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

December 19, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-Dec-19 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 19 December 2006 Mardi 19 décembre 2006

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

INTERNET SAFETY

GURDIAL SINGH KANWAL

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

HEPATITIS C

KWANZA

WATER LEVELS

DISASTER RELIEF

LONDON MARCONI CLUB

AMBULANCE SERVICE

VISITORS

APPOINTMENT OF

CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND

INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ PROFESSIONNELLE

ET L'ASSURANCE CONTRE

LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

TRUTH AND TRANSPARENCY

IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR

LA VÉRITÉ ET LA TRANSPARENCE

AU SEIN DU SYSTÈME JURIDIQUE

ONTARIO CLIMATE

CHANGE ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR

LES CHANGEMENTS CLIMATIQUES

EN ONTARIO

VISITORS

DEFERRED VOTES

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

CONCERNANT LES MUNICIPALITÉS

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

BAIL VIOLATIONS

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

MEMBERS' COMPENSATION

DISABILITY BENEFITS

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

COAL-FIRED GENERATING STATIONS

REPETITIVE STRAIN INJURY

HEALTH PREMIUMS

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

TOURISM

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

HEALTHIER SCHOOLS STRATEGY

WILDLIFE PROTECTION

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

RESPONSES TO PETITIONS

CHILD PROTECTION

NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT SUPPLEMENT

CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE

PULMONARY DISEASE

LONG-TERM CARE

MACULAR DEGENERATION

SCHOOL FACILITIES

REFUNDABLE CONTAINERS

ORPHANED DEER

ADULT LITERACY

PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY

LAKEVIEW GENERATING STATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

INTERNET SAFETY

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Today I tabled a resolution calling on the government to declare February 7, 2007, as Safer Internet Day in the province of Ontario. The resolution was

inspired by the good work of the Kids' Internet Safety Association, KINSA, a group founded to bring together people with expertise in business, law enforcement, education and public policy to address this issue.

At a media conference this morning, Paul Gillespie, the vice-chair of KINSA and a former head of the Toronto Police Service's child exploitation unit, pointed out that there are approximately 560,000 different

images of children being sexually abused to be found on the Internet. The anonymity of the Internet is used to lure kids to meet these pedophiles, and it gets even scarier: According to an Industry Canada survey, 50% of kids between nine and 16

have an e-mail account their parents don't know about and 33% of children in that same age group go into adult chat rooms.

I encourage parents and grandparents to go to www.kinsa.net to learn more about this serious and growing problem. I also encourage the government to quickly adopt this resolution to assist the important work of

this outstanding organization, Kids' Internet Safety Association.

GURDIAL SINGH KANWAL

Mr. Kuldip Kular (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): It's an honour to rise today and tell this House about an amazing, dedicated individual in my riding of Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale.

I have had the honour of knowing Mr. Gurdial Singh Kanwal for a number of years and consider him a friend. He's a very determined and committed individual. Mr. Kanwal is passionate about his garden. He grows

everything from onions to carrots. His love and care for his garden was recently acknowledged on a worldwide scale. On October 17, 2006, Mr. Gurdial Singh Kanwal, from my riding, made the Guinness world record for the longest zucchini, which

measured 7 feet, 10.3 inches.

I personally would like to congratulate him on this amazing achievement. This is an example of dedication, perseverance and hard work paying off in the end, not only through public recognition, but also through

personal fulfillment.

His cultivating skills are impressive, not only because of his green thumb, but because of the time, effort and care he puts into his work. This recent recognition is only one in a long list of many in which

Bramptonians are excelling. Once again, I want to congratulate him and wish him and his family all the best.

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): When Bill 130 comes into force, municipalities will have to deal with even more new expenses.

Municipalities cannot afford another Liberal download. The cost of delivering municipal services has increased dramatically over the last few years, and provincial transfers haven't kept pace. Municipal services

are suffering, infrastructure is crumbling and high property taxes are pushing people out of their homes.

Municipalities were asking for help, and instead the McGuinty Liberals tried to bury the issue until after the election with an 18-month review. The Ontario Legislature passed a resolution asking the government

to complete the review more expeditiously. Over 135 municipalities have passed resolutions saying the review is needlessly drawn out and calling on the government to speed up the review, with direction coming prior to the next provincial

election.

The government finally drafted the terms of reference, and they say the report won't come for 18 months. The terms of reference, in effect, give the government a veto power. After the process is finished, the

government has representatives who can just veto the report and do absolutely nothing. Maybe if it hadn't taken the Liberals four months to hold a meeting, more seniors would be able to afford to stay in their homes next year.

All these municipalities want for Christmas is for the government to stop dragging its feet and to take action on this review. Why will the McGuinty Liberals not admit they were wrong and tell the committee that

they need to report back sooner?

HEPATITIS C

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Whatever happened to the leftover money in the Ontario hepatitis C assistance plan? This is a very good question, which victims of tainted blood deserve an

answer to.

The Ontario hepatitis C assistance plan was set up under the former government to provide financial assistance to the hep C victims outside the 1986-90 window. Two hundred million dollars was set aside to

compensate these individuals, and two separate payments totalling $25,000 were made to those who qualified. Some $88.5 million was spent to compensate 3,450 victims, leaving some $112 million unspent, which is the situation to this day.

In April 2005, the Minister of Health announced a task force to look at the situation facing hepatitis C victims in Ontario. When it was finally appointed, in December 2005, the task force set up a smaller

working group to look at recommendations for hep C victims to make further recommendations regarding how they might be helped.

It's my understanding that some long time ago, the financial assistance working group unanimously agreed that leftover money in the assistance plan should be used to provide more help to those who had already

qualified for compensation. I trust this was the recommendation that the task force then made to the minister when the report was handed in. But since then, nothing has happened.

Ontario victims of tainted blood continue to wait and wonder what this government is doing with some $112 million that was set aside, supposedly to help them. They shouldn't have to wait because they've waited

too long already. Their health is not getting any better and the least we can do is give them the financial assistance to --

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

KWANZA

Mr. Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): This past Thursday, in my riding of Thornhill, the Glen Shields Public School hosted its fifth annual Kwanza celebration at the Dufferin Clark Community Centre.

For your information, the first time we had the Kwanza celebration, there were only 25 people in attendance. Over the past five years, the annual Kwanza celebration has transcended its humble beginnings and has grown into a true community event

with attendance by over 200 people.

The event contained several spectacular performances, including songs by the junior and intermediate choir, a traditional drum and dance ensemble, and a Kwanza candle-lighting ritual.

As you may know, Kwanza is a week-long pan-African holiday that occurs annually from December 26 to January 1. It is a time to come together as a community to renew friendship and family ties and to reflect and

be thankful for our good fortune.

As we all know, Ontario is home to a multitude of diverse communities, each with a unique set of cultural traditions. In the spirit of the diversity that exists in our province, I encourage all members of this

honourable House to participate in cultural events within their communities during this holiday season.

I would like to thank Neil Gunathunge, the principal of Glen Shields Public School, Oksana Majaski, community resource facilitator, and all the students and teachers at Glen Shields Public School for their hard

work and extended effort in ensuring yet another successful celebration.

In the spirit of Kwanza, let the Karamu begin.

WATER LEVELS

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Recently I was pleased to be invited to a luncheon hosted by the Midland Rotary Club. The guest speaker at the luncheon was Ms. Mary Muter, who is a cottager

on Georgian Bay, a member of the Georgian Bay Association and a person who has devoted endless hours to the ecology and water levels on Georgian Bay and Lake Huron.

The Georgian Bay Association, through its foundation, at a cost of $250,000, paid for the Baird water level report. The report concluded that erosion and the continual and 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 in fact a major cause of low water levels on Lake Huron and Georgian Bay. In Simcoe North, we have a lot

at stake with water levels that continue to decline.

To begin with, the property values of shoreline properties are impacted because the high-water mark keeps moving further way from the property lines and buildings, making it at times almost impossible for

dockage. Second, with thousands of boats on Georgian Bay, some marinas are finding it more difficult for larger boats to access their locations. Third, with the drop in water levels, our precious wetlands are also in jeopardy, as many have begun

to actually dry up, putting a strain on our natural heritage system and wildlife.

It is now well documented that Georgian Bay and Lake Huron are approximately 40 centimetres lower than the levels recorded in 1918. Georgian Bay is part of the culture of our region. We need to address the

concerns raised in the Baird report so that future generations can enjoy the natural beauty of beautiful Georgian Bay.

I know the federal government has committed to some mitigation funding; Ministers Ambrose and Clement made the announcement in September. It is imperative that the McGuinty Liberals show true leadership and

become key players at the table so that a solution can be found to stop declining water levels in our Great Lakes.

DISASTER RELIEF

Ms. Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): I rise today to applaud this government's announcement that the town of Fort Erie will be receiving up to $1.8 million under the disaster relief assistance

program.

On October 12 and 13 of this year, unprecedented amounts of lake-effect snow deluged that area, all across the southern tier of the Niagara Peninsula. Fort Erie received 30 centimetres of snow in one day,

setting a single-day and monthly record for October. High winds uprooted trees and shattered branches, blocking many roadways, and major damage to the power grid caused a blackout that lasted for days in some areas.

The magnitude of the cleanup and emergency response led to significant costs for the municipality and tremendous hardship for the residents and businesses in the area.

The province will make an advance payment of over $900,000 to assist the municipality with its costs after the severe snowstorm in October. The Ontario disaster relief assistance program is a provincial program

that covers extraordinary, unmanageable public damages. In response to a request from the town, the province declared the town a disaster area under the program. This enables the government to provide financial assistance to the municipality.

I particularly want to commend my colleague the member for Niagara Falls, Kim Craitor, who I know advocated very strongly for the people of Fort Erie in the wake of this storm and kept their plight in the

spotlight here at Queen's Park.

LONDON MARCONI CLUB

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): I rise in this House today to say thank you to the London Italian Marconi Club in my riding of London-Fanshawe, that was the host of a wonderful dinner on

Sunday night for London's less fortunate.

The London Marconi Club is a wonderful organization that every year provides a special holiday feast for those who otherwise might not be able to enjoy such a meal. The annual dinner is sponsored by many

different local companies in London, and I would like to take this time to thank all of them.

