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

December 13, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-Dec-13 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 13 December 2006 Mercredi 13 décembre 2006

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

FEDERAL LIBERAL LEADERSHIP CONVENTION

MID-PENINSULA HIGHWAY

MANUFACTURING JOBS

VICTIMS OF CRIME

ORPHANED DEER

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

HOLOCAUST

VISITORS

NOTICE OF REASONED AMENDMENT

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON ESTIMATES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

STRENGTHENING BUSINESS THROUGH

A SIMPLER TAX SYSTEM ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 VISANT À RENFORCER

LES ENTREPRISES GRÂCE À UN RÉGIME FISCAL PLUS SIMPLE

PENSION BENEFITS AMENDMENT ACT (UNLOCKING PENSION FUNDS), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RÉGIMES DE RETRAITE (DÉBLOCAGE DE FONDS DES CAISSES DE RETRAITE)

VISITORS

MOTIONS

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 158

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

CORPORATE TAX /

IMPÔT DES SOCIÉTÉS

HIGH-OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANES

CORPORATE TAX

HIGH-OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANES

CORPORATE TAX

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO ONE

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

MEMBERS' COMPENSATION

HEALTH PREMIUMS

NATIVE CHILDREN'S SERVICES

MANDATORY RETIREMENT

GUELPH TURFGRASS INSTITUTE

SEXUAL REASSIGNMENT SURGERY

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

WATER SUPPLY

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

VISITOR

PETITIONS

PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

MACULAR DEGENERATION

LONG-TERM CARE

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

ORPHANED DEER

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE

PULMONARY DISEASE

NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT SUPPLEMENT

MACULAR DEGENERATION

LONG-TERM CARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PUBLIC SERVICE OF ONTARIO

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

AYANT TRAIT À LA

FONCTION PUBLIQUE DE L'ONTARIO

ORDER OF BUSINESS

HOUSE SITTINGS /

HEURES DE SÉANCE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): It is my contention that of all the hospitals in Ontario, there is not one that has more enthusiastic local public support than the Groves Memorial

Community Hospital in the township of centre Wellington.

The Groves hospital's reputation for excellence is well deserved, a reputation that is shared by the hospitals of North Wellington Health Care and the other hospitals which serve my constituents. As this year

comes to an end, we express our thanks.

In the spring of 2007, the Groves hospital will open its new community chemotherapy clinic in partnership with the Grand River Hospital in Kitchener. This new cancer care clinic will mean that cancer patients

will receive their chemotherapy closer to home. This new clinic represents hope for families as patients beat cancer and get better.

To complement this new cancer care service, there is a need for a new CT scanner to ensure that the level of service at Groves is consistent with the standard of care and availability of CT at other hospitals

serving a similar population with a similar clinical program. It will mean reduced wait times and improved local access to this essential diagnostic procedure and it will mean better medical care all around.

Recently, the Groves Memorial Community Hospital board submitted an updated master plan to the Ministry of Health which includes a bold vision for a brand new hospital. As the MPP for Waterloo-Wellington, I will

continue to actively support whatever hospital redevelopment plan the board and our community put forward for the ministry's consideration. I'm pleased that the Minister of Health is in the House to hear what I have to say today and I urge the

ministry to move swiftly to respond to our health care needs.

FEDERAL LIBERAL LEADERSHIP CONVENTION

Mr. Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): The energetic exercise of our democratic rights is vital to a healthy, self-rejuvenating society. Rule by a free, educated and engaged majority is sometimes

awkward, lurching from time to time in new directions. Nonetheless, these corrections are usually what keep us on course at least in the long run, and all partisanship aside, I believe democracy usually gets it right.

I had the happy privilege recently of participating in the Montreal federal Liberal leadership convention, and upon reflection, it seems to me that exercises in democracy like this are, for any party, important

moments in the life of a free and open society. Yes, it's combative, expensive, even draining, but it works.

Stéphane Dion is a man of principle whom I was honoured to support right through the convention. He brings a sense of balance and a vision to the future of his party, which is what Canada needs. I would

like to take this opportunity to congratulate both the convention organizers for staging such a compelling exercise in grassroots leadership and the new Liberal Party of Canada leader for triumphing through it all. Stéphane Dion, on behalf of

my colleagues, we wish you well.

MID-PENINSULA HIGHWAY

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): Thirty-eight long months since Dalton McGuinty's election and the mid-peninsula corridor is still stuck in reverse. We're still waiting for the start date of the

environmental assessment for the mid-peninsula corridor.

You will recall that the EA was ready to go under the previous government. When this government came in, they tossed out all the old studies, wasted hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars and said they'd

start from square one.

Sadly, it took a long time before the mid-pen policy even got to Minister Takhar's desk over at the Chalmers Group. He said he would finally get moving on the terms of reference in the fall of 2004, but it

wasn't until October 28, 2005, that those terms of reference were submitted. Now that they have finally been approved, in June 2006, we still have no firm date for the EA consultations to begin. It was suggested they would finally begin in the

fall of 2006 -- mind you, technically there are still eight days left in the fall -- but nobody would think that December 2006 is an adequate start date for this project. Commuters and business still stuck on the 403, the Queen Elizabeth Way and

the Lincoln Alexander want to see an investment in highway infrastructure; they want to see the project moving soon. At this Dalton McGuinty snail's pace, we're all going to be like the Jetsons, flying over where the highway should have been,

unless they get moving. Let's put the highway in gear.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On January 31, 2007, PenSafe, owners of Haun Drop Forge, is pulling the plug on its Welland operation. Haun Drop Forge, part of the Welland-Niagara area forge

industry -- 70 years old, highly skilled workers, an incredible history of quality product -- is having its production transferred to Asia. Perhaps when the Premier is visiting India with his entourage of MPPs on his January junket, he can say

hello to the Asian workers who will be manufacturing the quality products that used to be made by workers at Haun Drop Forge in Welland.

These are hard-working folks, raising their families, raising their grandkids, building homes and building communities. But you've got a forge operation -- a high electricity consumer -- that simply can't afford

the electricity costs anymore, and you have a small business that tells me this government doesn't understand small business. This government thinks small business is 200 workers in a non-union factory.

Haun Drop Forge, with 23 active workers, was out of the loop when it came to funding and support for research and innovative development of new products. This type of operation increasingly is becoming the

source of employment here in the province of Ontario, and they're the ones that are under direct attack by this government's electricity policies. No Parkinson salary and severance package for these people, just a pink slip.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Ms. Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): I rise today to point out that the Office for Victims of Crime worked this past year with community representatives in six regional committees across this

province to review and suggest projects that are innovative and effective that could fill some gaps. There was nearly $6 million spent this year alone, and nearly a million of that is going to community-based agencies in central western Ontario to

support new programs and services for victims of crime. I just want to highlight a couple of them. One of them, St. Joseph's Immigrant Women's Centre in Hamilton, received $42,660 at the end of last week to create 12 workshops to offer immigrant

women a safe environment to discuss issues of domestic or sexual violence and explore choices and services available to them in the community of Hamilton. The project will also provide for a series of four staff training and development sessions

on violence against women.

In Burlington, Halton Women's Place received $150,000 from this fund to implement a domestic violence public education outreach strategy for Halton region. This is targeting marginalized communities. Elements of

the strategy include recruitment of community ambassadors, updating the organization's website, and translation of print materials into multiple languages and formats.

My congratulations to those agencies, to their staff and to the volunteers who work there for coming up with these excellent programs and for getting this funding.

ORPHANED DEER

Ms. Lisa MacLeod (Nepean-Carleton): Let me share a sad Christmas story from my constituency. It is about a family, a deer and the grinches who are attempting to steal Christmas; in

Nepean-Carleton, we call them over-zealous MNR officials.

You see, I represent a caring and a compassionate community, like my other colleagues do, with suburbs and farms. We are a city, but with a rural flair.

On one of these farms lived a deer named Bam Bam. Bam Bam has been cared for since she was an abandoned fawn by the Straby family. Bam Bam became part of their family. She would come when she was called. The

Strabys, for their part, made sure Bam Bam was well taken care of with food, shelter, and, most importantly, love. That is, of course, until representatives of the MNR heard about it. Like the grinch who stole Christmas, no one quite knows why the

MNR, backed up by three police cars, confiscated Bam Bam and moved her away from the family.

Sadly, the Strabys have to pay to visit her at a faraway zoo. Worse still, they may still face charges for their act of compassion.

So I wrote to the minister and I asked that he intervene. I believe, as my constituents do, that this family should be reunited. The Minister of Natural Resources has the authority to bring Bam Bam home for

Christmas. He can right the wrong of his officials. After all, even the grinch who stole Christmas brought back the toys.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): This Friday, I will be in my riding to announce an exciting new program that will teach high-school-aged youth the principles of CPR. The Ontario segment of

this program was made possible through the joint efforts of our government, the Ontario Trillium Foundation and the Advanced Coronary Treatment Foundation. The program has aimed to establish a CPR program in high schools across Ontario in order to

provide nearly 450,000 youth with the skill and awareness to help save lives at home and in their communities. By understanding the "chain of survival," these youth will be adept at understanding the warning signs and providing the person in

duress the best chance for survival.

To date, 60% of the high schools in Ontario have this significant program in place. The success of this program has been made possible through $650,000 over three years from the McGuinty government through the

Ministry of Education. This is in addition to the $300,000 in funding over three years from the Trillium Foundation and also the tireless work of the Advanced Coronary Treatment Foundation in both fundraising and implemention of this program.

This program is an excellent way of preparing Ontario's youth for emergencies in their homes and in their communities. I'm very proud to be part of a government that helps fund programs like this so that we can

make real progress in building strong communities across Ontario.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr. Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East): It is with great pleasure that I rise in this House today to declare the McGuinty government's commitment to our children and youth.

Last year I became a father, and I have to say that after my twin boys' birth on December 11, 2005, Sebastien and Alexander changed my life and gave me a wonderful perspective on the work we do here. The boys

celebrated their first birthday on Monday of this week with family, friends, cake and much wrapping paper.

Our kids are our most precious resource, and we need to ensure that we take care of their development and needs in the early years so that they arrive at school ready to learn. We need every Ontarian at his

best, and we need him to start at birth.

A funny story also happened this past week. Alexander likes to squirm around all the time when I'm trying to change his diaper. Sebastien, the other twin, was very observant and saw that daddy was having a hard

time, so he came over and helped to pin Alexander down so daddy could change his diaper, which was very funny; it was hilarious, actually, at the time. You could just see the learning and how observant kids are.

