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

May 26, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-May-26 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 26 May 2009 Mardi 26 mai 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINING AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES MINES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

TAXATION

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

NUCLEAR WASTE

FIREFIGHTERS

JURY SELECTION

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

HEALTH CARE

DRIVER LICENCES

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

MINING INDUSTRY

GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS

NEWBORN SCREENING

VISITOR

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

RELAY FOR LIFE

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

COMMUNITY CUP

PINGLE'S FARM MARKET

ONTARIO VETERINARY COLLEGE

KIDS' FISHING DAY

GUYANA INDEPENDENCE DAY

YORK MEMORIAL

COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE

ENERGY CONSERVATION

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

IMMIGRANTS' SKILLS

PETITIONS

TAXATION

POWER PLANT

ONTARIO BUDGET

SCHOOL FACILITIES

WORKPLACE INSURANCE

CHILD CUSTODY

TAXATION

FIREARMS CONTROL

TAXATION

ONTARIO BUDGET

MOTORCYCLE SAFETY

HOSPITAL FUNDING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET MEASURES ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR

LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

(KEEPING OUR KIDS SAFE

AT SCHOOL), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

(SÉCURITÉ DE NOS ENFANTS

À L'ÉCOLE)

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good morning. Please remain standing for the Lord's Prayer, followed by the non-denominational prayer.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINING AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES MINES

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 13, 2009, on the motion for second reading of Bill 173,

An Act to amend the Mining Act / Projet de loi 173, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les mines.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Further debate?

M me France Gélinas: It's my pleasure to add a few of my sentiments regarding Bill 173, the Mining Amendment Act, 2009. First of all, the Ontario Mining Act was passed in 1873. This was a long time ago, at a time when picks and shovels were used for mining. I would invite everybody to come and see Dynamic Earth in Sudbury. At Dynamic Earth, first you see a great explosion, which created the Sudbury basin, which is so rich in minerals. But then are you taken through a mine that lives through time, so you actually get to see what a mine used to look like in and around 1873, when the Mining Act was first introduced.

Then you look at what a mine looked like in about 1950, and finally, as you continue on your journey, you look at what a mine looks like in 2009. So you can see the picks and shovels and the lights and the dynamite that was used back then, and then you see the leg drills and everything from the 1950s. But you also get to see the remote-controlled jumbo drills that are presently used in mining.

I thought I would put a little claim in there for a very famous tourist attraction in Sudbury, but that also has to do with the Mining Act, because you can see how things have changed and how things have progressed, yet in Ontario we are stuck with a law that was drafted in 1873.

In 1873, Ontario saw the need to rapidly exploit Ontario's natural resources, because they wanted to establish control of the land and they wanted people to settle. Things have changed dramatically. In 1906, the Mining Act basically gutted the control of access to land, establishing what is called free access to land by mining companies. What is now called a free entry system, mandated by the Mining Act, gave the mining industry and others free access to land in their search for minerals, regardless of who owns the surface rights.

That basically means that if you're associated with the mining industry, you can go anywhere in Ontario and start looking for minerals. I can tell you that where I come from, in Nickel Belt, we see prospectors and have been seeing prospectors for many, many decades, and they do that: They will go anywhere they see fit if they think there are minerals under the ground, and sometimes on the surface also. For over 100 years, this free entry system led to clashes.

It led to conflict with First Nations people, conflict with landowners and the public, and basically a lack of regard for the environment and the often really significant impact on the environment.

The Mining Act failed to recognize aboriginal and treaty rights and basically violated the established constitutional right of First Nations people to consultation and accommodation prior to all government decisions that might have an impact on their interests. It also failed to take corporate laws, policies and regulations designed to specifically protect ecological value such as the Planning Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Provincial Parks Act as well as the Conservation Reserves Act–so, the Mining Act basically superseded all of those.

They did not have to comply with a series of acts that had been put into place to protect our environment; to protect our province, our water, our resources etc.

Amendments to the Mining Act requiring progressive rehabilitation, site closure plans and financial assurance requirements came into effect in 1991, so there has been some improvement to the act, but many of the achieved mining reforms were then dismantled in the mid-1990s. Intense conflicts over the past few years have led to an agreement, I would say by all the stakeholders, that the Mining Act needed reform.

One of the principal concerns has been the free entry system, which allows prospectors to stake claims on minerals without notifying or consulting landowners or aboriginal people, if they are on their ancestral ground.

In the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario's most recent annual report, the commissioner called for reform of the Mining Act and its associated legal mechanism. The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario noted that the Mining Act "impeded land use planning and that the existing regulatory structure for mining did not adequately assess the cumulative impact of" mining "development." It is hoped that the reform of the Mining Act will reduce land use conflicts and "reflect modern-day values as to how Ontario public and private land should be managed."

The government claims that Bill 173 addresses the concerns of all stakeholders. They claim it will forge new approaches to mineral exploration that will be more respectful of aboriginal communities and private landowners. Well, can all those things be done in one bill?

To really protect the environment and the rights of aboriginal people and other landholder groups, there are clear things that the act needs to do. It needs to ensure that comprehensive land use planning occurs before mining activities are allowed to proceed, so that the benefits of mining versus other land use can be taken into consideration and informed decision-making can happen. It must require environmental assessment to cover each stage of the mining process from the time prospecting starts, to exploration, to operation and to reclamation of that land.

It must enshrine requirements for First Nation consent, it must provide increased rights for landowners to address issues with the free entry system, and it must require full funding for cleanup and reclamation costs.

So in my regard, how far does this act go? Well, first, many environmental groups have called for legislation to ensure that the land use planning process precedes mining activities, rather than leaving the withdrawal of crown land for land use planning at the complete discretion of the ministry. They recommend a statutory prohibition on prospecting, exploration or mining in areas subject to active land use planning initiated by governments of aboriginal peoples.

The bill introduces a graduated regulatory scheme for early exploration, with exploration plans required for lower-impact activities and exploration permits required for activities with higher impact. It will be important to assess the language in this

section very carefully.

Let me be clear: We don't necessarily support all of these proposals, and we don't actively oppose them either. This is a very complex piece of legislation that we will be examining very closely. We will be particularly concerned with the jobs implications of any and all changes to the act.

People know that there is a lot of mining activity happening in Sudbury. But, really, all of the mines are in Nickel Belt. The percentage of my constituents who work either directly for a mining company, in mining, or within the support industry of mining, is very, very high. In Sudbury, you do have a smelter and a mill, but all of the mines—and there are dozens of them run by big companies or junior companies—are located in Nickel Belt. So certainly, the jobs impact is something that I am interested in looking at closely.

Second, many groups have called for the implementation of environmental assessments at each stage of mining. A declaration order has exempted mining from environmental assessments in Ontario since 1981. The Ministry of Northern Development and Mines was charged with developing a comprehensive environmental assessment system for mining processes, but there has been very little progress in this regard.

All stages of mining, from prospecting right on, have an impact on the environment. The establishment of camps for prospecting, the blazing of claim lines and the construction of new roads for initial exploration can all disturb wildlife and fragment habitats. Early exploration can strip vegetation and impact on surface and groundwater. Mining can lead to acid drainage and metal leaching, and silt and sediment can affect various bodies of water.

Currently, the government has no ability to refuse a mining claim or impose requirements for low-impact practices.

I can tell you that if you go to the northern part of Ontario, especially at this time of the year, it is not unusual to see prospectors setting up camp and starting to draw lines. They are doing exactly what I have just described, with an impact on the environment, but our government has no ability to refuse this type of work.

There are no mechanisms to allow consideration of the impacts of mining on rivers flowing through provincial parks, conservation reserves or other sensitive areas. Often, claims can be very close to those sensitive areas. Since the government cannot impose environmental protection or mitigation requirements, the public is often forced to pay for the cleanup of abandoned or poorly restored mining areas. Again, if you go through the bush in northern Ontario, you will see site after site of such poorly cleaned-up areas.

New Democrats need to hear from all stakeholders to ensure that the legislation gets the balance between protecting the environment and creating the right types of jobs and the right environment for mining to continue to grow and prosper. It is a question of balance.

It is worth noting that British Columbia and Quebec require environmental assessments of mines. The Northwest Territories and the Yukon require assessments at the exploration stage. Environmental assessments in British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Labrador have required "contribution to sustainability" tests, which assess broad environmental and social costs and benefits to present and future generations. You have to take your time and think those things through to see the kind of impact that they might have, not only on the present generation but also on future generations.

In the First Nations community, it is not rare to hear them talk about the impact that it will have on six generations down the road. As a people, they take time to reflect, to really see what the costs and benefits are for themselves and also for their great-great-great-great-grandchildren.

Again, there is nothing in this act to put in place an obligatory environmental assessment of mining activity. We look forward to public hearings to hear the pros and cons of such a requirement.

Third is aboriginal consent. In 2007, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario recommended that the Mining Act be amended to reflect government's constitutional duty to consult with First Nations. Other governments such as Australia, New Zealand and even the Philippines have put in place legislation recognizing First Nations people's rights as higher than mining interests. Quebec requires Cree and Inuit representation on environmental assessment boards for mines.

Article 32 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, endorsed by Canada last April, requires that states obtain the free and informed consent prior to approval of any project affecting the land, territory or resources of indigenous people.

The Supreme Court of Canada has asserted that governments have a responsibility to carry out meaningful consultation with aboriginals and in some cases may require the consent of aboriginal people when making decisions that impact aboriginal rights.

Thirty groups recently wrote to the Premier in relation to the situation that had happened at Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, better known as KI, saying that "Canadian courts have clearly established that whenever the rights of indigenous peoples may be affected, governments have a legal duty to ensure that there must always be meaningful consultation to identify and accommodate indigenous concerns. Depending on the potential impacts, courts have found that this legal duty may include other more stringent measures 'to avoid irreparable harm,' including in some cases agreeing to proceed only with the consent of the affected peoples."