I am proud to say that I was joined by many of my colleagues this past Sunday: the Honourable Mr. Chris Bentley and Mr. Ernie Hardeman; and also Mayor Anne Marie DeCicco-Best and Councillor Roger Caranci.

Not only did the Marconi Club provide a superb meal of turkey, mashed potatoes and vegetables, but there were door prizes such as frozen turkeys for families to take home for a nice hot meal. We also had a very

special guest of honour. Santa came to the dinner and gave out treats to all the boys and girls who came with their families.

I would like again to thank the local companies and also the Marconi Club for their generosity and for opening the place every year to provide such an important meal for people who cannot afford to buy one.

I want to take this opportunity to wish everyone in this House a happy Christmas and, hopefully, a happy new year.

AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mrs. Carol Mitchell (Huron-Bruce): I rise to inform the Legislature of more good news in the health care sector for the riding of Huron-Bruce and the province of Ontario.

Yesterday I had the chance to announce funding increases from the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care for land ambulance services for both Huron and Bruce counties. This announcement was part of the McGuinty

government's second-phase investment of $50 million into the program for 2007. Overall, our government has planned to spend approximately $300 million over three years in order to strengthen the 50-50 cost sharing program with municipalities. This

cost sharing program will see our government share equally the cost of operating the land ambulance program with the municipalities by 2008 in order to further strengthen this service that helps so many lives in Ontario.

I'm very pleased to say that the riding of Huron-Bruce was the recipient of this funding. The financial commitment was $956,566 for 2007, and this is after a similar announcement for last year as well. This

represents an increase of $648,769 for Huron county and $307,797 for Bruce county.

This is part of the McGuinty government's commitment to upload the services of ambulances and make good on the commitment of 50-50 funding for ambulance --

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

VISITORS

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne (Minister of Education): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I beg the indulgence of the House to introduce and welcome my son, Christopher Cowperthwaite, to the

Legislature. He has been out of the country for a year and we're glad to have him back.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I hope the whole House will join me in welcoming my niece, Ms. Lee Chrysler, to the House today. She is a third-year

political science student at the University of Guelph.

APPOINTMENT OF

CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): I beg to inform the House that I've laid upon the table an order in council appointing Dr. George Pasut as acting chief medical officer of health for a

six-month term commencing on December 13, 2006, pursuant to an address of this assembly on December 12, 2006.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mrs. Julia Munro (York North): I beg leave to present a report on agencies, boards and commissions, the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp., from the standing committee on government agencies and

move the adoption of its recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mrs. Munro: This report is the third in the series of three that we have done as a committee over the last few months. I'd like to thank all of those who participated. I also want to point out

that this report contains two dissenting opinions.

At this time, I would move adjournment of the debate.

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

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

The motion is carried.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND

INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ PROFESSIONNELLE

ET L'ASSURANCE CONTRE

LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

Ms. Mossop moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 177,

An Act to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 177, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la sécurité professionnelle et l'assurance contre les accidents du

travail.

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

The member may wish to make a brief statement.

Ms. Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): This bill addresses two key issues brought to me by injured workers in Ontario. The first says that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board will

consider employment or business positions which are both suitable and available to the worker when determining the worker's post-injury earnings, and second, it will permit additional circumstances when the board may review a worker's

loss-of-earnings benefit after the 72-month lock-in.

I would like to thank Rob Walters, Bill Wrye and Steve Peters for their help and support in crafting this bill.

TRUTH AND TRANSPARENCY

IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR

LA VÉRITÉ ET LA TRANSPARENCE

AU SEIN DU SYSTÈME JURIDIQUE

Mr. Tory moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 178,

An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act with respect to truth and transparency in the justice system / Projet de loi 178, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les tribunaux judiciaires en ce qui a trait

à la vérité et à la transparence au sein du système juridique.

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

The member may wish to make a brief statement.

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): In so many areas, we have learned that the first step in identifying a problem, getting a handle on the problem and then determining, as we're charged

to do here, ways to fix that problem is to collect and make available to the public more information. In this case, this bill seeks to address something that I think is very worrisome, namely that our justice system is in trouble in terms of

declining public confidence. This bill, the Truth and Transparency in the Justice System Act, will let the sun shine in and let more information be made available to the public through collection across the province by the government so that we

can see, on things like plea bargains and sentencing deals, that justice is not only being done but we'll see how it's being done and we'll actually see it being done at the same time. I look forward to the debate on the bill.

ONTARIO CLIMATE

CHANGE ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR

LES CHANGEMENTS CLIMATIQUES

EN ONTARIO

Mr. Tabuns moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 179,

An Act to provide for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in Ontario / Projet de loi 179, Loi prévoyant la réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre en

Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): The member may wish to make a brief statement.

Mr. Peter Tabuns (Toronto-Danforth): Climate change is a profound challenge to the stability of our society. This bill provides a framework for action in Ontario, setting out targets and

timelines that have to be achieved in order to actually have an impact on that challenge. I believe it's a realistic bill that should set the framework within which all other climate change legislation should be introduced in this House.

VISITORS

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: With your indulgence I'd like to introduce a grade school from the great riding of Davenport, called the Pauline Junior Public

School, and their teacher, Megan Hickman. They came to watch how a bill becomes law. Thank you, and congratulations.

DEFERRED VOTES

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

CONCERNANT LES MUNICIPALITÉS

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 130,

An Act to amend various Acts in relation to municipalities / Projet de loi 130, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne les

municipalités.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1356 to 1401 .

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

Ayes

Balkissoon, Bas

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Chambers, Mary Anne V.

Colle, Mike

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Jeffrey, Linda

Kular, Kuldip

Leal, Jeff

Marsales, Judy

Mauro, Bill

McGuinty, Dalton

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Orazietti, David

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

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

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Barrett, Toby

Bisson, Gilles

DiNovo, Cheri

Dunlop, Garfield

Elliott, Christine

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Hudak, Tim

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

MacLeod, Lisa

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

O'Toole, John

Prue, Michael

Runciman, Robert W.

Tabuns, Peter

Tory, John

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

The Deputy Clerk (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 51; the nays are 24.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

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

VISITORS

Ms. Jennifer F. Mossop (Stoney Creek): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I wish to draw the attention of the members to the members' gallery where my family is visiting today. I have three of

my nieces here: Elizabeth Green, Jennie Winchester and, particularly today, Corporal Christie Green, who has just returned safe and sound from Kandahar.

She was the development adviser to the Canadian military operation and the major general here for the last eight months. Thank you for being here. We're very gratified.

ORAL QUESTIONS

BAIL VIOLATIONS

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Premier, last month we heard about the case of a man in London who was charged with shooting four people in a downtown

parking lot during the Thanksgiving weekend. He was granted bail on the condition that he reside with a relative in Toronto. The individual subsequently disappeared, and his whereabouts are at this point in time unknown.

Stories like this, we believe, seriously erode the confidence Ontarians have in their justice system, and they raise serious questions about whether or not that system is in fact working. Will the Premier

advise the House as to how many cases of this kind take place in Ontario each year?

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

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General): I know the leader of the official opposition knows the decision of a crown attorney has to be, and ought to be, a quasi-judicial one. It has to be an

independent one. It ought not to be either popular or unpopular. We in this government support the independence of crown attorneys' discretion. Of course, the policy of crown attorneys when it comes to gun crime is to vigorously prosecute those

charges and to oppose bail. That is the policy and that is the practice of the crown, to oppose bail in gun crime charges. That is the policy and the practice and that is the approach, one that we have made public for the first time by the

publication of the crown policy manual and one we will continue to work on.

Mr. Tory: It may well be the policy, it may well be the practice, but that wasn't an answer to the question. The question has nothing to do with popularity and it has nothing to do with any

kind of assault or infringement on anybody's independence.

The reason that the Attorney General can't answer the question is that he doesn't know the answer. It's odd, because the government of Ontario does assign people to keep track of every egg laid every year in

Ontario -- the number, in fact, was 228,889,000 in 2005 -- but they can't tell us important information about bail and sentencing.

Jane Creba was killed last Boxing Day. Several of the suspects in that case were already out on bail on previous charges at the time of that incident. Media reports would suggest there are no consequences for

people violating bail, because surety guarantees posted by others aren't collected on. Can the Premier tell this House, of all the bail violations that occur each year in Ontario, in how many of those cases are the guarantors actually expected to

pay up on the sureties? In how many cases are they paying up? What percentage?

Hon. Mr. Bryant: The member mentioned that terrible tragedy that took place Boxing Day last year. He will know that before that happened, about a year ago, the Premier sat down with the OPP

commissioner, with Toronto Police Chief Blair, with a chief prosecutor for the province and with his justice ministers to see if we're doing everything that we can be doing. Then what happened, in January, was the largest single expansion of our

criminal justice enterprise in the history of this province. A provincial operations centre was established and will be operational very soon. We had a guns and gangs task force expanded exponentially with prosecutors working with police officers.

And this week we learned of the new major crimes court that has been opened, the first of its kind in Ontario, very unique in this country. So that our policy of --

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

Mr. Tory: Well, that was very interesting, but again, no answer to the question. The question is simply why we can't have, the public can't have, information related to plea bargains and

sentencing deals, in aggregate, collected across the province so we know what's going on. The government of Ontario has people in place to track how many calls there are to the bear wise hotline that reach a live operator -- 10,536 between April

and November 2005 -- but we can't tell people how many sureties are collected for bail violators or how many plea bargains are entered into across the province. This is why people are losing faith in our justice system. We want to open it up so

that people can see what's happening, get the facts on the table across the province, and report them to the public. I introduced the Truth and Transparency in the Justice System Act today. Victims' groups support this, such as Victims of

Violence, Sharon Rosenfeldt, co-chair, who says, "This bill ... would help measure whether victims of crime are truly having justice served."

My question to the Premier: Will you support this bill? Will you act to open the justice system up and let people see what's going on and be able to judge for themselves?

Hon. Mr. Bryant: I'm reminded of what our chief justice said, one of our greatest Attorneys General, Roy McMurtry, just a few years ago when a similar attempt was made by the Progressive

Conservative Party to engage in

an act of legal populism that would try and put pressure on either the quasi-judicial decision made by crown attorneys or the judicial decision made by judges. What Roy McMurtry said was that the people of this

province are best served by an independent and impartial judiciary that seeks to find a just result. We take that for granted, but from time to time it has to be restated. The chief justice was right when he said that then, he's right to say it

now, and our government will continue to restate those important principles of independence that every single Ontarian has a right to and we will continue to defend.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier. There's nothing in that bill whatsoever that threatens anyone's independence at all.

