware of significant growth projected for the

population age 65 and over, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care did not have a strategy for dealing with the anticipated increase in demand for long-term-care beds. We also noted that it did not have a systemic plan to determine where beds

were most needed and to eliminate the wide variations in bed supply to make it equitable throughout the province." That's the auditor's report in 2002, long after their redevelopment plan had begun.

Mrs. Witmer also spoke of the preparation of design standards in 1997, having listened to the residents. In fact, I do believe that they did do a complete review of design standards, although I don't believe

that they listened to the residents, because if they were complaining at that time -- and that's some seven years ago, with actually six years left in their mandate -- that they wanted to see three- and four-bed wards removed, why did the previous

government not do it then?

They did do a redevelopment of the D beds; they did build some new beds. Unfortunately, they did not build them in the locations that were most needed across the province. They chose sites based on I'm not sure

what particular information. However, we do find today that we have a situation where we have areas in the province with incredibly long waiting lists and areas in the province where we have over-bedding and in fact where we have occupancy rates

of 50%. We have empty beds in a province where we have waiting lists in the hundreds in certain areas. That's due to the fact that the previous government had no plan and had no real strategy around the placement of new long-term-care beds across

the province.

During their term in office, with respect to long-term care, they also cut $23.5 million from long-term-care homes in 1996 and 1997. They announced a 15% co-pay increase in 2002 -- on Canada Day, to be exact --

and began to implement that increase, which we have spent the last three years rolling back. They eliminated home care services, and in fact home care requirements soared across the province.

I know when I was knocking on doors in 2003, I met with some seniors who had just had their home care removed from them and were going to find themselves going into long-term-care homes because they could not do

their own laundry. That's shocking.

I have to say that when I did my review for the long-term-care sector in 2003-04 and prepared my report called Commitment to Care: A Plan for Long-Term Care in Ontario, I heard from those seniors. I heard from

seniors who told me that they wanted to age in place, that they did not want to go to long-term care unless it was absolutely essential.

We recognize that we will always have a need for long-term care in the province, and we recognize that it's a work in progress and that we have to continue to improve the quality of life of our seniors. What

we've done through Bill 140 is the next step in that improvement and the next step in our planning stage for the long-term-care system across the province.

Mrs. Witmer spoke of the B and C beds across the province and spoke of the licensing scheme around those. In fact, there are not 35,000 C beds; there are about 25,000, and those have the 10-year licences where,

in seven years, if not sooner, the ministry will undertake to meet with every one of those home operators to determine what, if anything, needs to be done for them to have a new licence issued to them. They will look at their track record; they

will look at the needs in the community; they will look at the supports that are available in the community; and they will look at what structural changes may have to occur in order for all of our seniors across the province to live with the same

level of dignity and respect, and that is our goal. For those in B beds, the term for their licence is 12 years, and the discussions will begin with them in nine years, if not sooner.

It will be 2017 before we see any alterations in the beds unless we undertake some kind of redevelopment program before that date, and that is not precluded from this legislation. What is in this legislation are

standards to improve the quality of life for our front-line workers and for all of our residents.

Mrs. Witmer spoke of her consultation on the standards and the improvement to standards and building standards for these homes. I wonder if she spoke to front-line workers, because as I visited over 45 homes now

across the province, one thing that I've heard from some of the workers in the new homes is their difficulty in providing the services that they need to provide, given the largeness of the homes and the amount of walking they have to do and the

amount of distance they have to travel in order to serve the residents. I've also heard from the residents of these larger homes that they sometimes find it difficult to have interaction with other residents because they're so far removed from

them. So we want to look at those standards again and determine what is exactly the appropriate kind of living arrangement.

We have some fabulous homes across the province. I am not saying that some of the new builds aren't lovely and aren't providing a real quality of care. But we have to recognize, too, that the B and C homes are

providing a quality of care. We have B and C homes across this province that have far longer waiting lists than some of the newer homes, and that's because of the reputation of those homes and the quality of care that's being provided by those

front-line workers who truly care about the residents.

Over the last three years of our record here in government with respect to long-term care, we've introduced a lot of improvements to the long-term-care system. We've enshrined 24/7 RNs in our long-term-care

homes, something that the previous government removed. We've also instituted two baths a week in our long-term-care homes, another standard that was removed by the previous government. We are promoting, through Bill 140, education and training for

front-line workers, particularly with respect to dementia care and palliative care. We're promoting a holistic approach to the care of our residents, where it's a multi-dimensional approach to determining their care plan. We have, in fact, staffed

our long-term-care homes. We've hired over 3,100 more front-line workers, including 682 nurses.

In our long-term-care legislation that we've proposed, we're promoting zero tolerance of abuse and neglect. We're ensuring that the rights of our residents are guaranteed in the legislation. We've made huge

improvements to the accountability in long-term care by introducing unannounced annual inspections,

whereas the previous government for some time during their mandate had no annual inspections and then went to annual inspections, but not

unannounced. Ours are unannounced, so any day an inspector can arrive and see how the home is actually run on a day-to-day basis. We've introduced a number of new care plans for our front-line workers to deal with different problems our seniors

are dealing with in our long-term-care homes.

We have invested a great deal, $740 million more than previously invested, in long-term care. We have made strides in improving the quality of life for our residents. We've empowered our family members and our

residents' councils in our long-term-care homes. We've funded the family council project, which has gone across the province, and ensured that we have the creation of family councils in our homes. We're trying to include community in our homes so

that our seniors, in their final years, do not feel like they've been warehoused or left behind but are still a vital and integral part of our communities. We have encouraged our activity coordinators to share in their best practices, so that

homes across the province will have the breadth of knowledge that some of our great activities coordinators do in some of our wonderful homes.

Moving back to this resolution with respect to the new builds and the investment, obviously we have an aging population in the province. It would be ludicrous to believe that we would be closing homes across the

province or losing beds. What we wanted to ensure through this legislation is that we have the planning tools to ensure that we have the beds in the right places across the province. I take great exception to certain stakeholder groups, in

particular the long-term-care home providers on the private side, who have begun fearmongering and who are using our seniors in this way, instilling fear in them that their homes may be closed or that they may be moved at some point.

We have shown through our record a commitment to our seniors and a commitment to long-term care that is unprecedented in this province. We have shown that we are planning for the future, unlike the previous

government, which was noted by the auditor in not one but two different reports. Our long-term-care legislation is in fact that: legislation that will govern long-term care. It brings three pieces of legislation under one piece of legislation that

will ensure that our residents live in homes that have consistent standards which are consistently enforced by the Ministry of Health and that their rights are guaranteed, that they live with dignity and respect in homes that provide care to them

in their final years.

This is so very important. These seniors are vulnerable. They deserve to live with dignity and respect. They deserve the care and compassion that those front-line workers are providing in every single one of our

homes across the province. We as a government remain committed to ensuring that that care and compassion is there in those homes all across the province of Ontario.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod (Nepean-Carleton): First, I want to congratulate my colleague Elizabeth Witmer from Kitchener-Waterloo for bringing this forward. Just by the simple fact of the matter that we

have far more people on this side of the Legislature today to debate this important motion speaks for itself.

They talk about a revolution in long-term care, but the revolution started in 1998 with the member from Kitchener-Waterloo when she put 20,000 new beds into long-term care and injected about $2.1 billion into

long-term care. She was the one who provided the capital funding for those new beds that we're talking about today. She was the one who had the vision in 1998, eight years ago, to bring home-like settings to our long-term-care facilities.

I want to speak briefly because, Mr. Speaker, as you can imagine, this is a very important motion for my colleagues, and I know a lot of people want to speak it to. I first want to say that in the city of Ottawa

we're short 850 long-term-care beds. We recognize in Ottawa that we need not only new beds but also some programs. So I wrote to the Premier in August, and I asked him for the province of Ontario to acknowledge and accept that there's a looming

health care crisis in Ottawa with respect to no new long-term-care facilities, affordable retirement homes, home care and recreational facilities, and programs for our aging population, which will soon be reaching a critical level. Secondly, I

requested that the province put forward a plan that will begin to address this crisis in long-term-care facilities in the city of Ottawa.

Since I've been here in my short period of time, I've raised many times the fact that we've now got a term called "bed blocking" in the city of Ottawa, because all of the city's 28 long-term-care facilities have

wait lists. Because of this, Ottawa's seniors are facing some of the province's longest wait times for beds in long-term-care facilities. I don't think that's appropriate. It's actually causing surgical delays in our hospitals.

I'm just hoping that the Liberals on the other side of the House, as few as they are, will stand up and support my colleague today in her visionary motion, one that she started in 1998. But after they took

office, they decided to put the brakes on, to put the blocks on. I think it's important, because we've got 35,000 seniors across this province who are living in long-term-care beds that are meeting the design standards of 1972. Just to put that

into perspective, that's two years older than me. So I'm encouraging members across the way in the other parties to support Mrs. Witmer's resolution today, because it's the right thing to do.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I'm glad to add support to this motion on behalf of the New Democratic Party of Ontario. We believe that there are a few things that need to be said in

regard to this particular debate. One of the key things is that if the government is to match what is being asked for, one of the things that needs to be said and put on the record is that we need to make sure we don't put the financial onus

completely on the individual long-term-care facilities. We need to make sure that there is funding available through the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care to make sure that those particular upgrades are financed and do not put a burden on

these homes. As we and the member well know, not-for-profit long-term-care facilities as well as the for-profit ones are currently having a bit of difficulty when it comes to funding. They're having to provide services with ever-increasing costs.

Everything goes up with time: electricity costs, food costs, services, wages obviously. Everything is going up, and the funding is sometimes not keeping pace to the degree that it needs to.