Despite this very clear direction from the Canadian courts, the Ontario government allowed Platinex Inc., a Toronto-based mineral exploration company, to stake claims and begin exploratory drilling on KI's traditional land without any consultation. We all know what ensued. Six members of Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, KI First Nation in northern Ontario were sentenced on contempt charges for their peaceful opposition to drilling for platinum on their traditional lands.

In a similar case, the Ardoch Algonquin and Shabot Obaadjiwan First Nations say that trees were cut and blasting begun without them being notified that the province had given Frontenac Ventures permission to carry out uranium exploration on Algonquin land. Ardoch Algonquins were sentenced in court for opposing uranium exploration in a part of eastern Ontario which they have never surrendered and which is currently part of the Algonquin land claim negotiation.

All these charges relate to the non-violent actions of reasonable and concerned people opposed to exploration and mining activity that the provincial government should not have permitted in the first place. Those were avoidable. A little bit of prevention would have helped a lot of people.

The Ontario Mining Act allows exploration activities, including aerial surveying, felling trees, blasting and drilling trenches, and the construction of temporary roads and shelters, without any public consultation and environmental assessment. Such provisions are incompatible with other responsibilities of the province.

The bill is a thick read and not one that should be taken lightly, but I will summarize my five main concerns.

The amendments do not meet constitutional requirements for crown consultation and accommodation with First Nations, and attempt to relegate this important responsibility to private interests.

Second, the amendments leave the creation of the third party interest on the land—at the prospecting and early exploration stage—with no permit required, no consultation and no environmental review, although damage may happen at that stage.

The demand for a uranium exploration and uranium mining moratorium in Ontario is ignored, despite enormous public concern.

The environment is completely missing from the document. Actually, if you try a word search of the document, it will indicate that there is only one place where the word "environment" is mentioned. The need for environmental assessment before the issuance of claims, mining leases or other mining permits is ignored, and the declaration order which makes this possible is left untouched.

Fifth, no changes are proposed to the egregious situation which allows companies like Vale Inco and Xstrata Nickel, right in my riding, to self-assure for reclamation instead of posting a realizable financial assurance, despite recommendations from the Auditor General to the contrary so that we could better protect ourselves for reclamation of the land once mining activity has ceased.

A big piece of legislation; still lots of debate needed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I want to thank the member from Nickel Belt for her thoughtful comments. She showed very well that she appreciates the complexity of this legislation and how important it is that we indeed get it right, and particularly how important it is that we strike the balance that's needed.

I wish I had more time to respond, because there are a number of issues that the member raised, and we'll have an opportunity to discuss these further as we move along the process, even beyond second reading, into what we hope to see: public consultation.

The fact is that the broad principles of this legislation have been strongly supported by all the organization stakeholders that the member mentioned. In terms of our relationship with our aboriginal partners, there are groundbreaking parts of this legislation in terms of the aspects of the bill that recognize aboriginal and treaty rights of legislation that require consultation and notification in almost all sections of the mining sequence. We did receive significant support from many First Nation leaders and the Métis Nation of Ontario as well, as the member would know.

From the environmental perspective, we did receive significant support, and I would argue the toss in terms of what is in there.

What becomes clear, when I listen to the opposition respond to the legislation, is that I think that in their remarks they also recognize the challenge. When you break it down, as did the member for Nickel Belt, who obviously is very concerned with employment, you want to make sure we have a continued positive investment climate. On the other hand, there is a need to move forward to modernize the act. I'm not sure of the position that you take in light of all the need to find that balance. I trust that you recognize that we believe strongly that this legislation has gone a long way, and very significantly, toward finding the balance that's needed to modernize the Mining Act.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mr. Norm Miller: I'm pleased to add some comments to the speech from the member from Nickel Belt on Bill 173, the Mining Amendment Act.

She started out by doing a tourism promo for the Big Nickel and Sudbury. I'll just let her know that on a few March breaks, when my family was younger, I did take advantage of going to Science North and the Big Nickel, so I have seen first-hand, with a young family, the many attractions of the Sudbury area and I certainly recommend them to other families.

To do with the new Mining Act, one of the aspects talked about was the community-based planning for the far north. I think it's important to recognize that the actual footprint of a developed mine is pretty tiny. If you look at the Attawapiskat new diamond mine west of James Bay, the footprint is, I believe, about the size of Queen's Park. So I think it's important, when we are looking at the far north, to not limit prospecting in the far north but perhaps to look at limiting where the actual mine could be, because you don't know where you're going to find the next mine.

If you are trying to encourage mining in the province, which is very important as an employer for aboriginal communities and very important to the economy of the province, I think we have to be careful that we don't limit where the actual prospecting can happen. I think it's important to lighten the footprint and through aspects of this bill; map staking will probably have that effect. With active mining going on, the actual amount of land that would be used for mines, if we're very successful, is tiny. So I think we should be encouraging looking for new mines.

They are so important for the economy of this province and for the aboriginal communities in this province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mr. Howard Hampton: I listened intently to my colleague from Nickel Belt's speech. Mining is something that she of course is very familiar with, given that Nickel Belt is in fact the site of the largest and most productive nickel mines yet, so far, in the world. I think she highlights some of the challenges this government has failed to deal with in this bill. No one, leastwise the member for Nickel Belt, is going to underestimate the issues that must be addressed here.

The fact of the matter is that north of the 51st parallel, 99.99% of the people who live there are First Nations. You might find the odd non-native pilot flying around, you might find the odd non-native teacher or non-native nurse working north of the 51st parallel, but 99.99% of the people who live there, and live there permanently, are First Nations. That is the primary issue, in my view, that has to be addressed.

First Nations have some particular views about the environment, they have some particular views about environmental decision-making, and First Nations rightly have some views about things like informed consent. Imagine if somebody said that they wanted to develop a mining property in Toronto. I can tell you that every neighbourhood in Toronto would want information and they would want the capacity to consent or deny consent.

This is one of the things we have to get our head around: that the people who actually live north of the 51st parallel are going to demand, and reasonably demand, that they have the power of consent or non-consent.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I appreciated the comments from the member for Nickel Belt. I think she raised through her presentation a large number of the issues that this bill attempts to reconcile. This bill of course is about balance. It is about balancing the views of people in the First Nations communities with the certainty that the mining industry wishes to have in terms of the process that they need to go through to develop a new mine. In particular, it needs to address many of the issues that surround prospecting in terms of finding new mines.

I represent a large northern constituency that actually dwarfs Nickel Belt in terms of size. I recognize that some of the largest gold mines, and most productive gold mines, were found at the Hemlo gold fields right on the edge of my riding and the minister's riding. They were found right beside the TransCanada Highway, Highway 17. You could throw a stone and find them from there. So what it speaks to is, you never know where you're going to find a mine.

I have people I am acquainted with who are actively exploring for diamonds in the Wawa area, and it looks to me like we're going to have some huge successes in diamonds in the Wawa region.

What we need to do is find a balance. There are issues, and I'm pleased the member has raised those issues. But for every one she raised, there are two or three stakeholders on the other side who need to have their views heard also. So, as we go through this process, through the committee stage, I'm hopeful that we can find a reasonable solution to a very complex problem. I'm sure that anybody who represents the nickel mining folks, whether they be employees or employers in Nickel Belt, will know all about how complicated this really is.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): I'll return now to the member for Nickel Belt, who has two minutes to respond.

M me France Gélinas: First of all, I appreciated the comments from the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Yes, we do need a positive investment climate. It is no surprise to anybody that although Sudbury has diversified, nickel mining and mining in general is still the bread and butter of hundreds and thousands of families, and the same for Nickel Belt, which shares a land mass with Sudbury.

To the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, I'm really happy that he took the opportunity to go underground and visit the Big Nickel mine, which is now part of Dynamic Earth. Again, I encourage everybody who doesn't know what to do with their summer holidays to come to Sudbury and take in Dynamic Earth. You'll get to go underground, put on the safety goggles and hard hat and everything else. It will be an experience you will never forget, and it's lots of fun for the whole family.

I think my colleague from Kenora—Rainy River sums it up correctly, that the challenges ahead of us cannot be underestimated. To find the right balance is something important, but we have to realize that most of the mining exploration will take place north of the 51st parallel, which will mean in First Nations territories. Although some First Nations have spoken in favour, many are not satisfied with what is in the bill and want to see changes, mainly the First Nations that are north of the 51st parallel and will be impacted.

Lastly, I was happy to hear my colleague from Algoma—Manitoulin say, "We hope to find a reasonable solution to a complex problem," saying that he hopes to leave the door open, that maybe we're not quite there yet, but with working together and listening to one another, we'll get there.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate?

Mr. Toby Barrett: When we are addressing this proposed mining legislation, Bill 173, we should be reminded in this House that we have to be mindful of our actions and their impact. We're looking at changes to a piece of legislation originally written 136 years ago, and what we're doing today may well have ramifications 136 years into the future.

We all know the importance of mining to the province of Ontario: a $9.6-billion annual business and major contributor to this country's trade surplus; a very high productivity business; something like $600 million in corporate tax revenues, and I'm sure with the recession that is on a downward spiral; and, of course, a very significant payroll. Up until recently, there were something like 100,000 direct and indirect jobs within this industry, many of those positions filled by native Canadians.

These are some of the reasons that, when we were in government, we cut the mining tax rate in half. Regrettably, more recently, this present McGuinty government, for example, tripled taxes on De Beers, the operation just west of Attawapiskat. It's interesting. We know the industry is the largest private sector employer of aboriginal people in Ontario, a vital generator of regional development—something very important in northern Ontario. This is a fact that bears careful consideration as we look to address mining law in Ontario.

Having said that, I understand there's much at stake—if I can use that pun—when it comes to development of new mining legislation, and I think I heard that this morning. We have to get this right. I'm not sure that this bill would actually do that. I know our critic made some allusions to that concern, in particular, when we get into the discussions with respect to revenue sharing—I travelled with that committee a number of years ago—when we get into discussions with respect to duty to consult with area native people.