To the Premier: The centrepiece of the Dalton McGuinty election campaign, and the re-election campaign that's sure to come -- the promise to reduce wait times -- lies in tatters. We have the wait time

commercials that have been found by Advertising Standards Canada to be in violation of the Canadian code of advertising standards. The government of Ontario is a member of the advertising standards council. They obviously take the responsibilities

that go with that organization and membership in it very seriously.

Will the Premier please tell us what the specific response of his government was when they were contacted by the advertising standards council to respond to the complaint that had been made? Did he say to them

that the ad had been approved by the Auditor General and that that was good enough, or did he say that he was not going to abide by whatever ruling came from the advertising standards council? Or did he say that the membership of the government of

Ontario in this body didn't matter and that, in fact, he was going to resign? What did he say when the advertising standards council called to say they had real troubles with these ads that they found inaccurate? What did he say?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): The leader of the official opposition knows that that ad was specifically approved by the Auditor General. He knows that

wait times are coming down in the province of Ontario.

But there's still more good news today. The minister is announcing a new MRI in Guelph and a new MRI in Brantford. Each of those machines can perform over 4,000 scans annually. Since taking office, there have

been 10 brand new additional MRI machines replacing another seven older models. We've increased the number of MRI scans in Ontario by 78%, and wait times in that area alone have gone down by 13%, or 16 days.

Mr. Tory: In light of his record, I don't know how the Premier can expect anyone to believe anything that he just said. He would say anything to try and win a vote.

The facts are incontrovertible. The government of Ontario launched a website that they said was "up to date" and "accurate." That website was found by the Auditor General to be misleading, that the numbers in

it should be taken with a grain of salt. They ran ads to extol the virtues of all of this which have been found by Advertising Standards Canada to make "inaccurate claims" and to "omit relevant information." That's the independent body that looks

at ads from across the province. These are ads that said people could phone a number and get their wait time down, but when you phoned, nothing happened; they told you nothing that would help at all.

We believe that an acknowledgement and an apology are due to the people of Ontario whose money you spent -- millions of dollars -- putting ads on television that have been found by objective bodies to be

misleading and inaccurate. Will you do the right thing and apologize and formally retract these bogus ads?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: You know, the leader of the official opposition likes to choose his independent experts. The Auditor General, again I say, approved this ad.

Other communities that have benefited from new MRI machines: Guelph, Brantford, Orillia, Niagara Falls, Windsor, Markham, Richmond Hill, two in Ottawa, and Owen Sound. This stands in stark contrast to the

previous Conservative government record, which privatized MRI services and put in place for-profit clinics that offered fewer hours. We're bringing online new MRIs, and we're proud to be getting our wait times down.

Mr. Tory: In this case, your government is a member of the organization. When you say, "We choose our experts," you chose to belong to the organization that found your ads to omit relevant

information and to be inaccurate. You chose to belong to that organization, and you're repudiating them now.

It's not just us calling for an apology; here's an editorial from the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, published today. It's called, "Apology Needed over Wait Times." I quote:

"This is serious criticism. It is the type of criticism that should have prompted an apology from Smitherman, the minister. No such apology appears to be coming....

"After the government's policies on wait times have been condemned twice by reputable agencies, the residents of Ontario can't be blamed if they conclude that the provincial government has deliberately

attempted to confuse patients. The government has no one other than itself to blame for weakening its credibility."

Premier, my question is this: You should have learned from your famous 2003 "I will not raise your taxes" ad. Will you stand in your place, in light of these objective findings about the ads and these numbers,

and apologize to the people of Ontario, as the Kitchener-Waterloo Record suggests you should, and formally retract these ads?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: The leader of the official opposition did not like our new law requiring that any of these ads be vetted by the Auditor General. He does not like the fact that this ad was

specifically approved by the Auditor General. He is not prepared to accept the fact that in Ontario, wait times are coming down. Whether you look at median wait times, whether you look at average wait times or whether you look at 90th-percentile

wait times, wait times are coming down. He does not appreciate the fact that we have enlisted some of the best experts in the country with respect to the best way to present that information, which in the past had never been collected. We're now

collecting that information; we're presenting it. The Auditor General says he takes issue with the way we present it. We've asked Senator Kirby to give us his best advice so we can reconcile the competing and conflicting opinions we're getting

from our medical experts and the Auditor General. We will do what we need to do to make sure that the people of Ontario continue to see that their wait times are in fact coming down.

MEMBERS' COMPENSATION

Ms. Cheri DiNovo (Parkdale-High Park): My question is for the Premier. This morning, Dalton McGuinty defended his outrageous MPP pay hike by telling Ontario's lowest-paid workers to "sit back

and eat popcorn." I wish Ontario's lowest-paid workers enjoyed the luxury of sitting back and eating popcorn; they don't. They're on the job, working longer and harder than ever trying to make ends meet.

Premier, why do MPPs deserve 31% more but Ontario's lowest-paid workers have to wait until February for 25 cents more? Why won't you raise the minimum wage to a living wage -- $10 an hour?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): To the minister responsible for democratic renewal.

Hon. Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): I'd like to say to the honourable member that what this bill is about is closing

the gap between what hard-working members of provincial Parliament make and what our counterparts in Ottawa make. It's a 40% gap. The value of the work we do here needs to be represented in the salary, and yet we still will have a 25% gap between

what we make and what our federal counterparts make. We share the same constituents, we share the same ridings, and many would argue that our work is harder. We're closer to our constituents. Ottawa funds health care and education; we implement

it. This is about closing a gap. It's something that has been needed for the last 15 years. For 10 of those 15 years, we've had cutbacks or freezing of our salaries. This is fair, it's reasonable and we make no apologies for doing it.

Ms. DiNovo: If we want to talk about a gap, why don't we talk about the gap between a 3% raise for the poorest among us and the 31% raise for those in the 5% top income bracket, who are MPPs

in this room?

The Premier may think the issue of fair wages is one big joke. I can assure him, it's no laughing matter for the 1.2 million Ontarians who earn less than $10 an hour, most of them women, immigrants and single

parents. Why is the Premier doing for himself what he refuses to do for others in a season that calls on generosity? Why don't you raise the minimum wage to a living wage: $10 an hour?

Hon. Mrs. Bountrogianni: It's this government that raised the minimum wage, which was frozen for 10 years.

Interjection: You voted against it.

Hon. Mrs. Bountrogianni: And you voted against it.

We are voting for this bill and we are accepting the pay increase because we know the value of the work that we do here and we can explain that to our constituents. I'd like to know how the NDP is going to

vote against this bill and still take the money. That represents something encompassed in a word that is unparliamentary and that I cannot use here, but no better word could ever be used today.

The hard work that we do here, contrary to what your colleague, your House leader, said today on one of the TV shows, that we take months of vacation every year -- does he not realize that he mars your

reputation as well as the reputation of all of us here? We're all hard-working. You're hard-working; the Tories are hard-working; the Liberals are hard-working. This bill begins to close a gap, and it's about time.

Ms. DiNovo: If this government doesn't give their money to the poorest among us, the New Democratic Party is certainly not going to leave more money in their hands so that they can give

themselves more money and their own cronies a raise.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Order. I need to be able to hear the member for Parkdale-High Park place her question. We need to be quiet even when I sit down. Member for Parkdale-High

Park.

Ms. DiNovo: Dalton McGuinty can ram through a 31% MPP pay hike in seven sessional days, but at the rate your government is going, minimum wage earners will wait seven long years before they

earn $10 an hour. That's a disgraceful double standard. In 1972, the minimum wage was $2 an hour. Taking inflation into account, that's $10 an hour today. That means the poor are poorer now than they were in 1972.

You're moving heaven and earth to give yourselves a raise. Why can't you find the time, energy and courage to raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour, a living wage?

Hon. Mrs. Bountrogianni: If the honourable member actually believed what she said, she would opt out of the pay raise instead of voting against it and taking it.

With respect to donations to charity, that's honourable; we all donate to charity. But we'll be looking forward to a year-by-year receipt made to the public until they retire or lose their seat, as far as

where those monies are going.

Here's what Professor Wiseman at the University of Toronto says: "If we use public sector standards, MPPs are dramatically underpaid."

Marilyn Churley, former NDP member, who had to try federally: "I think there are reasonable grounds ... for a salary increase."

David Christopherson: "The constituency responsibility is as great, if not greater, in terms of just the raw numbers of casework that comes in."

It's a shame the front row -- Mr. Hampton and the member for Nickel Belt -- took a million-dollar buyout in 1995, and yet they can't turn around and value their own colleagues when it comes to pay and salary.

That's a shame. I need to use a word that is unparliamentary, and we all know what that word is. If you don't want the increase, don't take it. It's in the bill. Don't be inconsistent.

DISABILITY BENEFITS

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is to you, Mr. Premier, because the buck stops with you. For the last two years, I have been bringing one man's story to the floor of this

Legislature. Brian Woods has struggled with advancing complications from diabetes, an illness that many hold at bay by a combination of diet and medicine. Brian fought for a special diet supplement. He went all the way to the Ombudsman. He won his

case. You and your government then shattered his health and well-being by cutting his special diet supplement in half through your new regulations.

My question is a serious and simple one: How do you explain to Brian that you deserve a 31% pay hike while he and thousands of others are told to do without the food they need to lead healthy lives?

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

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I want to reiterate what I've said on what the member of the third party asks

quite often with regard to the special diet allowance. As you know, we have asked for a review of the special diet allowance, because this allowance is to go to people who have a medical condition requiring a diet. If they are not satisfied with

the decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal, they can appeal it to the tribunal, and there is a good process to do that. When the Social Benefits Tribunal turns down the decision of the ministry, the benefit is reinstated. That's what happened.