In fact, all of us have been invited to long-term-care facilities in our ridings over pretty well most of this fall and part of the summer. I know I've had the opportunity to visit all the long-term-care

facilities in my riding since the month of September. The common call on the part of administrators, workers, residents, residents' councils and family councils is basically the same: We need to get the government to commit to fulfilling the

promise it made in the last election, which is to fund them by an additional $6,000 per resident per year. That was a key promise made by the McGuinty Liberal Party in the last election. They promised that all long-term-care facilities would have

their funding increased by $6,000 per resident per year, and to date we're very much far short of fulfilling that promise. This government has less than 10 months to go until the next election. So unless the government all of a sudden has a

miraculous awakening and decides that it's going to keep that promise, it looks like we're going to have yet another broken promise on the part of the Liberal government.

I say it's an important issue. It is a promise that the Liberal government made while in opposition. It's one that they could deliver on if they chose to; so far, they've chosen not to. They've only met part of

the commitment, and a very small part at that, and we need to make sure that they do so.

I want to speak specifically to what I've seen in long-term-care facilities as I've visited the various long-term-care facilities in the riding of Timmins-James Bay. First of all, with Extendicare: We have two

for-profit Extendicare care nursing homes in my riding. One is in Kapuskasing and the other one is in Timmins. There is some really dedicated staff in those facilities, as there is in the not-for-profit ones. We've got some good management there,

and I've had really good relationships with the management teams in both of those long-term-care facilities.

I visited their particular facilities, and they're really trying to do a heck of a lot with not much. It is very difficult for them to manage, as it is for not-for-profit homes; I'll talk about that in a minute.

What happens is that the level of funding they get based on the case mix index, which provides their funding -- just to explain to members who may not know, the funding of a long-term-care facility is very much tied to the level of care they

provide to residents. Once a year, the ministry goes out and looks at how much care in that particular time the long-term-care facility is giving to individual residents within their facility and then ties the funding to that level of service,

which is the adjustment of the case --

Interjections.

Mr. Bisson: I don't want to bother your conversation in any way. Is that okay?

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): It's fine with us.

Mr. Bisson: Thank you. I don't mind heckling and all that, but sometimes it's a little bit hard to think when you have a separate conversation that's very interesting and you want to listen to

it. Anyway, sorry about that. I didn't mean to spot you out like that. I apologize to you, because that wasn't very nice.

Interjections.

Mr. Bisson: Well, it wasn't very nice of me, I've got to say.

I would just say that the case mix index is the mechanism by which we fund long-term-care facilities, and one of the complaints I'm hearing from all of the not-for-profit and for-profit nursing homes is that the

case mix index, as calculated, very much does not meet the needs of those particular long-term-care facilities. So what ends up happening is that they find themselves with less money than they need to provide the level of service they want.

I had the opportunity to be at North Centennial Manor, a not-for-profit facility, I believe some time in October -- again, great staff, the people work hard, the residents are well taken care of. It's a

beautiful facility. In fact, it was just rebuilt. There is a secured wing there that is probably one of the nicest secured wings I've seen in a long time. We can always get into a debate about secured wings and how many people really need to be

there, but it's really a nice facility. But what struck me is that what I've seen at North Centennial Manor is the story across the system: There's not enough staff to go around. On this particular morning, there were two staff people who were

doing baths, who were on bath duty, for all of the residents within the facility, including the secured wing. As you know, it takes a lot of time from those two staff people to do the baths. Then there is one nurse who basically works between the

secured facility and the open facility. That's it: one nurse, one person to take care of both sides, and then another worker on the floor. So if the nurse is called to the other side to deal with an issue, there is only one staff person on the

floor to take care of the residents, which is basically two hallways. So if you have a resident who is wandering down hallway A and the staff person is in hallway B, you're not going to see it.

I just looked at that and I thought to myself, "These are frail, elderly people, in this case people who are suffering from various forms of dementia, and we need to make sure we keep an eye on them." The staff

is doing all they can. This is not a fault of staff or management. The issue is that there's not enough money to put two staff people on the floor at all times. So a lot of our long-term-care facilities are having to make do with less.

The other issue that really strikes me -- this is a problem that's going to come back to bite us, and I hope it never gets to this -- is that because of funding problems, we have a lot of part-time staff in our

long-term-care facilities. At the North Centennial Manor, at the Golden Manor, at the Extendicares, at Foyer des Pionniers, it's the same story: They're having to hire staff on a part-time basis in order to staff up their facilities. There is some

full-time staff -- I don't want to say for a second that there isn't -- but there are a lot of part-timers.

The issue is, everybody has to make a living, so they work part-time, let's say, at the Extendicare in Kapuskasing, and they work part-time at the North Centennial Manor in Kapuskasing or at the hospital. With

regard to the flu pandemic issue, that's a huge problem. You could end up with a situation where a worker who works part-time at the hospital, let's say, in the morning, and then comes to the Extendicare or the North Centennial Manor in

Kapuskasing in the afternoon, and if there is any kind of pandemic, staff themselves will be the cause of the problem of transferring the pandemic into other institutions.

I really worry about that. We know this is much more of a global village, and if there are going to be contagious diseases, it's much easier for contagious diseases to travel around the world, let alone go into

large urban centres and back into communities like ours, because of the world being connected much more closely now because of transportation systems. So I just say that we need to look at how we're able to staff those units more on a full-time

basis so we don't end up having staff moving from one facility to another and, if there is a pandemic, in the end being part of the cause of transferring flu epidemics or whatever type of contagious disease from one unit to another.

Je voudrais parler un peu du Foyer des Pionniers à Hearst parce que ce qui se passe à Hearst est un problème dans la plupart de nos maisons pour aînés.

Quand le gouvernement a introduit le projet de

loi sur le tabac et pour réduire la capacité du public de fumer dans les endroits publics, le fait que même si tu avais une place comme le Foyer des

Pionniers, qui vient juste d'être bâti -- je pense que c'était en 2004 ou 2003. M me Smith était avec moi quand on a fait l'ouverture officielle. Ce qui est arrivé, c'est qu'avec les nouvelles

réglementations, les salles de fumage dans ces institutions ne répondent pas à la nouvelle loi. On a bâti des institutions flambant neuves pour être capables d'avoir une salle de fumage pour les résidents sous les

normes de 2003-2004, puis on a changé la loi. Un an après que l'institution ait été bâtie, on ne répondait plus aux normes. Ce qui arrive, c'est qu'on a des salles de fumage qui ne sont pas utilisées. Tu as des

endroits dans le manoir qui sont vides.

Il y a deux questions. Premièrement, ces résidents de 75 à 80 ans, s'ils fument encore, on ne va pas les arrêter. Écoutez, ce sont des adultes qui ont fumé toute leur vie. C'est

leur choix. Je pense qu'on aurait dû regarder le projet de loi d'une manière de s'assurer que ceux qui restent dans les résidences de longue durée aient le droit de fumer dans leur résidence, dans la salle de fumage,

spécialement dans les cas comme Kapuskasing et Hearst, qui, tous les deux, ont eu des manoirs flambant neufs en 2003 avec des salles de fumage. On aurait dû dire, au moins, « Écoutez. Ils rencontrent les normes assez

proches de ce qu'on avait deux mois passés. Pourquoi changer le projet de loi et couper complètement le droit des résidents de fumer? » C'est un peu triste quand je rentre dans une résidence telle que Golden Manor

à Timmins ou Foyer des Pionniers à Hearst et que je vois nos aînés qui ont besoin d'aller dehors pour fumer. Écoutez, c'est leur maison. À 75, 80, 90 ans, je pense qu'on a besoin de donner le respect à ce

monde-là. S'ils décident de fumer, c'est leur choix. On a besoin de leur donner quelque chose dans le manoir pour être capables de fumer.

Moi, je suis contre le fumage. J'ai lâché de fumer, ça fait 40 livres et 15 ans passés, mais il faut respecter ces aînés-là. C'est du monde qui a des droits et qui a fait sa

vie, et on a besoin de les respecter.

Sur la question du Foyer des Pionniers à la ville de Hearst, le maire, Roger Siguoin, et les conseillers comme M. Rhéaume et certainement le greffier, M. Claude Laflamme, ont repris le Foyer des

Pionniers. C'est eux qui le gèrent à cette heure. Un des problèmes qu'ils regardent à cette heure, c'est qu'ils ont deux salles de fumage qui ne sont pas utilisées et ces deux salles de fumage-là pourraient facilement

être converties en deux chambres additionnelles dans le Foyer des Pionniers. Ils ont fait une demande au ministre de la Santé pour voir s'ils pourront étendre la capacité du Foyer des Pionniers pour y ajouter deux lits.

Je suis très reconnaissant de M. Smitherman; je le dis publiquement ici dans l'Assemblée. J'ai été lui parler à une couple d'occasions à ce sujet. Il n'a pas dit

« oui » à ce point-ci parce que c'est un peu difficile. Il ne peut pas dire « oui » la première fois qu'on lui parle, mais il est très sympathique à la demande de la ville de Hearst

d'ajouter au Foyer des Pionniers deux lits additionnels. On va continuer à travailler avec son bureau et avec le ministère de la Santé pour, espérons, additionner ces deux lits-là. Je veux remercier publiquement M.

Smitherman pour avoir réagi si vite et d'une manière assez positive jusqu'à date. Encore, pour le record, je veux dire que ce n'est pas accepté. On ne peut pas dire que ça va être fait; on a besoin d'avoir

l'approbation finale. Mais je sais que le ministre est sympathique. Espérons qu'à la fin de la journée on va être dans les plus brefs délais dans une situation d'être capables d'additionner deux lits à Hearst et

espérons que ça va revenir d'une manière positive. Je peux dire à ce point-ci que ça a l'air assez bien, ce que j'entends par les paroles du ministre.

The other thing I want to say in the last couple of minutes is the lack of long-term-care facilities on James Bay. You have communities like Moosonee, the only municipality on James Bay. There are no

long-term-care beds in that community. People who are in need of long-term-care facilities end up having to go south to Timmins or Cochrane or Kapuskasing, far away from their families. I think most of us would accept that that is not acceptable.