I think all of us here received an e-mail from a concerned prospector with a series of issues which actually help frame some discussion with respect to the importance of getting this right, and I quote this communication:

"The unveiling of this act has created too much uncertainty in the exploration industry in northern Ontario, and junior mining companies have already either packed up or put the brakes on their exploration programs. Some of the act is all right but the majority is bad for the industry and, in turn, is bad for the province. As I read it"—he goes on to say—"I start understanding how little northern Ontario is valued within the province and how our northern politicians have turned into 'yes-men' to gain votes for the leaders in the south."

The prospector further states: "Most of the proposed changes were present in previous mining acts and were originally changed because too much high-potential land was being tied up and not being explored. Previous ministers recognized this and repealed and changed portions of the act to promote the economic growth of Ontario. This act will reverse all the gains made in the past 20 years and reinstate errors made in past mining acts." And this prospector goes on to say, "Have you actually gone through the reasons some of the changes were originally made, before you change them back?"

Now, we've had media reports regarding this bill. They paint a rosy picture. This concerned prospector has some opinions on what the impact will be, and I'll just quote in part: "(1) the act will destroy the prospector because we cannot afford to compete with the major mining companies ... this act will destroy exploration because there's too much uncertainty ... it will increase the cost of raw materials in the province, thus increasing the cost of production," and it goes on and on.

In addition to these kinds of comments from this prospector, I have further concerns surrounding the fact that while some aspect of provincial rules for mining and prospecting are more fully developed and understood, other attempts at clarification leave some unanswered questions. The water is a little muddy, from my perspective anyway.

By the same token, there has been very little communication from this government as far as plans for the boreal forest. Again, I would like to find out what is going on there as far as projections, plans, with respect to revenue sharing and consulting. Most of these questions surround this particular legislation and its role in addressing aboriginal concerns, including duty to consult and revenue sharing. Later on, I would further like to highlight some of the questions regarding this legislation's potential role in creating mining and prospecting regulation and where this leaves some of the smaller players.

As we've heard, the legislation deals with recognizing aboriginal and treaty rights and envisions a dispute resolution process for mining-related issues. For example, aboriginal cultural sites can be removed from claim-staking. Communities will be notified immediately after a claim is staked. Here's this expression "mineral explorationists." I'm not sure where that term came from. I think that's a code word for a prospector. Again, if you think of the history of mining, I don't know what they would call the burro, the donkey that a prospector traditionally would carry along with him in so much of North America.

That would be probably an associate mineral explorationist. Again, I'm not sure why we're going down this road.

The mineral explorationists will be required to notify First Nations of their activities on traditional lands. I am not sure what is meant by "traditional lands" as well, and we'd have to go back to the original treaties to see if they even talk about traditional lands. There's also a seeming clarification of the consulting process between mining companies and First Nations as well.

Before I get too far ahead on analyzing the revenue sharing and the consultation, I want to go back to a theme that I've raised earlier in this debate. I do draw members' attention to the fact that while we can modernize legislation, we have to respect the knowledge and the wisdom of those who have gone before. I think specifically of miners, prospectors and others involved in the very rich history of mining right across North America. We can learn from the past.

I made mention that much of my family's history in gold mining has been documented, and this goes back to 1849, in this case not in Ontario but up and down the Merced River, the Yosemite area now—more recently, the Yosemite park area. This is of interest, to me anyway, when I look at some of the documents within our family. It would be in 1849 that my great-great-uncles left Port Dover by boat to Panama. There was no canal then; they had to buy horses. You'd catch another boat to San Francisco. Oftentimes those boats were sunk in San Francisco harbour. Then they head up into the Sierras.

Last summer I was in one of the tunnels that was built by my great-great-uncle in 1850. I brought back some quartzite rock. I'm not allowed to show it here, but I have some of this rock piled by my fireplace.

It's interesting for me, anyway. Joseph Barrett—these are some of my uncles—Henry Barrett and Thomas Barrett all were involved in gold mining. This was well before this legislation was created, although there was Mariposa county legislation at that time that guided their actions. I look at some of the claims. On July 5, 1862, Joseph filed and recorded a claim. This was at the head of French Gulch. This runs into the Merced River. There's another claim: On July 6, 1862, Joseph filed a claim on French Gulch where it empties into Temperance Creek.

February 6, 1863: All three of my uncles—Joseph, Henry and Thomas Hubert Barrett—filed claims on a quartz vein or lode on the south side of Cotton Creek and indicated that they worked the same in accordance with the mining laws of Mariposa county. On April 5, 1863, Joseph Barrett filed claims for a copper, gold and silver lode at Chimmisall, the west side of the Grapevine Gulch. The three brothers filed claim number 227 in Mariposa county in the state of California. It goes on and on, most of this up and down the Merced River. We have these claims. They're in very clear handwriting from the county official.

These have been passed down through the family.

Of course, at that time, and I rely partly on oral family history, we had to deal with the Yosemite Indians. The Yosemite were originally driven out of what is now Yosemite park by the federal government. My family had very good relationships with the people there. We had leases, for example, and maintained those leases over the years for cattle. We ran cattle in what is now Yosemite park.

I do reflect that the concept of revenue sharing, back in those days, probably didn't exist unless you worked those veins and worked those lodes. As far as taking a share, I know from family history that shares were taken at gunpoint.

So we can learn from the past. I'm not saying that some of what went on in the Sierras of California went on in northern Ontario, but much of that is actually—we keep within the family, by the way. My point is, we can learn from the past. We talk about modernization, and we have to be cognizant of what we do with this legislation, what kind of impact that's going to have 100 years or 200 years down the road.

Back to Ontario: In the legislation there are, as we know, a series of proposed changes that the government hopes will address aboriginal consultation and revenue sharing. For instance, the purpose clause of the Mining Act is "amended to include the statement that mining activities are encouraged in a manner consistent with the recognition and affirmation of existing aboriginal and treaty rights." Some of those treaties go back to 1850 in northern Ontario.

From today's Ontario bill, I understand that aboriginal consultation would be required for exploration plans and permits for early exploration activity, proportionate to the potential impact of the proposed activities. Later-stage activities of advanced exploration and mine development already require aboriginal consultation, through closure plan requirements in the regulations. Just in the interests of time, I'll skip over some of that material.

I would like to raise the issue of some of the treaties that provide direction on land, aboriginal and related issues. We know of the Robinson-Superior Treaty of 1850, the Robinson-Huron Treaty of 1850, as well as the related treaties: Treaty 9 and Treaty 5. I've received some information on these treaties. It seems that aboriginals gave up their right and title to the land outside of the reserves to the crown but were allowed the right "to pursue their usual vocations of hunting, trapping and fishing throughout the tract surrendered ... saving and excepting such tracts as may be required or taken up from time to time for settlement, mining, lumbering, trading or other purposes."

James Bay Treaty 9, I'll just quote in part: "Whereas, the said commissioners have proceeded to negotiate a treaty with the Ojibwa, Cree and other Indians, inhabiting the district hereinafter defined and described, and the same has been agreed upon, and concluded by the respective bands at the dates mentioned hereunder, the said Indians do hereby cede, release, surrender and yield up to the government of the Dominion of Canada, for His Majesty the King and his successors forever, all their rights, titles and privileges whatsoever, to the lands included...." Then it goes on to say, "They shall have the right to pursue their usual vocations of hunting, trapping and fishing ... excepting such tracts as may be required or taken up from time to time for settlement, mining, lumbering, trading or other purposes."

Both Treaty 9 and 5 relate in part to the NAN organization.

Treaty 5: "The Saulteaux and Swampy Cree tribes of Indians and all other the Indians inhabiting the district hereinafter described and defined, do hereby cede, release, surrender and yield up to the government of the Dominion of Canada"—and it goes on and on in pretty well the same context as with the other treaty.

I don't know whether this legislation is assuming there were mistakes made in these treaties or the wording of the treaties is wrong. If it's being argued these treaties don't mean what they say, why are these treaties being maintained? I'm not sure to what extent this provincial government is interpreting these treaties and what role the federal government is playing as far as this particular legislation or any work that's being done in the boreal forest. Again, we have to be cognizant of Supreme Court rulings as well with respect to upholding these treaties. I could go on and on. I have information on the Robinson-Huron treaty of 1850, pretty well following the same line.

There's some information from the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada. In their submission, "Despite a growing series of court cases, particularly those decided by the Supreme Court of Canada, extensive written commentaries and the emergence of a burgeoning 'consultation industry', we believe that widespread misunderstanding and confusion still persist in relation to

"(

a) the legal basis for the duty to consult and to accommodate;

"(

b) how that duty should be discharged; and

"(

c) the respective roles of government, proponents and aboriginal communities and organizations in completing that process.

"In its 2004 decision in Haida, the Supreme Court of Canada explicitly determined that the duty to consult and, if appropriate, to accommodate is exclusively a duty of the crown. Acknowledging the need to ensure an orderly process and guard against unstructured discretion, the court also said that governments could establish policies or set up regulatory schemes to guide the civil service in fulfilling that duty. The court went on to say that while the ultimate legal responsibility for consultation and accommodation rests with the crown, governments are entitled to delegate procedural aspects of consultation to industrial proponents in relation to a particular development."

Again, I find this very complex. I haven't heard much of this discussed in the context of this particular piece of legislation. Obviously, I hope all of this is being taken into consideration.

As I wrap up, I think it's important to continue that discussion on revenue sharing. I know MPP Bisson has done an awful lot of work on this. There is a Canadian Press

article indicating, "The legislation stops short of giving aboriginal communities a share of mining revenues, but the province set aside $30 million last week" to indicate that they're serious.

There's no question, as we move forward, that the discussion on revenue sharing will dominate much of this discussion and I'm sure it will come up yet again during committee hearings.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mr. Howard Hampton: I enjoyed listening to the comments of my colleague from the Conservative Party. I want to use this opportunity, though, to take a different perspective on some of the things he discussed, in particular the

interpretation of treaties.