I look forward to the time that they will attend public school, with reduced class sizes and improved schools. Today our newborns, thanks to our government, receive vaccines for pneumonia, chickenpox and

meningitis funded by the government. Our kids are counting on us to clean up our environment: water, land and air.

HOLOCAUST

Mr. David Zimmer (Willowdale): Sadly, I rise today to speak about the Holocaust. It's in the news today: The notion of the Holocaust is under attack, as we sit here today. It is described as a

myth in some quarters. This is false, absurd and beyond comprehension. Jews, blacks, gypsies, homosexuals and other minorities were the target of concentration camps, the target of the Holocaust. Mothers, daughters, sons and fathers were lost

forever, lost to hatred.

On behalf of the lost family members, on behalf of all survivors, on behalf of all Canadians who fought against this regime in the Second World War, we in Ontario will remember this. I stand here to say to those

today who are continuing to spread hate, to spread intolerance, that your lies will not be tolerated. We will remember. We will all remember. The idea that the Holocaust is a myth is truly sinful.

VISITORS

Ms. Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I rise today to introduce and to welcome two wonderful people, Peter and Helen Soderquest, hard-working individuals from

Hamilton. They are here today celebrating Peter's retirement. Welcome to the Ontario Legislature.

NOTICE OF REASONED AMENDMENT

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): I beg to inform the House that pursuant to standing order 69(b), the House leader of the third party, the member for Niagara Centre, has notified the Clerk

of his intention to file notice of a reasoned amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 173,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act, the MPPs Pension Act, 1996, and the Executive Council Act. The order for second reading of Bill 173

may therefore not be called today.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON ESTIMATES

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Pursuant to standing order 61(c), the supplementary estimates (2006-07) of the Office of the Assembly before the standing committee on estimates are reported

back to the House, as they were not selected by the committee for consideration, and are deemed to be received and concurred in.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): I beg leave to present the first report 2006 of the standing committee on regulations and private bills and move the adoption of its recommendations.

In tabling this report, I'd like to note that it's the committee's 31st report since it began reviewing regulations in 1978. This report covers all of 2005 and the period right up to May 20, 2006.

As Chair of the committee, I want to thank the staff and all of the people who helped with the committee, all of the members of the committee who worked very hard for their ongoing contributions to the standing

committee on regulations and private bills. May all of the members have a very happy holiday season.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): The member has made a brief statement. The member for Hamilton East.

Ms. Horwath: I move adjournment of the debate.

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

Ms. Horwath: I beg leave to present a report for the standing committee on regulations and private bills and move its adoption.

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

Bill Pr29,

An Act respecting Sheena's Place.

Your committee begs to report the following bills as amended:

Bill Pr31,

An Act respecting the Perimeter Institute; and Bill Pr32,

An Act respecting the Centre for International Governance Innovation.

The Speaker: Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed? Agreed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton): I beg leave to present a report on Ontario's student assistance program from the standing committee on public accounts and move the adoption of its

recommendations.

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

Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr. Sterling: As members of the Legislature know, the public accounts committee, an all-party committee, deals with recommendations from the auditor. This particular recommendation regarding the

student assistance program emanates out of the auditor's report of 2003, which then was reviewed again in 2005. So the committee was dealing with the 2005 report to follow up what the recommendations of the 2003 report pointed out.

A great concern of the committee surrounded the default rate. In other words, how many students were not paying back their loans? Up to about 2003, the default rate fell. In other words, more students were

paying their loans. Subsequent to that time span, the default rate has begun to rise, so more students are not paying their loans. This was of concern to the committee.

There are many, many recommendations in the report, including actually seven or eight recommendations asking the ministry to report back to the committee as to why this rate is rising at this time and why the

10% target, which was set back in 2003, was not attained.

When this process was begun in 2003, the default rate was around 20% to 22%. It fell to about 13% but has risen again to about 16% or 17%. It was the feeling of the committee that a new target should be set

and it should be attained. The 10% target probably could be reached if everyone got together.

I commend this report to all members and to the ministry. I believe it's a challenge that can be met by that ministry.

I move adjournment of the debate.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mrs. Julia Munro (York North): I beg leave to present a report on agencies, boards and commissions, Hydro One, from the standing committee on government agencies and move the adoption of its

recommendations.

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

Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mrs. Munro: This is the second of three agencies on which the committee has held hearings. I want to take this opportunity to express my appreciation of the efforts of the presenters, the

legislative staff and the committee members themselves to make this process a valuable contribution to the public record.

I move adjournment of the debate.

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

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

STRENGTHENING BUSINESS THROUGH

A SIMPLER TAX SYSTEM ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 VISANT À RENFORCER

LES ENTREPRISES GRÂCE À UN RÉGIME FISCAL PLUS SIMPLE

Mr. Sorbara moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 174,

An Act to enact the Taxation Act, 2006 and make complementary and other amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 174, Loi édictant la Loi de 2006 sur les impôts et apportant des

modifications complémentaires et autres à diverses lois.

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

The minister may wish to make a brief statement.

Hon. Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance, Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I'll reserve my comments until ministers' statements.

PENSION BENEFITS AMENDMENT ACT (UNLOCKING PENSION FUNDS), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RÉGIMES DE RETRAITE (DÉBLOCAGE DE FONDS DES CAISSES DE RETRAITE)

Ms. Horwath moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 175,

An Act to amend the Pension Benefits Act to allow transfers of locked-in pension funds to registered retirement income funds / Projet de loi 175, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les régimes de

retraite pour permettre le transfert de caisses de retraite immobilisées à des fonds enregistrés de revenu de retraite.

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

The member may wish to make a brief statement.

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): I do. Currently, pension funds that are in locked-in accounts can't be withdrawn except in very specific circumstances. In fact, many people can't get

access to them in the current regime until they turn 90. This is unacceptable. I have been working with CARP, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, or persons over the age of 50, on trying to get this ball rolling, and hope that we can some

day soon unlock locked-in funds.

VISITORS

Hon. Jim Watson (Minister of Health Promotion): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I know the House would enthusiastically welcome three residents from the great city of Ottawa here: Alycia

White-Brown, Joel Monfils and Adam DeCaire, from Ottawa West-Nepean and Ottawa South. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I'm sure that members would be pleased to join me in welcoming Doug Galt, the former member for Northumberland, who's with us

today, and his lovely wife, Cathy, who is the candidate of record for the riding of Northumberland. Welcome.

MOTIONS

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 158

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): I believe we have unanimous consent to move a motion without notice regarding

discharging a bill from committee and ordering it for third reading.

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

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I move that the December 7, 2006, order of the House referring Bill 158,

An Act to revise legislation relating to the public service of Ontario by repealing the Public

Service Act, enacting the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006 and the Ontario Provincial Police Collective Bargaining Act, 2006 and making complementary amendments to various Acts and by amending various Acts in respect of the successor rights of

certain public servants, to the standing committee on general government be discharged and it be ordered for third reading.

The Speaker: Shall the motion carry? Carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

CORPORATE TAX /

IMPÔT DES SOCIÉTÉS

Hon. Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance, Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): On October 6 of this year, I joined my federal counterpart, federal minister Jim Flaherty, to announce the

first step in our plan to harmonize corporate tax collection. Today, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share with you and the members of this House the next step in the plan.

J'ai déposé aujourd'hui un projet de loi visant à mettre en oeuvre les principaux éléments annoncés dans le protocole d'accord que le ministre Flaherty et moi-même avons

exposé en octobre dernier.

If passed, this bill will accomplish three important goals. First, it will deliver clear benefits to businesses of all sizes. They will spend less time on paperwork and they'll save up to $100 million annually

from one set of tax rules, one tax auditor and one tax form. Second, there will be a modest reduction in the amount corporations in Ontario will actually pay in taxes, by some $90 million a year. Third, it will reduce red tape by cutting the

combined personal and corporate tax legislation and regulations currently in existence by more than half.

Ce projet de loi montre également jusqu'où peuvent mener les efforts de collaboration intergouvernementaux et à quel point une telle coopération sert nos intérêts communs.

To accomplish these goals, the bill combines two existing statutes, the Corporations Tax Act and the Income Tax Act, into one single new piece of legislation. In doing so, this legislation proposes to simplify

and streamline tax administration in this province.

Let me assure you, as is abundantly clear to anyone who has ever filed a corporate tax return or tried to meet a payroll, that this legislation is vital to our collective economic well-being. In that regard,

any time that businesses spend on paperwork is time away from what they should be doing: creating jobs, investing, and contributing to a strong and prosperous economy.

Businesses have been asking us for some time to simplify our corporate tax structure. We've listened to their concerns and drafted a bill that goes some distance to meeting their needs.

As I said in October, there will be a period of transition, not just for business but for some of our staff. There are still steps to be taken before we conclude a full tax collection agreement, but we know

that at the end of this process, some people who now work for us will be working for the federal government. To these people, I say: We know that change is not always easy. We will continue to work with you, with your bargaining agent, to help

ensure that this process is both fair and transparent.

We now have a timetable for the process. We have committed publicly to having a single tax form in place for businesses beginning with the 2009 taxation year. The memorandum of agreement signed in October and

Ces accords, je l'espère, serviront de précurseurs à d'autres accords futurs, afin de mieux définir et élaborer des pratiques communes de collaboration, pour le mieux-être de tous

les Canadiens.

But as I have said before on numerous occasions, now, more than ever, we need the federal government to own up to the rest of its responsibilities to this province. We've recently seen some good news in this

regard, and we hope that this is a sign of many good things to come.

I look forward to the discussion that this legislation will generate in this House, and I genuinely appreciate the attention that I know members will give to it.

HIGH-OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANES

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield (Minister of Transportation): I'm pleased to rise in the House today to talk about another greater success of the McGuinty government.

One year ago today, the government opened the first provincial high-occupancy vehicle lanes on Highways 403 and 404 with the goal of managing congestion and improving travel time for commuters. We heard that

commuters were frustrated by the time it took to get to their destinations, and we responded. We knew that the delays they encountered on the road meant less time to spend with their friends and families. We opened our high-occupancy vehicle lanes

last December so that commuters could get to their destinations in less time.

I am delighted to inform you that one year later, the HOV lanes are an unqualified success. Many groups have come forward with their support for this important initiative. Organizations such as the CAA and the

Ontario Motor Coach Association see the value in building the HOV lanes.

Before the HOV lanes were built, a trip on Highway 403 eastbound during the morning rush hour took about 22 minutes. The same trip now takes about eight minutes in the HOV lanes.