There is very little capacity for long-term care on Moose Factory Island itself, a little bit in Fort Albany and Attawapiskat, but absolutely none in places like Marten Falls and Kashechewan and Peawanuck. Hopefully, we're going to move forward on

the hospital integration project that is basically going forward now, and again, Minister Smitherman -- I say it publicly -- has been very supportive of that initiative, has worked with the communities and with us, the James Bay General and the

Weeneebayko hospital very collaboratively towards integration, and I want to thank him publicly for that. He has been a very good supporter of that project.

But one of the things that I'm looking forward to at the end of integration, when it finally comes to fruition, is to basically build wings of the hospital in each of our communities so that Moosonee not only

has a couple -- well, more than a couple -- of acute care beds, but we're also able to put some long-term-care beds in the community of Moosonee. Those people need to have that. There's currently no hospital facility in that community. We only

have, basically, a first-aid station or a clinic, as it's called. We look forward to integration bringing a reconstructed new hospital wing in Moosonee; there is one now in Fort Albany, but some ameliorations there, as well as Attawapiskat; and

the same thing, a wing being built in Kashechewan. But as we do that, we need to make sure that in the planning process we don't only look at acute care beds, we also long-term-care beds in those communities, so that we don't have to send

community members from their communities on the James Bay coast, including Moosonee, all the way south so that they can get a bed in a long-term-care institution.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank you for having an opportunity in this debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The member for Pembroke -- for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): That's the one, Speaker.

I'm pleased to stand in support of my colleague's resolution this morning. Speaker, you'll recall that it was our party that rebuilt the D beds in this province when we were in government, yet this government

has done nothing to deal with the issues surrounding B and C beds, a total of 35,000 beds. I believe it's 5,000 B and 30,000 C beds in this province. So this is why, of course, my colleague has brought forth this resolution.

One of the problems that my long-term-care people bring to my attention is that under the current provisions of the Bill 140, if passed, with the licensing provisions of Bill 140, they're simply not going to

be in a position to upgrade those B and C beds because they're not going to be able to get the capital financing to do so with the licensing system that doesn't even ensure that they're going to have a facility beyond a certain date. That's one of

the concerns: How is a financial institution going to allow them to invest if it may be jeopardizing its investment? Because that money can't be paid back if that facility isn't operating. This is one of the huge concerns. In fact, one of my

long-term-care operators, one who has met with the member for Nipissing, said this is the "worst piece of legislation" she has ever seen in her entire life. That's a quote.

I want to talk about how this is all about politics. The member for Nipissing went around and did a report. I actually have to tell you that the response from my long-term-care people was quite positive about

the report. However, what has happened here is they also characterize as a total betrayal on the part of the member for Nipissing in her capacity as the PA to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care that they have not attached any support to the

regulations. They've given a whole lot of work to the long-term-care centres, but they haven't attached any funding.

If I could draw an analogy, it's sort of like if you took a hockey team -- let's just take the Toronto Maple Leafs because I like them -- and you gave them the six best hockey players in world: the best goalie

and the five best skaters and forwards and defencemen in the world. Well, I put it to you that even though they're the best, it's unlikely they would win a single game, and they most certainly wouldn't win the Stanley Cup, because they don't have

the resources to back up their plan. Five men on the ice at all times will be worn out and burned out, and that's exactly what this government wants to do to our long-term-care centre workers.

In fact, this bill is all about politics. It's all about wedging the hard-working people in our long-term-care centres against the multitude of people who do not live, work or have much direct involvement in a

long-term-care centre. This is all about the government and the Minister of Health, Mr. Smitherman, saying, "We're the ones who are going to take care of your grandma and your grandpa, and we're going to make sure all those regulations are in

place to make them better cared for and safer in a long-term-care centre." But if you don't attach any support, any financial resources to make that happen, in fact, the opposite is going to be true.

I have already had, in the last few weeks, long-term-care centres in my riding lay off staff because they can't afford to keep them, yet they're being told they've got to do more and more and more. Just the

work of filling out the report that the minister wants so they can justify their purported hiring of more nurses in long-term-care centres -- it's a quarterly report, and I'm told by one operator that it requires 100 hours of their time every

quarter to fill out that report. That's what I'm told.

So it's funny that it's always about the politics; it's always about trying to drive wedges between people; it's always about trying to create division within the population of the province of Ontario and the

people who provide the services.

When I have a chance to visit these long-term-care centres, I've got to commend them on the great work they do. But they're being told, "You're going to have to do more and more and more," because it's

politics, "but you're going to get less and less and less to do it." That is wrong.

This resolution should be supported. The government should rethink the politics of what they're doing. It's not always about drawing divisions between people. Sometimes you people over there have to think

about doing the right thing.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): Let's just compare and contrast. I came into politics for one very simple reason: because we had elected governments that had played wedge politics, that

deliberately went out of their way to say to people that some people count and some people don't count.

For me to hear from the other side that somehow we're playing wedge politics when we're doing something that's very simple but long overdue -- what's long overdue is the fact that we need to have the new Bill

140, which I think has been widely praised by those in the industry as long overdue. But there are those who are afoot who think that somehow through that bill there should be a budgetary commitment. Anyone who knows this place knows that's not

how this place works. I know that the former Minister of Health and Long-Term Care knows that as well.

I find it interesting, because I think perhaps today we are seeing a plank of the new Progressive Conservative Party budget, their plank about the financing. I find that there's a call here to fund some 35,000

beds to be upgraded from B and C. I know that will be a pricey ticket, and I'll be interested in hearing in the spring, when Mr. Tory reveals his plan for the good people of Ontario, how many billions of dollars he attaches to the commitment. I

know he has a great deal of respect for the member for Kitchener-Waterloo, and if she's calling for this, I would be surprised if the Leader of the Opposition didn't set a few billion dollars aside for it.

What I know is what's actually happening right now on the ground in my riding of Perth-Middlesex. I know that the previous government said there were going to be 20,000 new long-term-care beds. I know that

none of them showed up in my riding during the eight years of the Harris-Eves government. And I know the good people in Knollcrest Lodge in Milverton, a wonderful home, which was a D facility, while providing superior care, wanted to upgrade their

home. They qualified for something known as exceptional circumstances. But you want to know something? There was no money from the previous government for homes that qualified for exceptional circumstances. There was a program, but there was no

money.

I'm glad to say that just last weekend I was part of the sod-turning at Knollcrest Lodge. The McGuinty government -- our government -- is providing some $3.5 million to help that home redevelop to an A

standard; we're providing some half a million dollars in transitional funding, but the remarkable story is the amount of money that the small community of Milverton, part of the great municipality of Perth East, has raised: some $650,000, on track

to a total of $700,000. The reason they were able to do that is because this government actually provides money, in comparison -- and I contrast -- to the previous government, which did not provide that money.

When I was first elected, I said, "What did the former member say?" He said, "I can't get that money. I can't get the money. Nobody gets that money. We have a program, but there's no money."

I know that over the last few years, when I go to all of the nursing homes in my riding, they say thank you to me; they say thank you for the new equipment; they say thank you for more nurses; they say thank

you to us for the types of things we've done. We've reversed the draconian move of the previous government in regard to the daily allowance for our seniors. All of those things cost money but, working together with the long-term homes, we've been

able to make progress. I know that we announced just last month another 1,750 new beds to be built and 662 to be rebuilt. I would think it's odd for the member to come in with the record she has in government and say that somehow Bill 140 is some

threat. I know politically there are people who are casting those aspersions, but I know that when I talk to residents and my care homes, they're very grateful. They know there's more to be done. I believe all of us in this House lobby the

Minister of Finance for our own ridings.

I think there's a brighter future. I want to say to the B and C homes that if you're able to redevelop, because I know you all want to be As, then you're able to qualify for a 25-year licence. I think that is

an important incentive for us to move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for your indulgence this morning.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I'm pleased to rise today in support of my colleague from Kitchener-Waterloo's resolution that, in the opinion of this House, the government of

Ontario should commit to a plan of action to invest in an effective capital renewal program for Ontario's 35,000 older long-term-care beds (structurally classified as B and C beds) so that they meet the 1998 designs.

It's interesting that the member from Perth-Middlesex and the member from Nipissing aren't hearing what we're hearing on the ground from the long-term-care centres, the residents, the doctors and the staff in

our ridings. I just can't believe they haven't received these cards -- hundreds of them -- from the Ontario Long Term Care Association, speaking about their concerns about Bill 140.

In my riding of Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, in the mid-1990s, it was a big problem, not enough long-term-care beds: years of waiting lists. The PC government came in and worked with the long-term-care

associations and the municipalities, invested money, and we've got long-term-care beds. We have new beds. We have upgraded beds. All of a sudden, after the previous PC government did their investments, we didn't have waiting lists. The elderly and

frail in my riding could access long-term-care beds.

Now, guess what? We've heard the demographics. The population of seniors is going up. We need more beds. I have wait-lists now again in my riding of Haliburton-Victoria-Brock.

The member from Nipissing did a good report. The government has not acted on this report. I guess it's not a shock to those people here. They bring in Bill 140. Residents of long-term-care centres come with

wheelchairs or oxygen tanks, they bring in the doctors and staff and they come with all these cards and petitions. They have written letters to the townships. Bon-Air Nursing Home in Cannington wrote to Brock township, and Brock township sent back

a letter saying, "We appreciate these concerns. They need to be acted on." There were nine recommendations that the Bon-Air long-term-care home brought forward.

The Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors are here today for a luncheon. Sandy Hall, the administrator of Victoria Manor in Lindsay, is here. They write -- First Conclusion: "The

bill" -- 140 -- "if implemented as drafted, will have serious implications for the viability of the not-for-profit ... long-term-care sector." We're not making this up. These people are coming to us and placing huge concerns in rural Ontario.