That is the process --

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

Mr. Prue: In the case of Mr. Woods, the Social Benefits Tribunal said that the changes you made to the regulations, those cruel new rules that you imposed on disabled people, have, and I use

their words, "created hardship" for Mr. Woods. In fact, they said that it was going to drive him into the hospital. That was an understatement. Brian is watching today from a hospital room in Lindsay, Ontario, while he awaits the amputation of his

legs. That's what he's watching today, Madame Minister, as you speak. This is what he wants to see you answer. It got progressively worse as he waited for the special foods he needed to assist in the healing process, the foods he was never able to

afford or get.

I'm asking you because the Premier doesn't want to answer it. Will you give up even a part of your pay hike to ensure that Brian and others have the ability to feed themselves, this Christmas and into the new

year, the food they need so as not to be in hospital?

Hon. Mrs. Meilleur: First of all, I'm not going to answer the second question, because when the decision is made here that we have an increase, I will take the increase. I will not do like

them, hiding behind all sorts of excuses not to take the increase. At the end of the day, they will all take the increase. Trust me.

I want to just give some statistics to the member of the party opposite. In 1998-99, 4,353 people received a special diet allowance; in 2006-07, 91,000 people are receiving a special diet allowance. I'm

telling you that every person who needs a special diet because of their medical condition is receiving the special diet.

Mr. Prue: What the minister doesn't state is that the amount they're getting is less than half of what they got a year before you changed the regulations. That's the problem with Mr. Woods and

that's the problem with everyone else.

It's all well and good for everyone to stand up here and talk about how important it is that we get a pay raise for a better life, but you're forgetting people like Mr. Woods, who is waiting there in the

hospital, waiting to have his leg amputated. You're forgetting them. We are fighting to make sure that sick and disabled people get the nutrition they need through the special diet supplement. I wish you would too.

My question to you is very simple. Don't have the Premier tell them they can eat popcorn, people like Brian Woods, who can't survive on popcorn. Will you apologize for the remark made by your Premier, and will

you reinstate the special diet that he and others so desperately need so that they don't end up in hospital, so that they don't have their leg amputated? That's what we want to hear.

Hon. Mrs. Meilleur: Again, I want to say to the member of the NDP that if a person needs a special diet and if it's supported by the medical community, they will get the special diet.

I guess I understand, from what the member is saying, that he is not going to take the increase in salary. He has not said it clearly, but it shows that he's not going to take it. It's unfortunate that this

party chooses to parade the misery of their constituents here in the House.

If the tribunal has decided otherwise, this person will get this special diet allowance. I'm not at liberty to talk about cases here and I'm not going to talk about cases, but I can guarantee everyone here and

all Ontarians that if they need a special diet, they will get it.

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

Mr. Ted Chudleigh (Halton): My question is to the Premier. Premier, with the demise of the manufacturing sector in Ontario, with over a 10% contraction so far across the province and much more

to come, we know our future depends on research and innovation.

Last week I asked you about the fate of the Turfgrass Institute in Guelph and your plans to close the station and sell the land upon which it sits. You sloughed off the question to not one but two different

ministers, neither of whom was the Minister of Research and Innovation. And, by the way, neither of them answered my question.

Further details have emerged about the potential closing of two more research stations in Ontario: that located in Simcoe, in Norfolk county, and Vineland Research Station in the Niagara Peninsula.

Premier, will you commit today to leaving these valuable research institutions untouched until they change hands to the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario on April 1 of next year, leaving their fate in

the hands of researchers and not in the hands of land developers? Will you commit to do that today, please?

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

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): While the honourable member suggested I didn't answer it the last time, I would ask you to listen very carefully,

because I intend to answer it again today.

First of all, with respect to our Premier's commitment to research and innovation, our Premier has listened to the agriculture stakeholders in the province of Ontario, and that is why he committed -- and we

are following through -- to have the research stations right across the province transferred to the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario. That's what the stakeholders said was needed. Unlike the previous government, which did not take this

action, our Premier has made it happen.

What that means is that it is now the research institute that will direct how best the provincial resources will be deployed to ensure that our research initiatives are accomplished as we have said they should

be and as we are investing in those initiatives. So it's the ARIO that will have the responsibility to ensure --

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

Mr. Chudleigh: The Premier's office and your office, I'm sure, are receiving copies of letters from ministry stakeholders and researchers alike imploring you not to sell off this land. The

important research conducted on these research stations is tied directly to the land upon which they sit. Selling them would set research projects back years, if not decades, in Ontario.

If you're the champion of research and innovation, as your government claims to be, stand up for the researchers at these valuable research stations and ensure that they do not fall into the hands of

developers before that transfer date of April 1. They're not going to be transferred until April 1. Will they be transferred on that date, intact, in the same location that they are located in today?

Hon. Mrs. Dombrowsky: First of all, I think it's important to caution the honourable member not to speculate on when the parties that are negotiating the transfer of these lands -- on when

that will be completed. I think it is really very surprising that a member from that party that slashed research dollars in the province of Ontario -- you slashed them; you allowed these research facilities to crumble in their communities. You now

stand up in your place, you've found religion, and you want to see some investment in research.

What I can say is that this government and this Premier have led investment in research. We have put $3 million into a research chair at the University of Guelph. We have invested $25 million for the research

lab at the University of Guelph. We have invested $2.5 million in the agri-food innovation awards that are going to be announced very soon. We also announced in the last budget --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question?

COAL-FIRED GENERATING STATIONS

Mr. Peter Tabuns (Toronto-Danforth): My question is for the Premier. With Christmas less than a week away, experts warn that the ice at the North Pole could entirely disappear in summertime by

2040 as a result of climate change. In a campaign to save his homeland from climate change, Santa dropped by this place today and asked me to present you with a stocking with a large piece of coal in it to commemorate your broken promises to shut

down coal plants in this province by 2007, then 2009. Premier, when will you stop breaking your promises on coal and move to a very aggressive energy efficiency and conservation program for Ontario's energy and climate protection needs?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): First of all, I thank the member for the question. I want to welcome Jack Gibbons today, who is a relentless advocate with

the Ontario Clean Air Alliance.

We are moving as aggressively as we can and in a responsible fashion. We cannot compromise the reliability of our electricity system. The fact is, we have made some real progress. We're reducing emissions and

making a difference. We've reduced our reliance on coal by 17%; mercury emissions by 33%; sulphur dioxide emissions by 28%; NO x by 34%; carbon dioxide, which obviously contributes to climate change, by 15%.

We are the only government in North America that is shunning new coal-fired generation and that has made a specific commitment to phase out coal-fired generation. At a time when the rest of the world is going

one way, we're going the other way. Ontarians can take pride in knowing that they are leaders in the fight for clean air.

Mr. Tabuns: I have to say, Mr. Premier, that Mr. Gibbons is here with some plainclothes elves, and I don't think they're particularly impressed by your response.

Earlier today, I introduced the Ontario Climate Change Act. It does two things. First, it mandates the creation of a climate change plan that meets Ontario's reductions under the Kyoto Protocol. As well, it

requires further reductions beyond 2012, and it empowers the Environmental Commissioner to review the climate change plan for content and to ensure that reductions are achieved.

Premier, if you're serious about addressing climate change, will you give future generations of Ontario children an early Christmas present and commit to speedy passage of my Ontario Climate Change Act?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: What I can say is this: It's important that we have an intelligent debate about how quickly we can move with respect to phasing out coal-fired generation. But let's remember

that at a time when most of North America and much of the world is expanding their reliance on coal, we are steadily reducing ours.

This summer I read a great book called The Weather Makers. It tells me that worldwide, there are going to be 249 more coal plants built by 2009. On top of that, there are going to be 483 more built by 2019. On

top of that, there are going to be another 710 coal-fired plants built by 2070. We stand as a single, solitary beacon to the world. We are saying that we are not building more coal-fired generation in Ontario. More than that, we are phasing out

coal-fired generation in Ontario. They are contemplating the construction of new coal-fired generation today in Alberta and BC. We are the only jurisdiction that's going the other way. Ontarians can take pride in the fact that we're phasing out

coal-fired generation in Ontario.

REPETITIVE STRAIN INJURY

Mr. John Milloy (Kitchener Centre): My question is for the Minister of Labour. I know that a top priority for the minister has been improving workplace health and safety in Ontario. For

example, when this government took office in 2003, Ontario had the lowest ratio of health and safety inspectors in Canada. Since then, the McGuinty government has hired 200 new inspectors, nearly doubling their ranks; helped reduce lost-time

injuries by more than 14,500 in only two years; extended Occupational Health and Safety Act coverage to farming operations; renewed and strengthened the WSIB; and the list goes on.

But today, I want to ask the minister about what he's doing to confront the increasing problem of repetitive strain injuries in the workplace. Some 42% of all lost-time injuries reported by the Workplace

Safety and Insurance Board are ergonomic-related, an unacceptable number, and I want to ask the minister what he's doing to deal with these specific workplace injuries.

Hon. Steve Peters (Minister of Labour): I want to thank the member for the question. "Ergonomic" is a challenging word to deliver. So is "musculoskeletal" disorders, and that's what

ergonomic-related issues are.

I want to thank the member for raising it, because it is extremely important. Yes, our priorities are much different than what other governments had. We realize that we need to ensure that we have ergonomists

on staff to provide specialized assistance to our inspectors.

In 2004, my predecessor introduced an ergonomic subcommittee to make recommendations as to how we move forward in dealing with ergonomic-related issues. As well, we moved forward within the Ministry of Labour

on the related recommendations: raising awareness, enhancing training, better tracking of ergonomic-related inspections and increasing ergonomic expertise.

Last January, as well, we launched the pains and strains campaign to improve employer and worker awareness. But I think the most important initiative that we've moved forward with is hiring a new provincial

ergonomist. This position was destroyed by the Conservatives.

Mr. Milloy: I am pleased that the government is working to reduce ergonomic injuries. Far too many Ontarians suffer disorders developed in their workplace. We all know someone who has suffered

the cumulative effects of repetitive, stressful or awkward movements on bones, joints, ligaments and other soft tissues, and we all know the costs associated with these workplace injuries, including the unquantifiable costs in human suffering as

well as the all-too-quantifiable costs associated with lost productivity.

While some businesses do recognize these costs and take measures to meet and exceed expectations when protecting their workers, sadly others do not. I want to ask the minister how having a new provincial

ergonomist is going to better protect our workers from ergonomic-related injuries and other types of disorders.