The choice is obvious, and many commuters have recognized the benefits of these lanes. In 2003, only 14% of people travelled in carpools on Highway 403 eastbound. Now, nearly 40% of people are carpooling on

the HOV lanes on Highway 403 eastbound during the peak rush hour.

Our HOV lanes are working, but there's room for more carpoolers. It's important to keep the momentum going and to keep the carpools growing. Indeed, I encourage all the members of this House and their staff to

lead by example and carpool on a regular basis.

The high-occupancy vehicle lanes are also encouraging people to take public transit because the bus operators can offer faster, more reliable trips, and customers can be confident that their bus will not get

stuck in traffic. GO Transit has reported that ridership on the bus routes using the HOV lanes is growing, and public transit agencies using these HOV lanes are reporting back that their buses arrive at their destinations on time and with greater

consistency than ever before.

Of course, our environment also benefits as lane use increases with more and more commuters carpooling or taking transit.

Our government's plan to encourage carpooling and public transit use is working. Habits are changing. People who carpool or take public transit are telling us that the high-occupancy vehicle lanes allow them

to spend more time with their families than on the road. If, for example, you were to take that 17 minutes that they save on the 404 every day, and when in 2007 the other lane is ready, we're talking two and a half hours that people will be able

to spend with their friends and families every week. So commuters are telling us that their travel time is shorter.

But it's not just HOV and public transit users who benefit. Motorists in general also benefit. We've seen that the lanes both on Highway 403 and 404 are less congested, and we have seen that folks have shaved

somewhere between eight and 11 minutes from their commute times simply because there are less cars on the road.

Our government is building on this success. By next summer, the HOV network will expand with the opening of the northbound HOV lane on Highway 404 north of Highway 401.

Initial stages of construction are under way to add HOV lanes on the QEW between Oakville and Burlington, and we will also introduce high-occupancy vehicle lanes on Highway 417 in Ottawa between Palladium

Drive and Highway 416.

High-occupancy vehicle lanes are part of the McGuinty government's plan for a sustainable transportation network across Ontario. We are building on this year's success and we are creating a transportation

network that takes a holistic approach to keeping not only people but goods and services moving.

We have laid the foundation for this network. Rob MacIsaac, our newly appointed chair of our Greater Toronto Transportation Authority, is already working with municipal partners to plan for some exciting

transit initiatives.

We have delivered on our promise to share the gas tax and provided municipalities with $1.6 billion for new buses and increased services.

We are committed to extending the TTC subway to York University. Extending the subway line will help more than 65,000 students and faculty members at York University get to and from school quickly and

conveniently. The subway extension is a solution that demonstrates the McGuinty government's commitment to supporting public transit in Ontario.

The federal government must come to the table with funding to make crucial transit projects happen in Ontario. Our government is on the side of commuters who want to get to work and get home early, reliably

and safely.

A sustainable transportation network is the key to Ontario's economic future and a crucial part of our plan to ensure that Ontarians continue to enjoy the highest quality of life.

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

CORPORATE TAX

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): I'm pleased to respond to the statement on the bill introduced by my colleague the Minister of Finance.

As we've stated before on behalf of the opposition, we're pleased to see this initiative moving forward. Work had been done under the previous Progressive Conservative government and continued under this

government. I give the minister a commendation, and his staff and Ministry of Finance civil servants, for their efforts on this, as well as Mr. Flaherty and his officials at the Department of Finance nationally.

The minister will know that we'll look closely at this bill. There have been some problems in the past. You will recall that the previous finance bill, for example, buried deep in the bill, caused a reduction

in the frequency of municipal elections without being mentioned by the minister or his PA. Just this past week, your colleague the Minister of Government Services brought in a last-minute amendment to increase taxes on cemeteries, for example.

You're going pretty far when you're increasing taxes on the dead.

I want to use this moment to reinforce to the Minister of Finance the importance of allowing the income splitting for pension income that's been announced by the federal government to go through here

provincially. That will be a big bonus and a big assistance to seniors and those living on pension income.

My colleague the leader of the official opposition brought forward our strong concern with the last-minute spending that's occurred, as cited by the auditor's report, in cabinet meetings going up to the end of

the fiscal year. It seems like the only limit was the physical ability of the minister to sign cheques, to put them out the door. As Mr. Tory pointed out, the last three cabinet meetings saw the following: $2.4 million a minute spent; the March 23

cabinet meeting, $643 million, or $3.5 million a minute; and the March 30 cabinet meeting, $205 million, or $1.4 million a minute.

The auditor's report had previously criticized this minister and this government for similar activities in previous budgets, including $1 billion the year before. The minister decided to top that up with $1.6

billion this last fiscal year. It's certainly no way to run a budget and no way to run a government.

The last caution I'd have is, we had hoped we would see actual tax reductions for working families and for seniors in this budget. The minister knows that Ontario has the most uncompetitive tax regime for

businesses, right next to Saskatchewan, in the entire country. We do hope that will be in the bill, or, if not, the next bill coming from the minister.

HIGH-OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANES

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): Our leader, John Tory, and our caucus are fully in support of HOV lanes. It should be clear to people who are familiar with this topic that when we were in

government, under the leadership of Frank Klees and Norm Sterling, this process began in 2001-02. The McGuinty government is always anxious to take credit for initiatives by others, but fails to take responsibility for their errors under their

watch. In fact, I think today they should stand up and apologize for breaking over 230 promises, for instance the $2.6-billion health tax. You've got to recall also that the energy file is in a complete mess, and we still have many doctor

shortages and patient delays. You should also stand up and say you're sorry for the evidence released this week by the Auditor General, not to mention just a couple: Hydro One, the culture of entitlement and children's aid's excessive and

scandalous spending.

The real issue is the lack of a responsible response by this government to the AG's report. In fact, there's no action plan to curb the excessive account card or credit card culture of entitlement, no plan to

look at vulnerable children under children's aid care, no plan to re-communicate the information on hospital wait times, and the risks go on. There's no plan also for the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority and letting it come to reality.

Even your chair and vice-chair are reported as asking, "Where's the money?"

What about the extension of service of GO Transit? What about the mid-peninsula corridor? What about the Highway 407 east completion? Minister, the HOV lanes are not going to solve the gridlock problem, and

you should know that. Clearly the McGuinty government has no plan of any sort to solve the gridlock crisis.

People do remember that it was this government that started the process, and it will be this government that will fail to complete their promises, as has been the case. What's needed here is a real action plan

for this government to address the findings of the Auditor General. With less than eight months to go, the Liberal government is falling into its own potholes. I say to the minister, as you said in your remarks, the people are still frustrated.

Why did you bring up your little entourage to north Toronto, causing --

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

CORPORATE TAX

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I'm now responding to the Minister of Finance. When the Minister of Finance stood up in October and talked about the new deal, I had this instant image of

Tweedledum and Tweedledee, the two finance ministers standing there together. I had it because they seemed to be, for the first time, in absolute harmony. I am revisiting that same image in my mind here today because here they are again in

absolute harmony.

I look down into what was said today because, quite honestly, it is impossible for me or anyone in this House -- we don't have Superman in this House or Flash Gordon, who can read the 500 pages that were

handed to me as we walked in here today. But I am very, very mindful of what may be contained and the secrets that may be contained.

Just from the minister's statement and what he had to say today, there will be a reduction of some $90 million in taxes from the corporate sector to the province of Ontario. I have no doubt in my mind that the

corporate sector is going to say, "Thank you very much for the $90-million reduction," and well they should. If someone gave me a reduction of my income tax in that kind of largesse, I would say this was a good thing too. But I have to question a

province and a government that has not been able to balance the budget in the first three years of its mandate and may not be able to balance the budget in the fourth and final year of its mandate, cavalierly coming to a conclusion, and a set of

agreements that is going to take $90 million from the people of Ontario and stop them not only from balancing their budget, but also the $90 million that those corporate taxes could be doing for the benefit of ordinary people in this province. I

have to wonder about the need for a variety of legitimate purposes that exist in Ontario.

I looked very quickly to see where those taxes were likely to be removed. The minister can correct me if he wants, but there seem to be four areas where the taxes are going to be lowered. The first one is the

provincial corporations income tax, the second one is the life insurance tax, the third one is the corporate minimum tax and the last one is the corporate capital tax. I looked at these, and quite obviously this will be a boon to some businesses.

Some businesses I suppose will deserve the money; others could possibly do without having to hand it back. It seems to me why it's happening is that the federal tax appears to be less than the Ontario tax, so the harmonization and us agreeing to

the harmonization is agreeing to that reduction.

I'm also very nervous, because the minister talked about continuing to work with the workers of this province, the public employees of Ontario, to try to come to some kind of agreement around human resource

management issues. They have been working on this for months and months. In fact, when the minister stood up here in October and talked about this, they were probably at very much the same juncture. Nothing really has come to a conclusion, and

although meetings continue to be held, there still is, as far as I am aware, a huge gap between what the workers of Ontario are requesting happen to them and what this government is prepared to offer. This has not been finalized and is nowhere

near being finalized, and you will pardon me and pardon those public employees if they're just a little bit more than nervous. They are left to wonder what is going to happen to them.

There is, finally, the potential and possible loss of expertise to the province of Ontario in this harmonization procedure. We have had excellent auditors in this province for many, many years. It has been

said, and I believe it to be true, that the auditors more than 10 times pay their own salaries, for going out and auditing books, in monies that they are able to recover on behalf of the province from those companies that are reluctant to pay

their fair share of taxes. That expertise is going to be lost.

Where this is most troublesome --

Interjection.

Mr. Prue: -- as the Minister of Finance tries to intercede, is in those corporations that are not only in the province of Ontario but exist in all the provinces of Canada. It is very difficult

for a federal auditor -- it's easy enough for him to say how much a big corporation has made in Canada, but it's very difficult to say how much they've made in the province of Ontario versus Quebec, versus Nova Scotia or versus Alberta. It's very

easy for large corporations to say that the profit was made in Alberta, where the tax is less. I am afraid there is a potential huge loss to this province.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO ONE

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier. People across the province continue to write me on e-mail about a man who quit his job and got a $3-million severance

payout. They just don't accept multi-year, multi-million dollar severance arrangements for someone who quits.

Yesterday, the Minister of Energy suggested that he was merely following advice, that he was merely adhering to contractual provisions. I have the details, as we've heard shared in the House, of Mr.

Parkinson's contract; they're public. They indicate that he gets severance if he's terminated without cause. It goes on to say that he gets severance if termination without cause comes about in the form of his contract not being extended in 2010.

It says nothing about compensation if he just quits in 2006.