In so-called modern, urban Ontario society we certainly have our

interpretation of the treaties. Words like "surrender" are part of that

interpretation, that the First Nations "surrendered" the land and, in return, First Nations were granted certain limited reserves. That's our

interpretation. The

interpretation of First Nations is far different. The

interpretation of First Nations is that they did not surrender the land; they agreed to share it with us, the Europeans who arrived late on the scene. They agreed to share the land and share the resources. But the word "surrender" appears nowhere in the

interpretation of First Nations.

I think that's one of the things this bill has to wrestle with, and I would say to the minister, if the government tries to avoid wrestling with those different

interpretations, then I think trouble lies ahead. My sense of the First Nations north of the 51st parallel is that they are going to insist upon a sharing of the resources, a sharing of the decision-making and a just sharing of the revenues. It is the degree to which this bill either succeeds or fails in wrestling with those things which will determine its success or failure.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thank you to the member for Haldimand—Norfolk for your comments, and I appreciate it's the second time you've had an opportunity to speak, last time in a two-minuter, I believe, related to your own family's past. I do appreciate the comments.

May I say I want to respond a little bit to the comments from the member for Kenora—Rainy River, if I'm allowed to do so.

Certainly, our government has made a very clear commitment to the revenue-benefit-sharing process in terms of the revenues from mining. In fact, prior to the introduction of our legislation on April 30, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs announced that $30 million, considered a down payment in terms of that process, was committed and was well-received by the First Nation leadership across the province. I think it's important to note that indeed we are committed to that process, and it is an important part not so much of our legislation, because this is a separately managed part of the relationship that we have with our aboriginal partners—that's important for all of us to recognize.

Also, may I say in terms of the comments you made related to the concerns expressed by the prospector you quoted, there is no question that what we were asked for very much as well was for some real clarity in terms of how we would be moving forward with a modernized act, and I'm pleased to say that we kept all stakeholders very involved in the process. Certainly, in terms of our aboriginal partners, there was a special process in place to make sure that they worked alongside us as we moved towards the legislation.

In terms of the prospectors association, that was the case as well, and we have received support from the Ontario Prospectors Association as a result of our efforts to work closely.

We recognize just how incredibly important, as I said earlier and you said as well, it is to get this right and that's why we've worked so hard with all our stakeholders to try and move forward, to bring forward a very positive, modernized Mining Act.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O'Toole: I was pleased to listen to the member for Haldimand-Norfolk, and I know his passion for this topic. The content clearly describes his concerns in trying to find the stable environment that this industry requires to make those kinds of investments.

But I guess this is where the minister needs to make sure that we're being clear that the First Nations—that there need to be some issues resolved here. These issues of entitlement are complex. We understand that. We also realize that there's been a fund set aside to sort of resolve some of these things upfront. But ultimately, it's sharing in the royalties of the revenue. That is ultimately what they want; they want that constitutionally enshrined. I guess, at the end of the day, the other is the issue of property rights.

In the broader sense, it's my understanding those are the issues that we have the greatest amount of trouble with: making sure of the property rights of the individual who doesn't want someone to be on their property doing certain things—exploration—or does want them, and it appears there are changes in that respect as well. I did have some comments myself, but I guess this morning, because of the way the clock works and these new, wonderful standing orders—it precipitates that you never know if you're going to get to speak on the issue or not.

I also want to reflect on the comments that the Ontario Real Estate Association has brought to the minister's attention under Bill 173, so that the landowners in southern Ontario, where there are significant rights of the owner and the mining rights belong to the crown—these issues as well are part of what we want to make sure are clear in any development of this new and important piece of legislation.

I always admire the member from Haldimand—Norfolk, his passion to get it right and to stand up for justice.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

M me France Gélinas: I too was interested in the comments made by the member for Haldimand—Norfolk, but also in the view he took of Bill 173, the Mining Amendment Act, focusing mainly on revenue sharing.

Mining is a significant source of revenue, and certainly revenue sharing is something that needs to be addressed in the bill and something that I had brought forward, as I understand that what I consider to be a positive investment climate will lead to more jobs and to sustainable mining in Ontario. I was interested in his view of it, where I think we all agree that we need to bring certainty to all parties in order for mining to continue to flourish in a respectful way.

But here, again, the

interpretation of treaty rights with the First Nations, especially north of the 51st parallel, has to be at the basis and the core of it. To try to balance the treaty rights versus the mining rights is a first step, and this can only happen through open consultation. As I said before, this responsibility cannot be relegated to a private interest, which is something that is lacking in the bill and that we would like to see.

So it's an interesting view of Bill 173, focused on revenue sharing, and it has certainly shone a light on a number of areas in the bill that still need clarification to make sure that we get it right. Thanks for your comments.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): The member for Haldimand—Norfolk has two minutes to reply.

Mr. Toby Barrett: I do thank members for comments on what is a very complex and, I think we all find, a very interesting piece of legislation. I know there have been several members who have discussed the subsequent

interpretation of these original treaties.

I didn't get a chance to reference the Robinson-Huron treaty of 1850. I'll just quote it. It seems fairly clear to me. What was said: "They the said chiefs and principal men, on behalf of their respective tribes or bands, do hereby fully, freely and voluntarily surrender, cede, grant and convey unto Her Majesty, her heirs and successors for ever, all their right, title, and interest to, and in the whole of, the territory above described, save and except the reservations set forth in the schedule...."

I don't think that treaty has been changed or rewritten. I don't think this legislation is going to attempt to do that.

Minister Gravelle does address the issue of revenue sharing, as does the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. I know Minister Duguid made mention, I think in the media: "There's no question about whether we're going to move forward with revenue benefits sharing. The question is, what's it going to look like?"

That's a very valuable question to raise, and what will that look like? I mentioned the committee hearings a few years ago and deliberations on that very same question. We do have to, through this legislation, provide some clarity to all concerned with respect to that issue.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate? The member for Kenora—Rainy River.

Mr. Howard Hampton: I have about 12 minutes, so I want to cover a lot of ground.

First of all, let's be really clear what this legislation is about. No one is clamouring at the municipal boundary of Toronto to start prospecting for a mining operation in and around the greater Toronto area. Similarly, to my knowledge, no one is pounding at the gates of Windsor, Hamilton, London, Kingston or Ottawa. No one is out there in rural agricultural Ontario, to my knowledge, actively prospecting for the next gold mine. You might find isolated spots, localities in southern Ontario where someone is interested in doing some prospecting. But the reality is, this bill is all about what happens in northern Ontario in general and what happens north of the 51st parallel in particular.

Let's be clear: The hottest mining area in the world is no longer the Congo River basin or the Amazon River basin or some island in the central Pacific. The hottest mining area in the world is that part of Ontario which essentially lies north of Sioux Lookout, north of Kapuskasing, all the way up to the shores of Hudson Bay and James Bay. You have mining corporations from all over the world tripping over each other trying to get access. That's what this is about.

This is really about what lies north of the 51st parallel, and to a certain extent what lies north of Lake of the Woods, north of Rainy Lake, north of Lake Superior and to a certain extent north of Kirkland Lake in Timmins—the hottest mining area in the world.

The big issue is this: There is hardly anyone living there but First Nations, and many of the mining operations that are being conducted, for example Muscle White or Attawapiskat, involve non-aboriginal people flying in on an airplane, maybe working there for two weeks, possibly three weeks in some cases, and then flying back out. There are no permanent non-aboriginal settlements of any size to speak of. We're really talking here about a part of Ontario that is overwhelmingly populated by First Nations people, and it's been that way since before any of us arrived in Canada—long before any of us arrived in Canada.

So this is really about the rights and the rules and who benefits. Anything else that appears in the bill is really sort of public relations massaging. That's the issue.

Now, the First Nations who live north of the 51st parallel are not philosophically opposed to mining. They are not. Many believe that mining represents the last opportunity, or certainly the best opportunity, for many of these First Nations to actually rise above serious levels of unemployment, and the opportunity to address a number of very serious social and community issues. But those First Nations communities want to be assured that the rules, in fact, are going to be fair, and most of all, they want to be sure that they're going to be primarily involved in the decision-making. I don't think that's such an unreasonable thing.

To put it bluntly, they want to be assured that some bureaucrat sitting in an office in Toronto isn't going to draw circles on the map and say, "Well, here it is folks. This is the way it is." Let me tell you, this fear is very realistic. Sit down and look at some of the so-called parks that were established north of the 51st parallel in the 1970s and 1980s and what you'll find is that that's exactly how they were established. No one went to talk to the First Nations of Wapekeka before establishing a provincial park on their very doorstep. No one said to the First Nation of KI or Wapekeka: "What are your views?

What do you think? What do you believe we should do?" No. A couple of downtown Toronto environmentalists and a couple of provincial bureaucrats sat down in an office and drew a circle on the map and said, "Here it is."

Imagine if someone did that to the people of Toronto, if someone sitting in Washington or in London, England, said, "I think it's a good idea that we do thus and so in downtown Toronto, and thus and so in Mississauga," and issued the appropriate documentation so that it happens. I can just imagine what people in Toronto and Mississauga would say. You would probably have the next thing to riots in the streets. People would say, "This is colonialism," and it is. It would be colonialism.

And it will be a repeat of colonialism if the end effect of this bill is that someone sitting in an office in Toronto says, "It shall be thus and so." What First Nations at KI believe, or what First Nations in Neskantaga or Fort Severn believe—"We'll consult about that, but the decision has been made."

First Nations really want five things. First of all, they want consultation and accommodation.

While this bill was being drafted, I had the opportunity during January and February to meet with a number of First Nation chiefs and councils. I went to Pikangikum; North Spirit Lake; Poplar Hill; Deer Lake; Keewaywin; Sandy Lake; Muskrat Dam; Round Lake; Sachigo Lake; Bearskin Lake; Big Trout Lake, otherwise known as Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug; Fort Severn; Angling Lake; Cat Lake; Lansdowne House; Summer Beaver; Wunnumin Lake; Kingfisher Lake; North Spirit Lake; and Webequie—20 First Nations.