Hon. Mr. Peters: The costs are too huge not to move forward with this position.

Some members may wonder about repetitive strain injury. Well, I watched many of you in this House signing your Christmas cards over and over again. That has the potential for repetitive strain injury, even for

MPPs.

But the costs are huge: over 40,000 musculoskeletal injuries every year in this province; over $1 billion a year in costs to the economy in this province.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Peters: I hear the double-dippers on the other side chipping away at this issue, but the double-dippers have taken no interest in the initiatives that we have brought forward.

We recognize the importance of bringing back a position that was removed by the Conservatives, such as the provincial ergonomist. We're proud to have an individual like Anne Duffy coming forward as our new

provincial ergonomist. Anne has 20 years' experience in this important issue. One billion dollars' annual cost --

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

HEALTH PREMIUMS

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): A question to the Premier: On May 18, 2004, you dropped a bomb on the people of Ontario when you announced your so-called health tax, coming down hard on the

backs of working families and seniors in Dalton McGuinty's Ontario. Some have suggested this was the mother of all broken promises. Now, two and a half years later, we find out that taxpayers will be effectively paying your so-called health tax

twice: first, your initial tax gouge, and now, secondly, because of decisions by arbitrators with respect to public sector employers covering the health tax for their employees. Premier, are you really intent on putting the health tax boots to

working families and taxpayers not once but twice?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): The member will know that the Court of Appeal has decided that the courts will defer to the decisions of arbitrators on the

interpretation of provisions in collective agreements relating to this particular issue.

As we have always said, the

interpretation of the collective agreements is a matter for the arbitrators, and we will not comment on any matters that may be before any arbitrators.

Mr. Hudak: With all due respect, Premier, what a bunch of nonsense. To read your own words back to you, on October 27, 2004, you told the assembly, "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," meaning "not employers." That's what you said then. You say

something entirely different today. In fact, you're intent on, again, pulling another McGuinty: saying one thing one time and saying the opposite when the going gets tough.

Premier, please tell me. The people at the Hamilton fire department are now paying $300,000 more in taxes because of this decision. The LaPointe-Fisher Nursing Home in Guelph is going to face an administrative

nightmare. Premier, please tell me you're not so obsessed with tax increases that you're going to put the boots to taxpayers two times for your infamous health tax gouge.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: The member will also know, as I think the Minister of Finance related just yesterday or the day before, that 51 out of 60 decisions by arbitrators have ruled in favour of

the employer, so that the individuals are required to pay. Our intention has always been crystal clear: that the Ontario health premium is a tax and not the OHIP premium that had previously been imposed under the Health Insurance Act. Again, this

is a matter to be decided ultimately, though, by the arbitrators.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, who always asks me to ask him questions. Minister, in last month's municipal elections,

literally thousands upon thousands of mail-in ballots were rejected because of flaws in what your ministry has approved: the postal ballot system. In Minden Hills, one very good example of the 849 rejected ballots, 256 were initially rejected

because the obligatory signed declaration was improperly inserted inside the secrecy envelope. The large numbers of spoiled mail-in ballots seriously undermine voter trust in the democratic process at the local level.

Minister, I saw you musing in the paper today that you're going to study it. We don't need it to be studied; we need to know from you -- the mail-in ballot system is clearly broken. We need you to say that,

and we need you to say what you are going to do to fix it -- not what you're going to do to study it; what you're going to do to fix it.

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the member for the question. It's always been the approach of this government and particularly this ministry that if

certain issues are brought forward, yes, we do like to study the issues. We like to get a comprehensive view as to what's happening out there. We will be making recommendations to make changes to make sure that everyone's vote is counted.

We value the democratic process that we have in this province to the fullest. We are pleased that the municipal elections, of which there were literally hundreds across the province in over 450 municipalities,

went off as well as they did. There were some isolated issues. We are going to look at them and we're going to make improvements to them.

Mr. Prue: The issues were not particularly isolated; they were mostly in rural Ontario. Last week, judges in Bracebridge and Lindsay both ordered that ballots declared spoiled because of

problems with the signed declaration be counted. They saw clearly that your regulations did not work. The judges' ruling shows just how flawed the current mail-in ballot system truly is.

My question again: Other than study it some more, what are you going to do to ensure that the votes of Ontarians who believe they are voting correctly are going to be counted in local elections and not be

rejected because of your regulations?

Hon. Mr. Gerretsen: The member will well remember the days when the only way one could vote was by actually going to the voting booth or voting by proxy. What governments have done over the

last number of years is to make sure that as many people as possible are given the opportunity to vote, so the mail-in ballot has been one issue that has actually been added to the method of voting, I guess a number of years ago.

There were some issues this time around; there were some problems. We want to know what the problems are. Yes, we are going to study it, but we're going to do better than that. Once we've studied it, we're

going to come up with some recommendations so that the kind of problems that arose during the last election will not occur the next time. It's absolutely important that every eligible voter in this province, whether voting provincially, federally

or municipally, is given the opportunity to do so, and this government is determined to make that happen.

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): My question is for the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal. As the population of Ontario grows, municipalities around the province need to build new

infrastructure as well as upgrade existing infrastructure facilities. In the past, previous governments neglected infrastructure and municipalities. However, my constituents know that building infrastructure is a priority to ensure that Ontario

can stay competitive economically and allow us to maintain our exceptional quality of life. Municipalities in Ontario now require new and innovative ways to fund capital projects.

Minister, are there any financing tools available to them so they can help build the infrastructure they need?

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, Deputy Government House Leader): The member for London-Fanshawe is correct that infrastructure is a priority for this government

and indeed for all Ontarians. We know that municipalities need many new ways to finance projects that are important, like clean water, waste management, roads and bridges or renewal of social housing.

That's why, in 2004, under the leadership of this finance minister, we created the Ontario Strategic Infrastructure Financing Authority, or OSIFA. OSIFA provides low-cost, affordable loans to municipalities to

ensure that valuable infrastructure can be built by and for municipalities.

In 2005, the OSIFA mandate was broadened to include municipal culture, tourism and recreation infrastructure as well as Ontario's universities. In July of this year, OSIFA was merged with Infrastructure

Ontario and continues to offer loans at affordable rates to help municipalities and the broader public sector deliver infrastructure projects. It is just one tool, innovative as it is, to deliver even more infrastructure. I look forward to the

supplementary.

Mr. Ramal: I would like thank the minister for his response. My constituents appreciate that this government is listening to the municipalities and providing them with options for financing

their infrastructure programs. As municipalities across the province expand and their populations grow, there are other areas that need addressing.

I know that local hydro providers need financing tools as this government expands power generation. I know that this government has made transit a priority, and as local transit authorities expand and provide

expanded services to families, these operations need to finance new projects. As we make our streets safer and hire more police officers, municipalities will need to build new police stations.

Minister, will you listen to municipalities and make sure that we continue to expand the loan program and help municipalities make their investments to accommodate these priorities?

Hon. Mr. Caplan: We always listen to Ontarians, but I've got to tell you, the member for London-Fanshawe is one of the most passionate advocates of them all. So I am very happy to inform this

House that we are indeed expanding Infrastructure Ontario's OSIFA loan program once again.

I know that a good number of communities in southwestern Ontario that this member advocates for have already benefited from more than $2.8 billion in low-cost, longer-term loans for over 1,200 infrastructure

projects. We're expanding the program's scope and eligibility to include municipal corporations such as hydro utilities, transit corporations, universities, federated and affiliated colleges and not-for-profit long-term-care service providers.

The program will strengthen their capacity to finance and build new infrastructure projects and improve the delivery of these critical public services. Municipalities will now be able to borrow for investments

in capital projects like municipal buildings, police and fire stations, emergency vehicles, snowplows. It goes a long way --

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

TOURISM

Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): My question is for the Minister of Tourism. Ontario's tourism industry employs more than a quarter of a million people and is a $20-billion industry, yet

we are continuing to face extraordinary challenges. Same-day car trips to Canada from the United States are in steep decline, according to Statistics Canada -- to a record low this fall.

Early in the new year, the US passport requirement will start to take effect, meaning that all US visitors will soon need to obtain a passport before they visit Ontario, so that they can get home again

hassle-free.

Most tourism partners know that without an effective and targeted marketing plan, Ontario's tourism jobs will be lost next year. The government has promised to introduce a new marketing campaign for tourism to

encourage Ontario residents to holiday at home, yet there are still no details about this new campaign on the ministry's website. Just before Halloween, the minister promised tourism stakeholders that he would release the details of the campaign

in the coming weeks. It's now Christmas. When will the minister release the details?

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): I can't find the answer in the book here, but I can speculate what it might be.

We are consulting at this time with the stakeholders to determine what would be best, but the member has identified, as we have, a significant concern out there. In my anecdotal explorations with the various

stakeholders, they have said to me that one of the things that has been lacking is the kind of intensive advertising and marketing campaign within the province to encourage our own folks to explore all of the opportunities in areas such as yours.

You have some great assets in the Kitchener-Waterloo area. I've been there. There are really some nice places to explore everything in the province of Ontario, to identify what would be good in winter, summer, spring and fall, and to encourage our

people to go from one end of the province to another, to look at another part of the province.

I think you will be very pleased with the advertising program that's going take place. I'm delighted that you have called for this kind of advertising, because we are going to deliver, I assure you.

Mr. Arnott: Back in June 2003, the member for St. Catharines, then in opposition, criticized the government for what he called "a virtual orgy of self-congratulatory, blatantly partisan

advertising," accusing the former government of "potentially cheating in an upcoming election."

The McGuinty Liberal government has been condemned by Advertising Standards Canada for a health care advertising campaign that was inaccurate and omitted relevant information. The Auditor General has condemned

the government for a year-end burn-off, where normal accountability and control provisions were reduced or eliminated.

Ontario Tourism needs a long-term commitment from this government for an effective and targeted marketing campaign that works, not a knee-jerk reaction at your end that is actually intended to boost the

popularity of the Liberal government. What assurances will the minister provide the House that his marketing plan will be true, non-partisan, highlight the best of the whole province and actually give the tourism industry the boost it so urgently

needs?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: First of all, I'm a bit confused by the member's thrust in this, because in the first case he says, "Would you please advertise to the people of Ontario and market to the

people of Ontario to stay here?" And in the second, he gets into some other diversion issues.