The government says he quit. The board says he quit. If this is really the case, why did he get the $3 million?

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy): This government is proud that it sent the Auditor General in not only to Hydro One and to OPG but across the broader public sector. What I said is

that, in all the circumstances, the best advice we had is that the least costly alternative for all concerned was the course of action that was in fact pursued.

This government is determined not only to identify the types of challenges that were identified by the auditor but moreover to act on them in a responsible and timely fashion that will ensure the ongoing

integrity of the public utilities in Ontario.

Mr. Tory: What the minister in fact said yesterday was that those are part of contractual provisions that are entered into that you simply can't ignore. The fact is, the minister is right: A

contract is a contract. If the payment of $3 million actually followed what the contract said, this would be quite a different discussion.

The minister said that this gentleman quit. If that's true, there was no payment provided for under the contract. The cheapest option under the contract would have been to give one of those thank you cards and

away he would go. If you ordered Hydro One, I say to the minister, to fire him, then you should stand up and clarify the record. Do you want to be straightforward with the people of Ontario and confirm that you ordered him terminated? Why don't

you just do that?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that in fact what we said was that under the circumstances, under the conditions, and with the advice that we received, the

course of action that was pursued is the least costly way of proceeding. But make no mistake: We are proceeding.

There is much more to be done. We will have more to say about compensation levels in the public utilities. We will have more to say about how we're going to go forward. We cannot ignore the Auditor General's

advice. That's why we put the Auditor General in place. That's why we opened up Hydro One and OPG.

The final thing I would note to the Leader of the Opposition is that what I said yesterday was quoting him. That's what you quoted back. You said on December 6, "But those are a part of contractual provisions

that are entered into that you can't ignore." You can't ignore a whole range of things. That was said in this House. It was not just implied; it was said. There's a range of factors that were taken into account. On balance, the advice we had was

that the way it was dealt with by the board was in fact the least costly way of dealing with the situation in all of the circumstances.

Mr. Tory: The minister and I do agree on this: that a provision of a contract is a provision of a contract. What I'm saying here is that we all have seen the provisions of this contract;

they're public. I'm asking the minister to direct us to the provision of the contract that says that if the man quits his job -- as the minister said, as the board said -- where does it say in the contract that he gets $3 million? That leads only

to the conclusion -- because there is no such contractual provision that says that; there's nothing that says, "If you quit, you get $3 million" -- that there was multi-million dollar, multi-year payout to someone who quit outside of the contract.

So what I'm asking the minister is this: Isn't it true that you told the chair of Hydro One to get rid of Mr. Parkinson and that if she didn't do it, you would; and that that's what really happened here? All we're entitled to is a straightforward

explanation. You can't hide behind the contract. We know what it says; it doesn't say, "You get $3 million if you quit." Why did he get the $3 million if he quit?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: In all the circumstances, the advice of the board was that this was the least costly alternative in dealing with the situation. We rely on the board to make those

determinations. They in fact made those determinations. I would remind the member opposite that under the previous Tory administration they spent $40 million for the American dream team to come in and fix up OPG, to deal with nuclear

refurbishment. Not only did they not deal with it, but the projects came in over budget and over time, and the result was a lot of changes that this government did make. We brought in freedom of information. Your government refused to do that.

We brought in the auditor for good reason. The auditor has given a number of recommendations that this government is acting on to improve the integrity of all aspects of the broader public sector. We're acting

on those recommendations. In all the circumstances, based on the advice we had, this was in fact the least costly --

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

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier. On August 31, 2006, there was a story in the St. Catharines Standard which quoted the Premier as saying that the

protestors staying on the Douglas Creek Estates land "in some kind of permanent way, through the winter, for example -- that is not acceptable to us."

The promise was that this would be resolved by winter, that the protestors would not be occupying the land come winter. There are now nine days left until the official start of winter. The protestors have been

on the land for 289 days. Can the Premier tell us whether this commitment that he made, this promise that he made, will be kept, or will this join another in the long line of promises that will in fact be broken?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): I'm pleased that things are in a more peaceful state these days in Caledonia. I gather this comes with some regret on the

part of the leader of the official opposition.

We are pleased that the three levels of government have been working well together. We're pleased that we've been able to organize a negotiating table to bring all parties together. We're pleased we've been

able to purchase the land in question and hold that in trust pending the outcome of these discussions. We're pleased that we've been able to work with the community to ease tensions. I'm sure that the leader of the official opposition would, under

all circumstances, not want to do anything that will contribute to anything other than goodwill and the relief of tensions.

Mr. Tory: The fact of the matter is it was the Premier of Ontario, the very same Dalton McGuinty, who said that "it would not be acceptable to us" -- referring to his own government -- to have

these people staying on the land through the winter. He said this, not me.

I was down there last week to meet with the residents. It's the sixth time that I've been there, and I did what the Premier has refused to do -- you haven't even visited: I accepted the invitation to stay

overnight with one of the families and to meet with a whole lot of the people who have been very directly affected by that. What I heard about from these people -- when you talk about the lack of tension there -- was the disruption to their lives,

which continues. I heard about new buildings being built on the land by the protesters, notwithstanding that your government has said there is a moratorium. I heard about kids going to school every day past barricades and police cars. I heard

about people trying to put up Canadian flags and being told they can't.

These are people who see two sets of rules. They see no one in government standing up for them. My question is this: They were counting on you to keep your word about when these people would be off the land.

Do you intend to do it?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I understand why the leader of the official opposition and his party are eager to pour gasoline on the situation, but we're going in a different direction.

The houses that are referenced by the leader of the official opposition: The fact is that there are houses coming down. It is true that there was some kind of a security hut that has been recently erected.

As the leader of the official opposition well knows, this is the subject of a dispute which has been outstanding now -- well, it predates Confederation. The first claim in the area was filed in 1980. In 26

years, 29 claims have been filed and only one has been settled. We will continue to work with the federal government, but I know that the First Nations community involved understands this, that the community of Caledonia understands this and that

the federal government understands this. There is an ongoing dispute between the Six Nations community and the federal government. We will do our part to maintain peace and stability as best we can.

Mr. Tory: The fact is, it was you who said it would be unacceptable for them to stay there for the winter. You said that. And the other fact is that there are new structures being built on

that land as we speak.

Another promise made by your government to the people of Caledonia is that compensation for residents directly affected by the blockade would be forthcoming. That promise was made on June 16, and here we are,

six months later, and the residents confirmed to me when I visited there that there has been nothing done for them -- not a postcard, not a letter -- nothing, no proposal of any kind. It just underscores how empty these words are about what is

unacceptable to you or what you will say you're going to do to help these people who have been so dramatically affected by this whole regime.

How is it you can do up a cheque for $3 million late on a Friday afternoon to accommodate one desire you have to solve one matter, and yet these people are told, six months later, nothing is happening, nothing

has been done, but you promised you would. Why don't you keep that promise?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: The leader of the official opposition tells us he's been there a half-dozen times. It wouldn't surprise me if he was down there 12 more times because --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): I need the government House leader and the Minister of Agriculture to restrain themselves, and the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant. Premier.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: With respect to financial support, the members of this House will know that our government has purchased the Douglas Creek Estates. We have put forward monies for a business

assistance plan. We provided money for signage and markings on the land. We provided money for assistance for residents already. We provided money for a marketing campaign. We provided money for a new school fence and security cameras. We provided

money for communications help in the municipality, and other areas as well.

The fact of the matter is that the federal government, thankfully, is now taking a lead role in this area. They are leading the negotiations at the table, and we look forward to them developing a significant

proposal that they can table for us to lend our --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

MEMBERS' COMPENSATION

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. People across Ontario are now aware of the outrageous salary increases granted by the McGuinty government to Hydro

executives, including Mr. Parkinson's $3-million golden handshake. As a result, hard-working people are asking the McGuinty government to be more thoughtful in spending the people's money.

Premier, you promised to listen to the people; you promised open and transparent government. In that context, how do you justify trying to ram through a 31% pay increase?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): I look forward to hearing more from all of the NDP on this particular issue.

There is a 40% gap between what members of this Legislature make and what the members of Parliament in Ottawa make. I think that is unacceptable, and I think it's unsustainable. I think we have a shared

responsibility to help close that gap. I'm not asking that we close that entirely. I'm saying that to establish a gap of 25% is reasonable and fair in the circumstances.

The federal government transfers money to us so we can deliver health care. We deliver education, not only at the post-secondary level but all the way from JK through the post-doctorate level. We assume

principal responsibility for our national environment. We assume principal responsibility for strengthening our economy. We have the same ridings and the same constituents. I think that 40% by way of a gap is unsustainable, and I think 25% is

fair.

Mr. Hampton: Well, Premier, if you want to talk about context, let's talk about context. Already, Ontario MPPs are the second-highest-paid provincial representatives in Canada. Ontario MPPs

already are paid more than MLAs in Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Manitoba --

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I need to be able to hear the leader of the third party place his question.

Mr. Hampton: It appears that I have touched a nerve with members of the Liberal government.

Ontario MPPs already get paid more than MLAs in Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. Your proposed 31% pay hike is completely

out of touch with the kinds of pay increases ordinary working Ontarians are getting.

I ask you again, Premier: Given the huge pay increases you already gave to your Hydro executives, how do you justify ramming through a 31% pay hike here and now?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: The fact of the matter is that during the course of the past 15 years, members of this Legislative Assembly have experienced nine pay freezes, and in one of those years we

experienced a 5.5% pay cut.

I still have family in Timmins, and although I may not agree with Mr. Bisson, they tell me he works very, very hard. The leader of the NDP believes Mr. Bisson should make 40% less than his federal counterpart;

I disagree with that.

I can't do an education event in Toronto and not have Mr. Marchese there. The leader of the NDP may believe that Mr. Marchese deserves 40% less than his federal member, but I disagree, and I say that about

that caucus, and that caucus, and our caucus. I say a 40% pay gap is unsustainable. We shouldn't apologize for saying that all we're looking for is a 25% pay gap between MPPs of this House and members of Parliament. I think it's fair, I think it's

justifiable and I think it's high time.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Final supplementary.

Mr. Hampton: Premier, I believe that working Ontarians deserve fair pay and a decent pension, but I look around Ontario and I see 140,000 manufacturing and forest sector workers who have lost

their jobs thanks to your government and who have no pay this Christmas. I look at one in six Ontario children living in poverty. I look at all the working families who are struggling because you won't raise the minimum wage, such that it's a

living wage, to $10 an hour. I ask you, Premier, in that context, after you've already rammed through huge pay increases for your friends the hydro executives, how do you justify ramming through a 31% pay increase now?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I don't know where the invention of 31% is coming from; it is 25%.