I asked the chiefs and councils and elders the same question: "Has anyone from the provincial government—the Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, Ministry of the Environment—come to your community, sat down with chief and council, sat down with the community in general and raised these issues and talked about proposed amendments and the issues?" Do you know what the answer was in every case? The answer was, "No; no one has come here to consult with us. No one has come here to talk to us.

No one has come here to discuss with us any of these issues."

The most that happened is there were a couple of information meetings in Thunder Bay and a couple of information meetings in Sioux Lookout, and I think there was one information meeting in Red Lake. That's what they were. They weren't consultation, give-and-take, "What do you think? What do you believe? How do we address this issue?" They were essentially information meetings.

So if the minister is wondering why no one from Nishnawbe Aski Nation or Treaty 3 or the Robinson Superior Treaty organization stood up and said, "Oh, we think this is good legislation, and we approve of it," it's because, from right off the bat, First Nations felt that the first key ingredient—consultation and accommodation—didn't happen.

In fact, let me quote Sol Atlookan from the Matawa First Nations. The minister would know the Matawa First Nations because some of the Matawa First Nations are in his riding. Matawa was very specific. Chief Sol Atlookan, spokesman for Matawa First Nation, expressed deep concern that the government has not taken First Nations' input seriously, specifically regarding the fundamental issues of duty to consult and get advance consent.

"Matawa First Nation ... members respectfully requested that consultation from industry should take place in the community and at the community level and that consent from the community has to be the major priority before any claim-staking takes place." However, they feel that their voices "have been shockingly ignored" and that they have wasted all their "time and resources with this process." So, right off the bat, First Nations are saying, "Hey, folks, there are some serious problems here."

Let me address the issue of prior informed consent. Grand Chief Stan Beardy of Nishnawbe Aski Nation was very clear on this. He said, "The government of Ontario did not allow enough time to conduct meaningful consultation with NAN First Nations in the development of this legislation....

We will continue to insist upon a mechanism through which NAN First Nations will be consulted and will have meaningful input into the decision-making process." Then he goes on to point out, again, rightfully so, that if this legislation is going to mean anything, it will have to enshrine the principles of prior informed consent before many First Nations in NAN territory will allow mining activity to take place, and that is not in this bill.

The third issue is environmental protection and land use planning, and I want to emphasize something again here. A couple of downtown Toronto environmentalists, a couple of people from the Ministry of the Environment and a couple of people from the Ministry of Natural Resources sitting in an office in downtown Toronto, saying, "This is how environmental protection will happen and this is how land use planning will happen": That is not going to pass the test. That, again, is simply colonialism repackaged in a new, flashy envelope, but it's not going to pass muster with First Nations.

First Nations insist, rightfully so, that if something is going to happen in the place where they live and only they live, they should have a deciding role in environmental protection and land use planning.

Finally, let me just deal with the issue of revenue sharing—and I know the Speaker wants to wrap up. We're not talking here about a few million dollars. In Red Lake alone, the gold mining in Red Lake, probably in excess of $10 billion has been taken out of the ground. First Nations say, "Where did we benefit from this?" I could take members on a tour of Rosedale and Forest Hill and show you many mansions of people who benefited from that, but the First Nations who live in that area still continue to live in poverty. First Nations are not talking about $5 million here or $10 million there.

They recognize that, particularly in the Ring of Fire, we're probably talking about tens upon tens upon tens of billions of dollars of wealth, and real revenue sharing will mean that First Nations will get a just share of that.

Now, Speaker, you're going to shut me down just as I was in full flight. But I would say to the government there are still a lot of problems—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Actually, I'm reluctant to cut off the member for Kenora—Rainy River. However, standing order 9(

a) compels the Speaker to wrap up at 10:15, and this House stands in recess until 10:30.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The House recessed from 1017 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Bruce Crozier: I'm pleased to welcome representatives from the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario to Queen's Park today. As you may know, prior to becoming an MPP, I was a member of the IBAO as a registered insurance broker. Today, the IBO serves the interests of more than 10,000 independent insurance brokers across Ontario. I want to remind you that they will be hosting us at a reception in the legislative dining room from 5 to 8 this evening. Please join me in welcoming members of the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario to Queen's Park today.

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: I am pleased to introduce to you Chelsey Meehan. Chelsey is a student at Robert Bateman High School in Burlington. Chelsey was one of the students who made delegation to Bill 126 when we had hearings, and she will be working in my constituency office this summer. Welcome, Chelsey.

Mr. Jeff Leal: It's really an honour for me today to introduce the president of the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario, Mr. Peter Blodgett from Peterborough. Mr. Blodgett owns Darling Insurance of Peterborough, one of the great insurance companies in my hometown. They have a very interesting theme and philosophy for their business: "Proud of our past, positive about our future." I want to welcome Mr. Blodgett here today.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I'm very pleased to introduce Mike and Heather Shaw of Rockwood, who are in the gallery up above. They are the parents of Joey Shaw, our page from Wellington—Halton Hills.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I'm pleased to introduce Dr. Johanna Carlo, who's here today. Her daughter Samantha is one of our pages. Dr. Jo, who she's known as in the hockey world, is one of the best trainers in minor pro hockey in the province, and she's the physiotherapist for my son, so she keeps him on the ice.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to welcome Central Perth Elementary School from my riding to Queen's Park today. They're accompanied by their teachers Bevan Moir and Helen Aicken. The trip was made possible by a Speakup grant from the Ministry of Education's Student Voice program.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I'm pleased to invite every MPP in the House today. It's Community Living Toronto day at Queen's Park. And it's Appetite for Awareness day in room 2012A after question period. So I hope that you will all be there to receive your lunch box.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of page Carlyn Mandarano Sistilli—and also the member from St. Paul's—we'd like to welcome some guests of hers: Itta Mandarano, Vince, Teresa and Dominic. Welcome to Queen's Park today.

I'm delighted to introduce the ambassador of Vietnam, Mr. Nguyen Duc Hung, who is here to expand trading relationships between Vietnam and Ontario. The ambassador is also here today to present our colleague Tony Ruprecht with the international Peace and Friendship Among Nations medal after question period in committee room 2. Congratulations, Tony.

Ambassador, welcome to Queen's Park.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd ask all members to join me in welcoming this group of legislative pages in the first session, and I'd ask the pages to assemble for introduction, please:

Sam Beleutz, Beaches—East York; Kerala Brendon, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek; Matthew Crawford, Brant; Kathleen Crump, Timmins—James Bay; Brittany Hesmer, Northumberland—Quinte West; David Laing, Oshawa; Carlyn Mandarano Sistilli, St.

Paul's; Mariah Palantzas, Don Valley West; Ajoy Paul, Pickering—Scarborough East; Kate Paulson, Nepean—Carleton; Rebecca Penner, Essex; Stephen Rickert, Kitchener Centre; Sarah Rossi, Mississauga—Brampton South; Joseph Shaw, Wellington—Halton Hills; Jacob Squire, London North Centre; Gerrit Wesselink, Thunder Bay—Superior North; Eileen Woolley, Haldimand—Norfolk; Elliott Yee, Barrie; and Kevin Zhang, Mississauga East—Cooksville. Apologies—Alexander Singh, York West.

Welcome to Queen's Park.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is for the Deputy Premier today. Minister, you've introduced a blended sales tax—the largest tax grab in our province's history. This BST is a tax on every person and on their everyday needs. We're seeing layoffs, bankruptcies, unemployment, and a have-not province now on the dole under your watch.

Let's forget the spin and the rhetoric for a moment and answer an honest question: We know you like this cradle-to-grave government, we all know that death and taxes are inevitable, but is it just a coincidence that you married the two by introducing the BS tax on funeral services?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I thank the member opposite for his question. I would remind the member opposite that first of all, with the very generous sales tax credit and the new home credit, with the cuts to corporate taxes, the cuts to personal taxes and the cut to the small business tax, in fact Ontarians are getting a multi-billion dollar tax cut.

With the assistance of the federal government—$4.3 billion—with the urgings of all of the major economists in the province and with the urgings of poverty activist groups, we have taken a step that is designed to put this province back on a competitive footing. I'd remind the member opposite that their interim leader, the day after it was introduced, said that their party supported it. The problem they have is that they just can't—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Here he talks about tax cuts, and the expense and the thirst for more money just keeps rising and rising with this government. We all know that the BS tax was stuck into the budget against the will of your caucus—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I reminded the honourable member in a question over a week ago about the use of that term. He started out all right with it and then he changed, so I would just ask that he choose another way to describe the tax.

Mr. Randy Hillier: The BST tax was snuck into the budget against the will of your caucus and then everyone was whipped into supporting it.

The hallmark of that government is broken promises. Promises are issued, they're broken, they're reissued and they're re-broken. Such a drastic and sweeping tax grab as this BST tax ought to be an election issue. Minister, why don't you break just one more of your many promises, for me and everyone—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Again, I want to remind the member opposite that in fact the government has brought forward a package of tax reductions that are aimed to stimulate growth in this economy, that will create employment across this province, that will help us get out of this challenging world crisis bigger and better and stronger.

At this time, in this age, it is incumbent on governments to take decisive leadership. That is precisely what we've done. This policy is the right policy. It is challenging, but I submit to the member opposite, to the members of this House and to the people of Ontario, the consensus around doing this among all the advice we've had is it's the right thing to do. It's difficult and challenging, but we're committed to it. It's in the best interests of all Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary?

Mr. Randy Hillier: More spin and rhetoric. You talk about stimulating growth: The only thing growing is your budget and your bureaucracy. You've banned light bulbs, you've banned trans fats and cellphones, but you haven't banned a bigger bureaucracy, higher taxes or higher unemployment.

