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

May 4, 2005

38th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2005-May-04 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 4 May 2005 Mercredi 4 mai 2005

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ANTI-TOBACCO LEGISLATION

HIGHWAY 3

REDEDICATION OF

FOLEY CATHOLIC SCHOOL

MENTAL HEALTH WEEK

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS

AWARENESS MONTH

THOROLD BLACKHAWKS

EDUCATION WEEK

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS

AWARENESS MONTH

LIBERATION OF THE NETHERLANDS

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ÉDUCATION

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

(PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

(GÉRANCE DES PRODUITS)

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN OF

RECENT IMMIGRANTS /

ÉDUCATION POUR ENFANTS

D'IMMIGRANTS RÉCENTS

CHILDHOOD IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM

ANNIVERSARY OF MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES

EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN

OF RECENT IMMIGRANTS

CHILDHOOD IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM

ANNIVERSARY OF MINISTRY

OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES

VISITORS

DEFERRED VOTES

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY

OF PEEL ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LA MUNICIPALITÉ

RÉGIONALE DE PEEL

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

APPOINTMENTS TO LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

TEACHERS' CONTRACTS

FUNDING OF PUBLIC SERVICES

REPORT OF THE ONTARIO BEVERAGE ALCOHOL SYSTEM REVIEW PANEL

CHILD CARE

SEXUAL ASSAULT CRISIS CENTRES

HEALTH CARE

ANTI-TOBACCO LEGISLATION

AEROSPACE INDUSTRY

SMART METERS

INSURANCE RATES

COMMUNITIES IN ACTION FUND

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

INDUSTRIAL COGENERATION FACILITATOR

PETITIONS

ANTI-TOBACCO LEGISLATION

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

CREDIT VALLEY HOSPITAL

OPPOSITION DAY

LONG-TERM-CARE FUNDING

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ANTI-TOBACCO LEGISLATION

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): Many Ontarians are truly disappointed with the lack of consultation on the Liberals' anti-tobacco

bill. Two hundred and twenty-five associations and individuals applied to testify before the finance committee; only 88 were allowed to appear.

On the fourth day, I tabled a motion for more hearings. My motion was defeated by the Liberals. Now we learn that House leader Dwight Duncan and Minister Sandra

Pupatello have joined my cause in calling on this government to hold additional hearings. The Windsor Star quotes MPP Duncan: "`It's quite unusual,' he said of his and Pupatello's request that the

committee, headed by Chatham-Kent Essex MPP Pat Hoy, hear from an additional delegation."

The Smoke-Free Ontario Act, if passed as is, will impact many people and businesses. Why wouldn't we want to hear from all those who know first-hand what Bill

164 will do to them? One hundred and thirty-seven associations and individuals were not allowed to testify.

This morning in the media studio, we heard from the Ontario Convenience Stores Association and the Ontario Korean Businessmen's Association. They explained very

clearly the crime and the danger that their owners, operators and employees suffer as a result of Liberal tobacco taxes and display bans.

The question is, what is this government afraid of? Do the right thing: Hold additional hearings. I'm getting hundreds of faxes from Korean businessmen asking

for the right to come forward.

HIGHWAY 3

Mr. Bruce Crozier (Essex): I rise to speak again about an issue of great importance; that is, four-laning and safety improvements on Highway 3

in my riding of Essex. I was pleased to see that since I last rose in this House in March to urge the minister to get on with these safety improvements, the project has begun to move forward. The

information session held in the town of Essex on April 7 was a step in the right direction. Improvements to intersections, which will take place this summer, are also a welcome start.

But for the residents of my riding, the widening and safety improvements on Highway 3 cannot come soon enough. Some have lost friends and have themselves been

injured in the many accidents that have occurred on what many consider to be a very dangerous stretch of highway. Traffic counts now reach as high as 15,000 vehicles a day during peak commuting

times.

With the environmental studies and design work still to be done, MTO officials have said that the beginning of construction could be two years away. This is too

long, too far away. I urge the minister to speed up that process and ensure that funds are in place to move ahead on this important project once the studies are completed. My constituents need to

know that the widening of Highway 3 in my riding will remain a top priority of our government.

REDEDICATION OF

FOLEY CATHOLIC SCHOOL

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): On Sunday, May 1, I had the privilege of attending the rededication of Foley Catholic School and the

blessing of the new school addition. Foley Catholic School is located in the community of Brechin, which is on the eastern boundary of the riding of Simcoe North and part of the township of Ramara.

The Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board and the Foley Catholic School community have been preparing for this addition for several years. It was very nice to see both Monsignor O'Neill and

Father Doyle take

part in the blessing.

I'd like to thank the following people for their outstanding contributions: principal Paul Campbell and all the staff at Foley; Michael O'Keefe, the director of

education, and his staff at the board; chairperson Diana Riffert and the board of directors at the Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board; Mr. James Canning, the local trustee for that

region; Ms. Sheri Black, chair, and all the folks of the Foley Catholic School Community Council; and the community of Brechin and area for their continued support of the young people of Ramara.

Finally, in this Education Week, I would like to congratulate the students -- past, present and future -- for their commitment to quality education at Foley Catholic School. Their commitment has

made this beautiful new addition a reality.

On a personal note, I am extremely pleased that since my election in June 1999, all four elementary schools in the township of Ramara have now had beautiful new

additions.

MENTAL HEALTH WEEK

Mr. Tim Peterson (Mississauga South): Yesterday morning, I was at the GO station in Clarkson at 6:30 a.m. to help the Peel branch of the

Canadian Mental Health Association kick off Mental Health Week. With Sandy Milakovic, the executive director of the Peel branch of the Canadian Mental Health Association, her trained panda bear and

several volunteers, we gave away over 2,000 chocolate Hugs and 2,000 cards with the 10 tips for mental health. I have also distributed a chocolate Hug to each member of the House, along with the 10

tips for good mental health:

"

(1) Build a healthy self-esteem.

"

(2) Eat well and keep fit.

"

(3) Create positive family relationships.

"

(4) Make friends who count.

"

(5) Create a meaningful budget.

"

(6) Get involved as a volunteer.

"

(7) Manage stress effectively.

"

(8) Learn to cope with changes that affect you.

"

(9) Identify and deal with your moods.

"

(10) Find a spirituality to call your own."

As we all know, mental illness strikes people from all walks of life. It is now becoming a problem for our youth, manifested in the form of eating disorders and

depression. Early diagnosis is one of the keys to a fast, sustainable recovery.

Today we remind everyone that it's Mental Health Week, and in celebration of it, please give someone you love a hug.

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS

AWARENESS MONTH

Mr. Cameron Jackson (Burlington): The month of May is Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Month, and I am pleased to support the work of the Multiple

Sclerosis Society of Canada and its thousands of volunteers.

Canadians have one of the highest rates of MS in the world, and as the most common neurological disease affecting young adults, three more people are diagnosed

with MS in Canada every single day.

Although first identified by a French neurologist, Dr. Jean-Martin Charcot, in 1868, we unfortunately still do not know what causes MS, although researchers are

now closer than ever to finding the answers.

I'm pleased to acknowledge the ongoing contributions to MS research by Dr. Brenda Banwell of the world-renowned Hospital for Sick Children here in Toronto. She

is part of an international effort, including more than 20 Canadian hospitals and universities, to study MS in children, who can be stricken with this disease as early as age three.

The annual Carnation Day fundraiser for MS begins this week, leading up to Mother's Day, to especially underscore the fact that MS affects twice as many women as

men. I would like to take this opportunity to urge everyone to wear their carnation and to support this campaign.

On behalf of my leader, John Tory, and the Ontario PC caucus, I congratulate the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada and its many volunteers and researchers for

all they are doing on behalf of those suffering with MS and their families. This Mother's Day, we should all buy a carnation in support of their important work.

THOROLD BLACKHAWKS

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): After making it to the Sutherland Cup Ontario Junior B championship series in three of the last four seasons,

the Thorold Georgia Pacific Blackhawks finally won the cup before a capacity crowd at the Thorold Arena on Tuesday, April 26.

Since the team was formed in 1982, it has gone through tough years, but those tough times steeled the resolve of the team to build them to the formidable force

they are today.

The Hawks won four out of five games in the Junior B League championship series, and the only game they lost in this series was the team's first loss since

December 17, 2004 -- a 30-game winning streak.

As impressive as the team has been, the loyalty and fervour of its fans is even more impressive. In just over an hour, the tickets for the final game were sold

out, filling the Thorold Arena to its 1,750-fan capacity. Stalwart fan Mel Swart drove from Thorold to Chatham and returned home again that same night for the fourth game -- regrettably the first

game Thorold lost after 30 consecutive wins.

I want to thank the team's sponsors, Georgia Pacific and Big Red Market, for their support of the team. In fact, Dan Timmins, who works at Big Red, is the coach

of the Thorold Blackhawks, and I want to close with words from Dan Timmins: "We put Thorold on the map for junior hockey in Ontario."

EDUCATION WEEK

Ms. Deborah Matthews (London North Centre): I stand before this House today in recognition of Education Week and of the fine accomplishments

this government has made. Under the leadership of the Premier and the Minister of Education, we have made great strides to reconcile the terribly acrimonious relationship the Tories developed with

the teachers, the parents and the children of Ontario.

The Tories played hopscotch with our schools. They stomped on teachers and jumped over students. The leader of the official opposition should be made aware of

the legacy left to Ontario by his party. Under the Tories, children lost 24 million days to labour strikes. While the Tories forced teachers out of work, the Liberals have brought long-term peace

and stability to our schools. The Tories allowed the dropout rate in Ontario to skyrocket to 30%. The Tories closed more than 500 schools. The Tories took teacher-librarians, art teachers, music

teachers and support staff out of the schools.

This government represents a new era for education in Ontario. And who will this benefit the most? Our children. Our children are our future. Unlike the Tories,

the Liberal government doesn't play politics with our children. Parents need to know that their schools are finally able to focus on what is important: educating Ontario's children.

We've put more money than ever before into special education. We've reduced class sizes in 1,300 schools, and more than 100 programs have been approved to help

reduce the dropout rate and improve outcomes for students at risk. And that is just the start.

This is meaningful change for Ontario. Children across the province now have the tools to build a brighter future.

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS

AWARENESS MONTH

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North): Today, I'm joining parliamentarians across Canada by recognizing Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Month. I'm

wearing an MS Society of Canada HOPE bracelet as well as a red carnation in support of the fight against this unpredictable and often disabling disease. I would encourage all members to join me in

showing our collective support for those who live with multiple sclerosis.

Unfortunately, Canadians have one of the highest rates of MS in the world. In fact, three more people in Canada are diagnosed daily with MS. It is the most

common neurological disease affecting young adults in Canada.