I understand that the leader of the NDP is going to exploit this for his own political purposes. I think he's being unfair to his caucus; I think he's being unfair to the value that we ought to be associating

with the work that is done in this Legislature.

We have the same ridings as our federal counterparts. We have the same number of constituents as our federal counterparts. I think you could make a very good argument to the effect that while they deliver us

money for health care, we deliver health care. While they deliver us money for education, we deliver education, whether at the post-secondary level or from JK through to post-doctoral. We deliver when it comes to protecting our natural

environment. We deliver when it comes to strengthening this economy. I think it's high time that we recognize that collectively we owe it not just to ourselves but to generations of MPPs to come that we attach real value to the work that is done

in this House. I will not apologize for that, and he shouldn't stand in the way.

We've created an option for this leader of the NDP, if he so chooses: rather than acting out in this Legislature or, as his colleague did, outside this Legislature, they can actually take action and say they

will not accept this increase. If that's the value they attach to their work, then they're welcome to avail themselves of that option.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister for democratic renewal. The Minister for Health Promotion will come to order.

New question, leader of the third party.

Mr. Hampton: Apparently the Premier doesn't like it when people ask questions about his 31% pay hike. Premier --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for York West will come to order.

Leader of the third party.

Mr. Hampton: You see, Premier, I care about working people across this province. I care about people who are trying to --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. This can't go on. The next member that I hear interjecting will be named.

Mr. Hampton: I care about those folks who haven't seen a pay increase and are certainly not going to see a 31% pay increase. Reaction to your 31% pay hike proposal has been swift and it's been

negative. On Citytv's online poll, a large majority of respondents call it "ridiculously high." On the Toronto Sun online poll, 92% of respondents say the pay hike is too high. And radio call-in shows are buzzing with callers angry about this. I

say again to you, Premier, when lots of Ontarians are being told, "Work harder, work longer for the same pay," how do you justify what is a 31% pay increase under Dalton McGuinty?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: The leader of the NDP is right in this regard: There has never been and there never will be a good time for any politicians, to my knowledge, on the face of this planet, to

give themselves a pay increase. Because we've been uncomfortable with that notion, that's the reason why, during the course of the past 15 years -- we froze our pay for nine years. During another one of those 15 years, we cut our pay by 5.5%.

We find ourselves in a position now which I believe is unsustainable. I know that because I've experienced this in the past, and I fully expect that Mr. Layton's office, Mr. Harper's office and Mr. Dion's

office will begin to scour this Legislature for hot prospects and will make them a very inviting, very seductive offer. They'll say: "Come to work in Ottawa. I'll give you a 40% pay hike, just like that. I'll give you a pension the likes of which

you could never have dreamt of."

I think it's time to be fair to the members of this assembly. I'm not looking for parity with the federal government; I'm saying, we'll take 25% less and we'll work just as hard.

Mr. Hampton: If I follow your line of argument, then the Legislatures of Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia

would already be empty because their pay is in fact lower than the pay here. But that's not happening, Premier.

I can't speak for what may be happening within your government, but the fact that you may be having some trouble with your caucus is hardly a rationale, I think, for hiking pay by 31%.

This is what the Globe and Mail says: "But one has to wonder how many other working stiffs in the world ... can hope to see their pay increased by 25% at one fell swoop." In fact, when you add it up, it's a

31% pay increase. Then they quote: "Nice work if you can get ... it."

Premier, again: How do you justify ramming through a 31% pay increase under the cover of Christmas when the vast majority of Ontarians will not even see anything near that amount?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: It will be up to each and every member to make their own call on this particular issue. We have specifically created an option in the bill, and I assume that the leader of

the NDP will be availing himself of that option. I assume that perhaps one or two other members of his caucus will be availing themselves of that option.

But let me say to prospective NDP candidates for purposes of the upcoming provincial election: I will stand up for them. I will ensure that, should they enjoy the privilege of serving their constituents in

this Legislature, they will be party to the new pay scheme -- not the old pay scheme that Mr. Hampton would have them become embroiled in -- because I think it's fair, not just for people on this side of the House, not just for members of the

official opposition, but for everyone in this House. I'm not going to apologize for that. It's high time that we acted on this. The politics always dictate against this, and that's why for 15 years now we've done nothing. I think it's time for us

to come together and attach real value to the work that is done by the members of this assembly.

Mr. Hampton: Gee, if only Dalton McGuinty would stand up for those folks who are struggling on minimum wage. If only Dalton McGuinty would stand up for those poorest kids in Ontario who see

the McGuinty government claw back $250 million a year from them. If only Dalton McGuinty would stand up for all those people across Ontario who are being told, "You want to keep your job? You take a pay cut." Premier, I don't know about you, but

I'd have a hard time looking those folks in the eye and then saying, "I'm going to hike my own pay by 31%."

I ask you again, Premier: When you deny an increase in the minimum wage to $10 an hour, when you continue to claw back $250 million a year from the pockets of the poorest kids in this province, when workers

are taking pay cuts, how does Dalton McGuinty justify a 31% pay increase?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I guess we know for sure, then, that there will be at least one member of the NDP caucus who will be availing himself of the option to decline the pay hike.

Again, the single most important comparator -- and it was set out by the Integrity Commissioner himself. We can look at councillors and we can look at mayors and we can look at judges and the like. But he

said, "The single most important comparator is the federal MP." He tells us that we are in danger of becoming a farm team in Ottawa, where if you aspire to working in the higher echelons of public policy, then you would abandon Queen's Park as

some kind of a backwater and make your way as hastily as possible to Ottawa. I see things differently. I attach real value to the work that is done here by all members of all parties.

It's been 15 years. During the course of those 15 years, salaries were frozen for nine; in another one of those years they were cut by 5.5%. We do at least the same amount of work as our federal cousins. The

comparisons to MLAs in other provinces are simply not fair. We have many, many more constituents than those other MLAs. We do at least the same work as our federal counterparts. I'm not looking for parity. I'm saying that we'll work just as hard

for 25% --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question?

HEALTH PREMIUMS

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): A question to the Premier: Premier, as you know, just last week the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the decision of arbitrators that certain employers will be

liable to pay the so-called health tax for their employees. Effectively, the Toronto Transit Commission, the Hamilton fire department and the LaPointe-Fisher Nursing Home in Guelph will now be liable to pay the so-called health tax for their

employees. This effectively creates a two-tier tax in the province of Ontario, where some people of the same income levels, in the same neighbourhoods, will pay different levels of tax -- one set, none.

Premier, how many situations are like this in the province of Ontario? What will be the total burden to taxpayers as a result of this decision?

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

Hon. Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance, Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I think the government has made it clear from the day that the Ontario health premium was introduced that it

is a tax which is levied on individuals. At that time, I made it clear that if collective agreements had the impact of shifting that responsibility from individuals to employers, that was a matter to be determined between an employer and its

bargaining agent and the workers that work for that employer. I think what the Court of Appeal said in its judgment was simply that.

Mr. Hudak: I think I'll take issue with the minister's

interpretation. In fact, at least these three employers, all public sector entities, will now be forced to pay the health tax, and that

will be a new burden on taxpayers or these agencies.

The minister will remember that the Premier himself, on October 27, 2004, said, "If this situation persists, then we will take the necessary steps to introduce whatever clarity is required. Our intention

remains the same today as it was from the outset: This is something that should be paid by taxpayers."

Minister, I remind you that you and your colleague Mr. Duncan have brought in not one, not two, not three, but 15 pieces of finance legislation since that time. Not a single one of those bills addresses this

issue. It lingers today, putting a burden on taxpayers and on these entities. We now know that this health tax was revealed to be nothing but a greedy tax grab written on the back of a napkin without thinking through these types of occasions.

Minister, please tell me that the bill you brought forward today, or the one you're bringing forward tomorrow, is going to correct this situation. You've had two years.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I can only reiterate, the government made it perfectly clear when the bill was introduced that the premium represented a tax on individuals. What the court said is that if a

collective agreement, as reviewed by an arbiter, determines that the employer has through that collective agreement assumed the individual liability of individual workers for that premium, that would shift the liability. I'm quite comfortable with

that. I think the law is clear and I think the judgment of the Court of Appeal is clear.

I think what is even clearer, I tell my friend, is that $2.6 billion is now being applied to better health care around this province. That means more nurses, that means more access to family doctors, that

means transformation of primary care. That's the real issue here.

NATIVE CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Minister, last year you tried to take away the power of aboriginal communities to govern

child welfare for themselves, and First Nations at that time forced you to back down on that. On November 30, you snuck those very same rules about customary care in through the back door by regulation without even consulting First Nations.

The Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians wrote to you on November 28, pleading with you not to bring in this regulation because it does exactly what they asked you not to do during Bill 210: It takes

away their right to govern child welfare for their own children. Minister, why did you ignore their letter and their rights?

Hon. Mary Anne V. Chambers (Minister of Children and Youth Services): The member from Hamilton East knows that what she says is absolutely not accurate. I have worked more closely than any

other member of this House with aboriginal communities over the past almost 18 months. In fact, 35 amendments to Bill 210 were actually applied when it came back to this House for third reading.

We have taken several steps to demonstrate that it is our government's interest to ensure that aboriginal kids are cared for wherever possible by aboriginal children's aid societies. That is exactly what is

happening now in terms of our realignment of resources and kids in northern Ontario between non-aboriginal societies and aboriginal societies, and we will continue along that line.

Ms. Horwath: Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, the letter says, "We will not compromise our original position by allowing the implementation of a ministry-driven policy that does

exactly what the withdrawn

section 44,

part 223 proposed to do in Bill 210." The minister should know darn well that she is doing exactly what she promised not to do. How can you go ahead and take on this action when you know that First Nations

children have a right to have care provided that's developed by their own people in their own communities? That's the fundamental fact.

The same letter says that your ministry is giving $1.4 million to develop alternative dispute resolution but only $100,000 to aboriginal ADR. We also know that they're desperate for designations of more native

child welfare agencies, for funding of band representatives. They are desperate for the respect that they deserve from the McGuinty government.

Minister, the auditor's report showed a whole bunch of spending that was inappropriate by children's aid societies. How can you then justify First Nations getting so little money to create a child welfare

system that works for their children, especially when you know darn well that their children are overrepresented in the child welfare system?