Minister, use some common sense, be honest with the people and put this BST tax to them in the 2011 election.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: You know, it's interesting that at an all-candidates debate, not a single Tory leadership candidate said that they would repeal the tax. It seems to me the member opposite wants to have it both ways. This is not the time for governments or parties that want to have it both ways. It is time for leadership; it is time to build a stronger and better economy. This government is doing that. I invite the member and his colleagues running for the leadership of the party, if you're so opposed to it, stand up today, each one of you, and say you'll repeal it. We are doing this; it's important to the future of all Ontarians.

TAXATION

Mr. Randy Hillier: It's important that the minister, instead of just watching our debates, watch the bottom line over there and watch the growth in this government.

To the minister: We all know that the rats are the first to leave a sinking ship. With the departure of the minister of little economic development, your government is sinking, and the BST tax is just another hole in your leaky boat. I've watched you sell this tax grab but the facts don't add up. You've lost hundreds of thousands of private sector jobs and you've built 200,000 new public sector jobs. This latest tax grab is to pay for your bloated bureaucracy. Can you clarify to everyone how you're going to blow their hard-earned money?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The party of Drew and Frost and Davis has come to this.

The tax policy of this government is designed to cut taxes for individuals; it's designed to help low-income Ontarians; it's designed to help this province through the most challenging economic crisis the world has ever seen. It is designed to create jobs and it will create jobs when we come out of this downturn.

Again, the member opposite didn't answer my question. Why is it, when given the opportunity, not a single candidate for the leadership of that party said they would repeal the harmonized sales tax? Why? Because they supported it in their last platform. The Leader of the Opposition—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Unlike the other side, I do answer questions. I would repeal the HST.

Yesterday, the Premier was asked a question which he declined—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Start the clock.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. I did start the clock, just for the members' information. Please continue.

Mr. Randy Hillier: And I'll remind you, I don't break my promises, either.

Yesterday, the Premier was asked a question which he declined to answer. You and your colleagues are living in a bubble and you're out of touch with the hardships that face Ontario families. You fellows believe that government can never be too big. You haven't created new jobs or wealth, you've created new expenses and new taxes. But your ship hasn't sailed yet, even though your colleagues are in the lifeboat. Tell us how this BST is going to affect people—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The government's economic policy is absolutely the right economic policy for the times and, to be specific, it will help get this province through the most difficult and challenging crisis in the world economy.

Apparently, the member has changed his position since the leaders' debate, so one down and three to go. I wonder how long it'll be before Mr. Hudak changes his mind, because when the member opposite proposed to close down the Human Rights Commission, something we strongly oppose, Mr. Hudak jumped right on board. And what about Christine Elliott? That'll be an interesting discussion to see. I wonder if she'll change her position and I wonder if there will be an internal debate, not only within the party but within the family on that particular issue.

At the end of the day, we have chosen the right policies in a very difficult time—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Final supplementary?

Mr. Randy Hillier: I'll remind the minister we're in difficult times because of you and your government. That's why we're in difficult times.

Yesterday, the Premier said the BST tax was the right thing. In a recent survey, 67% of the people in Ontario said it's the wrong tax at the wrong time. You and your former colleagues said you were in the business of picking winners and losers. What's clear under this Liberal government is everybody's a loser. Minister, why are you ignoring the people of this province and why aren't you giving them the full story of your broken promises and this McGuinty sales tax?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Perhaps the member opposite has missed the downturn in the world economy. Perhaps he's missed the fact that manufacturing jobs have declined at a much greater rate in the United States; that forestry jobs have been lost at a much greater rate in Newfoundland, Quebec, British Columbia; perhaps he missed the fact that there's been a crisis in world financial markets. We don't have the option to pretend about these matters. We have to confront the challenges head-on and we're doing that.

I had the opportunity to attend the Canadian finance ministers' meeting yesterday. We heard yet again of the enormous challenges that are facing this economy, not only Ontario's but Canada's—indeed, the world's.

In fact, this policy is the right policy to take, and unlike the member opposite and his party, we are consistent, strong and united in our desire to make Ontario bigger, better and stronger, and we will be.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. Yesterday, General Motors workers ratified an agreement where they made major concessions on wages, on benefits and on pensions. The Premier has indicated that a hard cap on executive compensation will be tied to the assistance provided to GM and Chrysler. My question is this: Why won't the government agree to extend the cap on all companies receiving government money?

Hon. George Smitherman: First and foremost, we do want to applaud the efforts that are being made by a broad collective of individuals, from workers, the leaders of companies and, certainly, representatives of a variety of governments, both national, and in the case of Ontario, a jurisdiction that is very, very dedicated to making investments in a fashion that will allow us to substantially preserve opportunities in the automotive sector in the province of Ontario. It has already been the precedent established relating to the issue of salary limitation for executives, and the Premier is on record, obviously, as the honourable member has alluded to.

I take her suggestion on further matters under advisement. Our focus at the moment is very much on trying to successfully complete these negotiations and, going forward, ensure good prospects for workers in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, sacrifices are being made, and not just in the auto sector. Workers across Ontario have accepted lower pay, reduced hours and fewer benefits just to keep their jobs.

I proposed a bill that would cap executive pay for companies receiving provincial money. I would like to ensure that high-flying executives make some of the same sacrifices that their employees are making right now, and help to put an end to the exorbitant golden handshakes and parachutes that we see all too often.

Since this government seems to accept the pay cap principle for GM and Chrysler, why won't it support a pay cap for all companies that receive government money?

Hon. George Smitherman: I think that what we see in the style and the content of this leader is a flashback to a time that most people would talk about in the context of the 1970s. In the case of Chrysler and the circumstances related to General Motors, obviously the extent to which governments and taxpayers are being relied upon to lend assistance is very high and very extraordinary in those circumstances.

Accordingly, we see it as appropriate to work in the area of caps related to compensation, but the honourable member's suggestion that this should translate across the breadth of the private sector, in all places where a business may receive some encouragement and support from government, is not a policy which we think is inviting investment in the province of Ontario.

I do suggest to the honourable member that rolling ourselves back to the ideological times of the 1970s is not the best approach to receive investment in the province—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Perhaps this minister knows that Rodney Mott was the CEO of Stelco for one year when it was sold to US Steel. Stock options allowed him to walk away with $67 million and a leisurely retirement along the Carolina coast. Key to restructuring was $150 million provided by the Ontario government just two years before Mott walked away.

With a hard cap on executive pay, government money would be used to sustain jobs instead of making executives rich. Why won't this government support a hard cap on executive pay for all companies that receive taxpayers' money?

Mr. Paul Miller: Disgusting.

Hon. George Smitherman: I think what is more disgusting, to take a word that was offered by another member from Hamilton, is that this honourable member continues to talk about Stelco but doesn't fess up for the responsibility that she and her mates have with respect to decisions that Howard Hampton made at the cabinet table in a previous government.

This is part of the dynamic related to the matter of pensions in the province of Ontario. And you can see that the honourable members, Howard Hampton, as an example, don't like to be reminded that they were part of a series of decisions which forced the government of Ontario to step in and prop up a pension fund because Howard Hampton designated it as too big to fail. We think it's appropriate to limit compensation in the areas we have, related to Chrysler and related to General Motors, but the further degree of intervention in the private sector that the party offers is not on—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): New question.

NUCLEAR WASTE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Back to the Acting Premier. Last week, the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services expressed serious concerns about the safety of storing radioactive nuclear waste in his community of Sudbury. In fact, he urged Sudbury city council to veto any attempt whatsoever to store waste in their community. Yesterday the Premier said something different about nuclear waste. He said, "We know how to contain it and we know how to store it." Indeed, the McGuinty government has repeatedly assured Ontarians that nuclear power is safe.

How can Ontarians trust this government when a minister tells them one thing and the Premier tells them something entirely different?

Hon. George Smitherman: Perhaps it's because the honourable member hasn't had the privilege of serving in cabinet that she hasn't, Mr. Speaker, rationalized the circumstances where you are at once both—

Interjections.

Hon. George Smitherman: No; with respect, Mr. Speaker. The member's question suggests that a member of the cabinet can no longer be an MPP for the area that they represent, that they can no longer be a voice in the community.

The point is, with respect to the work that's going on by the nuclear waste management operation, to find a willing host. They're working through this process very diligently. They've been doing public forums established in 16 communities across the province of Ontario, and they seek to find a community that would be interested in the economic opportunities associated with the safe storage of nuclear product. That the honourable member takes that view in his community is the privilege of the local community—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What's very clear is that this government is talking out of both sides of its mouth.

The Minister of Community Safety is not alone in his concerns, however: In 2005, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization concluded that there is no way to prove that storing nuclear waste underground will be safe. More and more communities, in fact, are saying no to nuclear waste. Temiskaming Shores, Kincardine and Toronto have all passed resolutions, signed agreements or simply said no to nuclear waste. Just last October, the National Assembly of Quebec resolved that no nuclear waste could be brought into Quebec. The government says that it's looking for a willing community to host the waste.

What if no community in Ontario wants this dangerous waste? Will this government force it down citizens' throats?

Hon. George Smitherman: The honourable member seems incapable of even recognizing that it's a federal body, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, that is involved in this process. They don't even have the respect—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Deputy.

Hon. George Smitherman: The Nuclear Waste Management Organization has established 16 different places where they're conducting seminars in local communities as this federal body seeks to find a willing host for nuclear material. We have, in our capacities through Ontario Power Generation at Darlington and in partnership with Bruce Power, very safe storage of that nuclear material which has been created through our multiple generations of use for the purposes of electricity generation.

I'm delighted that the honourable member has agreed to come and visit that so she can learn more about the storage as it has gone on so far and be more informed about the discussion, as it goes forward, to find a willing host.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Without even having a community willing to store the current backlog of radioactive waste, the McGuinty government is signing on to produce even more waste. Even if we desperately needed the energy, that would be utterly, utterly irresponsible. But the fact is that we don't even need the energy from new nuclear power plants. In fact, energy demand is down 4% this year: 60 times this year we had so much surplus energy that we had to pay energy users to use it. Talk about conservation.