A French neurologist, Jean-Martin Charcot, first identified this condition in 1868. As a doctor myself, I can tell you that I have personally seen how MS can

cause loss of balance, impaired speech, extreme fatigue, double vision and paralysis. To this day, we don't know what causes MS, but every day researchers are coming closer to finding the answer.

MS affects women twice as often as men, making the MS carnation campaign particularly relevant during the Mother's Day weekend.

With your permission, Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the presence of Himani Ediriweera in the gallery today. Himani was recently diagnosed with MS. I would

also like to recognize the presence of several representatives of the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada.

Speaker, I would formally ask for unanimous consent to wear this red carnation in support of the courage and efforts of the MS society.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Before I ask if there is unanimous consent, I would have appreciated that this be asked before it was worn.

Anyhow, many members of Parliament here now are wearing them, and I presume that you are now asking for unanimous consent to wear them. You could take it off and put it back on, but since you have

it on, it's OK.

Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

LIBERATION OF THE NETHERLANDS

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): This week, we pay special honour to the Canadian soldiers who fought so bravely for the

liberation of the Netherlands over 60 years ago.

My mom and dad would tell us, as kids, about the Nazi invasion of their communities and about being forced from their homes. But it wasn't until we were adults

and time had eased their memories that we learned about the true suffering and horror they had witnessed. We heard about the bombings of their villages, the running for cover at the sound of

approaching airplanes, the boxes of documents floating in the Rhine and the shooting of anyone who ventured out to retrieve them, and the hungry winter, when the Nazis tried to starve the Dutch

into submission.

My father-in-law and mother-in-law had their own stories. Martin Van Bommel was by then the father of nine. When the Nazis raided their village for young people

to add to their dwindling forces, Martin raised the alarm and then hid the young local men on his own farm, at great risk to himself and his family.

The Allied forces were a welcome sight that spring, and my mother still tells her grandchildren about the liberation by the Canadian soldiers. In the months that

followed, Dutch families came to know their liberators better. As the need to rebuild their lives became apparent, Dutch families followed their Canadian heroes to Canada, many settling here in

Ontario.

Out of respect and admiration, a tradition of tending the graves of the fallen Canadian soldiers has been established in the Netherlands, and Dutch Canadians

continue to tell the next generation about the bravery of those Canadian soldiers.

So to all those Canadian soldiers I give our heartfelt thanks. Hartelijk bedankt.

VISITORS

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey (Brampton Centre): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to recognize my co-op student, Fabianna Khan, in the

audience and her two teachers, Ken Logan and Pat Lee, from Heart Lake Secondary School in the gallery today.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): That is not a point of order.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'ÉDUCATION

Mr. Kennedy moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 194,

An Act to amend the Education Act / Projet de loi 194, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'éducation.

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

I understand that the Minister of Education will be making the statement afterwards.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

(PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP), 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

(GÉRANCE DES PRODUITS)

Mr. Miller moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 195,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act with respect to the stewardship of products and of the packages or containers used for

products / Projet de loi 195, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection de l'environnement en ce qui a trait à la gérance des produits et des emballages ou des contenants utilités

pour ceux-ci.

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

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): This bill will allow for regulations that can require manufacturers of packages and containers used for

products, or other persons, to implement and comply with plans concerning stewardship or waste management. It also allows for the institution of a deposit return system on various products.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN OF

RECENT IMMIGRANTS /

ÉDUCATION POUR ENFANTS

D'IMMIGRANTS RÉCENTS

Hon. Gerard Kennedy (Minister of Education): I rise today to speak to legislative amendments that would, if passed by this House, unlock our

school doors for children of recent immigrants.

All students need the advantage that a good education provides, and I believe that publicly funded education is the cornerstone of a fair, productive,

civilized and socially cohesive society.

Chaque enfant a le droit d'apprendre. Nous avons la charge d'enlever les barrières qui laissent des enfants dans un vide administratif, sans égard au

statut d'immigration de leurs parents.

Every child has the right to learn, and we all have a responsibility to remove barriers that leave children in administrative limbo regardless of their

parents' immigration status.

Our mission and our moral purpose are to ensure that children are educated to a high level. It should not matter where you came from, but rather where you are

going. How do you put a price on education or on someone's future? Currently, the Education Act requires boards to charge fees, which can be as high as $7,000 or $10,000 annually per child, for

temporary residents to attend school. There have been several cases where children of immigrant parents were kept at home for long periods of time because their families did not have proper

immigration status and could not afford to pay fees. We take the view that this is simply unacceptable in Ontario. Today's proposed legislation is an important prelude to ensuring that Ontario

students enjoy a good outcome from our publicly funded education system.

Le projet de loi que nous déposons aujourd'hui s'inscrit dans l'engagement que nous avons pris, consistant à veiller à ce que les

élèves de l'Ontario obtiennent un bon résultat de notre système d'éducation financé par les deniers publics.

We need to give our children an Ontario education advantage so they can develop the skills they need to get good jobs and enjoy life to the fullest. Our

province needs an Ontario education advantage too. We need a workforce of the future, one that attracts investment and supports a strong and prosperous economy.

Many of the government's education initiatives already underway are helping the thousands of students across Ontario, including reduced class sizes in the

primary grades and programs to help struggling high school students. But there are also niche education needs that should be addressed, and this is one of them. If we are to build better citizens

and a stronger society, our education system needs to be one that embraces all Ontarians, especially newcomers to our province.

Si nous devons former de meilleurs citoyens et créer une société plus dynamique, notre système d'éducation doit inclure tous les

Ontariens et Ontariennes, et en particulier les nouveaux-venus dans la province.

We all know that newcomers to Canada face many challenges, but getting their children into school should not be one of them. If passed, this legislation would

ensure that children are no longer penalized because of their immigration status or that of their parents. The current list of exemptions we have in the Education Act would be expanded to allow

children of certain classes of temporary residents to attend school in Ontario without being forced to pay fees. These new exemptions would include children whose parents have applied for permanent

resident status to Citizenship and Immigration Canada and plan to stay in the country, and children whose parents are studying at a publicly funded Ontario university or college.

Today I believe we have with us in the House Albert Koehl, who's the chair of the Education Rights Task Force. He has been an advocate for the rights of

immigrant children seeking entry to school in Ontario.

It is our firm belief that many of these students -- in fact, it's in the track record that we have for many of these students -- will end up being Canadian

citizens, making it even more important that we provide them now with the opportunity to get a good education.

Ontario's public education system can and must deliver excellence for all of our students. This is, I put, a simple issue of fairness. Every child must be able

to attend school and make the most of their future. That is why I'm proud to introduce legislation today to amend the Education Act that would open the doors of learning and opportunity to children

new to Ontario, children who will grow to become valuable members of our civilized society.

Chaque enfant doit pouvoir être scolarisé et bâtir son avenir. C'est pourquoi je suis fier aujourd'hui de déposer un nouveau projet de loi

qui modifierait la

Loi sur l'éducation, qui ouvrirait les portes de l'apprentissage et qui offrirait des possibilités aux enfants qui viennent d'arriver en Ontario, des enfants qui

deviendront plus tard des membres à part entière de notre société civilisée.

Ontario's education system must be one that welcomes all young minds and ensures that every child has a place to learn and grow. I ask all members to join with

me in supporting this bill.

CHILDHOOD IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): It is with great pleasure that I rise today to report to my colleagues on one

of the great successes we've had in improving health care in this province. I want to tell you about the progress we've made in our childhood immunization program, progress that has now made this

province a leader in North America in protecting young people against vaccine-preventable diseases.

As of last January, three new vaccines were added to Ontario's immunization

schedule for young people. They will protect children against chicken pox, invasive

meningococcal and pneumococcal diseases. These are serious -- and in the case of meningitis, extremely serious -- but preventable childhood diseases. That is the critical point: They are

preventable. It's as easy as getting a needle. It's free, and it saves lives.

Altogether, since September 2004, we've administered 136,000 doses of the varicella vaccine against chicken pox and more than 200,000 doses of vaccine against

pneumococcal disease. While it's impossible to say precisely how many young people have been vaccinated against these diseases, because multiple doses are often required, suffice it to say that

it's around 100,000.

In addition, more than 180,000 youths have now been immunized against meningococcal meningitis. That is more than 180,000 young people who are now protected

against an extremely serious and occasionally fatal disease. Meningitis can strike even the healthy with tragic results. It's very dangerous. It spreads easily, but it is preventable.

While we've made a great start in preventing it, the fact is that thousands of young people who should be receiving this vaccine haven't yet. That is the

second message I want to deliver today.

We've launched an ad campaign to inform parents about the expanded immunization program and to encourage them to make sure their kids' vaccinations are up to

date. We would encourage parents to talk to their doctors or call their local public health unit for more information about where and when they can get their kids immunized.

The ad campaign is also directed quite specifically at teenagers, with banner ads running on popular Internet sites. These young people are at an age when

they're sharing everything from soft drinks to kisses, and are therefore more likely to spread this disease. We need to warn them about the dangers of contracting meningitis through contact as

casual and innocent as a shared soft drink or a kiss. We would say to teenagers, if you know you haven't received a vaccination, tell your parents, tell your school. All it takes is a needle and a

few moments of your life. You'll be protecting yourself and your friends.

The benefits of immunization are obvious. Many experts have made a very strong argument that immunization is the single most important public health triumph of

the 20th century. The general disappearance of diseases such as polio is a powerful demonstration of the effectiveness of immunization.

But that success has inevitably led some to complacency about the further need to vaccinate. The fact is that such diseases are only under control because of

immunization. Examples in other countries demonstrate that a decrease in immunization rates leads to outbreaks of disease. We need look no further than Oxford county and the rubella outbreak that's

going on there to see the importance of immunization. That's why we must remain vigilant and continue to ensure that our kids are getting these important and sometimes life-saving shots.

Of course, there's also a collateral advantage to immunization. Immunization is the happy exception in health services. The savings it creates from reduced

medical care and fewer hospital admissions can help to offset its cost. This really is a case where an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Our free immunization program will save Ontario families approximately $600 per child for all three free vaccines. It's a big part of our overall commitment to

revitalize public health in Ontario, which in turn is a big part of our overall plan to improve health care. We are reducing wait times, increasing access to nurses and doctors, and helping

Ontarians stay healthier. By doing these things, we are taking the vision of health care we share with Ontarians and making it a reality. That vision is of a system that helps people stay healthy,

delivers good care to them when they get sick and will be there for their children and grandchildren -- a dependable system, now and in the future.

ANNIVERSARY OF MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): I'm proud to rise in the House

today to inform all honourable members that this year marks a significant milestone in the history of the province. It's the 75th anniversary of the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

When the Ontario government created the new Department of Public Welfare in September 1930, nearly a full year had passed since the stock market crash

triggered a worldwide economic collapse and the start of what would be one of the most turbulent decades in our country's history.