Where could you move beds out of certain areas in rural Ontario and put them in other areas?

The level of uncertainty with Bill 140 is extremely high. We're talking about 300 long-term-care homes, 35,000 residents in the B and C homes. The staff give tremendous care, and they're concerned that the

patients in their B and C homes are not getting the same level of care, and they have no chance. As the member from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke said, "How they can go to the bank?" They can't go to the bank. Under Bill 140, there's not the surety.

They can't upgrade their homes, build additions onto their homes the way they want to because they want to treat their residents on the same level playing field as everywhere else, and this bill discriminates against this.

My colleague from Kitchener-Waterloo has brought forward a resolution that all members of the Legislature should support.

The Deputy Speaker: Mrs. Witmer, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Mrs. Witmer: I want to thank the members from Waterloo-Wellington, Nepean-Carleton, Timmins-James Bay, Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke and Haliburton-Victoria-Brock for supporting this motion. I

also want to thank the members for Nipissing and Perth-Middlesex for speaking to the motion. However, I was certainly very surprised and very disappointed that the member from Nipissing and the member from Perth-Middlesex were so out of touch with

what is going on in the province of Ontario.

We have 35,000 residents who are living in homes classified as B and C. They may be three- and four-bedroom wards; they may be sharing washrooms with eight people; or they may be travelling down to the

basement and spending almost half an hour in transit for dining. They're not living in the modern facilities that we have today in the 20,000 new beds that have been constructed by our government or the 16,000 beds that we renovated.

I guess I would say, you promised a revolution. You promised that our senior citizens and others who live in these homes would live with dignity, would have privacy, would have safety, would have comfort, but

you have not delivered. All you have done is create uncertainty. As a result, these individuals are coming to us with their petitions. They are pleading with us, "Do not let us be Ontario's forgotten people." Even university students today live in

institutional settings that are better than this. These people receive excellent care. However, they don't have the opportunity to live in the new, modern facilities that others enjoy today. They don't deserve to be treated as second-class

citizens. I plead, I beg with you today: Government, consider these individuals and support this resolution.

LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I move that, in the opinion of this House, the provincial government must:

Recognize that the county of Simcoe and the cities of Barrie and Orillia offer a superior environment and quality of life for families to live and work;

Recognize that Lake Simcoe has been an integral part of the heritage and culture of the region and that the lake generates approximately $250 million per year in economic benefit;

Recognize the development pressures that the Oak Ridges moraine and greenbelt legislation and Places to Grow Act have placed on the Lake Simcoe watershed;

Recognize that the protection and improvement of water quality in Lake Simcoe must be a government priority;

Recognize that the intergovernmental action plan will require substantial provincial investment in infrastructure to accommodate the anticipated growth of approximately 250,000 citizens over the next 25

years;

Provide the means for adequate funding to accommodate the approved growth in the Lake Simcoe watershed;

Recognize the research and reports by various stakeholder groups that have worked tirelessly to promote the need for water quality protection and improvement of the Lake Simcoe watershed; and

Ensure that any future development must go hand in hand with comprehensive watershed planning and funded protection of the Lake Simcoe and Nottawasaga watersheds.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Dunlop has moved private members' notice of motion number 29. Mr. Dunlop, pursuant to standing order 96, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr. Dunlop: I'm very pleased to rise today to present this resolution to the House, which I have referred to as the Lake Simcoe protection resolution. It follows Bill 106, a bill I introduced

earlier in the year, that I had consultations on. However, I decided, because of the scope of the bill and the magnitude of the bill that would require, that it would be difficult to get that bill through the House, and I wanted to get, in this

Parliament, some type of debate on the problems we have facing Lake Simcoe.

I believe this is the first time in the history of the Legislature that private members' time has been set aside to specifically deal with the protection of the water quality and what may be deemed one of the

most beautiful bodies of water in our planet, Lake Simcoe. After the Great Lakes, the second-largest is lake in Ontario is Lake Simcoe, after, of course, Lake Nipigon.

I have been told by folks representing the chambers of commerce that the economic benefit generated by Lake Simcoe is somewhere around $250 million per year. I also understand that currently on our planet,

close to one billion people do not have access to good, clean drinking water. We have an abundance of water here in this province and I'm one who believes we really have to do more to protect it.

I have been involved in municipal politics since 1980, and in that period I have witnessed growing concern about the quality of water in Lake Simcoe on the part of politicians and residents alike. In fact, I

chaired the official plan committee of the county of Simcoe and felt that even then our shoreline development issues were very controversial and certainly drew the attention of the public.

Since 1999, however, I've found that far more attention has been paid to the lake by my constituents, and I see it on a regular basis.

Anyone 40 years of age or older who's a resident of Simcoe county can certainly recall Lake Simcoe being identified as the ice-fishing whitefish capital of North America. I remember, as a little boy, my father

coming home from ice fishing and bringing the beautiful whitefish of Lake Simcoe back to our home. Unfortunately, those days are gone.

Currently, the population of the county of Simcoe and the cities of Barrie and Orillia is 420,000. At the current population, some will argue that the quality of the water, with improvements that have been

made to date -- sewage systems and some stormwater protection -- is maintaining itself or even slightly improving. However, many others will argue that the water quality is deteriorating, particularly along the shoreline areas.

There's no question that popular legislation introduced and passed in this House, such as the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, the Greenbelt Act and the Places to Grow Act, has created a fast-tracking or

leapfrogging effect of development to Simcoe county and specifically to south Simcoe.

I should point out that this has happened in other areas of the province as well, where the greenbelt area has ended and the other areas go up for massive development. Clearly, in Ontario our homebuilders need

access to land to accommodate the population growth that we're seeing.

The current government's plan to look at population trends in the region was to create a process, specific to the county of Simcoe and Barrie and Orillia, called the intergovernmental action plan. Included in

the process were the members of council from the municipalities and the mayors etc. but not any of the sitting MPPs, such as myself or Mr. Tascona or Mr. Wilson.

The results released to the councils on August 14 of this year at the AMO conference in Ottawa called for a Barrie and area option as the preferred growth plan for the next 25 years. I had asked to be invited

to that meeting, as the MPP for Simcoe North -- there are 100 kilometres of shoreline in my riding -- and my request was never even responded to by Minister Gerretsen's office. That meeting was also attended by the Minister of the Environment.

Many problems exist with the IGAP, which will add a minimum of 250,000 additional people to the county of Simcoe and the cities of Barrie and Orillia over the next 25 years. That's a 60% population growth.

Let me give you some examples. The IGAP did not include a strategy for job creation and economic growth. The IGAP did not include a strategy for infrastructure construction and expansion. The IGAP did not

include an environmental strategy.

What jumped out at me and is paramount to this resolution is that the Barrie and area option presented at the August 14 meeting showed one main disadvantage: It clearly points out that the plan exceeds the

assimilative capacity targets of Lake Simcoe.

On page 14 of the presentation that the minister presented to the mayors of the counties of Simcoe -- Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats -- it said, "Finite capacity for growth in Lake Simcoe and

Nottawasaga river watersheds."

On page 22, under "Barrie and Area Option," the main disadvantage was: "Exceeds assimilative capacity study targets." Ms. Munro already brought that up in this House at one point.

The government gave the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, I believe, something like $1.5 million to do the appropriate studies to go back to the IGAP.

But what happened? They were not even invited; none of their information was listened to.

Even if the lake is maintaining itself now -- and I say again, many people argue that it's not -- what type of condition will it be in by the year 2031 if we follow this Barrie and area option plan?

Even the IGAP identified that in 2006 dollars, approximately $650 million will be required for sewer and water systems to accommodate the growth. This is very interesting to note, since in the last round of

the COMRIF funding, not one cent was allocated for sewer and water purposes to the county of Simcoe or to any municipality in the county of Simcoe or to Barrie and Orillia.

Lake Simcoe is crying out for help. Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority cannot possibly adjust to this growth without substantial provincial investments and involvement.

Many interested groups are also raising awareness -- I'm telling you, we hear about them on a daily basis -- organizations like Campaign Lake Simcoe, the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition, the Ladies of the Lake.

The Ladies of the Lake raised $250,000 selling this calendar this year just for the purpose of drawing attention to this problem. Marina operators, conservation clubs, hunters' and anglers' groups, cottager associations and municipalities have all

raised the flag to point out that we absolutely have to do better and we have to do more. The province has to be more attentive, more compassionate, and clearly has to play more of an active role if we are to protect and enhance this beautiful

body of water for generations to come.

I personally believe there's even another aspect to this, and that's the federal government. I know the federal government may be able to play a role in this. I know that environmental hot spots have been

identified by the International Joint Commission on the Great Lakes. I think there is an argument that can be put forward that Lake Simcoe could be identified as an environmental hot spot. It is the sixth Great Lake. But with or without any

federal assistance, we in this assembly cannot allow this beautiful lake, Lake Simcoe, to continue to deteriorate.

The county of Simcoe municipalities and the cities of Barrie and Orillia have just his past week elected their municipal councils for the next four years. I congratulate all of those who put their name on the

ballot and congratulate the winners as well. The challenges they face are monumental. I believe, without question, that one of the top priorities will be growth and finding the infrastructure dollars to accommodate the growth. As we add another

250,000 people to the region over the next 25 years, we need to see substantial provincial funding for things such as sewer and water expansions and improvements; storm and surface water improvements; expansion of hospitals; more long-term-care

beds; innovative methods of waste disposal; Highway 400 -- we simply cannot keep adding thousands and thousands of cars on to that highway every day, as it's nothing but a massive gridlock problem; and, finally, a comprehensive government plan

that will protect and enhance Lake Simcoe and the watersheds of Lake Simcoe and the Nottawasaga River; a plan based on environmental science; a plan that would see consistent development policies in all municipalities surrounding the lake.