The McGuinty government will be remembered as the government that built expensive nuclear reactors that simply were not needed. When will this government stop this madness and kick its nuclear addiction?

Hon. George Smitherman: First off, I do want to say to the honourable member that we thank her for the compliment that she's offered, recognizing that the steps we've taken as a government have enhanced the reliability of electricity supply in the province of Ontario, because while they had the privilege of being in government, they didn't do anything.

With respect to nuclear, today in the province of Ontario that honourable member is benefiting substantially from nuclear power. It's all through our electrons, because it continues to be a very prominent source of electricity generation in the province of Ontario. We have plans to ensure that our nuclear fleet is renewed—not new nuclear enhancing the capacity, but nuclear that will replace those units that come out of service. We think it's very important that we renew our nuclear fleet so that the people of the province of Ontario continue to have the advantage of one of the lowest climate-impact fuel sources to be found all across the planet. I encourage the honourable—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

FIREFIGHTERS

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question today is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Minister, do you agree that Ontario's volunteer firefighters should be treated as equal to Ontario professional firefighters and be included immediately under presumptive legislation?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I'll transfer it to the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I say to the member—and I appreciate the question—that firefighters across the province do hazardous, life-threatening work. That is why two years ago we brought forward presumptive legislation for professional firefighters. Within that legislation there is a regulation, and our officials at the Ministry of Labour have been working with stakeholders, firefighters, AMO, the fire chiefs of Ontario. Just as early as two weeks ago, I had an opportunity to speak with the fire chiefs of Ontario in discussing this very important matter. I told them it was an active file at our ministry.

We will continue to do that and we want to ensure that firefighters across the province of Ontario deserve those—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I will redirect the question to the Minister of Community Safety because I believe it is a community safety issue with the firefighters. Minister, you are aware that this House unanimously passed presumptive legislation two years ago. In fact, the bill passed in one day. All three parties agreed and it was passed unanimously. The legislation and its regulations were implemented immediately and benefited professional firefighters only.

On May 14, your government used your majority to defeat a private member's bill by my colleague that would have seen volunteer firefighters treated equally. Minister, by defeating Mr. Arnott's bill you have sent a very negative message to the folks of rural Ontario; thousands of volunteer firefighters, their families and the millions of residents they serve.

As the minister responsible for the well-being and safety of the firefighters of Ontario, what will you do to ensure that volunteer firefighters are included immediately under presumptive legislation?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I say to the member, as all of us know, firefighters are crucial to all our communities across Ontario. And if any firefighter—professional, volunteer, part-time—has gotten ill, has gotten injured, they can inform the WSIB. A claim can be made. The WSIB will take all of those claims very seriously and investigate and look into those claims.

With regard to the regulation the member speaks of, we continue to meet with all stakeholders, with the fire chiefs, with AMO and with the firefighters as we move forward to protect all Ontario workers, including our precious firefighters.

JURY SELECTION

Mr. Peter Kormos: To the Attorney General: The Attorney General knows that CPIC's code of ethics requires that if an investigation is conducted using CPIC, that it only be for criminal investigative purposes unless it has the consent of the person who is the subject of that check. Why is the Attorney General using the police to conduct CPIC checks of potential jurors to determine not only if they've ever been convicted, but if they've ever been charged, if they've ever been acquitted and if they've had dealings with the mental health system, when it's been done without the consent or even knowledge of those people?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: The issues raised by my colleague are very important ones. They are in fact issues before the Ontario Court of Appeal in one particular case.

Let me say with respect to the general issue that the principle of having a jury that is fair and impartial is at the heart of our system of justice. It's a principle that we are going to and are determined to uphold. In fact, we have had a practice direction to all crowns since 2006 making clear that impartiality is at the heart of the jury system, that that's the crown's duty, that any information obtained by the crown should be disclosed to the defence, and that if criminal record checks are obtained, that material should be disclosed to the defence so that everybody has access to the same information.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Peter Kormos: The Attorney General knows full well that his own crown policy manual instructs that prosecutors should not request the police to undertake any investigations to the list of jurors other than criminal record checks. Yet his crown attorneys have been routinely calling upon the police to report back on charges laid, acquittals, disreputable persons—on any number of things that have nothing to do with the de facto conviction for an indictable offence, and there's been no disclosure to defence counsel.

What does this Attorney General say to us as to how long this has been going on, where it's been going on, and who's going to be held accountable for this clear breach of both CPIC standards and the crown attorneys' policy book, the Attorney General's own standards?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Again, my friend raises very important issues, and he's right: Since 2006, there has been a clear direction, as he outlined, from the crown attorney—at 720 Bay—to all crowns throughout the province.

The cases he refers to are from one particular jurisdiction in the province of Ontario, both of which are before the courts. But to ensure that impartiality is always at the heart of our jury system, we're making sure that the crown policy manual is being adhered to, and we're working with the privacy commissioner—and have already been in touch—to make sure that whatever else we do, a fair trial is ensured and the privacy rights of individuals are respected. We'll be working with the privacy commissioner and others and awaiting the decision of the Court of Appeal.

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. David Zimmer: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Community Living Toronto is here for their annual lobby day. As you know, they work with Ontarians with severe developmental disabilities. It's an organization that every day makes a real difference in the lives of Ontarians with developmental disabilities. I see the results of their work every day in my riding of Willowdale.

You're the minister responsible for the developmental services sector. Minister, what are you doing to help the developmentally disabled, their community and their families?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I'd like to thank the MPP for Willowdale for this question. Let me start by thanking and welcoming Community Living Toronto to Queen's Park for Community Living Day—one of our ministry's largest partners, and a partnership anchored on open dialogue and exchange of ideas.

When we first came to office, nowhere was the need for modernization greater than in the developmental sector. We heard loud and clear from people with developmental disabilities, their families and community agencies. This government has listened, and we have acted. Our government has closed the three remaining developmental sector facilities in Ontario, we passed Bill 77, and we've invested half a billion dollars in this sector. And the work is not yet done. That is why, working with organizations like Community Living Toronto and adding—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. David Zimmer: Thank you, Minister. I do appreciate those initiatives and I know that you've got a positive relationship with the agencies and their families. But here's the real issue, Minister: Bill 77, the Services and Supports to Promote the Social Inclusion of Persons with Developmental Disabilities Act, received royal assent on October 8, 2008. That's seven months ago. The bill has yet to come into force. If there's any community that deserves and needs our help, it's this community and their families.

Minister, the simple question is, how much longer do families and persons with developmental challenges have to wait before the bill is proclaimed?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: The member is right: The bill has yet to be proclaimed because we are working hard on the vast number of regulations that are involved with a bill of this size. In the coming weeks, we will be posting our draft regulations on our ministry's website for public review and comment, and I will be posting minister's regulations in the fall of this year.

This was the process that was voted on and it is the open and transparent process that we will continue to follow. But let's not ignore the tremendous progress this government has already made in making Ontario's community inclusive for people with developmental disabilities. In total, we are now helping over 15,000 people with developmental disabilities live in the community close to their family and friends. Yes, we still have more to do, but we are proud of our accomplishments so far.

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

Mrs. Julia Munro: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. My constituents in Innisfil are very concerned about the city of Barrie's desire to annex large sections of their community. The town and its citizens want to know if they will lose a big portion of their commercial tax base to Barrie.

Minister, will you commit today to preserving the economic viability and quality of life of the town of Innisfil?

Hon. Jim Watson: I'd like to thank the honourable member. I have had a couple of discussions with the honourable member about the issue and I'm pleased that she arranged to bring the mayor of Innisfil to my office—I guess that was on February 18. I thank her for attending that meeting.

This is a long-standing issue that goes back many decades. The province of Ontario, in its Places to Grow provincial policy statement documents, has indicated that Barrie is one of the growth areas in Simcoe county. We have said all along that we would like the local residents and the local elected officials to find a local solution. That's why I did bring together the mayor and members of council from Barrie, the warden, Mr. Guergis, as well as Mayor Jackson from Innisfil. We still would like them to find a local solution. But at the end of the day, if we're not able to find a local solution, we will work collaboratively to find a solution—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mrs. Julia Munro: Simcoe county is also worried about the economic risks. At your government's direction, they produced a growth plan that covers all of the county and the city of Orillia. Now there is a concern that a change to the boundary will have an impact on the plans of Simcoe county as a whole.

Can you assure my constituents and those of Simcoe county that any proposed changes will not have an adverse impact on the economic future of the area?

Hon. Jim Watson: As that matter falls under the jurisdiction of my colleague the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, I will refer that to him.

Hon. George Smitherman: I want to thank the honourable member for the question. Like my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, I spent a fair bit of time with various municipal representatives, including the warden and the CAO of the county of Simcoe, the council and mayor of the city of Barrie, and the mayor and town administrator from Innisfil, as we've all been seeking out solutions which are designed to balance a variety of priorities.

Certainly, we have a high expectation that the growth plan will be abided. It seeks to limit sprawl and intensify the development in particular areas where the infrastructure is well-suited to it. Barrie is obviously one of those, as the honourable member has spoken. I do believe, as we move forward, the honourable member will see that we continue to seek to abide all of the good principles that were embedded in the growth plan and do so in a fashion that's—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Minister of Finance. A recommendation contained in the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, FSCO, five-year auto insurance review would slash insurance payouts for serious car injuries by 75%. It would impoverish victims, push health care costs onto the taxpayer and, quite frankly, enrich the auto insurance industry. The medical and rehabilitation cost for non-catastrophic injury is now capped at $100,000; the recommendation would lower the cap to $25,000.