I can tell you one thing: I've seen some ads on television already that are very intriguing. There's certainly enough there to interest the people of Ontario in staying in the province as much as possible to

enjoy some of the attributes that we have. I can assure the member that when he sees the further marketing that goes on, he'll be delighted, because it will be portraying the various tourism assets that we have in a very positive fashion, so that

he and I will be able to go to our neighbours and say, "Instead of perhaps looking at another jurisdiction to visit in this particular year, why don't you try the province of Ontario? Here are the various assets." I think you'll be applauding

those ads when you see them and saying, "That's just what Ontario needs."

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, you'll know that in the Timmins Daily Press yet again today, there's another story: In

this case, the community of Smooth Rock Falls has been told by Tembec that they're not prepared to turn over the power dams to the community so that community can use the power dams as a way of being able to entice or attract a replacement

employer for the craft mill, or for any other economic activity.

You will know that those dams were specifically built back at the turn of the century -- the previous century -- in order to provide electricity at cost to those particular operations so that they're able to

attract the investments to communities like Smooth Rock Falls, but more importantly keep the investments there by providing cheap electrical power in order to allow those craft mills and paper mills to operate.

My question simply is this, Minister: Will you intervene on behalf of the residents and the laid-off workers of Smooth Rock Falls and tell Tembec that the hydro dams are for the benefit of the community and

not for the corporation of Tembec, and that the community will have control of those dams in the very end?

Hon. David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources, minister responsible for aboriginal affairs): I thank the member for the question. This is another one of these hydro generation situations

that have occurred with, in this case, the closing of the mill in Smooth Rock Falls. As the member knows, the company, Tembec in this case, owns the facility. They do have a water power lease agreement with the crown, and in the original lease

agreements, it doesn't tie it to a pulp mill operation or to the community. It does talk about the purpose of generating power for the operation of machinery in a very general way. We are working with the company. The company being able to

generate power here also in a way supports its other operations, and you have another big Tembec operation in Kapuskasing, in your riding. We want to make sure that that is sustainable, and obviously the revenue from this helps sustain that

facility also.

Mr. Bisson: Minister, what's going to make Kapuskasing sustainable is having hydro rates that reflect the true cost of power, something that your government, quite frankly, in succession with

the Ernie Eves government, has made worse.

The issue for Smooth Rock Falls, as it is for other communities, is very simple. They have (

a) a power dam that has been built for the specific purpose of supplying energy to a corporation that would operate

in their community; (

b) they have woodchip directives when it comes to wood from other sawmills that should be tied to that community so that they can keep on operating, and a host of other tools that you have in your arsenal as the Minister of

Natural Resources that you could use if you choose to support the community of Smooth Rock Falls, as well as many other communities.

So we're saying again, we want you to be our champion. We want you to be on our side. Are you prepared to stand up for the people of Smooth Rock Falls and say no to Tembec so that that power dam can stay with

the community, so it can attract a replacement employer or some other economic activity that will survive that community after Tembec is gone?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The McGuinty government is the champion for Smooth Rock Falls, and I must say, with my partner the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, the Ministry of Natural

Resources and the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, we are working with the Smooth Rock Falls revitalization task force. We support that task force. I am looking for every opportunity I have in my ministry, and there are other

underutilized species. We've had RFPs out, and believe me, we are looking at those towns that are the hardest hit from the closures in the forestry industry for those new opportunities that are availing themselves in the northern forest. I would

say that there should be some good news soon for Smooth Rock Falls. We're working closely with the community and we are dedicated to the survival of Smooth Rock Falls and northern Ontario.

HEALTHIER SCHOOLS STRATEGY

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): My question is to the Minister of Education. I was pleased to hear that you and the Minister of Health Promotion made a healthy schools announcement at Market

Lane Junior and Senior Public School in Toronto. The McGuinty government is clearly working hard to make sure our students are becoming more aware of how to live healthy lifestyles.

We know that research indicates that a healthy school environment supports student success. There's never been a government that has invested so much in our students when it comes to healthy initiatives, from

forming our healthy schools working table, to our swimming-to-survive program, to our community-use-of-schools program. We take health and active living in this province very seriously. Minister, how's the McGuinty government making progress to

improve students' health?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne (Minister of Education): I want to thank the member for Peterborough for the question. Indeed, the connection between the health and well-being of our students and their

academic achievement is very important to us, and we have already put a variety of initiatives in place. We have put in place nutrition standards for school boards for foods and beverages, we've put mandatory daily physical activity in place for

our elementary students, we have protected students with anaphylaxis and we have a comprehensive strategy on bullying prevention.

The newest initiative, the healthy schools recognition program, does two things. It challenges all our elementary schools in the province to do one more thing to improve the health of their school. So they may

plant a vegetable garden on school grounds, they may form an after-school running club. they may create a mural that outlines the anti-bullying strategy and confirms a bully-free zone. Those are all things that make the whole school a healthier,

safer place. The final thing we're doing is allocating $1,000 to the nearly 900 secondary schools in the province to engage the students in activities that they think would make the most sense in terms of healthy schools at a secondary level.

Mr. Leal: Minister, it is clear that our government is on the side of Ontario students and teachers when it comes to developing healthy schools. The promotion of healthy living and active

living is a best practice best started with our young people. Since we formed the government, we've taken remarkable steps to ensure that the tools and resources are available for teachers, parents and students to help our students enjoy the

programs that lead to healthier and active lives. We've removed junk food from schools, instituted 20 minutes of daily physical activity and issued nutrition guidelines to all our boards. Minister, can you share with this House what further steps

the McGuinty government is taking to promote health and well-being in our schools right across the province?

Hon. Ms. Wynne: To the Minister of Health Promotion.

Hon. Jim Watson (Minister of Health Promotion): I want to thank my colleague the Minister of Education. We did announce the healthy school recognition program in Toronto. I had the opportunity

in my riding in the city of Nepean to announce the program at Frank Ryan school. This is a great school. It's like many schools in our province where they're offering, in this case, daily physical education, plus they have spinning classes that I

took

part in. They're trying to create a culture of wellness in the school system. What this school is doing: The school principal, the school council chair and the student council president have all signed a pledge, and that's available to every

school in the province of Ontario. Their plan is to add an anti-bullying activity in their school, in order to get the banner which will be hung in their gymnasium as an opportunity for the government of Ontario to say thank you for the

recognition --

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

WILDLIFE PROTECTION

Ms. Lisa MacLeod (Nepean-Carleton): My question is for the Premier. Yesterday I wrote the Premier asking that he invoke subsection 44(2) of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act and return

Bam Bam the deer to the Straby family in Greely.

What I'm asking, and over 10,000 residents in the city of Ottawa are requesting, is that you use the special powers provided under subsection 44(2) of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act to account for the

special circumstances like the Strabys. Today the Straby family must drive 50 kilometres east of Ottawa to see this animal they have cared for, in a zoo that's not even open at this time of year, by paying an entrance fee at the gate. For their

act of compassion, the Strabys may still be fined by MNR officials.

Will the minister or the Premier commit today to ensuring that the Strabys are not fined for their act of compassion? Further, will the Premier approve Mr. Straby's application, which he filed yesterday, to

keep game wildlife in captivity for education, science and other purposes so that Bam Bam can go home?

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

Hon. David Ramsay (Minister of Natural Resources, minister responsible for aboriginal affairs): I very much appreciate the member's co-operation on this issue and keeping me informed as this

issue broke in September and in the following couple of weeks. That application that you've informed us of is before that, so we'll obviously give consideration to that application.

I would say to the member that wildlife, such as deer and other animals, belong to nature and they're not domesticated animals that we have domesticated historically that we keep as pets. We really have these

laws in place to protect our natural heritage and our wildlife in Ontario. Right now, I just want to assure the member that Bam Bam is in a six-acre hardwood enclosure. Bam Bam has company of her own species now and is no longer alone. In January,

we'll also have more deer, and they will start to have a life as a herd. Anyway, we'll just leave it at that. I appreciate the member's interest in this issue.

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I have a petition, names gathered by the Fairview Mennonite Home in Cambridge, to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas long-term-care funding levels are too low to enable long-term-care homes to provide the care and services our aging seniors and parents need, with the dignity and respect that they deserve; and

"Whereas, even with a dedicated staff who do more than their best, there is still not enough time available to provide the care residents need. For example, 10 minutes, and sometimes less, is simply not enough

time to assist a resident to get up, dressed, to the bathroom and then to the dining room for breakfast; and

"Whereas the allowance for three meals is $5.46 per day; and

"Whereas those unacceptable care and service levels are now at risk of declining, and there is a further concern with the residents' safety;

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

"We, the undersigned, petition the McGuinty government to increase operating funding to long-term-care homes by $306.6 million, to allow the hiring of more staff to provide an additional 20 minutes of care per

resident per day over the next two years (2006 and 2007)."

As I agree with the contents of the petition, I sign it also.

RESPONSES TO PETITIONS

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): It's not a petition; it's a point of order. I tried to raise it before petitions started, but I do have a serious point of order.

On October 24 in this House, I presented a petition addressed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the government concerning a public inquiry in the city of Vaughan. This is sessional day 29,

five days beyond what the government has to answer this. They have not seen fit to answer it and I am requesting a response to that petition.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Minister, I want to remind you that you're required, under standing order 38(i), to file a response to the petition within 24 sitting days of its

presentation. Your response is now overdue. I'd ask that you give the House some indication as to when the response will be forthcoming.

Hon. John Gerretsen (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): It will be forthcoming shortly. But I should tell you that in the meantime, I've had a meeting with both the mayor and the

member opposite about precisely that issue, and he's well aware --

The Speaker: Thank you. Petitions?

CHILD PROTECTION

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): I have a petition on the granting of Ombudsman oversight of children's aid societies. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas Ontario is one of the few provinces that does not have independent oversight of child welfare administration; and

"Whereas eight provinces now have independent oversight of child welfare issues, including child protection; and

"Whereas all provincial Ombudsmen first identified child protection as a priority issue in 1986 and still Ontario does not allow the Ombudsman to investigate people's complaints about children's aid societies'

decisions; and

"Whereas people wronged by CAS decisions concerning placement, access, custody or care are not allowed to appeal those decisions to the Ontario Ombudsman's office;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we support the Ombudsman having the power to probe decisions and investigate complaints concerning the province's children's aid societies (CAS)."