I can tell you that in my riding alone, there are over 100 kilometres of shoreline on Lake Simcoe, and only a few miles of that actually have any sewer and water capacity. So we have these thousands of

cottages -- some of these are mega-homes now -- and they are all on tile beds. Some go half a mile back from the water. But you know what? They all flow towards the water, as they seep towards the lake, and that's getting to the lake. We need to

do more around some of our municipal drains, and we have to do more with storm water management.

The reality is that we do not want to continue on with this massive development unless we have a comprehensive plan in place that will protect that lake. It's our responsibility in this House to do just that.

I would urge all members of the House -- I know there are not a lot of government members here this morning -- I would ask to you to please listen to these comments. This is a very, very important issue for a beautiful part of the province. We do

not want to see this gem in the province of Ontario deteriorate any further. We want to enhance it even more, to protect it, to make more economic development, and to make it better for our children, our grandchildren and many generations to come.

It's that important. I plead with you all to support this resolution this morning.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): Thank you for giving me the chance to speak on the resolution brought by the member from Simcoe North. It's a very important issue we're dealing with today.

It's to protect our natural resources, our beautiful areas in the province of Ontario.

I had the chance a couple years ago to go to Lake Simcoe to see the beautiful landscape of the area. I also had the chance to go to Barrie and Orillia with the member from Simcoe-Grey and the member from

Barrie. Because we had an event going on in the area, I went early to see the area. It was beautiful. When you go, you see little hills and the landscape. It's a very beautiful area. I know that many people in the province go to Lake Simcoe,

especially in the wintertime, for fishing. It's a very important tourist attraction for many people.

This resolution fits with our government line. We believe strongly in protecting natural areas and farming areas, and we invested by creating the greenbelt area. We invested, in the beginning, when we got

elected, to protect 1.8 million acres in the Golden Horseshoe area, which was famous, through the greenbelt plan. It's very important to us to protect the natural resources, especially water.

No doubt about it: The member from Simcoe North brings to the House a very important issue: to create awareness among us in this place and also to send a message to the people of Ontario about the importance

of the natural resources, of the watershed, of an area that attracts many people to visit and enjoy themselves during their vacation time. He also mentioned protection of the water. I had the privilege to be part of the committee that was in

charge of touring the province of Ontario to introduce Bill 43, the water protection act, a very important bill. We toured the province, especially rural areas, to make sure that all the streams, the rivers, the lakes, all the sources of water

were protected, because it's vitally important to us to make sure that the water we drink in the cities and the urban centres are well protected to maintain the safety of the people of this beautiful province.

There's no doubt about it: The member for Simcoe North brings an important issue about Lake Simcoe. It's an attraction for many people. It's also the watershed for many different sources of water that feed

many different locations and municipalities. By protecting the area, it protects our lives, our future, and maintains safe drinking water for many people who live around it. He's also bringing the very important issue that when we grow in the city

of Toronto and many different areas, we have to send people outside Toronto; people like to live outside Toronto. It happens that the Simcoe North area is the area nearest to Toronto, and many people like to live there and commute on a daily basis

between there and Toronto.

So we have to invest more money in infrastructure, which we do. We created a program we called ReNew Ontario which will invest about $30 billion over the next five years to make sure that the infrastructure

and water systems are in place. He brought a very important issue. I had the chance to go to the Lake Huron area. There are a lot of cottages in that area. I see a lot of houses on a little hill there facing the water. There's a big concern about

the sewer system not being in place and the municipal infrastructure not being in place. It's very important to protect the water sources and watersheds and the lakes that feed a lot of water sources.

There's no doubt about it: He brings a very important resolution. I'm going to support it because it means a lot to us, especially on this side of the House. Protecting natural resources and the greenbelt and

the water, the infrastructure, means a lot because it means building the infrastructure for generations to come. We want to make sure that all areas of the province of Ontario are well looked after and all the infrastructure is in place. That's

important, because we cannot build one element without building the infrastructure to continue building prosperous communities, whether in urban centres or rural areas. For our government, it is an important element; they all work together to

create a great and prosperous province.

In the end, I'm going to support this resolution because it fits our agenda, fits our direction. I think it's an important resolution to continue to talk about protection for natural resources and for green

areas, especially source water.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The member for Waterloo --

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Speaker, and I'd ask that the clock be stopped while my point of order is going on.

The Deputy Speaker: Okay. We'll stop the clock.

Mr. Levac: There's a long-standing tradition in this place. Twice today I've heard references to people's attendance, and I would draw to the attention of this place and the House that there

are circumstances for that. Because of the long-standing tradition, we've been very good at not mentioning attendance in this place. There have been three unfortunate deaths in our caucus and there have been some illnesses and some operations. I

would reference this to all members, to please be cognizant of not making references to people's attendance.

The Deputy Speaker: Just to clarify your point of order, I heard those, and there has been no reference to a particular member's absence. There has been a reference to the overall attendance.

All parties should take care to note that.

The member for Waterloo-Wellington.

Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): The member for Simcoe North is representing the long-term interests of his constituents by bringing forward this resolution today. So often politicians

are accused of having a planning horizon that extends no farther than the next election, and it is said that we don't attend to the needs of future generations. Garfield Dunlop makes it abundantly clear that he does care about future generations

with what he's doing in this House today.

As the MPP for Waterloo-Wellington, I understand his concern perhaps better than some. Much of our riding touches upon the greater Toronto area as well. The government's greenbelt policy is intended to

dramatically restrict growth, generally speaking, in a concentric circle outside of the city of Toronto. The greenbelt is a defined geographic area enveloping Lake Ontario from Northumberland to Niagara. As my colleague the member for Erie-Lincoln

has said many times, the greenbelt owes its boundary origins more to political science than natural science.

Although the principle of a greenbelt is very popular, when the policy was announced, my immediate concern was that it might have the effect of pushing enormous growth pressure to the communities just outside

of it, in areas like Simcoe county and Wellington county. My own view on growth is this: Communities should be allowed and be able to decide their own futures. I've always believed in local autonomy when it comes to decisions about growth. Local

municipal councils have a mandate from their residents to do their own planning and should be allowed to pursue their plans without excessive and undue interference from the province. As a general rule, unless there is some significant provincial

interest, local autonomy on planning should be respected by the provincial government. If a community wants to grow, providing environmental issues are not found to be of significant concern, it should be allowed to do so. On the other hand, if a

municipality wishes to maintain its population and preserve the status quo by restricting growth, it should be allowed to make that decision as well.

I know that the member for Simcoe North is very concerned about the quality of water in Lake Simcoe. I know that he would agree that scientific study must be ongoing to ensure its long-term survival, and if

excessive growth is damaging the lake, then action must be taken.

Let's return to consider the case of Wellington county once again. Here we see that the government's Places to Grow initiative anticipates that the combined population of the county of Wellington and the city

of Guelph will increase from 195,000 in 2001 to 321,000 by 2031. That's an increase of 126,000 people. That's a 65% increase over 30 years in communities which draw their water from the ground, the vast majority of which lack any form of public

transit and are served by a county and separated city form of local government. I'm hearing concerns expressed to me that this level of growth is too high. I understand from a briefing that I had last week with officials from the Ministry of

Public Infrastructure Renewal that these growth forecasts will be reviewed every five years in conjunction with the release of new census data, and the growth plan forecasts may be amended in the future. In fact, I'm told that new census data will

be available to the government as early as next year. I hope that going forward the government will consult with municipalities on the growth target numbers, more so than they have to date.

The other concern, of course, is: Will there be sufficient infrastructure to support the growth the government envisions, and if so, who will pay?

In closing, I want to ask all members to seriously consider the points the member for Simcoe North is making today and urge every member of the House to think of the coming generations when they cast their

vote on this important resolution.

Mr. Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to join my colleague from Simcoe North on this bill. Certainly the resolution is very clear. It says, "Recognize that the

county of Simcoe and the cities of Barrie and Orillia offer a superior environment and quality of life for families to live and work." That is so true.

Last night I was at the Southshore Community Centre, which is on Kempenfelt Bay, which, when I was on council, was purchased by the city of Barrie council for the residents of Barrie, that whole

section from

the Tiffin boat launch down to Minet's Point. It was slated to have houses built on it by CN and we stopped that through an expropriation motion.

Last night I was at the retirement party for Peter Lee, who is leaving the city after 18 years as CAO, and also 36 years' service with the community. His focus, my focus, I think all my colleagues' focus who

really feel strongly about Lake Simcoe, is that it has to be protected without question, and it has to be protected in measures that require funding and support from the provincial government to make sure that this lake continues to sustain

itself.

There are measures, and my colleague Julia Munro will speak about it, in Bradford. There's a plan, a project, down there that would help deal with phosphorus coming into Lake Simcoe down in that region, which

the town has worked on with the other communities to make sure that happens. It's about a $16-million project, but it's something that could benefit the lake. We need the money from the province to make sure that we get that funding and that type

of operation in to protect the lake even more. That's been a project in the works for a number of years. Certainly, anything we can do to make Lake Simcoe maintain its quality of water, to make sure that the pressures of growth do not impact is

good.

There has to be a firm plan in terms of how much growth there can be before the lake is impacted. Quite frankly, that work hasn't been done by the government. They've turned their backs on the residents of

Simcoe county; they've turned their backs on all the environmentalists who believe in Lake Simcoe and believe in quality of water in this province. It's a shame, because the environment is so important. For them to turn their backs on Lake Simcoe

just isn't acceptable.

Ms. Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): It's a pleasure to rise to speak to this resolution brought forward by my colleague opposite. I speak a bit nostalgically at first, as many people do

about that area. When I was quite a bit younger and my husband and I were courting, we used to leave the big city and drive up north to a destination -- Lake Simcoe -- so that we could enjoy the natural beauty up there, the pastoral quality of the

area. Gee, if things had been different, we might have actually settled down there. Maybe we would have met head to head in an election or something. However, that didn't work out. We're both in the House, happily, together, my area being Stoney

Creek.