Despite the new department's name, Ontario in 1930 lacked a public welfare structure as we know it today. If you were poor in 1930, you didn't have many

options. Like the rest of the country, Ontario had no regular system of providing assistance to people in need. In fact, the prevailing attitude was that charity would make people soft, and poverty

was considered the result of personal failure, a defect of character, especially if you were able-bodied.

When the Department of Public Welfare was established, Ontario's social assistance programs were rudimentary, unevenly distributed and provided assistance only

to a needy few: World War I veterans and their families, poor widows with more than one child, and meagre pensions to eligible people 70 years or older. As a last resort, you could go to a house of

refuge where the homeless, the destitute, the elderly and the insane were all housed together under one roof.

The Depression was a watershed. It's hard for us today to comprehend the immense suffering of those harsh times and the despair people must have felt as the

global economy faltered and then collapsed, and more and more people lost their jobs. At the height of the Depression, one in five Canadians was unemployed. Until the Second World War, unemployment

never declined below 12%.

If the Depression was a watershed event in Canada's social development, it was our ministry's baptism by fire. The heartache and despair of the 1930s show us

all too clearly how vulnerable we are to events over which we have little control, and how through no fault of our own, we can stumble. Sometimes we come to a point in our lives when we need to

grasp hold of a helping hand in order to regain our footing.

In many ways, the early history of the Ministry of Community and Social Services is the story of enormous events: the Great Depression and the Second World

War. It's the story of the people battered by those events and how this ministry helped them, people like:

-- the British child guests, the children who came to Ontario seeking a safe haven from the bombs of wartime London. The Ontario government enacted

legislation to make these children wards of the Department of Public Welfare.

-- the thalidomide babies of the early 1960s. When the tragic consequences of that drug became evident, the Department of Public Welfare took immediate steps

to implement a program of financial assistance to help the families of these special-needs children, despite the fact that drug control was, and still is, a federal responsibility.

-- Hungarian refugees fleeing a homeland ripped part from civil unrest. In January 1957, the Department of Public Welfare helped nearly 20,000 Hungarian

refugees by establishing a special nursery at the Toronto refugee centre to free the parents to make the arrangements necessary to become part of their new country.

The history of this ministry is the story of the thousands of people who, over the years, have worked tirelessly with compassion and dedication to help

Ontario's most vulnerable -- people like Dr. Dorothea Crittenden.

Dr. Crittenden's remarkable career began with this ministry in 1937, when Ontario was still grappling with the effects of the Great Depression. When the

Department of Public Welfare took on unique responsibilities during the Second World War, she was there. She contributed to the historic expansion of the ministry's programs and services that

characterized the post-war years.

It was fitting that Dr. Crittenden's career culminated with an achievement remarkable for those times. In 1974 she was appointed Deputy Minister of Community

and Social Services, making her the first woman deputy minister in the history of the province.

After her retirement in 1978, she continued her commitment to the province's well-being by leading the Ontario Human Rights Commission and serving as interim

chair of the Social Assistance Review Board.

On April 30, Dr. Crittenden celebrated her 90th birthday.

Today, not only do we want to congratulate her; I also want to, on behalf of everyone, thank her for what she has done for the ministry, this government and

this province. Her work, grounded in genuine compassion for the people of Ontario, is her personal and professional legacy to us. In so many ways, her achievements and contributions are the

foundation of our work in the ministry today.

The history of the ministry is also the story of the thousands of Ontarians who have needed our assistance over the last 75 years. We're very proud to feature

one of the former residents of our facilities on the cover of the 2005 Government of Ontario Telephone Directory, which many people likely will have seen. Our client today is proudly still living

in our community. This speaks to the ongoing commitment of our ministry and our staff to support vulnerable people and to be there for our citizens with assistance when it's needed.

This year, Community and Social Services is looking back with pride on a long history, and we're also looking ahead with confidence and optimism. We work now

to transform our developmental services, strengthen the Family Responsibility Office and restore integrity, fairness and equity to social assistance programs, shattering the myths and breaking down

stereotypes. We're renewing our mandate, mission and vision. I'd like to think that in 25 years, when our ministry celebrates its centennial, the year 2005 will be deemed a watershed in the

ministry's history: the year that heralded in a new era for Ontario's social and community services.

Through all the stories that make up the fabric of our ministry's history, there is one thread that remains constant: For 75 years, our ministry has provided

the transitional supports and programs to which Ontario's most vulnerable turn when they need a helping hand. For 75 years, our ministry has been the heart -- and the soul, we say -- of the

government and of our communities.

EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN

OF RECENT IMMIGRANTS

Mr. Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): In response to the statement by the Minister of Education: We have the best interests of children in mind, of

course, as paramount in Ontario. The legislation seeks to make sure that all children in Ontario have access to education. To that extent, of course, it must be supported.

The bill, though, that we just got is this massive thing. I'm sure you'll understand if we want to review it, perhaps, before we endorse the entire document,

because you never know what we might find in there once we have a chance to go through it.

This idea, by the way, has been around since last year at least, when the member for Burlington told the Minister of Education about this problem, even with

Rotary exchange students having to pay to go to the schools in Ontario. So I'm glad that finally the government is doing something about it, especially since we've got this young student in

Hamilton who hasn't been in school for two years while your government dithered about this.

The other point that needs to be made: This costs $8,000 to $10,000 per year per student. This cost should be borne by the federal government, not by the

people of the province of Ontario. The federal government is responsible for immigration. I don't know why this Liberal government can't work that out with that other Liberal government. I hope

they do so soon, so we'll stop putting all these burdens on the overburdened taxpayers of Ontario.

CHILDHOOD IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): I'm pleased to respond to the statement on immunization. This government, of course, was forced to

take action due to the efforts of my colleague the member from Nickel Belt, who had a private member's bill on the need for universal access to immunization on the record for a long time. I

introduced a similar private member's bill, and then, fortunately, the federal government decided to invest $300 million in a national immunization program. Finally this government was moved to

action, at a time when, if you lived in the United States, Mexico or some of the other provinces, you would already have had access. But we are pleased that people are responding, and I would

encourage all parents and all families in this province to make sure their children are immunized and take advantage of the free immunization program in order to keep them and themselves

healthy.

ANNIVERSARY OF MINISTRY

OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr. Cameron Jackson (Burlington): I too would like to publicly acknowledge the extraordinary and compassionate record of thousands of public

servants in this province who have served in the Ministry of Community and Social Services for the last 75 years, and in particular our former ministers and deputy ministers, who provided the

leadership.

As we know, Ontario has a rich tradition of being a leader in social policy development: the first jurisdiction to outlaw slavery, the first jurisdiction to

bring in a human rights code, the first child labour laws -- the list goes on and on. Ontario has a world-class reputation of understanding the needs of the vulnerable. It's a great tribute to this

ministry and to the large number of public servants who have extended their compassion and created this high standard for all of Canada.

I know there's been an open-door policy for many years in the Ministry of Community and Social Services. For the seven years I was a critic in this area, it

was not uncommon to pick up the phone and speak to the deputy minister.

I remember clearly a time when I had a challenge with a family who had a daughter who was stricken with developmental disabilities. I was able to pick up the

phone and talk to Dr. Charles Pascal, under the NDP government. Dr. Pascal and I discussed the challenges facing this family, which was going to surrender the child to a crown ward. He said, "Cam,

do you want to call Vince Tedesco at the southwest regional office or should I?" I said, "No, Deputy, that will be just fine. I will make the call."

Within a day we had a case management review, and a plan was put together. That has been part of the legacy of this great ministry, one which stands as a

testament to the ability to make sure that persons with disabilities aren't pigeonholed and put into various categories, but that we look at their complete needs.

That's why I would like to say to the minister that I would ask her to build on the trust that's historic in this ministry and to remove her edict which

prevents these same bureaucrats from talking to elected members of this House, on all sides of the House. I believe we should continue to trust them, and I believe we should continue to support

them.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Before I ask for responses from the third party, I'd like the conversation to be a little bit quieter. I'm

having difficulty --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I would ask the conversations to be a little bit quieter. I recognize the member from Beaches-East York.

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I'm here to respond primarily to the 75th anniversary of the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

I have to tell you that it is a great and long legacy.

The minister said toward the end of her speech that when we look back 25 years from now, 2005 should be seen to be some kind of a pivotal year. And I put it

right back: I hope it is a pivotal year. I think Ontarians will know next week whether 2005 is a pivotal year to those who are desperate and poor in Ontario, because next week we are going to find

out whether or not all of those children who have the money clawed back from them and their families -- and this government promised to do something about it. We're going to see whether or not you

continue the tradition from the previous government or the tradition from wonderful people like Dr. Dorothea Crittenden.

You have a choice to make, and that choice is abundantly clear, I would say to everyone on the government benches. You can have a legacy that is 75 years old

of a caring and compassionate Ontario that looked out for poor children, whether those poor children came as a result of the bombing in London, whether they were the children of Hungarian refugees,

or whether they are the children of ordinary Ontarians who do not have the luck and the good fortune to have good-paying jobs and to be out there in the workforce. Because, quite frankly, what is

happening to all of those children today who have their monies clawed back from them, if they have the misfortune of living in families whose parents rely on the ODSP or general welfare, is that

they have an extended life of poverty. They have $122 per month, on average, taken from each and every one of them every month -- money that they could use for food; money they could use for

clothes; money that they could use in their own family for housing or heating or electrical bills or the thousand other good purposes for which it could be spent.

I spent half an hour or so last night with 25 parents from Beaches-East York, and I was talking to them about the clawback. I was surprised to learn, although

I shouldn't have been, that most of them were unaware that your government claws back the money from the most vulnerable and the poorest children in this province. It came as quite a shock, because

they had thought, for once, that you might be compassionate.

I want to talk as well about the ODSP rates and the rates for those on general welfare. Yes, you have increased them by a paltry 3% this year, and yes, I'm

sure that the people who get the 3% increase are somewhat thankful that at least it went up and didn't remain the same, as it has for the previous eight years. But I have to tell you that that is

not an amount of money that you can justifiably be proud of. It is not an amount of money that allows people to live decent lives. It condemns them forever to a life of poverty -- grinding poverty,

poverty which is inescapable.

You have an obligation, if you want to live up to a 75-year-old wonderful tradition, not to follow the dictates of the previous government or your own weakness

in the last budget. You have an obligation, if you are to do the right thing and to live up to the wonder of Ontario, to work for these people and on behalf of these people.

You need to increase the shelter allowances, which you promised to do in the last election.

You need to start working on the FRO and its total mismanagement. You have a bill. You have a bill that virtually does nothing to help those children who

require money through the Family Responsibility Office. There's no budget for additional staff. There is nothing there for resources. There's no new computer system. I don't think taking away a

fishing licence from a father who doesn't pay quite cuts it.