I agree with the petition, affix my signature thereon and send it to the table by Sarah.

NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT SUPPLEMENT

Mr. Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): "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 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."

CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE

PULMONARY DISEASE

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): I'm pleased to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Durham. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Lung Association's women and COPD national report card 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 to action for early diagnosis and optimized management of COPD to reduce illness and suffering; and

"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 this and Arianne will deliver it to the table.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition that's been sent to me by members of SEIU. It reads 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 and affix my signature to this.

MACULAR DEGENERATION

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to present on behalf of my seatmate, the member for Niagara Falls, 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 people 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."

This is signed by more than 100 people. I thank the people from Niagara Falls on behalf of my seatmate and I will ask page Kelsea to carry it for me.

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Mr. Jim Wilson (Simcoe-Grey): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the parents of St. Paul's elementary school in Alliston have raised many issues regarding the security, cleanliness and state of repair of their school; and

"Whereas a 2003 condition assessment completed by the Ontario government identified the need for $1.8 million in repairs to St. Paul's elementary school; and

"Whereas the Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board has approached the Ministry of Education with the intention of having the school deemed prohibitive to repair as they believe the school requires

$2.28 million in repairs, or 84% of the school replacement cost; and

"Whereas there are ongoing concerns with air quality, heating and ventilation, electrical, plumbing, lack of air conditioning and the overall structure of the building, including cracks from floor to ceiling,

to name a few;

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

"That the Minister of Education immediately deem St. Paul's elementary school prohibitive to repair, secure immediate funding and begin construction of a new facility so that the children of St. Paul's can be

educated in a facility that is secure and offers them the respect and dignity that they deserve."

I went to this school from kindergarten to grade 8 and my mother taught there for 33 years. It does need to be replaced.

REFUNDABLE CONTAINERS

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): This petition came in rather late, but I will read it into the record because I was requested to do so. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and the

Minister of the Environment specifically.

"Whereas we find lots of pop cans and beer bottles in our parks plus children's playgrounds;

"Whereas it is therefore unsafe for our children to play in these parks and playgrounds;

"Whereas many of these bottles and cans are broken and mangled, therefore causing harm and danger to our children;

"Whereas Ontarians are dumping about a billion aluminium cans worth $27 million into landfill every year instead of recycling them;

"Whereas the undersigned want to see legislation passed to have deposits paid on cans and bottles, which would be returnable and therefore not found littering our parks and streets;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, strongly urge and demand that the Ontario government institute a collection program that will include all pop drinks, Tetra Pak juices and can containers to be refundable in

order to reduce littering and protect our environment."

Since I am in favour of this petition, I am delighted to sign it. Thank you very much.

ORPHANED DEER

Ms. Lisa MacLeod (Nepean-Carleton): I am pleased to support a petition that 9,500 residents of the city of Ottawa have given me.

"Whereas the Straby family of Greely, Ontario, showed enormous compassion by rescuing Bam Bam the deer from the side of a road when it was only a fawn; and

"Whereas the Straby family has cared for Bam Bam for more than two years by providing food, shelter and love; and

"Whereas representatives of the MNR confiscated Bam Bam and placed her in a distant zoo east of Ottawa; and

"Whereas

section 44(2) of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act gives the Minister of Natural Resources authority to license the Straby family to care for Bam Bam; and

"We, the undersigned, call on the Parliament of Ontario to return Bam Bam the deer to the care of the Straby family of Greely, Ontario, no later than December 25, 2006."

I affix my signature.

ADULT LITERACY

Mr. Mario Sergio (York West): I have another petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas investing in adult literacy initiatives will give more Ontarians the opportunity to upgrade their skills and gain the training they need to reach their full potential; and

in their field of choice; and

"Whereas the McGuinty government is providing new support for adult literacy by expanding academic upgrading services to help workers build stronger literacy and numeracy skills so they are able to perform at

a higher level, thereby enhancing our workforce and our economy; and

"Whereas the McGuinty government is investing $6.2 billion more into post-secondary education and training by 2009-10;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support the McGuinty government's efforts in providing funding to adult literacy initiatives in order to both help Ontarians to meet their

full potential as well as to strengthen Ontario's economy."

I do concur, and I will affix my signature to it.

PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I've received more petitions from the people of the Port Sydney area regarding Mary Lake dam. It reads:

"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.

LAKEVIEW GENERATING STATION

Mr. Tim Peterson (Mississauga South): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas there should be no decisions on the future development of the Lakeview generating station grounds until a full, independent environmental assessment, including air, water, soil samples and a health

study of long-term residents, is completed to determine the historical, current and accumulative impact of industrial pollutants on the existing environment of Lakeview, southeast Mississauga, and its citizens; and

"Government includes this assessment and gives its findings equal weight in all mandatory environmental reports regarding future development of the Lakeview generating grounds."

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

Resuming the debate adjourned on December 18, 2006, on 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 / Projet

de loi 173, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'Assemblée législative, la Loi de 1996 sur le régime de retraite des députés et la

Loi sur le Conseil exécutif.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): I am told that when the House last debated Bill 173, the member for Nickel Belt gave her presentation and concluded her time. We now go to questions and

comments related to the speech given by the member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I very much appreciated the contribution of the member for Nickel Belt to this debate. What's remarkable is that this bill, co-sponsored by Dalton McGuinty

and John Tory -- oh, and let's understand that John Tory is now Preston Manning in Stornoway.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the member for Niagara Centre to please refer to other members of the House by the name of their riding or by their ministerial title.

Mr. Kormos: Of course, Speaker.

Dalton McGuinty, the leader of the Liberal Party and the Premier of Ontario, and John Tory, the leader of the Conservative Party and the member for Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey -- for at least the next

several months -- understand that the deal that these two cooked up in the backroom was exposed by Ms. Martel, the member for Nickel Belt, in the course of her comments around Bill 173. It isn't just a paucity of debate, it's a desperate lack and

failure to debate by the Conservatives and the Liberals that makes this second reading truly remarkable.

Oh, the courage they have out in front of the cameras, insisting that this is good policy. Good policy? Well, if it's good policy, stand up and explain to your constituents why you're supporting it. If it's

good policy, then make sure that the bill undergoes scrutiny in public committee hearings, because I can tell you this: New Democrats will make sure that this bill is forced into committee. New Democrats can guarantee that to you. We are going to

make sure that this bill is forced into committee. The question that then remains is, will this government use the brute force of its majority to as readily force it out?

Mr. Wayne Arthurs (Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge): I had the opportunity yesterday to hear a number of the speeches, including the member from Nickel Belt. As usual, she speaks with a great degree

of passion and expertise in regards to those in our community who have needs and are vulnerable. I look forward to the balance of the debate on this particular bill.

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I know that the member from Nickel Belt spoke the other day on this bill. In her address, she certainly raised the issue of ending the clawback of the

national child benefit. I know she has raised that issue on numerous occasions in questions of the government, and she used her time on this debate to do so again. I know that's an issue about which she is very passionate.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I want to commend my colleague the member from Nickel Belt for yet again raising issues that I think are really important to the people in our

constituencies, specifically, the battle that has been ongoing now for I don't know how many years in regards to getting justice for kids with autism and their parents. The member from Nickel Belt has championed for two Parliaments now the need to

get the province to provide autism services for kids past age six. I've seen, as all of us in this Legislature have seen, what it means to the parents, the siblings and the children themselves when it comes to not having IBI treatment for kids

past age six. I think the member makes a good point. It would cost us not a heck of a lot to be able to assist those children and those families, to provide those services necessary, as compared to what we will receive by way of an increase. I

don't bemoan members working hard and all of those things, but the question is that we also have to assist other people in our society. She asks the question on IBI, which I think is a good one.

The second one is that of long-term care. As she has, and as with everybody else in this Legislature, I have had an opportunity to visit long-term-care facilities this fall, as they have invited us in to talk

about some of the commitments the Liberals made in the last election and, since becoming the provincial government, have not maintained. They said specifically that they wanted to provide an extra $6,000 per year of funding over when being elected

to government. We're not anywhere near that amount of money. Long-term-care facilities are having to struggle to provide the kinds of services we need in dietary, housekeeping and personal care in our long-term-care facilities. I think of the

Extendicare facilities in Kapuskasing and Timmins. I think of the Golden Manor, North Centennial Manor, Foyer des Pionniers and many others across this province that are struggling to provide the services necessary to keep seniors in the

long-term-care facilities with a service level that they should expect. I think the member makes a good point when she says that if we're going to help ourselves, we should first help those people who need help as well.

The Acting Speaker: That concludes the time for questions and comments, there having been four. I'll return to the member for Nickel Belt who has two minutes to reply.

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I want to thank the members who made a contribution. I want to say -- I have already made it clear and I'm pleased to do so again today -- that in the very

fine tradition of Tommy Douglas and Stanley Knowles, I will be giving this pay raise to local organizations that primarily serve children and youth in our community.

I spoke with the executive director of the Social Planning Council of Sudbury this morning, Janet Gasparini, and I said I'd be seeking the advice of the council on how best to distribute funds in the

community. She was very excited about my request and said that the council will be very pleased to help me with this project.

I've also advised the local media today that I would be happy to make available to the public all of my charitable tax receipts to show that the only people who benefited were the local charities and not

myself. I fully intend to do that.

I find it incredible that any Liberal member would be so vehemently opposed to my making these contributions to local groups in my community that help children. I find it incredible that you are opposed to

this. And it begs the question why you are so very opposed to my doing this to help the very organizations that you don't seem to want to help. So shame on you, all of you who have a problem with my using my pay raise in this way.

The other point I want to make is about this whole process. Before December 13, there was nothing on the agenda about a pay raise. Two representatives from this government -- the Minister of Finance and the

government House leader -- were very public in that regard. Then bang, last week, here comes a pay raise bill and a special motion for us to sit longer to get it through. There will be no public hearings. We are doing this "in the dark of night"

before Christmas, so the public won't have a chance to respond. That is a terrible way to do business.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): I had thought the member for Ottawa-Carleton was going to be speaking, as she certainly got up out of her chair. So I apologize for waiting, thinking that

that's what was happening there.