I understand very much about the issues that he's talked about in terms of preservation of the natural aspects of that area, but also of any area. Those concerns have been embodied in many pieces of

legislation put forward by this government. One of the reasons why I ran for the Liberal Party in the last election was because of its understanding and its concern around the environment. The Clean Water Act, which we just recently passed in this

Legislature, was not supported by the other side. I'm not sure why. The greenbelt legislation was not overly supported by the other side. However, that is a piece of legislation that -- I think even the member who is bringing forth this resolution

was maybe supportive of having his area included in the greenbelt, because that might have addressed some of the issues that he's concerned about here, which are to preserve this area, to protect the watershed and to protect the environment.

Because let's face it: If we don't have clean water and we don't have clean air and we don't learn how to grow sustainably, we're not going to be around at all. These are issues that our government understands very, very well and have been

embodied in pieces of legislation that we've brought forward -- the two I've mentioned, but also Places to Grow.

I'm going to speak about my area, because in Stoney Creek -- my area is included in the greenbelt. There was a lot of discussion around whether or not this was a good thing or a bad thing, development and how

it should go forward. The area that I represent, lower Stoney Creek, was an area that had been brought into the urban boundary twice previously. The greenbelt proposed to freeze it because that was where some of the world's best tender fruit land

exists. However, that's not the case anymore. Because it has been patchwork-paved over with industry, with subdivisions, with highways, with railways, we have actually destroyed the microclimate in our tender fruit land because we've created frost

pockets with these pieces of development. Tragically, our greenbelt legislation is actually too late for that pocket, that rare piece of land in the world. It was too late for that area. So in fact, as much as I believed in green, I had to fight

to have that portion removed from the greenbelt. But I fought very hard to keep in the pieces that made sense, that we really could still preserve. So there's a chunk of good tender fruit land that I knew we could keep.

There was another piece of land right on the shores of Lake Ontario which had not been included in the draft legislation for the greenbelt. It's a wetland where birds nest. The federal government actually owns

the property -- the Department of National Defence -- but it doesn't get used, so it just sits there. It's actually a nesting ground for water birds. I pointed this out to the drafters of the greenbelt. I said, "You know, you've got all this great

greenbelt land in here. Some of it doesn't make that much sense, unfortunately, because we human beings managed to destroy that great land that we had there. But here's a lovely little piece of land that I think we should preserve -- hopefully

forever, which was the intent of the greenbelt legislation -- and then we will have a natural park right on Lake Ontario for the wildlife to enjoy and for people to enjoy." We need our green space, we need our clean water, and we do understand

that.

I'm not entirely clear, when I was listening to the member opposite, whether he's for development or against development, whether he wants urban sprawl or doesn't want urban sprawl. I'm not quite clear. But I

can certainly support his sentiment and his concerns and say, "Yes, we want to work with you, with the people of this area, to make sure that if growth continues, it happens in a responsible way, in a sustainable way, and that that jewel of a lake

called Lake Simcoe is protected as best as possible." I don't have any difficulty in supporting that notion, that sentiment and that resolution.

I just hope that as we continue to work on plans that we have for the province for preserving our green space, for keeping our water clean and our air clean, we develop plans that don't just look to the next

election or the next 10 years or the next development plan but actually look out 30, 40, 50, 100 years at what we need to do to grow sustainably now, so that all these wonderful things will still be there for future generations, not just our kids

but their kids and so on. That's what it's all about: stewardship. We don't really own anything; we do not own any land here. We are here to look after it. We are its stewards. At best, we rent it, and we should be thankful for it and do the best

we can, potentially through resolutions like this; definitely through many of the pieces of legislation that our government has introduced and passed in this House.

So I will support the member opposite in this, and I look forward to working very closely with him in the future to make sure that that jewel of a lake, Lake Simcoe, will still be there in its beauty and its

glory so that my husband and I can take our kids and grandkids there to enjoy it.

Mrs. Julia Munro (York North): I'm pleased to be able to join and add a few comments to what I believe is an extremely important initiative taken on by the member, Mr. Dunlop.

I live only a couple of miles from the lake, in the town of Georgina, and I can assure all members that my constituents want to preserve Lake Simcoe, both for its recreation and as a source of drinking water.

To do this requires protecting the rivers and streams that flow into the lake. Along with many other local residents, I've rolled up my sleeves and helped clean up some of our local water courses, such as the Black River and the East Holland

River.

As a property owner in Georgina, I joined an initiative led by the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority to plant trees in sensitive areas on a cost-share basis. In my case, they planted 230 trees and

shrubs. Planting trees in sensitive areas helps to prevent a quick runoff of melting snow in the spring. Slowing down the runoff prevents erosion and protects wildlife habitat along water courses. Erosion is a huge issue when it comes to

preserving water quality, and the more we can prevent erosion, the more we can do to keep our lake water clean. I'd encourage all eligible landowners in the Lake Simcoe watershed to take advantage of a program such as this and to contact the

conservation authority to see if you qualify.

When our PC government was in office, we embarked on a number of initiatives which benefited Lake Simcoe. Protecting the Oak Ridges moraine helps preserve the southern portion of the Lake Simcoe watershed. One

of the key initiatives in this process was recognizing the importance of protecting cold water streams emptying into Lake Simcoe. We need to continue this work, as the way to preserve the lake is to preserve each stream along its entire course.

This is where individual citizens can do their part.

Finally, I want to thank all of those who have worked to bring this resolution to debate in the Legislature, starting with my colleague the member from Simcoe North. The Ladies of the Lake, Rescue Lake Simcoe

Coalition and the conservation authority, to name only three, have worked very hard on behalf of the lake.

Most importantly, I want to thank the hundreds and thousands of local residents who do their part every day to help preserve the lake. We must all work together to preserve the lake we love, and I'm proud to

state my personal commitment to preserving Lake Simcoe for all of our children and future generations.

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): I do want to congratulate my colleague for Simcoe North, Mr. Dunlop, for bringing this historic resolution into the House. As he said, I think it's the first time

that we've debated the Lake Simcoe and Nottawasaga River watersheds in this House and exclusively set aside time for it. It's very important.

In a nutshell, in the couple minutes I have, I just want to say that while the greenbelt was a very popular and good idea, I don't think it was totally thought out. The greenbelt created a leapfrog effect with

respect to development of Simcoe county. People can't develop where they wanted to develop around Toronto, so they have to develop -- and the demand certainly is there for new housing -- in Simcoe county, particularly the south end of the

county.

But as Mr. Dunlop pointed out, none of the municipalities in the county of Simcoe, including Barrie and Orillia, got any money under COMRIF for sewer and water projects from this government. That's a shame.

Under our government, for example, the little village of Creemore in my riding needed a sewage system. We did that and put in the most modern technology, ZENON technology. You can literally drink the water coming out of that sewage treatment plant

that goes into one of the little creeks behind the plant.

We need, as was pointed out, that modern technology all around Lake Simcoe. We need a huge investment -- the IGAP report said $650 million, but it's much more than that -- in sewer and water because the home

builders need access to land that is serviced with the most modern technology.

People are going to want to live in beautiful Simcoe county. The government's own consultant report, IGAP, the intergovernmental action plan, indicates another 250,000 people over the next 25 years. That's

like adding a bunch of Clearviews every year for the next 25 years. It's like adding about half the population of New Tecumseth every 25 years. So its a huge impact on our area.

All I would do is join in the plea this morning that the government, while it did the greenbelt -- that's one thing -- has got to follow that up with infrastructure dollars so that we can accommodate the

people who want to live there. We want to have a beautiful Simcoe county. We want to maintain beautiful Lake Simcoe and the Nottawasaga River, but we won't be able to do that without modern equipment, modern investment and a real, long-term

commitment from all governments so that we can keep Simcoe county a place where people want to live, work and raise their family.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): I also want to rise in support of my friend the member from Simcoe North. I want to tell you why I'm going to support the bill. When I was busy on our

all-party standing committee reviewing the Clean Water Act -- something, I might add, the members opposite voted against -- we were in Walkerton and then we had to fly to Cornwall. On that flight, we flew over Lake Simcoe. I can tell you, if you

fly over Lake Simcoe, you have a different view of the world, you have a different perspective about that amazing jewel. I want to say to my friend opposite that I think his resolution is very well intended and I look forward to supporting

that.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I'm pleased to rise today and to commend my colleague from Simcoe North for bringing forward this resolution to protect Lake Simcoe.

I'm in support of the resolution, and I want to remind the people who are watching and the few people on the other side that the shores of Lake Simcoe reach the Brock township part of

Haliburton-Victoria-Brock. So there is a connection. I have a lot of e-mails; a lot of constituents in my riding are concerned about protecting Lake Simcoe. I support the intentions of my colleague from Simcoe North, and obviously many, many

groups and individuals do. We're hoping that all members of this Legislature are going to.

I'll quote one letter that came in to us. "Mr. Dunlop says protecting Lake Simcoe should not be a partisan issue, and I agree. We have to start listening to people, like Mr. Dunlop, who live by threatened

water bodies instead of playing politics with this vital resource....

"Mr. Dunlop lives around Lake Simcoe and knows first-hand how important it is to protect the largest freshwater lake entirely within Ontario. He knows that thousands receive drinking water from it, that the

Lake Simcoe area's tourism industry is worth hundreds of millions of dollars and that the area's 2,000 farms shouldn't be paved over. He also knows there are plans to put 140,000 more people on green spaces in Simcoe county alone, and that there

are better ways to grow than paving more wetlands, forests and working farms."

That's the content of many, many e-mails and letters that I've received.