We believe that we are the voice of those ordinary people. We stand day after day in this Legislature asking you to do the right thing. It is not good enough

that you stand up here and celebrate 75 years of other people's and other governments' accomplishments. You have next week to prove yourself, and simply going back over what happened 75 years ago

and all of the history of Ontario does not cut it. You have an opportunity next week to show exactly what you are made of. If you increase those rates, if you end the clawbacks, if you do something

about the Family Responsibility Office, then you will be worthy of carrying on the tradition. If not, you will be even worse than the government you replaced.

VISITORS

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw the members' attention to the member's

gallery east, where we have here today a constituent from my riding, Sarah Shannon, who is the mother of Sabrina Shannon, a child who lost her life to an anaphylactic reaction in September 2003.

Sarah is here today with other members from Anaphylaxis Canada and NASK for committee hearings in support of Bill 3, introduced by the honourable member from Brant. We welcome her here today.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): The member knows that is not a point of order.

DEFERRED VOTES

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY

OF PEEL ACT, 2005 /

LOI DE 2005 SUR LA MUNICIPALITÉ

RÉGIONALE DE PEEL

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 186,

An Act respecting the composition of the council of The Regional Municipality of Peel / Projet de

loi 186, Loi traitant de la composition du conseil de la municipalité régionale de Peel.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1420 to 1425.

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

Ayes

Arthurs, Wayne

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Bountrogianni, Marie

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Brownell, Jim

Bryant, Michael

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Cordiano, Joseph

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kwinter, Monte

Levac, Dave

Marsales, Judy

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McMeekin, Ted

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

Orazietti, David

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Qaadri, Shafiq

Racco, Mario G.

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Smitherman, George

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Watson, Jim

Wilkinson, John

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

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

Nays

Barrett, Toby

Bisson, Gilles

Dhillon, Vic

Dunlop, Garfield

Flaherty, Jim

Hardeman, Ernie

Horwath, Andrea

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Jeffrey, Linda

Kormos, Peter

Kular, Kuldip

Martiniuk, Gerry

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

Runciman, Robert W.

Scott, Laurie

Sterling, Norman W.

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tory, John

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 52; the nays are 27.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): I would ask that the bill be referred to the standing committee on finance

and economic affairs.

The Speaker: So ordered.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I believe we have unanimous consent to

move a motion without notice regarding the standing committee on finance and economic affairs.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Duncan: I move that notwithstanding any standing order, in addition to its regularly scheduled meetings, the standing committee on

finance and economic affairs be authorized to meet on Friday, May 6, 2005, for the purpose of considering Bill 186,

An Act respecting the composition of the council of The Regional Municipality of

Peel.

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

APPOINTMENTS TO LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

Mr. Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The government has submitted to the standing committee

on government agencies candidates for appointment to the local health integration networks, which are fiduciary transfer entities that, by the government's own admission, do not exist because no

legislation exists.

The Minister of Health has indicated, through documents made public by his own ministry, that legislation is forthcoming to this House. But before that

legislation has even been introduced, the government has run advertisements and hired people, as if the LHIN entities are a fait accompli.

I maintain that the evidence shows that government is in contempt of the Legislature because the Minister of Health has presupposed passage of the

legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I'm asking for you to rule whether the minister and this government are in contempt of the Legislature, because it is my understanding that there

is due process in the Legislature where bills are debated, changed and may be rejected, and that people appointed to entities that such bills might create need the bill to be in existence before

they can be appointed.

The evidence is as follows -- and I'll make four points:

(1) Government advertising was published in major daily and regional newspapers that called for applications to entities that had not been created, and the

government Web site for the Public Appointments Secretariat from December 12, 2004, said:

"The government of Ontario seeks chairs for each of the 14 local health integration networks that are being established across the province. Local health

integration networks are a key component of Ontario's health care transformation agenda with a unique mandate to support local capacity to plan, coordinate and integrate the delivery of care at the

community level within their defined geographic areas. The chair will provide leadership to the board and ensure that the board operates in accordance with legislative and regulatory requirements

of the province of Ontario."

The words "that are" presuppose that legislation creating LHINs would pass. Keep in mind that this wording was published on a government Web site and similar

ads were placed in newspapers.

The posting on the government's Public Appointments Secretariat Web site clearly gives the indication and inference that LHINs were a fait accompli.

The words "in accordance with legislative and regulatory requirements" imply on the part of the government that legislation for LHINs exists, which it does

not, by the government's own admission.

(2) Additionally, a list of 42 order-in-council appointments for the 14 LHINs was submitted to the standing committee on government agencies on April 27,

The submission of the names, in and of themselves, is a presupposition of the legislation, because the names provided were the outcome of a hiring process that

was based on an absolute absence of legislative or regulatory frameworks but with the inference that such frameworks would exist.

(3) The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care's own Web site and their most recent LHIN bulletin, number 11, published May 2, 2005, clearly state the

following, on page 1,

section 1, paragraph 3: "Through LHINs, the government intends to devolve a good deal of power and authority to the LHINs, leaving the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care

... to function as a head office, providing more strategic direction."

This clearly indicates that the government intends to devolve power and authority regarding the delivery of health care to the LHINs.

Since dozens of pieces of legislation exist that govern the provision of health care in Ontario, one can therefore assume that to devolve power, new

legislation and corresponding regulations would be needed.

The government even admitted this in the standing committee on government agencies on March 30, 2005, and this point shows that the government is intending to

move forward with legislation but has not as yet.

On page 2,

section 2, paragraph 1: "Legislation will be needed to enable LHINs to perform certain functions that are envisioned for LHINs as they evolve toward

their mature or end state. The ministry is working on policy options for the proposed legislation."

"Legislation will be needed" clearly shows the government is in contempt because legislation for LHINs has not even been introduced into this Legislature.

Given the fact that the ministry's own document was published on May 2 and that the names for the LHIN boards were submitted on April 27, 2005, the government has moved forward with appointees of

major fiduciary entities without even a framework for those entities in place or terms of reference.

(4) The terms of reference of the standing committee on government agencies given by this House state that the purpose of the committee is to review the

Lieutenant Governor in Council's appointments to an "agency, board or commission."

Since LHINs are not an agency, board or commission because no such entity exists at law until such time as legislation is brought forward, the appointment of

people to a non-existing entity is arguably outside the scope of the committee under the standing orders.

Some people might cite the precedence of the appointment of the Employment Equity Commissioner in 1991 or the education review commission in the mid-1990s,

which were Lieutenant Governor in Council appointments made before their respective commissions were created in law. However, a commission is an advisory body that does not have fiduciary

responsibilities of billions of dollars as the proposal of the government indicates with respect to LHINs.

Precedence for this comes in that all major transfer partners of the government have legislative frameworks, from hospitals to school boards to universities to

municipalities, and that governments of the past have created these institutions first.

Therefore, if positions have been advertised and filled, then the government is once again presupposing passage of a legislative framework that requires the

blessing of this House.

There is precedence for ruling in contempt on similar issues. It was on Wednesday, January 15, 1997, that the then member for Oakwood, Mr. Colle, now the

government member from Eglinton-Lawrence, rose on a question to express concern about the government's use of print media to communicate its agenda.

The advertisement questioned by the member from Eglinton-Lawrence was about the government's program for reforming municipal governance in Toronto. The member

indicated that the advertising occurred in advance of consideration by the House of legislative measures that would implement the reform agenda and in advance of public hearings. The member asked

the Speaker to determine whether this advertising affected was contempt.

In like manner, the creation of LHINs is part of the government's so-called transformation agenda, and the advertisements published by the government left a

clear impression of inevitability and conclusiveness with respect to the creation of the entity known as a LHIN.

This can be compared to the same argument made by the member regarding the finality of legislation to amalgamate Toronto in 1996, whereby Speaker Stockwell

ruled the following on January 22, 1997:

" ... the member for Oakwood also asked the Speaker to determine whether the same circumstances amounted to contempt. Erskine May explains the concept of

contempt in the following terms ... :

"`Generally speaking, any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or

impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as contempt even though there is no

precedent of the offence. It is therefore impossible to list every act which might be considered to amount to a contempt, the power to punish for such an offence being of its nature

discretionary....

"`Indignities offered to the House by words spoken or writings published reflecting on its character or proceedings have been constantly punished by the Lords

and the Commons upon the principle that such acts tend to obstruct the Houses in the performance of their functions by diminishing the respect due to them....

"`Other acts besides words spoken or writings published reflecting upon either House or its proceedings which, though they do not tend directly to obstruct or

impede either House in the performance of its functions, yet have a tendency to produce this result indirectly or by bringing such House into odium, contempt or ridicule or by lowering its

authorities may constitute contempts.'

"That is what Erskine May said on contempt."

Speaker Stockwell went on to say:

"...the ministry pamphlet, which was worded more definitively.... To name but a few examples, the brochure claims that `new city wards will be created,' that

`work on building the new city will start in 1997,' and that `the new city of Toronto will reduce the number of municipal politicians.'

"How is one to interpret such unqualified claims? In my opinion, they convey the impression that the passage of the requisite legislation was not necessary or

was a foregone conclusion, or that the assembly and the Legislature had a pro forma, tangential, even inferior role in the legislative and law-making process, and in doing so, they appear to

diminish the respect that is due to this House. I would not have come to this view had these claims or proposals -- and that is all they are -- been qualified by a statement that they would only

become law if and when the Legislature gave its stamp of approval to them....

"It is not enough for yet another Speaker to issue yet another warning or caution in circumstances where the wording and circulation of the pamphlet appear on

their face to cross the line. I say in all candour that a reader of that document could be left with an incorrect impression about how parliamentary democracy works in Ontario, an impression that

undermines respect for our parliamentary institutions.

"For these reasons then, I find that a prima facie case of contempt has been established. At the end of this ruling, I will entertain a motion with respect to

the matter of the ministry pamphlet raised by the member for Oakwood."

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, given the precedent set, I submit to you copies of the ministry publication, the terms of reference of the committee, the list of

appointees and the government advertisements that suggest the government is in contempt of the Legislature.

I would ask that you make an interim ruling to stop the appointment process that has been initiated by the government with respect to LHINs through orders in

council and that they be stopped until such time as you render a final decision on this point of privilege.

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): On that same point of privilege, Speaker: I want to tell you that New Democrats endorse the position

advanced by the member for Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford and join with him in calling upon the Speaker to make a finding of prima facie contempt. We also join with the member in his request that you

consider an interim interlocutory ruling, in view of the status of these purported appointments before the committee.

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): On the same point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The definition of "contempt" is

broad and is generally designed and used by the opposition because of its broad nature.