Nonetheless, it's my pleasure to put on the record a few comments about Bill 173. I have to say that I've received a number of e-mails, telephone calls and letters from people in my constituency and outside of

my constituency, as I'm sure other members of the Legislature have. When I summarize what people are saying and what they are concerned about, the issues fall into two general areas: One is concern about the process and timing, if you want to call

it that, and second, about the amount of the increase that is contained in Bill 173. I'm going to focus a little bit on those issues, but I also want to talk a little bit about some of the things that I think we could have been spending this extra

time on when we're here in the Legislature.

It's interesting, because this is, I think, my third time getting to this point, where we're about to leave for the holiday break and inevitably something or other comes up and we end up staying till the very

last possible day, which, again, is not necessarily problematic. It's certainly been an interesting experience in terms of watching the toing and froing that goes on amongst House leaders, particularly when talking about which bills are going to

be coming forward and which ones are not. It's quite an interesting process.

From my perspective, there are things that I think are more of a priority, and I'll be reflecting on those a little bit later on, nearer to the end of my speech. Some of them are in fact government

initiatives, some are private members' initiatives and some are just issues that are out there festering in communities that need to be addressed.

I think it's interesting to note that of the responses that have come across my desk in the last week, or less than a week, I guess, a number of people surprisingly are of the opinion that maybe there is

justification for some kind of adjustment in the salary or the pay of MPPs. I was surprised to see that. A number of people who are writing to me, who are sending me e-mails and letters, are saying that. Maybe it's not totally unjustifiable that

there be some kind of increase. But then, of course, as you read into the letter, they begin to reflect on the reality that many of them are experiencing as either low-paid workers or as workers whose increases are more akin to inflation or more

reflective of the general economy,

whereas the one in Bill 173, as we all know, bears no resemblance at all to those kinds of measures.

Interestingly enough, the other thing that comes up often is that many people say in those letters that the idea of a huge adjustment in one fell swoop is another thing that is distasteful. So even if they buy

the fact that there needs to be an adjustment, which some do -- many don't, but some do -- the next thing they say is, "But it just is distasteful to people that that one fell swoop right before Christmas is the way that it was done." Again, it

goes back to people being concerned about the process by which this was brought forward so quickly, so unexpectedly, and the timing being right before the holiday season.

I think, really, had the government taken the time to think about how to make adjustments that they considered to be necessary in Bill 173, and perhaps phased in or in some other way addressed those increases

in a way that people in communities, people in ridings across this province could support, we certainly wouldn't be here. I'd actually be finishing off my Christmas shopping, which desperately needs to be done, as opposed to being here debating

this. Although I have to say, I could certainly be here debating many, many other issues. Again, I'll be raising some of those in a very short time.

I thought it was instructive, actually -- and I'm going to take the opportunity to look at some of the issues that have been raised in my own newspaper. I have not only the e-mails and the letters and the

volumes of things that have been sent to me, but I also have a number of clippings from the newspaper. I'm going to refrain, for the most part, from reading into the record any of the individual letters to the editor that have been published in

the Hamilton Spectator. There have been many and they're pretty consistent in terms of being upset with the government, not only for the amount of the raise but for the process and the way it was brought forward in such a quick and unexpected

fashion at this point in time.

My initial reaction to this whole issue, coming from a council -- and I know many members here are saying that their big issue is that, as MPPs, they are paid less than what many of their counterparts on

municipal councils are. Today in the Hamilton Spectator there was an

article that talked about that very issue. It outlines the amount of salary that Hamilton city councillors receive; in fact that's the amount of salary I was receiving, adjusted

down, because they get a cost-of-living increase every year. Their salary in 2000, the year of amalgamation, was set at $50,000 and it compounds with a small inflation-based adjustment indexation every year. So at this point in time, the members

of city council are at $55,855 annually. Granted, about a third of that is a tax-free allowance, so I would suggest that they're somewhere around $75,000.

We all know that although we call it a pay of $88,000, more or less, in this place, the vast majority of members are at around $95,000; in fact, I think there are very few who are at less than $95,000, maybe

one or two out of all one hundred and -- how many do we have here now? I guess maybe 100 because there are by-elections on the way. The point is that although I hear that argument, it's certainly not something that is reflective of my own

experience.

Having said that, people will recall that I came to this place in a by-election, so I hadn't been jumping, as people tend to characterize it when a person moves from one level of government to the other. I saw

an opportunity and was given the opportunity to represent my party in a by-election, and saw the quite likely possibility of bringing party status back to our caucus, which we all now know is historic and something that did occur.

The perspective that I came from was more about achieving that goal than anything to do with salary, and as you can see from the information that I just provided around our city council, where I was coming

from, and the salary that they receive, there was a significant increase between where I was then and where I am now. I was quoted in the Hamilton Spectator as saying something to the effect of, "I don't think I have anything to complain

about."

I did have this conversation with the Integrity Commissioner when he was preparing his report -- and I know that members opposite, the members of the McGuinty Liberal government, are heckling our members on

this side about a number of issues, particularly when the Harris government, the previous Conservative government, decided to do away with the pension plan for members. One of the things I spoke to the Integrity Commissioner about at the time when

he was talking about our annual filing statements and the possibility of making recommendations to the government about increases to salary, my biggest concern -- and I raised it with him -- was the issue of nixing or getting rid of our defined

benefit pension plan here in the province of Ontario as MPPs. Again, I'm quoted in our newspaper as raising that issue, not particularly from the perspective of having a gold-plated pension plan.

Interestingly enough, notwithstanding the fact that there isn't a defined benefit plan at this point -- and even this bill, Bill 173, was a huge missed opportunity, from my perspective -- I would have been

much happier had the McGuinty Liberal government actually dealt with the fact that the defined benefit pension plan was sent the way of the dodo bird. I would have preferred that we had dealt with the defined benefit pension plan here at the

Legislature, because I believe it is the only way to make sure that people are able to retire with a modicum of dignity and quality of life. Otherwise, the amount of dollars that people have an opportunity to set aside oftentimes is left to the

whim of the markets, and one or two errors in investment or significant activities in the marketplace that reduce your holdings can cause you significant pain when it comes to retirement.

I don't believe a gold-plated pension plan was necessary, but simply a defined benefit pension plan would have been appreciated. I have to say, if there's one thing in the city of Hamilton that I do miss and

that I do feel I missed out on is that when I was a municipal councillor, I was a member of the OMERS pension plan, so I had an opportunity to participate in a defined benefit pension plan as a municipal councillor. My municipal colleagues, the

newly elected ones as well as the ones who have been there for quite some time, are currently members of the OMERS pension plan. So I really do wish that the government had taken seriously the idea of reinstating not a gold-plated but just a

defined benefit pension plan overall for the members of the Legislature, because we do provide important services and we do work hard. I would say that every member of this Legislature works hard, but what we often do is interrupt our work life.

We are working somewhere, we get into elected politics, and everything we have done in our life prior to getting into elected politics goes by the wayside. "Usually in the middle of your best earning years" is the way the Integrity Commissioner

described it when he and I were having the conversation. Your best earning years are put into this place, where there's no guarantee that at the end of the day you'll end up with a pension of any kind.

Having said that, certainly there is no guarantee that any worker in the province of Ontario retires with a decent pension, and that's why I believe there needs to be significant review of the Ontario Pension

Benefits Act. I've done some consultation on that issue myself around the province. Unfortunately, the Minister of Finance, who has finally decided, at the 11th hour of their mandate, to set up a task force to look at Ontario's pension system, has

not bothered to include in the mandate of those very well respected and wise people on that task force the whole issue of coverage for pension plans generally. In fact, they're not even looking at the fact that the vast majority of workers in this

province are not covered by pension plans and what that means as a public policy issue. I think it's shameful that a task force is in place to deal with some significant issues around pensions and not deal with the single most important one, which

is that most Ontario workers don't get one, and that's problematic.

I wanted to quote from the Spectator editorial that came out after Bill 173 came forward. I want to read it out loud because I think in many ways it reflects some of the shock and disbelief initially, and it

then goes on to say what the government might have wanted to consider if they were going to bring something like this forward and perhaps even bother to keep people onside. This is Howard Elliott, the editor of the Spectator. It says:

"McGuinty, and the provincial Conservatives who also support this idea," the idea of the raise, "aren't completely off base but their execution stinks.

"Yes, there is a legitimate problem with the lack of parity between MPPs and MPs, who earn a basic $147,700 compared to MPPs' $88,771. Even some municipal politicians earn more." Remember, this is the

Spectator.

"Yes, there is something wrong when a backbench MP, such as McGuinty's brother, earns more than Ontario's Minister of Health.

"But does that legitimate problem justify a raise of this size, sprung on the Legislature and electorate in this way?

"Unequivocally, no.

"The government could have done this in a number of ways.

"When the Auditor General reported that MPPs need to earn more or be seen as a farm team for the feds" -- I think he meant the Integrity Commissioner at that point, but anyway -- "the Premier could have

acknowledged the problem and struck an independent team to review and make recommendations within a month or so.

"Or the government could have introduced a bill that proposed a much more modest increase, say 8%, with another sizable portion phased in next year.

"Or it could have pledged to make this an election issue and run on the higher pay, with raises to be implemented after the next election late next year.

"Any of these, or a host of other options we can think of, would have made more sense and been more defensible than this option" that they chose to implement.

"The sad irony is that most reasonable people would agree that an elected representative should be compensated fairly and in keeping with a competitive market.

"Otherwise, qualified and gifted people will be discouraged from entering the public arena because the financial sacrifice is just too great.

"No one is asking politicians to take a vow of poverty, merely that they work and act in ways that assure taxpayers that we aren't getting fleeced.

"This decision is so deeply flawed that even fair-minded people must be forgiven for overlooking reasonable substance and seeing only clumsy and badly executed style and strategy."

Again, that's from the editorial in the Spectator. Although I agree with some of what they say, there are other pieces that I don't think are strong enough in terms of the way they look at the issue.

I wanted to put on the record a couple of things that I thought were more important for us to be dealing with at the 11th hour prior to the holidays. I'm looking on my desk for another opinion column that was

in the Hamilton Spectator, and that was by Andrew Dreschel, who is a much-read opinion columnist in the Hamilton Spectator. His comments were a lot more pointed when it came to this particular move by the