I agree with that, and I agree with the member for Simcoe North and the leadership role he has shown with this. It's unfortunate that the McGuinty government does not have a better plan, has not been working

with the area here in Lake Simcoe that we're speaking about today. It has forced the local environmental groups, the conservation authority and the member for Simcoe North to take on the role the government should have been playing. He has built

on the momentum. He has talked about the Ladies of the Lake, how they fundraise, how their great calendar raised dollars to help protect, for everyone's good -- I mean, we're all in the province of Ontario; we all want to protect these natural

resources.

The member for Simcoe North has mentioned the frustration in dealing with the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Municipal Affairs on this matter. Lake Simcoe is an integral part of the fabric,

the culture, the heritage, the environmental landscape and the areas that surround it.

This huge growth that my colleagues from Simcoe have mentioned -- they take in more than Lake Simcoe, but the huge growth that is expected -- there's no plan, there's no up-to-date infrastructure that is

needed to protect the watershed areas: the Nottawasaga watershed area and the Lake Simcoe watershed area.

We need to support this resolution here today, and I'm hoping the members in the government will vote in favour of this and we can move forward to protect Lake Simcoe.

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): I'm delighted to have a few moments to speak on this resolution before us this morning from the member for Simcoe North.

I read with interest all the key messages from this resolution, but I was particularly drawn to a few key lines from it, wondering why the lines were in the resolution at all. For example, I read, "Recognize

that the protection and improvement of water quality in Lake Simcoe must be a government priority."

Water quality for all Ontarians is a priority, and that is why we brought in the clean water legislation. As said, this act will better protect the quality and quantity of water -- we've said that before; I

say it again -- and the aquifers, rivers and lakes for all Ontarians will be protected, not just the folks living in the Lake Simcoe region, but including them as well.

I also read, "Recognize that the intergovernmental action plan will require substantial provincial investment in infrastructure to accommodate the anticipated growth of approximately 250,000 citizens over the

next 25 years."

This intergovernmental action plan has partnered with Simcoe-area municipalities to address the serious watershed and growth issues. This plan is a study, not an outcome or a government policy, and certainly

we are going to work with the municipalities in that area, in the member's riding, and address those over the coming years.

With the government spending $2.25 million to complete the intergovernmental action plan and a further three quarters of a million dollars from the municipal partners, it's surely an indication of our

commitment to Lake Simcoe and Simcoe county municipalities, and certainly we are interested in environmental protection, development certainty and effective and sustainable governance.

My time has run out, but I'm delighted to have had this opportunity to speak.

Mr. Dunlop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I just want to get clarification. I understand the third party is not here to do their time. Can I have unanimous consent for anyone else here to

speak?

The Deputy Speaker: It's rather unique -- you can take your seat if you like. Since there aren't any members here who could ask for unanimous consent to give up their own time, I don't think

it's appropriate that the rest of the members can give away someone else's time. The bottom line is, no.

Mr. Dunlop: Further, then, on a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I have two minutes to wrap up now. Would we divide after that? We'd like to force a recorded vote on this. Do we do that right

after --

The Deputy Speaker: No. What will happen is, after you wrap up, then we will suspend proceedings until noon. Since there are no whips in private members' business, members know that the vote

will be taken at noon. They can expect that a vote will be taken at noon, so we would just suspend proceedings until then.

Now you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. Dunlop: I would like to thank the members from York North, Simcoe-Grey, Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, Waterloo-Wellington, Stoney Creek, London-Fanshawe,

Perth-Middlesex and the member from Charlottenburgh for their comments. I do appreciate some of the fine comments that have been made here today. I hope that we can be very sincere as we proceed and support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I did want to put on the record a couple of areas in particular that I felt should be brought to your attention. One is the fact that through this IGAP process, where we know there is going to be

substantial growth, the conservation authority has been -- it has been kind of controversial at times: people who support it and people who don't support it. I want to give credit in one area to the conservation authority, and that's the fact that

in Gayle Wood's letter to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, she did point out that the conservation authority put this resolution forward: "That the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) board of directors and LSRCA staff take a very

strong position against the options recommended, as they are in direct opposition to the goals and objectives of the LSRCA assimilative capacity study phosphorus targets."

I brought that up a few times earlier. That is something that we absolutely have to correct before we see this massive development in this Barrie-and-area option.

I also want to pay tribute to the Windfall Ecology Centre, which helped the Ladies of the Lake build the Naked Truth study -- it's fantastic; it's something the government can use in its comprehensive plan --

the One Voice Action Plan, the Lake Simcoe environmental strategy report; all of these, along with all the support we get from the people around the lake who want this lake protected for future generations.

I thank everyone for their comments this morning. I really hope we can get support, and support in the future, on this endeavour. Thank you.

The Deputy Speaker: We will now suspend proceedings until 12 o'clock.

The House suspended proceedings from 1148 to 1200.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

LONG-TERM CARE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We'll deal first with ballot item number 61, standing in the name of Mrs. Witmer.

Mrs. Witmer has moved private member's notice of motion number 27. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will call in the members after we deal with the next ballot item.

LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We'll now deal with ballot item number 62, standing in the name of Mr. Dunlop.

Mr. Dunlop has moved private member's notice of motion number 29. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

LONG-TERM CARE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mrs. Witmer has moved private member's notice of motion number 27.

All those in favour, please stand and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Balkissoon, Bas

Barrett, Toby

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bisson, Gilles

Brownell, Jim

Chudleigh, Ted

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dunlop, Garfield

Elliott, Christine

Fonseca, Peter

Hardeman, Ernie

Hudak, Tim

Jeffrey, Linda

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

MacLeod, Lisa

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Munro, Julia

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Runciman, Robert W.

Sandals, Liz

Scott, Laurie

Smith, Monique

Tabuns, Peter

Tascona, Joseph N.

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

Zimmer, David

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please stand and be recognized by the Clerk.

The Deputy Clerk (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 42; the nays are 0.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

The doors will be opened for 30 seconds before the next vote.

LAKE SIMCOE WATERSHED

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Dunlop has moved private member's notice of motion number 29.

All those in favour, please stand and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Balkissoon, Bas

Barrett, Toby

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bisson, Gilles

Brownell, Jim

Chudleigh, Ted

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Dunlop, Garfield

Elliott, Christine

Fonseca, Peter

Hardeman, Ernie

Hudak, Tim

Jeffrey, Linda

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

MacLeod, Lisa

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Munro, Julia

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Runciman, Robert W.

Sandals, Liz

Scott, Laurie

Smith, Monique

Tabuns, Peter

Tascona, Joseph N.

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

Zimmer, David

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please stand and be recognized by the Clerk.

The Deputy Clerk (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 43; the nays are 0.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been dealt with, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1211 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COURT FACILITY

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I rise today to discuss an important matter dealing with the new Durham consolidated courthouse in my riding of Oshawa.

Construction is under way, which will add another state-of-the-art facility to Oshawa's downtown core, along with the new arena -- and my congratulations to the city on a job well done there -- the YMCA,

housing and numerous other activities and upgrades that have all added to Oshawa's downtown core.

The new courthouse will incorporate 33 courtrooms, five judicial hearing rooms, a 100-unit holding cell and related court and legal services.

Through the Durham Regional Police senior officers -- as well as the rank-and-file officers, I might add -- it has been brought to my attention that the Attorney General has directed the Durham Regional Police

to continue utilizing current police facilities for holding accused offenders even after the new courthouse is open. This practice will thereby duplicate the services the courthouse could offer. Presently, this service costs the Durham Regional

Police in excess of $3 million annually in transporting and transferring offenders back and forth between facilities.

Indeed, this modern facility should facilitate modern justice, and we need to ensure the most efficient use of our justice resources as well as our tax dollars. I urge the Attorney General and ministry

officials to reconsider this strategy and work along with the Durham Regional Police to consolidate these important services, as this would represent a large tax savings to the taxpayers of Oshawa and the region of Durham as well as fewer delays

in our justice system.

EXPLOSION IN VANKLEEK HILL /

EXPLOSION À VANKLEEK HILL

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): It is with great pride that I stand today in the House to honour the exceptional efforts of residents and neighbours of the community of

Vankleek Hill.

Il y a déjà un mois, cette communauté a subi une fuite de gaz naturel des plus atroces. Cette fuite fut la cause d'une explosion qui a détruit trois maisons et qui en a endommagé

sévèrement 90 autres.

What is remarkable is the way this community reached out to those affected by the explosion. The fast actions of neighbours, the fire department and the various police and emergency services on the scene meant

that only one person had minor injuries.

Emergency Management Ontario and engineers from Hawkesbury and Cornwall came to assess the other houses to make sure they were safe. Neighbours immediately opened their doors to take in the people whose homes

were damaged in the explosion. Vankleek Hill Collegiate students self-organized a clean-up of Fournier Street to do their part. A Vankleek Hill emergency fund has been created to assist victims.

Je saisis l'occasion aujourd'hui pour remercier publiquement les bénévoles de cette communauté pour leurs efforts exceptionnels et leur réaction immédiate à cette

tragédie.

I commend the mayor of Vankleek Hill, Gary Barton, for responding with calm and confidence, and I am incredibly proud of the overwhelming support and sense of community.

RELEASE OF PSYCHIATRIC OFFENDER

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): This week, the Ontario Review Board opted to allow David Carmichael to move out of the Brockville mental health forensic facility and begin

reintegration into the community.

A little over a year ago, Mr. Carmichael was found not criminally responsible for the murder of his 11-year-old epileptic son and was confined in a secure mental health facility for psychiatric treatment.

Despite being considered by his psychiatrists as a significant risk to the public, the hospital and the prosecuting crown apparently supported Mr. Carmichael's release.

I am not in a position to assess the wisdom or lack of same with respect to the release decision. It has been made. What I do want to put on the record is my fervent request that the monitoring of Mr.

Carmichael be thorough and intensive and that it should not be dropped on the doorstep of the Brockville Police Service.