The fact is, the LHINs were -- in December 2004, the government approved establishment of LHINs on an interim basis by letters of patent under the Corporations

Act and supporting activities, including the wind-down of district health councils' operations. Not only does this not constitute contempt, as defined by any of the authorities, the argument the

member puts forward is patently false, simply because this is in fact an interim or a conditional opportunity that the government used in order to get the wind-down of the district health councils,

and it in no way prejudices the discussions that are going on in the Legislature nor does it presuppose a decision of the Legislature.

With respect to some kind of interim ruling by the Speaker, there's no ability, as I understand it, in the standing orders that gives the Speaker that. There

are consistent rulings by Speakers over the years that recognize the broad nature of contempt and don't try to refine it, especially based on the rather tenuous argument put forward by the member

that doesn't take into account the fact that this is an interim arrangement that was established under the letters of patent under the Corporations Act in December 2004.

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): On that point of privilege, Speaker: I wanted to add one request. It hasn't been mentioned yet in debate. It may

be helpful for you to know, as Speaker, and for the table to know, that the deadline for the subcommittee members to make their selections from these order-in-council certificates is 5 pm this

Thursday. So if it's possible to provide a ruling before then, it would simply assist the committee in its deliberations.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): I just want to first thank the member from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford for making the point of privilege

available to me some hours before. I appreciate that very much. Your point is well taken. I will say that I take this under advisement as soon as possible. I will also tell you that I will not be

ruling. I have no power to make an interim ruling on this matter until we complete the entire decision. So I will get back to you as soon as possible on this matter, and then I will make my ruling.

Thank you very much.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): In the absence of the Premier and the Minister of Finance, my question is to the Chair of Management

Board. For two days now, you and the Premier have refused to provide any sort of meaningful answers on your plans for managing Ontario's books. No wonder we're left with the impression that you're

making it up as you go along, which, of course, is exactly what you're doing.

This past year, your deficit tripled to $6 billion and you got caught attempting a creative accounting manoeuvre, as members of the media called it. Despite

this, your third-quarter financial update showed your spending continued to increase sharply by over $5 billion, or close to 9%. Would the minister confirm that the 9% spending increase was well in

excess of the budgeted number of 6.9% -- that number comes from your own budget -- and that this will be pushing the deficit even higher? Surely you can confirm that.

Hon. Gerry Phillips (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): First, what the public would expect is exactly what we will deliver, and that

is a comprehensive plan, fully outlining our plans, here in the Legislature next week.

The member opposite, when he looks at the figures, will recognize that the expenditure increase that he saw in the budget was to deal with health care. It was

to reflect the federal money that came to the province of Ontario. Are you saying, Leader of the Opposition, that we shouldn't be spending that money that's coming in from the federal government on

health care? That's exactly what we are doing, as I think the people of Ontario expect: strengthening health care, as our Minister of Health is doing, by reflecting the money that our Premier was

instrumental in helping to get for the province of Ontario. Surely you would expect that's exactly what we would do.

Mr. Tory: The minister is fond of talking about what the public expects. What they expect is an answer. The answer is simply to the question

as to whether the increased rate of spending was something that was going to force your deficit higher -- a yes or no answer.

Let's just carry on. The numbers speak for themselves. They're contained in your own third-quarter financial update. We have a 9% increase in spending,

dramatically higher than the 6.9% provided for in your own budget, plus we have $200 million or so in just the first year cost for the teachers' settlements and the doctors' settlements, which were

not included in the budget.

Since you don't seem to have the number at hand and you don't want to answer the question, can you tell me if it's reasonable to expect that, with your

increased spending of $1 billion and the new wage settlements at $200 million, the deficit will be higher by $1.2 billion?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I have the numbers. I just reported them. Again, I would say to the people of Ontario, expenditures were up. Why? You look

in the third-quarter results. We increased health spending by $828 million to reflect the federal money.

If you look at the numbers, total spending went up $605 million. So in fact the rest of the budget went down and health went up $828 million. Why? Because of

exactly what the public would expect: We took that money from the federal government and we invested it in improving the quality of health care. That's exactly, as I say, what the public would

expect and that's what we did. Congratulations to the health minister for making sure that happened.

Mr. Tory: On page 28 of last year's budget speech, the Minister of Finance stated, "The law as it currently stands does impose a fine of more

than $9,000, to be paid by all cabinet ministers in any government that runs a deficit." As I have --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Order. This is question period and I would like --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. We've just started question period. This is the first question by the leader of the official opposition, and I'm getting a

lot of heckling on the government side. I would like to proceed with question period. I think this is the final supplementary.

The leader of the official opposition.

Mr. Tory: "The law as it currently stands" -- this is quoting from the budget speech, page 28 -- "does impose a fine of more than $9,000 to be

paid by all cabinet ministers in any government that runs a deficit. As I have made clear, we have chosen" --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I fully agree with the leader of the official opposition that as soon as he starts, there is some heckling going on. I

would appreciate it if we could be quiet until we hear the question. Could we be quiet, please.

Interjection.

Mr. Tory: Do you know what? The people are embarrassed at you, not at me. Your conduct in this House is a disgrace, and the people have had

enough of it.

Let me try to continue with the quote.

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): It's not a Rosedale tea party.

The Speaker: It is not; it's the Parliament of Ontario, where we need some proper decorum.

The leader of the official opposition.

Mr. Tory: "The law as it currently stands does impose a fine of more than $9,000 to be paid by all cabinet ministers in any government that

runs a deficit. As I have made clear, we have chosen to run a deficit in the short term ... and we will pay the fine for this year."

Since then, Minister, you have brought in your fiscal transparency act that, not surprisingly, removes any fines and any responsibility for running a deficit.

When the going gets tough, remove the penalties.

My question is, can you confirm that your ministers paid the fines as of June 1 last year, as you promised they would, and will you commit to taking

responsibility every year that your government runs a deficit, at least until 2007 when you'll be gone, and continue to pay those fines, or are you going to reward yourselves for continuing to run

deficits?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: This is very rich. Yes, we did pay the fines, and the public should recognize this: Days before the last election, your

party issued a report saying the books were balanced; days after the budget, the previous Provincial Auditor looked at the books and found a $5.6-billion deficit.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I can hear as much as you do. Chair of Management Board, you'll get an opportunity to respond if your colleagues would

just be quiet a bit.

Hon. Mr. Phillips: We then introduced legislation that would make certain that before any provincial election, the Auditor General would be

required to look at the books and determine the state of the books. That party voted against it. So I would say that on fiscal transparency, yes, the cabinet ministers took a $9,000 cut in pay,

exactly as we said we would. But what the public should understand here is that this party, the McGuinty party, will now ensure that we'll never go into another election where we don't know the

true state of the finances. Your party voted against it, Mr. Tory, and I think that's very unfortunate, to say the least.

TEACHERS' CONTRACTS

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): This question is to the Chair of Management Board as well. Minister, your main role at the cabinet

table is to keep an eye on government spending. That's your job. In last year's budget, your government forecast a $2.1-billion deficit for the year just concluded. Last month, you signed an

agreement with the Ontario elementary teachers that will cost $1 billion over four years -- approximately $102 million of that for last year alone. Was the cost of the wage settlement, now worth

$102 million with elementary school teachers, factored into last year's budget?

Hon. Gerry Phillips (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I think I've said before that we are extremely proud of our Minister of

Education, who has been able to reach an agreement, a plan, with our teachers to ensure that over the next four years we strengthen our schools, we have smaller classes, we invest in teachers and

we provide our teachers with a fair and equitable settlement. The quick answer is that everything the minister did had the approval of cabinet; it is part of our fiscal plan. It is part of our

long-term fiscal plan to bring both peace and stability to our schools, to improve the quality of our education and to manage our finances responsibly. I'm very proud of our Minister of Education

for accomplishing that.

Mr. Tory: Perhaps on the supplementary the minister could try answering the question, which was whether the first settlement I referred to,

for $102 million on last year's deficit, was included in the deficit projection of $2.1 billion made by the minister in his budget. And then I'll add to that, could you confirm -- and if you just

told us yes or no it would be a lot easier -- whether the additional cost of the settlement reached with the secondary school teachers, at $61 million for last year, was included in last year's

budget. Could you confirm, yes or no, included or not?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I can absolutely confirm that all of the plans that the minister has come forward with have been included in our plans. You

will see the details a week today -- seven days and one hour from now -- and I would again say it won't be at an auto plant; it will be here in the Legislature. But I can assure you and the public

that the agreement the minister reached is a fiscally responsible agreement, it has the enormous benefits of bringing peace and stability to our schools for the next four years, and it's a fair

agreement for our teachers and, importantly, a fair agreement for the public. Those finances were all planned for and part of our fiscal plan.

Mr. Tory: This is the most troubling thing of all. The fact is that you are the man in charge of safeguarding the public's expenditures and

their money. In your own budget papers of last year it said that there were expense risks and sensitivities where you'd estimated what they'd be on a per point basis, as to how much you settled for

and so forth, and the numbers were not included in your budget, so that these two numbers -- for the teachers' settlements and the effect on last year, and I was going to ask you about the doctors'

settlement -- were not included, because they are listed here as expense risks and sensitivities. They're not included in the budget. How can you come in here and tell us they were included in the

plans when your own budget says they weren't?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Phillips: The public may not have heard, "Make it up as you go," and that from the party -- I hate to say it -- that said there was a

balanced budget one day, and 30 days later the point was that it was a $5.6-billion deficit. The making it up as you go is over there.

Again I say to the leader of the official opposition, I'd ask you to wait until next Wednesday, when the details of our fiscal plan will be outlined. But

everything the minister has come forward with is part of our fiscal plan, responsibly done. I think you will see on Wednesday that the finances of the province are well planned for, plus we are

doing what we said we would do: improving the quality of education, improving the quality of our health care, and making sure we have a strong economy.

FUNDING OF PUBLIC SERVICES

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Acting Premier. Yesterday we learned that Premier McGuinty is going to have a

meeting with Prime Minister Paul Martin on Saturday; we are told it's for the purposes of discussing the gap. The only gap that Ontarians care about is the gap between the McGuinty government's

election promises and your failure to keep those promises. Ontarians want to know that any additional federal money that you receive from Paul Martin won't simply be pocketed in the same way that

the McGuinty government has pocketed money from the national child benefit.

My question is, will you commit today to the people of Ontario that any new money the McGuinty government receives from the federal government following this

weekend will be used to restore Ontario's public services, as you promised?

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): Premier McGuinty identified a major issue for this province as it relates to

the federal government and equalization: a $23-billion gap between what Ontarians pay and what we get back. The Premier has taken a responsible position that acknowledges the importance of this

province's contributing to the health and well-being of our country, recognizing that Ontarians see themselves first as Canadians, and the Premier has convinced the Prime Minister to meet with him

to discuss these issues. I'm sure there will be a range of issues that are discussed. I'm glad that for the first time in many years, a leader of the province of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty, has

raised this issue and done it in a way that will yield benefits not only for Ontarians but for all Canadians, as a result of this economy's being able to function better and more strongly.