Hon. Mrs. Chambers: I had the very real pleasure of traveling to Kenora in the summer of this year to designate a new aboriginal children's aid society, Anishinaabe Abinoojii. We are in the

process right now of realigning resources, which means more money, and the associated kids from the care of non-aboriginal societies in northern Ontario to aboriginal societies in northern Ontario.

There is another aboriginal family and children's services organization that we are working with currently towards designation. Kunuwanimano has been working closely with my ministry, and I am actually eager

to have that process move along more quickly than it has been moving. To that extent, my deputy minister and assistant deputy minister will be in Timmins to meet with that organization on Friday of this week, because I am very eager to move this

along a lot more briskly than it has moved to date.

I have to tell you that I'm very proud of the record of our government in working with aboriginal communities, because we respect those communities and we respect the rights --

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

MANDATORY RETIREMENT

Mr. David Zimmer (Willowdale): My question is for the Minister of Labour. Yesterday was a historic day in the province of Ontario. Yesterday, Bill 211,

an act that puts an end to mandatory

retirement, came into effect. Your parliamentary secretary toured the province in 2004 chairing many consultations on how to end mandatory retirement and give Ontario workers the right to choose when to retire.

As a result of this government's consultative process, I believe we have created a well-balanced piece of legislation that addresses concerns raised during that process. At the heart of this issue is the right

of all Ontarians to choose when to retire. Until yesterday, it was perfectly legal to discriminate against someone on the basis of age.

Minister, what is the government's core philosophy behind the idea that it's unfair to insist that people stop working simply because they're 65?

Hon. Steve Peters (Minister of Labour): I thank the member for Willowdale for the question. Certainly over the past few days I've been asked on numerous occasions why we chose as a government

to end the discriminatory practice of mandatory retirement. The answer is very simple: It was the right thing to do. Forcing capable, experienced and knowledgeable citizens to stop working because they've reached a particular age is

discriminatory. The Human Rights Commission said the very same thing in 2001 -- it was discriminatory because, the Human Rights Commission said, it undermines the dignity and sense of self-worth of older workers. Premier McGuinty and our

government agreed and we committed to ending this discriminatory practice. In fact, Barbara Hall, chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, joined us yesterday at an event marking the end of mandatory retirement.

As we get down to the business of crafting a fair and balanced piece of legislation, as we move forward, I believe we've succeeded. Mandatory retirement is an outdated, unfair, discriminatory concept in our

modern society. It is wrong, and mandatory retirement in the province of Ontario is now history.

Mr. Zimmer: Minister, my constituents are happy that the government values the contributions of older, experienced workers, so much so that it has created this legislation. We all know that

our skills and knowledge do not disappear once we turn 65. Society should not lose the benefits that skilled and experienced workers bring to their workplace.

Through the consultation process, many concerns were raised on diverse topics regarding ending mandatory retirement. I've heard some concerns also through my constituency office and I've listened as passionate

advocates and detractors have stated their views. Our government carefully considered each of these arguments and, in the end, created a fair and balanced piece of legislation.

However, Minister, concerns still persist, particularly around the one-year transition period and the CPP benefits issue. Could you take a moment and address these two issues?

Hon. Mr. Peters: Again, I want to thank the member for the question and, as well, thank the member for Oakville for the extensive consultations he undertook on behalf of the citizens of

Ontario with this issue.

As we listened to people, one of the things that became obvious is that we needed to put a transition period in place. We needed to ensure that businesses were prepared for the transition to the end of the

discriminatory practice of mandatory retirement. We needed to ensure that collective agreements were in place to deal with the end of mandatory retirement.

On the issue of pension benefits, there has been absolutely no change to the entitlement of CPP benefits. This is and will continue to be a federal program. All those individuals who are eligible to receive

CPP once they turn 65 will have that ability to receive those benefits. Employees who choose to work past the age of 65 will stop paying into CPP once they reach that age of 65.

I know that something that's extremely important to many people in this province is the issue of seniors' discounts. Our concern to many was that there would be changes to seniors' discounts. We have said to

our seniors that they've paid their dues and they deserve the discounts they receive. This legislation will do nothing to change those --

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

GUELPH TURFGRASS INSTITUTE

Mr. Ted Chudleigh (Halton): My question is to the Minister of Research and Innovation. Premier, details of a secret land deal involving the Guelph Turfgrass Institute have come to light. Your

government is planning on closing the turfgrass institute in Guelph in order to sell the land to sweeten a real estate deal to a local developer. Given your Minister of Research and Innovation statement of last Monday in this House asking for the

best and the brightest to come to Ontario to practise their research and development skills, how can you now sell off this valuable research station?

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

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I think it's important that we take this opportunity, first of all, to clarify what our government has done with

respect to research stations in Ontario. Our Premier listened to agriculture stakeholders who've said they wanted the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario to be the driver and the agency that determined how investment in research would be

conducted in Ontario. Our Premier led that initiative and made that happen. ARIO is the agency that will determine how and what research in the area of agriculture will take place in the province.

It is my understanding that no final decisions have been made with respect to the particular property the member has identifiedand, and that the Ontario Realty Corp., the Ministry of Public Infrastructure

Renewal and the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario are all dealing with this issue.

Mr. Chudleigh: ARIO has always directed research in Ontario and has always been an integral part of what research is conducted and where. The transfer of the research stations to ARIO

ownership as of April 1, 2007, is a good idea. However, all those research stations should be transferred to ARIO, not sold off for land development as is being discussed and considered for this research station in Guelph. Even if it was to be

moved, it would still ruin many, many years of ongoing research and development projects. And if it moves, the symbiotic relationship between this research station and the University of Guelph would be badly harmed, if not ruined. Minister, can

you assure the House today that this research institute in Guelph will not be moved and will not be sold?

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: To the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal.

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, Deputy Government House Leader): I think the member really needs to tell this Legislature the whole story. This district is part

of a secondary planning process that was initiated by the city of Guelph itself. So of course, the ministry, through the Ontario Realty Corp., is working with our partners at ARIO, at the city of Guelph and certainly at the University of Guelph

around the future of this. As the Minister of Agriculture has very clearly stated to this House, no final decisions have been taken.

Of course, I know the member would also want to tell the whole story, that when his party was in government, funds were severely cut back, many of these stations were not kept up and in fact were starved for

funds, my colleague the Minister of Agriculture informs me. It's been quite a different story under the leadership of this Premier and this minister. I say to the member opposite that I'll compare the track record of this government versus yours

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

SEXUAL REASSIGNMENT SURGERY

Ms. Cheri DiNovo (Parkdale-High Park): My question is for the Premier. Today we have members of the Trans Health Lobby as guests in this House. Transsexual people face harassment and

discrimination in access to employment, accommodation, education and services, and also with health care. Eight years ago the provincial government removed funding for sex reassignment surgery. Your government has continued that policy. Alberta

and Manitoba both offer sex reassignment surgery; so do the Canadian Armed Forces. When are you going to follow their lead and end this discrimination against those with gender identity disorder?

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

Hon. George Smitherman (Deputy Premier, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I want to say to the honourable member that I had a chance to sit and have a good chat with, I think, at least

half of the delegation that was here. You will of course be aware that for the period of time we've been in office we've been awaiting a ruling from the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, which has recently come forward. I want to let all members know

that we'll of course abide by the direction provided there. It did not push for the relisting of these services, and yet I'm mindful of the opportunities to enhance the quality and quantity of services for people who are transgendered. We'll be

looking to build on the things we've done to date.

The Sherbourne Health Centre wasn't in existence when our government came into office, but it is now and is providing a tremendous amount of new resource and support for transgendered individuals. We've also

moved to ensure that those who require hormone therapy are getting very good, equitable access to it. We have taken steps.

There is, of course, more to do on all health-related fronts, and we'll continue to work with the Trans Health Lobby on these matters.

Ms. DiNovo: We're asking a very simple thing; that is, to relist sex reassignment surgery. This government can find the means to give itself a fat raise. It can't find the means to pay under

$200,000 a year for a medically necessary surgery for incredibly disenfranchised people. I ask, why are you refusing to respect these basic human rights and relist sex reassignment surgery today?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: First, the honourable member, again in her questioning, would seek to try and create a circumstance where there's a distinction between the advice and direction that was

offered by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, which has ruled on very many of the points that you've made in your question, and at the same time, no acknowledgment that steps have been taken. She says that it's simple to do, but the point of the

matter is that obviously, for these individuals, there's quite a lot involved. We have a broader responsibility beyond just the issue of sex reassignment surgery to address.

I had a conversation with individuals. My staff has been involved with the Trans Health Lobby and will continue to be engaged with them. They made it very clear to me in the time that we spent together in the

cafeteria today that there are opportunities across Ontario to address other issues of importance to the trans community. We'll be looking at all of those and acting appropriately.

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

Ms. Deborah Matthews (London North Centre): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, I know that you and our government have been working very hard over the

past three years to build the province's partnership with municipalities after almost a decade of tension under the previous government. That spirit of co-operation is very much appreciated in London and across the province. For example, we

enhanced the memorandum of understanding with AMO by giving our municipalities a say in the federal-provincial negotiations that directly affect them, and we enshrined that in legislation. Together with our municipal partners, we've launched a

broad review that will fully examine the best means to deliver and fund key services in the province. We consulted with municipalities about changes to the Municipal Act that were referred back to this House by standing committee just

yesterday.

Minister, could you please explain how these proposed amendments to the Municipal Act build on the strong and constructive relationship between our province and our municipal partners?

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Let me first of all congratulate for the member from London Centre for all the active work that she has done on behalf of her

community.

Mr. Speaker, as you may well know, Bill 130 is really about giving our municipalities greater autonomy so that the local councils can make the decisions that they are in the best position to make for the

people in their community. Amongst other things, it means that there's greater flexibility by municipalities to pass bylaws with respect to matters ranging from public safety to the economic health and well-being, social and environmental

well-being of a community; greater flexibility to pass bylaws to deal with the financial management of the municipality; greater accountability and transparency in its operations; broader power with respect to the governance models and structure

that the municipality and its local boards may want to adopt; broader authority to take economic development, which is so crucial for our municipalities; and also more flexibility to delegate powers and responsibilities to committees, to boards

and staff. It is to give the municipalities and their councils a much greater sense of autonomy than they've ever had before.

Ms. Matthews: This proposed legislation is clearly another example of our government's recognition that municipalities are responsible and accountable orders of government.

Minister, as you well know, my riding is in the city of London. You were there last week to see the snow for yourself. There has been an ongoing debate for some time in London about the existence of the board

of control. In fact, it's the only board of control left in the province of Ontario.