The residents of Brockville have a right to view this decision with some trepidation. Not too many months ago, a pedophile on a day pass from the Brockville facility, and supposedly under constant supervision,

attacked a young child in the washroom of a local Tim Hortons. There have been other instances in the past.

Those advocating for and supporting Mr. Carmichael's release have a responsibility to ensure that this man does not once again jeopardize public safety. I call on them to fulfill that obligation.

COMMUNITY COLLEGES

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I rise in the House to explain the need for part-time college instructors to have the right to bargain collectively. Part-time instructors are a crucial

part of the education system in Ontario and should therefore have the same right to organize and collectively bargain as do other instructors.

Despite the government's ban on unionization of these valuable educational workers, faculty and support staff from Ontario's 24 colleges have recently formed an organization of part-time and sessional

employees of colleges of applied arts and technology.

Recently the UN group, the ILO, otherwise known as the International Labour Organization, ruled that such workers be given the legal right to bargain collectively and urged the McGuinty Liberals to let this

happen.

One part-time instructor criticized the current situation as "Third World," because of its exploitation of cheap labour that has no job security benefits. The United Nations agency report stated unambiguously

that "there's no reason that the basic rights of association and collective bargaining shouldn't also apply to part-time workers."

I have addressed this abysmal situation in my private member's Bill 13,

An Act to amend the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act with respect to part-time staff, which would allow for part-time instructors to be

treated like first-class instructors. Simply because someone works in a profession on a part-time basis is no justification to deny them the same rights that colleagues have.

As a representative of a civilized society like Ontario, I want to say that I'm strongly urging this government to pass my private member's bill. After all, the whole world is watching us.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr. Bas Balkissoon (Scarborough-Rouge River): I want to speak today about the great health initiatives that are occurring in my riding of Scarborough-Rouge River. The McGuinty government has

been a leader in health and health promotion, and I want to give some examples of how my riding of Scarborough-Rouge River has directly benefited from these initiatives.

I'm very excited about the state-of-the-art maternal newborn project occurring in the Rouge Valley Health System, to which the McGuinty government has contributed $7.2 million. This project would have

significant impacts on Ontario families who want to share in the birthing process together. Scarborough-Rouge River has also benefited from a $55-million investment for the emergency room at Scarborough General, as well as $17 million in base

funding.

Yet another important project in my riding is the new community health centre in Malvern, which will eventually provide access to primary health care and community health programs for Ontarians who face

systemic access barriers like race, language, poverty or disability.

While John Tory has said he will cut the health budget by $2.4 billion, the McGuinty government recognizes the importance of focusing on the health of Ontarians and has committed to looking at ways to address

both short- and long-term solutions to Ontarians' health issues. When it comes to the health of Ontarians, there's always more that can be done, but I want to thank the McGuinty government for making a difference in the health care system and for

always striving to do more.

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 107

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Anyone watching the parliamentary channel last night might have wondered why bells were ringing in this Legislature. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it's

because of action taken by the McGuinty government: their muzzling of Ontario citizens on Bill 107, on the Ontario Human Rights Commission; that, after the government spent $106,000 -- 106,000 of your taxpayer dollars -- alone on ads to advertise

committee hearings.

Our leader, John Tory, asked if this debate could continue. We promised a vote at the earliest opportunity, which would have been March 19, 2007. We don't think that's unfair for a bill that hasn't been

amended in 40 years. We think the public has a right to hear many people speak. There are over 200 people waiting for the opportunity to speak to Bill 107, and they were denied. They were muzzled of that opportunity.

That is why our party rang the bells in this Legislature last night. We felt it was appropriate. We do think that it was a mistake to muzzle the citizens of Ontario and would like to have had that opportunity

to vote next March, after a lot of committee hearings, after a lot of opportunity for debate. Again, 106,000 of your tax dollars wasted as this government decided to muzzle the province of Ontario on Bill 107.

PEEWEE BASEBALL CHAMPIONSHIPS

Mr. Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): Today I rise in the House to celebrate a tremendous accomplishment in my riding and in the city of Vaughan.

On the weekend of November 4 at the Baseball Canada Fall Convention, the city of Vaughan was selected as the host city for the 2008 Baseball Canada Championships in the peewee division. The championships will

occur in August 2008. I'm pleased to let members know that several of the games will be played at one of the finest parks in my riding, Concord-Thornhill Regional Park, located on Racco Parkway.

The Baseball Canada Championships are held every year, featuring a variety of divisions, each played in a different location across the country. In the 36 years since its inception, no municipality in the GTA

has ever hosted a national baseball championship in any of the divisions.

Vaughan is an ideal location for a national athletic tournament. It is centrally located in the GTA, close to the airport, has easy access to highways, a large volunteer community and is one of Canada's

fastest-growing municipalities. Hosting the national baseball championship provides an excellent opportunity to showcase both the city of Vaughan and the province of Ontario.

The Vaughan Baseball Association has grown in six short years to become one of the largest and most respected youth baseball associations in Ontario, with a program of over 1,000 boys and girls, and growing

each year. It is an honour to be hosting a national athletic competition of this calibre in my riding and in the city of Vaughan.

I would like to congratulate Frank Crudo, president of the Vaughan Baseball Association, and also former president Tom Pileggie, for working so hard to make Vaughan -- and, I would say, Ontario -- a

destination for youth baseball.

WINE ATLAS OF CANADA

Ms. Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): I rise today to bring the members' attention to some new, vital, must-have reading material: the new Wine Atlas of Canada. The Wine Atlas of Canada; I

reiterate that. What I want people to realize is that while there are many wine atlases of regions all over the world, Canada now has so many excellent areas where wine is being produced -- some of the best wines in the world -- that it is

deserving of its very own atlas.

I just want to read a little bit from the insert inside the book. It says, "Come taste the unique style of wines grown in your own backyard. Whether you are a devoted connoisseur" -- like the member from

Beaches-East York is -- "or have yet to discover the joy of homegrown Canadian wines, the Wine Atlas of Canada will inspire you to tour the country's wineries, walk its vineyards and sample its award-winning wines."

I can tell you, representing a chunk of the Niagara area as I do, that some of the best wines in the world and the most delightful wineries in the most delightful settings are just down and around the highway

in the Niagara Peninsula, and there's a whole

section on that in here.

Also noted in here: We have to acknowledge Prince Edward county. Nobody ever would have thought you would be growing grapes and making wine there, but they are indeed doing it there. Congratulations to those

pioneers.

Tony Aspler is the author, best known as a wine journalist, and also the creator of the Ontario Wine Awards. He worked with our member from Essex, Bruce Crozier, to create Ontario Wine Week.

UKRAINIAN GENOCIDE

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): I rise today to remind the members of this House of the 1933 famine and genocide that occurred in Ukraine. The exact number of victims is actually unknown, but we do

know that more than seven million Ukrainian men, women and children starved to death under the Soviet occupation. This unimaginable horror was hidden from us, but because we now know that, we will never forget; we must never forget.

The week of November 18 to 25 has been set aside by Ukrainian Canadians to commemorate this tragic event in history. The Ukrainian Canadian Congress continues to raise public awareness and to educate us about

this terrible tragedy. They teach in our schools to ensure that our youth understand and learn so they too will remember.

Speaker, we need to know about and remember events like this. We need to pass on this information to our next generation. It is education and awareness that raises the profile and hopefully helps future

generations from a repeat of this kind of horror in our world history. These victims cannot and should not be forgotten.

The work of the congress is an inspiration. It reminds us of our humanity and our inhumanity. They have taken a tragedy and turned it into a commemorative that will not be forgotten to teach us never to repeat

this again. Those victims will never be forgotten.

I know that all members of this House will join me in congratulations to the congress for the good work they do so we never repeat this kind of tragedy again.

VISITORS

Ms. Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to welcome two guests to the Legislature today. One is Mr. Stephen Moranis, a long-term friend, past president

of the Toronto Real Estate Board and entrepreneur; and his cousin Lawrence Dale. In her absence, I would like to pay tribute to Stephen's sister, Ms. Terry Moranis, who passed away earlier this year -- a wonderful role model for women, a hard

worker and a dedicated community person in her own right. Welcome, gentlemen.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

DIRECT ELECTION OF THE NIAGARA REGIONAL CHAIR ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR L'ÉLECTION AU SCRUTIN GÉNÉRAL DU PRÉSIDENT DU CONSEIL RÉGIONAL DE NIAGARA

Mr. Hudak moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 163,

An Act to provide for the direct election of the Niagara Regional Council chair / Projet de loi 163, Loi prévoyant l'élection au scrutin général du président du conseil

régional de Niagara.

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. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I appreciate members' support upon first reading. I think it's time for the election of the position of regional chair in Niagara to enter the 21st century. This

has been successfully implemented in Kitchener-Waterloo and Halton, our sister regions. If passed, this will ensure that any candidates, beginning in the 2010 municipal election, will need to get their mandate directly from the taxpayers who foot

the bill. So issues like the compost facility proposed for Lincoln, for example, the water and sewer issue in Wainfleet and adequate police coverage in Grimsby or Fort Erie will be subject to debate and scrutiny by the taxpayers of those who would

like to be the regional chair.

COMMUNITY RIGHT TO KNOW ACT (DISCLOSURE OF TOXINS

AND POLLUTANTS), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LE DROIT DU PUBLIC D'ÊTRE INFORMÉ (DIVULGATION DES TOXINES ET DES POLLUANTS)

Mr. Tabuns moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 164,

An Act to amend the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, the Environmental Protection Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act / Projet de loi 164, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2002 sur la protection

du consommateur, la

Loi sur la protection de l'environnement et la

Loi sur la santé et la sécurité au travail.

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

The member may wish to make a brief statement.

Mr. Peter Tabuns (Toronto-Danforth): This bill, also known as "The community right to know law," will provide the public with tools to protect themselves from toxic chemicals, requirements for

labelling, reporting public accessed information; it will co