Mr. Hampton: I thought it was a very simple question. We heard Dalton McGuinty promise before the election that money was going to be

committed to improve Ontario's public services, yet today I can't get an answer from the minister.

I just want to review with you again the sorry situation of the national child benefit. These are the lowest-income children and families in the province.

Before the election, Dalton McGuinty said it was wrong to take money from these low-income children and families. He said he was going to end the clawback of the national child benefit, and it is

actually federal money; it's federal money that's supposed to go to these low-income children and families. Now, two years into your government, you haven't ended this sorry situation.

A simple question: Will you commit today that any new money you receive from the federal government will be used by the McGuinty government to end the

clawback, to stop taking money from the poorest children in this province?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: This government has moved in a way that no previous governments have to assist children, and the most vulnerable children,

in this province over the course of its first two years in office. This province ranks last in investing in colleges and universities and second-last in federal funding for health care. We are

talking about improving public services, all public services: We've put $3 billion into health care and schools; the gas tax money we've transferred to municipalities.

The member opposite simply has it wrong when he tries to suggest that this government has done nothing for the children of this province. We on this side of

the House are proud that our Premier will be meeting with the Prime Minister of Canada on Saturday to discuss the $23-billion gap. We are hopeful that the federal response will assist us as we

continue to aid the most vulnerable in this province, as we continue to invest in public services and undo the damage of the previous two governments.

Mr. Hampton: This is unbelievable. It was Dalton McGuinty who said that it was morally wrong to be taking federal money -- $1,500 a year from

a one-child family, $3,000 a year from a two-child family -- from these low-income kids and their families. Now we have Paul Martin going across the country, handing out hundreds of millions of

dollars in British Columbia, in Saskatchewan, in Manitoba and now in Ontario.

I simply ask the McGuinty government, will you keep your promise to the lowest-income children? Is there some reason? Didn't you mean the promise? Was the

promise insincere? If you're going to get hundreds of millions of dollars of new money, will you at least stop clawing back the money from the poorest kids in the province?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Again the member opposite neglects the fact that $7 million from the national child benefit is going to children this

year, and more than $22 million will be going next year. That question is simply not accurate in its presupposition.

The Premier of Ontario has led the fight to ensure fairness for this province, to ensure that the economic engine of our great nation continues to thrive and

prosper, so that Ontarians, who see themselves first and foremost as Canadians, can continue to produce the wealth that will see other parts of this country with a higher standard of living.

I am proud of the leadership role our Premier has taken. We look forward to the discussions between the Premier and the Prime Minister next Saturday. I only

wish the member opposite had as wide a vision of this country and its future as does the Premier of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): New question.

Mr. Hampton: A new question to the Acting Premier: My vision right now is of a Premier who makes a promise to the poorest kids in Ontario,

kids who are trying to struggle to survive on social assistance, and says, "We're going to stop taking money out of your pocket." Now we have the prospect of the federal government turning over

more money to the province. I'm simply asking you, will you keep your promise? Will you stop taking money from the poorest kids in Ontario?

Let me ask the question a little differently. Before the election, the Premier promised that children over age six would receive IBI treatment. Now your

government is spending taxpayers' money fighting against those very children receiving IBI treatment for autism. Will you commit today that you'll stop fighting autistic children and fund IBI

treatment for children over six, as Premier McGuinty promised?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: I'll refer this to the minister of children's services.

Hon. Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children and Youth Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): There are more services available

to children with autism today than ever before. We have significantly increased the funding. We've expanded our preschool program. We have implemented a new school-based program to supplement the

good programs already happening in the schools across this province, and closing the gap between the rural and the non-rural areas as well. So we're moving very well on this file and for all

special-needs children in Ontario.

Mr. Hampton: A justice of the Superior Court listened to that argument put forward by the McGuinty government and said it was complete

hogwash. In fact, she said you are breaching the constitutional rights of those autistic children. That's where you can take that argument, Minister.

I want to ask about another McGuinty promise, that $420 million would be added to long-term care for our seniors, a very specific promise. Now into the second

year of the McGuinty government, we haven't seen $420 million in funding for long-term care. We've barely seen $116 million. Will you commit today, Acting Premier, that any new money you receive

from the federal government will be used to keep your promise to seniors who depend upon long-term care in this province?

Hon. Mrs. Bountrogianni: The Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, please.

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): A careful examination of the estimates of the Ministry of Health for the year

2004-05 will indicate that our total expansion and funding for long-term care in fact totals closer to $450 million, combined with enhanced care and standards for existing beds and the expansion of

beds in Ontario.

I look forward to continuing to work alongside those organizations that are lending important support to some of our most vulnerable who call long-term-care

home, working to restore a culture of a home-like environment. All of those people who are involved in those sectors on the front lines, I think, would comment to the honourable member that they've

been involved in a very considerable effort on a variety of fronts to enhance the quality of care for some of Ontario's most vulnerable.

Mr. Hampton: Before the election, the McGuinty Liberals made up the promises as they went along. Now, after the election, you make up the

numbers as you go along.

I want to ask about another number. This is about the promise to hire 8,000 additional new nurses. What we saw earlier this winter was that in fact almost

1,000 nurses were being laid off. Can the McGuinty government commit that any new money you get from Paul Martin as a result of discussions this weekend will be used to keep that promise to hire

8,000 new additional nurses rather than firing almost 1,000 nurses, as you did earlier this year?

Hon. George Smitherman: The honourable member's tenuous grasp of reality is becoming evident in question period today. First off is the

reality that I met this morning with Doris Grinspun, the executive director of RNAO. Doris could not name one nurse who has been laid off. Obviously there is a --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: Then send me that name, please.

There is a contraction of the number of hours in some institutions, but the reality is that through a variety of funding initiatives, in hospitals large and

small, in long-term-care homes, in community mental health, in home care, 3,052 new full-time nursing positions have been created by this government to date, toward our commitment of 8,000.

REPORT OF THE ONTARIO BEVERAGE ALCOHOL SYSTEM REVIEW PANEL

Mr. Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): My question is to the acting Premier, in the absence of the Minister of Finance. Where is the report of the

Ontario beverage alcohol system review panel?

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): The report is still being developed. There have been consultations ongoing.

The report has not come back to cabinet yet, but as to the Premier's undertaking and the government's undertaking at the time, that report, when it's complete, will be available and will likely be

discussed at great length both here in the House and, indeed, across the province of Ontario.

Mr. Flaherty: What is the date set for the delivery of the report? The terms of reference provide that the panel is to provide its advice and

recommendations in a written report to the Minister of Finance in spring 2005, on a date to be approved by the minister. What is the date that has been approved by the minister, and will you

guarantee to the people of Ontario that the LCBO will not be dealt with in the budget before the report of the panel is produced and the people of Ontario have a chance to consider its

recommendations?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: Obviously I can't comment on the contents of the budget. The government has said that this report will be back this spring.

Perhaps the member is anxious to get it back because his opinion and his leader's position on the LCBO differ. The member opposite wants to sell it; the leader doesn't. They are quite worlds apart

on that whole issue. That might explain the member's ambitions to leave this place and run for a seat for the federal Parliament.

CHILD CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath (Hamilton East): My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Minister, as you know, Friday you will be

announcing the federal deal on child care. Last week, Manitoba and Saskatchewan both announced that they had signed their agreements. Manitoba's agreement says it will "make investments in its

community-based non-profit early learning and child care sector." Saskatchewan's agreement says it will "support the development of regulated early learning and non-profit child care." Why? Because

non-profit is better for kids, and it's easier on taxpayers' wallets. Minister, will your agreement this Friday commit to a not-for-profit system?

Hon. Marie Bountrogianni (Minister of Children and Youth Services, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): I'm looking forward to signing

the agreement with the federal government. We've announced our Best Start plan. The majority of the new spaces will be in schools. Right now, 95% of the spaces in schools are not for-profit. We

don't anticipate this to change.

Having said that, we do need to have flexibility in the system. That's what the rural areas have told me. In some areas, there would be no child care spaces if

we closed the for-profit spaces. We have to be reasonable and not base our decisions on blind ideology like the members opposite do.

Ms. Horwath: Well, Minister, once the multinational companies hear that there's $281 million of federal money coming to Ontario, the

floodgates are going to open. It happened in home care -- we've learned that -- and it's going to happen in child care, too. You can grandfather today's mom-and-pop operations and close the door on

future big-box operations like Blackstock, like Knowledge Learning Corp., like ABC. Don't be naïve, Minister, don't be naïve. If you build it, they will come. But you can build it right

this time. You do have the opportunity to commit to closing the floodgates and making sure that non-profit child care is the standard in your agreement.

Hon. Mrs. Bountrogianni: I can assure the honourable member that we will build the system right. We've already begun to build a good system of

child care in this province. We've created more than 4,000 spaces in our first year alone, and spent child care money from the federal government on child care for the first time in a decade. And I

want to reassure her not to misinterpret my flexibility and patience as naïveté. I know what I'm doing.

SEXUAL ASSAULT CRISIS CENTRES

Mr. Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East): My question today is for the minister responsible for women's issues. As you know, May is Sexual Assault

Awareness Month. While sexual assault awareness and prevention are something that we are always concerned about, the importance of this issue has recently hit close to home for the constituents of

my riding. There's been a dramatic increase in sexual assaults in Mississauga, particularly in and around my riding. In fact, over the past few months the number of reported sexual assaults has now

reached double digits.

Minister, could you please tell the House what this government is doing to raise awareness around this issue, and what we are doing today to prevent sexual

assaults in the future?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for women's issues): This is Sexual Assault Awareness

Month. It is a time where every one of us in this House must do our part to ensure that our communities, our attitudes in our societies, change. It's very difficult to understand that one third of

all Canadian women have experienced some form of sexual assault. The largest group, in terms of victims, is those who are under the age of 25.

We were very pleased to work with our Attorney General to announce this spring an increase of $1.9 million, going to 36 different sexual assault crisis

centres. This was an increase of over 8%, the first time they've seen any new funding in the last 13 years. We're very pleased to provide that kind of support because we understand that the work

they must do today is growing, and we absolutely have to respond to the particular needs of women.

Mr. Fonseca: I'm glad to hear that our government is working hard to prevent sexual assaults through education and through raising awareness

of sexual assault.

In addition to awareness and prevention, it's crucial that we provide victims of sexual assault with necessary community supports and programs. Minister, can

you tell the House what we are doing to support victims of sexual assault to ensure that they're getting the access to the resources and help that they need?

Hon. Ms. Pupatello: I'm very happy to take this opportunity to indicate that Madeleine Meilleur, the minister responsible for francophone

affairs, joined me in this very large announcement this spring. What that meant was that we were able to fill gaps in some of the areas that were lacking for our sexual assault crisis centres'

providing services in French. We know that there was a huge response to that: finally, a government recognizing that there was a gap here.