Minister, a specific requirement in the Municipal Act is seen as an impediment to abolishing the board of control if city council so desires. This past September, the city of London council adopted a

resolution that the city would request "an amendment to the Municipal Act to eliminate the provision requiring the approval of two thirds of council to eliminate the board of control."

I believe, Minister, and I know you do too, that municipalities should have broader powers with respect to their governance structures. What steps have you taken to ensure that the city of London has more

autonomy, and particularly more power over the existence of the board --

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

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: First of all, it's our hope that, with the co-operation of all parties in the House, this bill will be given approval before Christmas so that municipalities and councils

can enjoy the greater levels of autonomy that they've been given under the act, hopefully starting as early as January of next year.

Yes, our government believes that local solutions are best determined at the local level and the manner in which the board of control is elected, or whether or not there should be a board of control, is best

left to the council of London. It's a perfect example of the kind of local autonomy that we're seeking in the act. We made many amendments along those lines, which were specifically requested by municipalities to deal with their specific

circumstances.

During our committee hearings, the city of London requested that we amend Bill 130 so it would no longer require the support of two thirds of council to dissolve their board of control, and we listened to

them, as we did to other municipalities. If Bill 130 is passed, the city of London may dissolve its board of control by a simple majority vote and without the necessity of going to the OMB.

When Bill 130 is passed, it will usher in a new era for municipal responsibility in the province of Ontario. If --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. New question.

WATER SUPPLY

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. It's a water level question in the Great Lakes that I'm concerned about, and it affects a number of my

colleagues' ridings, as well.

Minister, you may be aware that the Georgian Bay Association commissioned the Baird water levels report, at a cost to the foundation of the Georgian Bay Association of some $250,000. The Baird report concluded

that erosion and the continual ongoing dredging of the St. Clair River are causing water levels on Lake Huron and Georgian Bay to drop at a greater rate than ever before. The Baird report convinced the International Joint Commission that the

erosion of the St. Clair River is a major cause of low water levels on Lake Huron and Georgian Bay. More water is in fact flowing out of Lake Huron than is coming into it.

Minister, can you explain what steps your ministry is taking to stop the declining water levels on Lake Huron and Georgian Bay?

Hon. David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources, minister responsible for aboriginal affairs): I certainly have a professional interest in this, and a personal interest, as I enjoy recreation

on the Great Lakes.

We are very well blessed in Ontario to have access to 20% of the world's fresh water, just on those Great Lakes. We are very concerned about the quantity of that, and of course, as you know, that's why we

entered into an arrangement with eight neighbouring American states and with the province of Quebec called the Great Lakes Charter Annex: in order to maintain the water levels.

It's interesting to note that 98% of the water in the Great Lakes was there during the ice age, so we have done a pretty good job of maintaining that. But I do share the member's concern. We do work with the

International Joint Commission, and we work with the neighbouring states also through the Charter Annex to find ways to preserve the levels of these lakes.

Mr. Dunlop: Minister, the low water levels on Georgian Bay have a very negative effect on property values and shoreline appearance, on access to the dozens of marinas on Georgian Bay and Lake

Huron and the jobs they create. But equally, there are many wetlands on Georgian Bay and in the Muskoka-Parry Sound area -- many wetlands that are drying up, affecting wildlife, fishing and the natural heritage system.

In the past, when problems occurred on the Great Lakes, partnerships were created, that still exist today, to rehabilitate environmentally sensitive areas on the Great Lakes. I know the federal government has

committed to mitigation funding. Ministers Ambrose and Clement made that announcement in September. Can I ask you, Minister, when will the McGuinty Liberals and your ministry show leadership and provide mitigation funding as well to find a

solution that will stop the declining water levels on our Great Lakes?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Again, I appreciate the member's interest, and I want to say to him that the McGuinty government is committed. We will be part of that five-year study, and the Ministry of

Natural Resources has dedicated an engineer to be working on that study.

We take this issue very seriously. There is an incredible potential environmental and economic impact if we don't maintain the levels of the Great Lakes and the surrounding watershed.

I appreciate the member's interest, and I want to let him know that we are dedicated to this issue.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, in July 2006, the Ministries of Community and Social Services and Health signed

an agreement called the long-term-care home access protocol for adults with a developmental disability. The protocol has been condemned by Family Alliance Ontario. They point out that on page 2 the protocol encourages developmental sector service

providers now supporting adults in existing group homes in the community to transition these adults into long-term-care homes because "this will create community-based capacity to accommodate residents moving from the DS facilities" -- Huronia,

Rideau Regional Centre and the Southwestern Regional Centre.

Minister, adults with developmental disabilities in existing group homes or those being supported in the community should be fully assisted to age in place in the community, and residents from the DS

facilities should be allowed to do that too. Why is your protocol pushing agencies to push adults in existing group homes into long-term-care homes?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I thank the member of the third party for her question. I want to assure the

member from Nickel Belt that when individuals are leaving one of our three institutions, we place them in a group home. I don't know where the member gets her information, but these individuals have the same rights as any other citizen in Ontario.

So if they need to go to a long-term-care home, they will go to a long-term-care home. In my review, perhaps three individuals went to a long-term-care home. All the others were placed in group homes in the community.

Ms. Martel: In January 2004, there were 1,125 adults with developmental disabilities in long-term-care homes; in January 2006, there were 1,202 -- 77 more. We don't want to see a protocol that

forces even more developmentally disabled adults into long-term-care homes. Minister, your protocol also says that additional money from the developmental services sector will be given to long-term-care homes so they can provide "sufficient

supports and services to accommodate the person's developmental disability so that the safety and well-being of all residents is not affected." That means that long-term-care homes don't have the expertise necessary to meet the needs of adults

with developmental disabilities. Agencies in the development services sector do, and you should be funding these agencies and families to deliver and receive a broad range of supports in the community. Why are you prepared to top up long-term-care

homes to support adults with developmental disabilities when existing agencies could properly do the job themselves --

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

Hon. Mrs. Meilleur: I want to assure the member of the third party that when individuals leave one of our three institutions, they are placed, first of all, in a community close to their

family. The transfer of these individuals is done with a lot of sensitivity. The family is involved, and we place the person where it's best for them to be. If it's in a long-term-care home, they have the same rights as other individuals in

Ontario. But I can say to the member that the large majority of them, if not all, have been placed in group homes.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): I would like to introduce, in the Speaker's gallery, Eva Tomalin, who has served the constituents of Algoma-Manitoulin in my constituency office for nearly

20 years.

PETITIONS

PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I've received more petitions to do with the Mary Lake dam.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the dam at Mary Lake has historically provided a pedestrian walkway for use by the community and visitors since the dam's construction; and

"Whereas the walkway provides a vital link and a tourist attraction for the community of Port Sydney; and

"Whereas restricting access to the walkway would result in pedestrian use of the roadway where motor vehicle traffic poses a danger to pedestrians; and

"Whereas closure of the pedestrian walkway across the dam is inconsistent with other provincial government programs, including Ontario's action plan for healthy eating and active living and the Trails for Life

program, both of which promote active lifestyles; and

"Whereas all ministries should strive to encourage and support healthy lifestyles;

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

"That the Ministry of Natural Resources continue to permit the use of the pedestrian walkway over Mary Lake dam indefinitely."

I support this petition.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): The member for Hamilton East.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): Mr. Speaker, I'm glad you saw me through the crowd. Thank you very much. This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads:

"Whereas people relying on assistance from Ontario Works (OW) and Ontario disability support program (ODSP) face increasingly severe hardship because the McGuinty government failed to keep its promise of

regular annual increases; and

"Whereas in 2003, McGuinty promised to tie OW and ODSP rates to the real cost of living but broke that promise once elected; and

"Whereas current OW and ODSP recipients often don't have enough money for food after paying the ever-rising cost of living for rent, utilities and transportation costs; and

"Whereas the McGuinty government continues to cut back on necessary supports such as the special diet supplement and the national child tax benefit, taking even more money away from Ontario's most

vulnerable;

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

"That the McGuinty Liberal government raise OW and ODSP rates immediately by 3% annually; and

"That the McGuinty Liberal government close the 21.6% gap left by the Harris Conservatives; and

"That the McGuinty Liberal government immediately end the clawback on the national child tax benefit; and

"That the McGuinty Liberal government immediately reinstate the special diet supplement to Ontarians who have seen the benefit cut."

I will sign it as well and send it to the table by way of page Sarah.

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): I've got a petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly under the title "Access to Trades and Professions in Ontario." It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Ontario enjoys the continuing benefit of the contributions of men and women who choose to leave their country of origin in order to settle in Canada, raise their families, educate their children and

pursue their livelihoods and careers; and

"Whereas newcomers to Canada who choose to settle in Ontario find frequent, arbitrary and unnecessary obstacles that prevent skilled tradespeople, professional and managerial talent from practising the

professions, trades and occupations for which they have been trained in their country of origin; and

"Whereas action by Ontario's trades and professions could remove many such barriers, but Ontario's trades and professions have failed to recognize that such structural barriers exist, much less to take action

to remove them, and to provide fair, timely, transparent and cost-effective access to trades and professions for new Canadians trained outside Canada;

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

"That the Ontario Legislative Assembly urge the members of all parties to swiftly pass Bill 124, the Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act, 2006, and to require Ontario's regulated professions and trades to

review and modify their procedures and qualification requirements to swiftly meet the needs of Ontario's employers, Ontario's newcomers and their own membership, all of whom desperately need the very skills new Canadians bring working for their

organizations, for their trades and professions, and for their families."

MACULAR DEGENERATION

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the government of Ontario's health insurance plan covers treatments for one form of macular degeneration (wet), and there are other forms of macular degeneration (dry) that are not covered,

"Therefore

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the government of Ontario as follows:

"There are thousands of Ontarians who suffer from macular degeneration, resulting in loss of sight if treatment is not pursued. Treatment costs for this disease are astronomical for most individuals and add a

financial burden to their lives. Their only alternative is loss of sight. We believe the government of Ontario should cover treatment for all forms of macular degeneration through the Ontario health insurance program."

I affix my name in full support.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have petitions sent to me by SEIU. They read as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas, in June 2003, Dalton McGuinty said Ontario Liberals are committed to ensuring that nursing home residents receive more personal care each day and will reinstate minimum standards, and inspectors will

be required to audit the staff-to-resident ratios; and

"Whereas Health and Long-Term Care Minister George Smitherman, in October 2004, said that the Ontario government will not set a specified number of care hours nursing home residents are to receive each day;

and

"Whereas Ontario nursing home residents still receive the lowest number of care hours in the Western world; and

"Whereas studies have indicated nursing home residents should receive at least 4.1 hours of nursing care per day; and

"Whereas a coroner's jury in April 2005 recommended the Ontario government establish a minimum number of care hours nursing home residents must receive each day;

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

"That the government of Ontario immediately enact a minimum standard of 3.5 hours of nursing care for each nursing home resident per day."

I agree with the petitioners. I've affixed my signature to this.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): The member for Peterborough.

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for your nice reception last night. Everybody had a great time. Your warm hospitality was shared by a lot of people.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Ontario enjoys the continuing benefit of the contributions of men and women who choose to leave their country of origin in order to settle in Canada, raise their families, educate their children and

pursue their livelihoods and careers; and

"Whereas newcomers to Canada who choose to settle in Ontario find frequent, arbitrary and unnecessary obstacles that prevent skilled tradespeople, professional and managerial talent from practising the

professions, trades and occupations for which they have been trained in their country of origin; and

"Whereas action by Ontario's trades and professions could remove many such barriers, but Ontario's trades and professions have failed to recognize that such structural barriers exist, much less to take action

to remove them, and to provide fair, timely, transparent and cost-effective access to trades and professions for new Canadians trained outside Canada;

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

"That the Ontario Legislative Assembly urge the members of all parties to swiftly pass Bill 124, the Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act, 2006, and to require Ontario's regulated professions and trades to

review and modify their procedures and qualification requirements to swiftly meet the needs of Ontario's employers, Ontario's newcomers and their own membership, all of whom desperately need the very skills new Canadians bring working for their

organizations, for their trades and professions, and for their families."

I agree with this petition. I will affix my signature to it and give it to page Sarah.

ORPHANED DEER

Ms. Lisa MacLeod (Nepean-Carleton): Over 2,500 people have signed this petition to reverse the decision made to seize a domesticated deer from Mr. and Mrs. Bruce Straby.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario....

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

"That the Department of Natural Resources listen to the public outcry which is demanding just one thing: Bring Bam Bam home to the Straby family" by Christmas.

I support it and affix my signature.

FAIR ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): Although Bill 124 passed last night, I promised Satar Amin of Mississauga and Gurjeet Gill of Brampton that I would read their petition anyway. It goes as

follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Ontario enjoys the continuing benefit of the contributions of men and women who choose to leave their country of origin in order to settle in Canada, raise their families, educate their children and

pursue their livelihoods and careers; and

"Whereas newcomers to Canada who choose to settle in Ontario find frequent, arbitrary and unnecessary obstacles that prevent skilled tradespeople, professional and managerial talent from practising the

professions, trades and occupations for which they have been trained in their country of origin; and

"Whereas action by Ontario's trades and professions could remove many such barriers, but Ontario's trades and professions have failed to recognize that such structural barriers exist, much less to take action

to remove them, and to provide fair, timely, transparent and cost-effective access to trades and professions for new Canadians trained outside Canada;

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

"That the Ontario Legislative Assembly urge the members of all parties to swiftly pass Bill 124, the Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act, 2006, and to require Ontario's regulated professions and trades to

review and modify their procedures and qualification requirements to swiftly meet the needs of Ontario's employers, Ontario's newcomers and their own membership, all of whom desperately need the very skills new Canadians bring working for their

organizations, for their trades and professions, and for their families."

I join with everyone in thanking all members for the passage of Bill 124. I'll ask page Colby to carry it for me.

CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE

PULMONARY DISEASE

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): My petition from the riding of Durham reads as follows:

"Whereas the Lung Association's women and COPD national report 2006 reveals that more than 425,000 Canadian women have been diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and more than 4,300 will

die of the disease this year; and

"Whereas the women and COPD national report indicates that since 2000, female mortality due to COPD has risen at double the rate of breast cancer;

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

"That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario support a call for early diagnosis and optimized management of COPD to reduce illness and suffering;

"That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario support the Ontario Lung Association's COPD advisory panel report to the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care on the prevention and management of COPD in Ontario;

and

"That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario endorse a comprehensive strategy to address COPD in this province."

I'm pleased to sign and support this on behalf of constituents in the riding of Durham and present it to Gloria.

NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT SUPPLEMENT

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): This is a petition from the Canadian Federation of University Women in Orangeville. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the national child benefit supplement was created to reduce the depth of poverty across Canada for low-income families earning less than $35,000;

"Whereas the government of Ontario claws back the supplement from families receiving income from Ontario Works or the Ontario disability support plan;

"Whereas Premier McGuinty decried the discriminatory nature of the NCBS clawback and vowed to end this practice in his first mandate;

"Whereas the government of Ontario has failed to end the clawback for those families on OW or ODSP;

"We, the undersigned from CFUW Ontario Council, petition the Legislative Assembly to end the clawback of the national child benefit supplement."

I agree with this petition. I sign it and send it to the table by way of page Philip.

MACULAR DEGENERATION

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I'm pleased to read a petition sent in to me by my seatmate, the member for Niagara Falls, to whom I send my greetings and those of the members present.

It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the government of Ontario's health insurance plan covers treatments for one form of macular degeneration (wet), and there are other forms of macular degeneration (dry) that are not covered,

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

"There are thousands of Ontarians who suffer from macular degeneration, resulting in loss of sight if treatment is not pursued. Treatment costs for this disease are astronomical for most constituents and add a

financial burden to their lives. Their only alternative is loss of sight. We believe the government of Ontario should cover treatment for all forms of macular degeneration through the Ontario health insurance program."

I'm pleased to affix my signature to this petition and to ask page Colby to carry it for me.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I have a petition circulated by the Sisters of Our Lady Immaculate Marian Residence in Cambridge. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the proposed Long-Term Care Homes Act is extremely lengthy and complex and requires full and extensive parliamentary and public debate and committee hearings throughout the province; and

"Whereas the rigid, pervasive and detailed framework proposed is excessive and will stifle innovation and flexibility in the long-term-care sector; and

"Whereas the additional burden, red tape and punitive measures imposed by the proposed legislation will aggravate and exacerbate the chronic underfunding of the sector, to the detriment of residents of the

homes; and

"Whereas the proposed legislation will have serious implications for the viability of the for-profit and not-for-profit, charitable and municipal long-term-care sectors;

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

"We demand that the McGuinty government withdraw the proposed act, or remove the offending sections, and fulfill its commitment by a substantial increase in funding on a multi-year basis in the order of the

promised $6,000 per resident, per year."

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PUBLIC SERVICE OF ONTARIO

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

AYANT TRAIT À LA

FONCTION PUBLIQUE DE L'ONTARIO

Mr. Phillips moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 158,

An Act to revise legislation relating to the public service of Ontario by repealing the Public Service Act, enacting the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006 and the Ontario Provincial Police

Collective Bargaining Act, 2006 and making complementary amendments to various Acts and by amending various Acts in respect of the successor rights of certain public servants / Projet de loi 158, Loi visant à réviser des lois ayant

trait à la fonction publique de l'Ontario en abrogeant la

Loi sur la fonction publique, en édictant la Loi de 2006 sur la fonction publique de l'Ontario et la Loi de 2006 sur la négociation collective relative à la Police

provinciale de l'Ontario, en apportant des modifications complémentaires à diverses lois et en modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne la succession aux qualités pour certains fonctionnaires.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Michael Prue): Debate? Minister, is there any debate on this? Okay.

Mr. Phillips has moved third reading of Bill 158. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to move a motion without

notice concerning this afternoon's debate on government notice of motion 277.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Michael Prue): Is it agreed? Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I move that the time for debate on government notice of motion 277 be apportioned equally among the recognized parties in the House; and

That, at 5:50 p.m., the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of the motion and any amendments thereto; and

That, in the case of any division required, the division bell shall be limited to 10 minutes, the members called in once and all divisions taken in succession.

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

Orders of the day.

HOUSE SITTINGS /

HEURES DE SÉANCE

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): I move that, notwithstanding standing order 6(a), the House shall continue to meet until

Thursday, December 21, 2006, at which time the Speaker shall adjourn the House without motion until Monday, March 19, 2007.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Michael Prue): Debate?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I'm the person who is moving this particular motion and I'm delighted to be able to have the House sit even further into the year, even though the federal House has completed

its business or is going to complete its business. From time to time, we have to ensure that there is ample time for debate of all legislation that comes forward. I must say, if I may comment on what has happened to this point in time, there has

been a very busy legislative agenda which has been dealt with to a very large extent by the government, the opposition and all members of the Legislative Assembly.

I want to say from the beginning that it's my job as the government House leader to deal with the two opposition House leaders -- and with others, but primarily with the two opposition House leaders -- to

ensure that appropriate debate takes place on legislation before the House and that there's an allocation of committee time which is, again, adequate to deal with the issues before the House and before those committees and that ultimately my job

as government House leader is to try to ensure that the legislation is finally passed. But legislation does require some debate, and we do have more to deal with in this session. That is why the Legislature is being extended until next Thursday,

and we'll have the time to debate a number of issues.

I want to review for the Legislature some of the bills that have been dealt with over that period of time. They've been significant, and I think the bills have been enhanced in their quality by the fact that

amendments have been proposed -- not always accepted but proposed -- and indeed there has been an opportunity to have public hearings on a number of them. Our government has, in a general sense, been prepared to have public hearings on bills of

great significance to the province.

Where there is a consensus that develops among the House leaders after consultation with the public and invitations for people to participate in terms of deliberations and committee through their submissions,

we try to determine the length that may be required, whether there's travel that might be required and how much time might be necessary for what we call "clause-by-clause."

I must say that my characterization of the fall session is that it has worked well in this House. While the two opposition House leaders are there to defend the interests of their own political parties, and

ultimately of the people they feel they serve, nevertheless, without getting them in trouble with their own caucus, I can say that both have been reasonable to deal with on matters related to legislation going through the House. So you won't find

me standing in the House, railing on at the opposition about the length of time that some measures have taken to go through the House.

Part of that is because I've had the position of opposition House leader, and when you've had that, you of course frame your arguments through the opposition mentality or mindset, if you will. Understanding

what the needs of the opposition are, I've endeavoured as much as possible -- and it isn't always possible -- to accommodate their needs and what they feel is necessary for legislation. Ultimately, a government has the majority, and what the

government wishes to pass can pass. But it's important to have the debates we've had over this session.

We've had a long-term-care bill that was introduced, a bill dealing with seat belts, a bill on the budget, consumer protection, the referendum, the Public Service Act, the Provincial Advocate for Children and

Youth Act, the Health System Improvements Act, the L