We provided an additional $900,000 to sexual assault centres to increase and bring their level of funding up to those other sexual assault crisis centres. So,

yes, they're on a stronger financial footing. This House should also remember, in the release of our domestic violence action plan, a significant historic funding for public education in the order

of $4.9 million over the next four years, getting at the very root of gender equality. That is something that we have a responsibility to do, and finally our government is getting at it.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs. Julia Munro (York North): My question is for the Minister of Health.

The Speaker: I understand that the minister is on his way and will be in his seat as you ask the question.

Mrs. Munro: Minister, the GTA/905 Health Care Alliance shocked all of us yesterday when they revealed that the four regions around Toronto

received $544 million less in hospital funding than the provincial average. At the same time, the residents are paying $573 million a year for the McGuinty health tax. Yet Kirk Corkery of the

alliance told us that many 905 residents must still travel to downtown Toronto for chronic treatments such as chemotherapy and kidney dialysis.

Minister, when will your government stop talking and start taking action to meet the health care needs of 905 residents?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I'm surprised that a member who until 18 months ago was part of a government

would pretend that this is a circumstance that was created on our watch. Of course, we acknowledge that there are real growth pressures in the 905, but to suggest that a municipal boundary is not

permeable, from the standpoint of the delivery of health care services, is I think a little bit rich.

The honourable member asks the question, what are we doing? I should say that South Lake Hospital, the one closest to her home and in her riding, has received

a $53.2-million increase in funding as a result of our government's initiatives. Of the 11 hospitals covered in that study, here's what's happening: A new program for cardiac surgery at Trillium

Health Centre, $19.2 million for a new cardiac care centre at South Lake Hospital, a new cancer centre at Credit Valley, a new cancer centre at Lakeridge Health, a new hospital at William Osler,

$46 million for an expansion at York Central and a new MRI, a new MRI at Markham Stouffville -- all acknowledgement that growth to be supported in the 905 is important, and more to come on that

point.

Mrs. Munro: Our PC government increased health spending by $10 billion. We did increase the number of both cardiac centres and cancer centres

by one third. We expanded emergency room capacity from 3.5 million to 5.4 million visits per year. We launched a new hospital in Brampton and gave seed funding to a new cancer centre in Newmarket.

We had a plan for hospitals and health care. Expansion in the 905 was a vital part of our plan. Your government has shown that it has no plan, and you have been in office for 18 months. When will

we see your plan?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: Your announcements do not make a plan. The reality is that it was left to our government to fund the expansion of health

care services in the 905, and we have done that. There will be a continued pattern of that, respecting the fact that there is growth going on in the 905.

Rather than take a partisan approach to this, which is what surprises me on the part of the honourable member, I think we can all acknowledge that there's a

need for very necessary investments in the 905. We have no quarrel on that point.

I merely suggest that the analysis that they did around the numbers discredits the idea that someone living in Woodbridge should have to travel, as an example,

to the Humber River health care system, that there's some problem because you cross Steeles Avenue. I'd just argue that I think that the analysis was flawed on that basis.

I can confirm for the honourable member, though, that in the work we do, we must do a better job of acknowledging the growth pressures that are there in our

health care system. As we move forward, I think the honourable member will see that the funding work we're doing, as an example, with the Ontario Hospital Association will work even harder to

acknowledge the growth pressures for those precious 905 hospitals, which we value so much.

ANTI-TOBACCO LEGISLATION

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): To the Minister of Health: In your election platform, Liberals promised, "We will ban countertop and

behind-the-counter retail displays of tobacco products." Will the government keep that promise by supporting the NDP amendment to your bill that will ban power walls immediately?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I can't speak to what decisions might be arrived at by the legislative

committee that's doing a fine body of work in considering this bill, but on the point, I could answer with one word and say yes; that is, I'd be offering some advice to members that the amendment

brought forward by our colleague from Ottawa is an important one.

Having said that, the legislation, as written, does give the government the appropriate power in regulation to achieve that commitment that we made and that we

stand by. All of these things taken together mean we will have one of the most comprehensive and powerful bills on tobacco cessation in North America.

Mr. Kormos: Minister, your colleague's amendment to ban power walls in 2008 maintains the most pervasive and influential and impactful

advertising and propaganda scheme that influences young people in particular to smoke that remains in this province. The Martel NDP amendment allows you to keep your promise, which is to ban

countertop and behind-the-counter retail displays of tobacco products. Will you keep your promise to ban power walls?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: Yes. By supporting the amendment brought forward by the member from Ottawa-Orléans, we will be in a position to do

that and, at the very same time, move forward within one year, if the amendment is supported by members of the committee and eventually the Legislature -- support that I don't presume but that I'm

hopeful for.

Not only will we achieve that, but we will achieve it in a fashion which recognizes that small business operators also have challenges associated with their

operation. As a former retailer, I can assure the honourable member that this government is extraordinarily mindful of the challenges associated for these store operators.

Yes. In a one-word answer to the honourable member, will we fulfill this commitment? Yes, we will.

AEROSPACE INDUSTRY

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): My question today is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Oakville recently has seen some

great investments. I bring up the $1-million commitment by Ford of Canada to my community, but there is another Oakville success story I would like to ask you about today. Recently, the first

Airbus A380 landed after its maiden voyage in Europe. When the Airbus lands, it's travelling at about 200 miles per hour and 167 tonnes come smashing on to the axles of the landing gear. Thanks to

the skilled and dedicated employees at Goodrich, this incredible new plane and its passengers will be landing safely. Airbus trusted one company with the manufacture of the landing gear for the

A380. That company is Goodrich, which is right here in Oakville, right here in Ontario. Minister, could you expand on this announcement and what the building of the Airbus A380 means to the Ontario

economy?

Hon. Joseph Cordiano (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I'm delighted to report on the great work that's being done by Goodrich in

Oakville. It's another fine example of a great Ontario economic success story. The plant has 770 workers. The contract to produce landing gear for the Airbus is expected to be worth about $6

billion. But Goodrich is not the only beneficiary. Cantwell, Cullen of Oakville will be supplying circuit boards to Honeywell for eventual use in the A380. Honeywell Mississauga will have 300

employees on their project, which required a 3,200 foot expansion. The Airbus contract should lead to a 20% to 25% increase in business. CFN Precision in Vaughan makes nuts, pins and squares for

the Airbus. This new contract will mean long-term work for Mississauga's Likro Precision, another 50 employees. So there's a lot of good news in the aerospace industry, and this is good news for

Ontario's economy.

Interjections.

Mr. Flynn: Certainly, the Airbus contract is a huge vote of confidence in the Ontario economy. Goodrich is, of course, only one of many

aerospace producers in Ontario. The aerospace sector is a large part of the Ontario economy. The aerospace and defence industry employs about 23,000 people in Ontario. The Ontario aerospace

industry has sales of over $6 billion. Minister, this House has heard a lot about our tremendous success in the auto sector, but could you please inform the House of your efforts on behalf of

Ontario's aerospace industry in general?

Hon. Mr. Cordiano: I would remind the members of the opposition who were heckling that the aerospace sector is a very important sector of

Ontario's economy. It employs 23,000 people. This government is taking a leadership role when it comes to the aerospace sector. We're working with the national aerospace partnership council to

further Ontario's interests, as part of a country-wide aerospace plan. I've been working with tier 1 suppliers like Goodrich and Honeywell to keep this industry strong and viable well into the

future. This government has taken action with respect to investing in education and in health care, ensuring that we have a highly skilled, highly productive workforce. That is the key to our

long-term economic success. We are doing all those things to make certain the aerospace industry is strong well into the future.

SMART METERS

Mr. John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Energy. I was reading in the local press yesterday, specifically in the Brantford

Expositor, about smart meters. The

article says, "City council wants the Ontario government to pull the plug on its surprise plan to set up a new corporation that would own all hydro meters in the

province."

My question to you on the smart meter debate is, will you assure the House that the McGuinty government will not turn over the ownership of smart meters and

their operation to yet another layer of bureaucracy in the Liberal government?

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): We have begun to have discussions with local distribution companies, indeed

municipalities, around the implementation of smart meters. We believe very strongly in smart meters. By the way, most LDCs, I think, share our view that smart meters are the way to go. I wouldn't

want the member to characterize anything that's said as being in opposition to smart meters. We agree with the C.D. Howe Institute.

Unlike the previous government, we do consult, we do listen to people. I know there are many local distribution companies here at the Legislature today. In

fact, I will be meeting with the association after question period today, yet again, to discuss the implementation of smart meters. I will remind members in the House that this government is

committed to putting in 800,000 meters by 2007 and all meters by 2010. We're committed to that. We will achieve it.

Mr. O'Toole: I'm well aware that the Electricity Distributors Association, which we would call in our communities the local distribution

companies, is here today in the Legislature, and I'm hearing from many of them. The Rideau St. Lawrence Utilities, Waterloo North Hydro Inc., Atikokan and others have made it very clear that you're

in a bullheaded way moving forward.

Here's what they're saying, Minister: "Stripping meter ownership from LDCs would have negative impacts on the vital contributions that local distributions have

to local government." Another comment: "Stripping meter ownership from LDCs would unnecessarily require complicated new accounting mechanisms to create support markets to settlements." "Stripping

meter ownership from LDCs would unnecessarily complicate utilities' access to the very data to develop the bills."

Minister, you know that LDCs have a first-hand relationship with the consumer. Why would you create another level of bureaucracy and strip this valuable asset

from the local distribution, all this in the context of yesterday's discussion on Bill 92? Have you consulted with the municipalities of Ontario, like AMO?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: As I indicated to the member, we have begun consultations. We will be discussing the issue with AMO.

One thing should be clear to the people of Ontario: We are moving to smart meters. People like the member opposite may not want them. They may want to use

100-year-old technology in order to measure electricity. We think there are advantages to smart meters that will pay benefits to both small consumers -- indeed, many large consumers have had them

for some time. Implementation, how we implement, what means will be used to implement, are decisions that have not been taken at this point by the government. We have begun consultations with the

EDA as well as a number of other individual local distribution companies. The decisions will be forthcoming. We will establish a legislative framework. Unlike the previous government, we'll send

that framework out for consultation. Many of the issues that are of concern to the LDCs and others who have an interest in seeing that these meters do come into place and understand the benefits of

them --

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): New question.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I have a question to the Deputy Premier. Deputy Premier, you'll know that ATV trail associations and

snowmobile associations across this province are struggling to purchase liability insurance. When they go to renew their insurance, the rates go up and the coverage goes down. My question to you

is, are you prepared to do something to lower the liability insurance for these organizations this year?

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): No government certainly in recent memory has done more to lower insurance

rates than the McGuinty government has. I will say this: Unlike that member and his party, who made commitments on auto insurance, publicly owned auto insurance, and then failed to keep them --

indeed, the member for Welland was forced to leave the family as a result of that broken commitment -- we have done as much as any government can do to lower insurance premiums for people in this

province. I remind the member opposite that your broken promise did nothing for these people either. This government and our finance minister, assisted by his parliamentary assistant, Mr. Colle,

have worked tirelessly, and we've seen real decreases in insurance premiums in Ontario as a result of this government's undertakings.

Mr. Bisson: What a crock. I can't believe the member gets up in this House and tries to make us believe that all of a sudden liability

insurance in this province is going down. The reality is, under your watch, liability insurance has increased. It has not gone down; it has gone up. People are not able to renew their insurance

when it comes to liability. You've got some of the ATV clubs that have already shut down, others that are announcing they'll probably shut down this summer because they can't afford the liability

insurance.

My question is a very simple one, and I'd like you to do something about it. Read my lips here: What are you prepared to do to lower liability insurance for

those organizations?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: I'm prepared to refer it to the Minister of Tourism.

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): First of all, I want to compliment my parliamentary assistant, Tim Peterson, who

has been relentless in pursuing this matter with those who have an interest in trails. In fact, he has led the consultation on a trails policy in Ontario. In addition to that, the Ministry of

Tourism and Recreation has brought together representatives of the insurance industry, led by Mark Yakabuski, along with representatives of those who are operating snowmobiles and, in particular,

ATVs to try to find some common ground.

You will know that there was a concern on the weekend that some trails would have to close down because of liability considerations. I can assure you that that

matter was resolved on the weekend. There's a reasonable price now and those trails remain open. That doesn't mean we won't continue to work with these associations, my parliamentary assistant and

others, and that we'll develop policies --

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Thank you very much. New question?

COMMUNITIES IN ACTION FUND

Ms. Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): My question today is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. On March 16 this year, I had the pleasure

of announcing a communities in action fund grant in the amount of $39,180 to Sport Hamilton in my riding of Hamilton West. It was a wonderful ceremony in the council chambers of Hamilton city hall

that was met with tremendous appreciation. If you could only have seen the look on the faces of these new Canadians who were able to play soccer. It was just absolutely terrific. Minister, can you

tell the Legislature today a little more about the communities in action fund?

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): I would like to thank the member for her question. It's an outstanding question. I

can tell her that in many communities throughout the entire province of Ontario, especially in the large urban centres such as Hamilton, there's a need for government to invest in programs which

provide recreational opportunities for distinctly underserviced sections of the population.

The communities in action fund is part of this government's sport and physical activity strategy called Active 2010, which aims to help Ontarians become more

active. The communities in action fund aims to bring about a physical activity and community sport culture in Ontario by helping local and provincial not-for-profit organizations provide and

enhance opportunities for physical activity and community sport and recreation, especially for those who face barriers to participation.

So I think the member's question is a good one and the fund is an excellent one.

Ms. Marsales: To me, the communities in action fund is important because it's a grassroots program led by local organizations that truly

understand and are committed to providing opportunity for those often neglected segments of our population. For instance, the community in action fund grant I announced will give over 400 immigrant

children and adults throughout Hamilton, especially the concentrated immigrant populations in downtown and in the east end, the opportunity to participate in recreational activities and train them

to provide these opportunities within their own immigrant community. Minister, can you give a few more details about this particular grant in my riding, and why grants such as the community in

action fund are so important to communities like mine in Hamilton?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member certainly recognizes this as an important program. I can say to her, the Sport Hamilton project will provide

recreational opportunities for immigrant children and simultaneously assist the immigrant community in Hamilton to develop skills that will help them take ownership of the future direction of these

recreational opportunities. Participants will gain a sense of ownership of the recreation program, enabling them to support its ongoing delivery for other new immigrants and their families.

I want to say that the member is exactly right when she speaks about this money going directly to caring, dedicated organizations like Sport Hamilton to assist

those parts of our population that often do not have the opportunity to participate in sport due to the lack of financial resources available to them and other barriers, such as language. This

government is committed to removing those barriers through the program, and will continue to make investments to promote active living, especially amongst those most vulnerable in our ridings.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr. Cameron Jackson (Burlington): My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, on March 3, I asked you a question in

the House where you confirmed that your government was considering implementing a strategy called reference-based drug pricing for our province, which would affect seniors and persons of low income

on the Ontario Drug Benefit Plan.

Lillian Morganthau, who is the president of the Canadian Association for the Fifty Plus, has said, "Make no mistake. Any policy which forces seniors to stop

using a medication that works well for them will be viewed as nothing more than a health care cut."

Minister, will you confirm today that you have now taken this offensive policy off the table, as recommended by seniors' groups and Ontario pharmacists, and

that you are not considering implementing that in our province?

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I find it interesting that the honourable member, who, on June 10, 1997, said,

in part, "Why has no government to date, at the federal or provincial level, been listening to them about why they are so overmedicated, why prescribing guidelines aren't here, why we're not

reviewing drug pricing mechanisms," would now be taking up an issue with that tone.

I had a very good chance quite recently to speak to the individual whom the honourable member quoted in his question. We're going to do more talking on this

issue as we seek to grapple with one of the biggest fiscal challenges that the government faces, while at the same time recognizing that there are some medication challenges out there for our

seniors. All I acknowledge to the honourable member is that we have a $3-billion program that's under a 15% annualized pressure. As a result, of course, we're going to be doing a lot of talking to

determine what mechanisms would be appropriate.

Mr. Jackson: Minister, we both agree that Ontarian seniors are overmedicated. It's the strategies that are going to be implemented in order to

get better health outcomes. What seniors are telling you, if you will listen, is that increasing their costs or reducing access does not lead, in and of itself, to better health outcomes.

Ontario's seniors have come to trust the Ontario professional pharmacists in each of their communities to speak up on their behalf. These pharmacists are

alarmed that your government is still considering restricting access and increasing costs for about 2.1 million of Ontario's citizens through the use of these reference-based pricing

mechanisms.

Minister, you said on March 3, in answer to my question, "I look forward to the ongoing interest" of seniors' groups. I'm asking you, Minister: Will you sit

down and have meaningful dialogue, invite the Ontario pharmacists to the table, whose interests are in the best interests of the health outcomes for seniors in this province, bring them to the

table, take reference-based pricing off the table and put pharmacists at the table so they can come up with a solution?

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: First, the honourable member suggested that it would be inappropriate to increase costs because it has an impact on

seniors. Maybe he wants to revisit the decision made by his government to introduce co-pay. Maybe that's something that you want to do in retrospect.

With respect to this issue of --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Smitherman: I'm going to tell John Tory that you're heckling.

With respect to the issue of dialogue and involvement, first, I had, I think, an hour-and-a-half-long meeting with Lillian Morganthau and others from CARP. I'm

meeting, I believe, this next Saturday with the Ontario Pharmacists' Association -- part of an ongoing series of meetings that I have with them.

To the issue of talking to the people whom it would be appropriate to talk to about a policy as important as that, I sure can confirm for the honourable member

that that's not just our plan but it's already scheduled.

INDUSTRIAL COGENERATION FACILITATOR

Mr. Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, in February of this year you said, "Cogeneration

can significantly reduce costs for large industrial users and result in tremendous operational efficiencies.... The appointment of an industrial cogeneration facilitator is yet another example of

our government's commitment to deal with electricity issues in a practical, sensible and responsible way."

Two and a half months later, Minister, while paper mills are shutting down paper machines and pulp mills are closing, and hundreds of good-paying jobs are

being lost, where is the McGuinty government's cogeneration facilitator?

Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy, Government House Leader): In fact, since that announcement, we have been working with a number of

representatives in the industries that'll be most affected. We've identified 12 sites that we believe are the most pressing. We have been meeting with them individually to discuss what their needs

are. These discussions will lead to the appointment of the industrial cogeneration facilitator. I expect to be in a position to announce that shortly.

I don't believe two and a half months is too long a period. To suggest that nothing has been going on over that course of time is simply not accurate. The

information we are gathering from a number of these potential cogeneration sites is important as we define the mandate of the new facilitator. I believe we'll be able to hit the ground running as a

result of these last two and a half months and the discussions that have been ongoing with respect to those.

Mr. Hampton: Minister, the pulp and paper companies, through Bowater, came to the Bill 100 hearings in August last year and told you that your

policy of increasing industrial electricity rates was going to force paper mills to start shutting down operations and laying off hundreds of workers. You've literally had nine months to do

something about this, and you promised to do something back in February.

More mills are closing. Companies have announced that they're selling mills with the prospect of them being closed, and yet your government has done nothing.

Minister, where is the industrial cogeneration facilitator you promised, or is this again just another McGuinty broken promise?

Hon. Mr. Duncan: This is the first government that has actually talked about industrial cogeneration facilities with that industry. For

instance, two weeks ago, the Premier met with the CEO of Bowater. There are a number of issues we have been canvassing, as I say: the most likely facilities where cogeneration will work. I believe

this work is going to lead to good recommendations to allow the cogeneration facilitator to begin his or her work when we make the appointment, which I can assure the member will be very soon. To

suggest that nothing has happened since last year is patently false.

What I would suggest is, 14 mills closed when the NDP was the government of Ontario. Had his party and his government not cancelled the Conawapa deal, maybe

this wouldn't be so urgent. Had his party not cancelled all conservation initiatives, this wouldn't have been necessary.

This government has a plan. We're implementing it. We're doing things you never dreamt of. We're going to help the people of this province deal with the crisis

in electricity that you and the Tories left behind.

PETITIONS

ANTI-TOBACCO LEGISLATION

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): These are petitions with signatures garnered at the finance committee hearings in Tillsonburg and

also submitted by Delhi District German Home. It's entitled:

"Bill 164 Deserves Additional Hearings

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario" through the legislative committee on finance and economic affairs:

"Whereas House leaders negotiated four days of hearings on the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, but 225 people and organizations applied to testify; and

"Whereas 137 people" and organizations "have not had an opportunity to testify; for example, Avondale Stores Ltd., Ontario Minister of Health, Imperial

Tobacco, Ontario medical officer of health, Taps Tavern, Toronto Councillor Frances Nunziata and the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health;

"We, the undersigned, request that the Ontario government consult with the remaining 137 applicants and, subsequently, this Legislative Assembly committee hold

additional hearings."

I agree with the call for more hearings and affix my signature to these petitions.

Hon. David Caplan (Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Could we can stop the clock? In light of all

the ministerial statements and deferred votes, I seek unanimous consent that we have a full 15 minutes for petitions in today's proceedings.

The Speaker (Hon. Alvin Curling): Do we have unanimous consent? I heard a no.

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): I'm pleased to submit petitions signed by 109 people from all across Ontario who have written to support

action on behalf of anaphylactic stu