My question: Will the Minister of Finance stand in this House today and make it clear that he will reject this wrongheaded recommendation made by FSCO?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: No, not today. We are wrapping up consultations on FSCO's proposed recommendations. It's the first time the government has conducted a five-year review of insurance regulation. We think that's the appropriate position to take. There is a range of other recommendations from FSCO that are in fact very consumer-friendly, so we will be wrapping up that consultation. I indicated that I would like to have those final recommendations done in June, so that we can move on.

I'd also like to take the opportunity to remind the member that as a result of this government's efforts, car insurance premiums have come down some 13% for all Ontarians since we took office. It's important to find that balance between insurers and customers, and we intend to do just that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: I wish the minister would have assured this House and the people of Ontario today.

If implemented, this recommendation would seriously damage access to rehabilitation services for accident victims. The insurance industry says they are not making any money. Well, if you look at the records for last year, 2008, a 7.5% return on investment was not really anything to sneeze at. Car accident victims will be the clear losers if the cap is lowered. I'm asking again: Will the minister stand in this House, not in June but today, and make it clear that this government will reject this wrongheaded recommendation?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Again, the answer is no. I'm continuing to wrap up consultations. I'm hearing from consumers across the province on a range of issues, not just that one. I think consultation is important, and I think we as a government want to build on the $7 billion in premium savings Ontarians have experienced since we came to office in 2003.

I would also like to remind the member opposite that there are a variety of recommendations, many of which have been called for by consumers of auto insurance. We will find the right balance to protect the interests of Ontario motorists and consumers who purchase car insurance.

HEALTH CARE

Mr. Bruce Crozier: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. In my community and communities across Ontario, health care is a key issue. They want to know that we're doing everything we can to ensure that their families have access to a quality health care system. Most importantly, they want to know that when they are sick or their children are sick, they have quick and easy access to a health care provider.

Ontario is in need of more doctors. Too many families are without a family physician, and over the past several years we have made significant progress in training and recruiting more doctors in Ontario. However, I still hear from constituents who do not have a doctor. Ontario needs more doctors, both family physicians as well as specialists. It seems to me it would make sense that we increase the supply. Speaker, through you to the minister: What are we doing to train more doctors so more Ontarians have access to health care providers?

Hon. John Milloy: The member certainly raises a concern that I think is held by all members of the House. That's why I was very pleased last week to be at the McMaster satellite medical school in my own community, in Waterloo region, to announce we would be providing funding for 100 additional medical spaces across the province over the next three years. These medical spots will be located at five campuses and, as I said, phased in over the next three years. Along with the announcement of the spots, we announced $35 million in capital to help support this expansion.

In total, since 2003 we've increased first-year medical spots by 260 new spaces. That's a 38% increase.

We also opened a new medical school in northern Ontario, and its first class of 56 students will graduate later this week. As well, as I mentioned, we've created satellite—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Bruce Crozier: The medical school spaces initiative will no doubt help the province of Ontario train more doctors to build a healthier Ontario. Still, while these students will be an asset to the province's health care system when they graduate, Ontarians need to know that the government's plan to increase doctors is working. Many residents of this province have expressed concern that they live in communities that are not adequately reached by health care professionals.

Minister, please tell the House today what steps this government is taking to ensure that Ontarians have better access to qualified health care professionals.

Hon. John Milloy: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. David Caplan: I want to thank my colleague for a very important question.

There's no doubt that the additional 100 medical school spaces and five programs across the province will make a difference in delivering high-quality health care. We're also finding that more and more medical students are choosing family practice.

In 2008, 772 physicians graduated in Ontario and are moving into practice. We're projecting 822 physician graduates in 2009. That's the highest number recorded in the history of this province.

Access to primary care remains a top priority for me and for members on this side of the House. That's why we created 150 family health teams consisting of doctors, nurses, dietitians, social workers and other health professionals. Over the next two years we're going to add another 50 family health teams, as committed in our platform, targeting rural and underserviced communities—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

DRIVER LICENCES

Mr. John O'Toole: I'll give the Minister of Transportation a moment to get back to his seat.

Minister, over the weekend, I had the opportunity to visit some of the tourist attractions in my riding of Durham, including the Bowmanville Zoo and Jungle Cat World. Minister, the local attractions in Durham are ready for the 2009 tourist season. You would know that last weekend was Memorial Day weekend in the United States. The operators expressed concern about the possibility of a downturn in visitors from the United States.

Minister, in your own results-based briefing book you say, "The ministry is also pursuing new and innovative technologies to ensure that our programs and services meet people's needs...."

What steps are you taking as minister to ensure that our friends from the United States are welcome in Ontario and have easy and efficient access across the border?

Hon. James J. Bradley: First of all, applause is coming from my friend from Renfrew because he recognizes that I work with the Minister of Tourism very closely to ensure that our American friends are aware of the many attractions that are available not only in the Niagara Peninsula, which I know the member wanted to talk about, but right across Ontario and in Durham, which he represents. We have appropriate signage on the highways to allow people to know where the various sites are that they can visit.

We work in consultation with the federal government on ensuring, as practically as possible, that people are able to cross our borders and that when they cross the border they have all the information available to them—including the wonderful kiosks that we have and the actual offices we have under the auspices of the Ministry of Tourism to provide the necessary information.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. John O'Toole: Minister, you know that cross-border travel is a two-way street. There are 35 million cars a day across the border.

This brings us to the topic of the enhanced driver's licence that many Ontarians hope to use to cross the border this season—actually, required on June 1. You've made promises that this would be available as we speak, and the deadline is next week. Minister, what have you done to ensure that the enhanced driver's licence will be available to Ontario drivers as the new border regulation comes into effect on Monday? And I guess the supplementary part to this is, what does the new enhanced driver's licence have to do with ensuring that American tourists are able to visit Ontario easily?

Hon. James J. Bradley: The member is very perceptive. This is almost like a set-up question, I must say.

Interjections.

Hon. James J. Bradley: We didn't set it up. I want to tell you that we didn't set it up.

Precisely by Ontario developing an enhanced security licence system, we have encouraged the state of New York, the state of Michigan and other states in the United States to duplicate this effort. It is known that, generally speaking, Americans are less inclined to get a passport than Canadians would be, so we wanted to ensure that when crossing our border, we would have an opportunity to have an enhanced security licence. I'm pleased to say that New York state has this in effect now, that Michigan is about to have it in effect, and that as a result, it's going to make it much easier for our American friends—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My question is to the Minister of Education. The Ontario Public School Boards' Association had this to say about your school information finder website:

"While all parents are interested in information about academic achievement, we concur with the expressed views that data about income, immigration and so on are not nearly so relevant to parents as whether the school has an adjoining child care centre, after-4 programs, extracurricular activities and other wraparound services....

"We respectfully request that, notwithstanding the changes that have been made this week"—meaning a while ago—"the website be taken down pending the output of the working group."

Minister, the Ontario Public School Boards' Association. with which you work very closely, has asked that you take this website down. Why have you so casually dismissed them?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the member opposite understands that we have moved to put in place a process to have a discussion about exactly the issues he's talking about: What more information should we have on the school information finder that would allow parents and community members to have a full picture of a profile of a school? All of the stakeholders—and I know the member opposite referenced some other people who have questions about the school information finder—will be invited to have input into that conversation.

I believe that that is the appropriate way forward, given that I believe parents do want to have information about the profile of schools so that they can reference what's going on at their own school and also put that in a context. So I look forward to that conversation with all stakeholders, including the Ontario Public School Boards' Association.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: You and the Premier have remained steadfast in your desire to have that demographic information on the website. You have not changed your mind on that.

There's something more we want to ask you about this. As you know, schools have attendance boundaries that determine which schools children are entitled to attend. The Ontario Public School Boards' Association is concerned that, as a result of your shopping cart approach to education, there is now an implied assumption that parents may choose to send their children to any school. This would have enormous implications for school boards, as you know. Will you guarantee that despite the shopping catalogue approach of your website, the school boards will still be able to establish and enforce attendance boundaries for neighbourhood schools?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: First of all, the member opposite knows perfectly well that that comparator, that school bag function, has been taken off the website. There was concern about it. Part of the discussion that we will have at that round table is what information should be available on the school information finder.

The member opposite says that we've remained steadfast in the face of criticism. The reality is that we work with stakeholders every single day. We make decisions based on good policy and based on input. The fact that there may be a disagreement with some stakeholders on a particular issue doesn't mean that the world is ending. It doesn't mean that our relationships are falling apart. What it means is that we will have the conversation, and those relationships will be stronger because we've had that conversation.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr. Bill Mauro: My question us for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines regarding the Rosehart report. As members of the House are well aware, in March 2008 our government welcomed Dr. Robert Rosehart's report entitled Northwestern Ontario: Preparing for Change. The report was a result of the 2007 budget announcement in which our government appointed Rosehart as the northwestern Ontario economic facilitator to work with local people and businesses to help inspire a new generation of growth in the northwest.

Throughout the year, Dr. Rosehart held over 120 meetings with stakeholders and government reps, and met with 16 municipalities and more than 20 First Nation leaders. I was pleased to meet with Dr. Rosehart and provide him with my recommendations as well. The final report contained 47 recommendations.

Minister, could you please update the House on the progress that has been made since receiving Dr. Rosehart's recommendations last March?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I want to thank my colleague from Thunder Bay—Atikokan for the question and for his strong support for what Dr. Rosehart has worked on over the last year and a half.

Certainly my ministry is excited about Dr. Rosehart's work and very pleased by the contributions that were made by many northern residents, businesses and stakeholders. Since receiving Dr. Rosehart's report last year, significant progress has been made to implement almost half of the 47 recommendations that were put forward.

This truly is considerable progress, as many of the recommendations represent long-term investments that will need support from the federal government, for example. Dr. Rosehart has clearly acknowledged that and acknowledged the progress that we've made as well, and we also want that to be considered in the growth plan for northern Ontario.

Certainly I'm happy and encouraged by the progress that's been made so far, and I really do feel this report demonstrates our government's commitment to ensuring that northwestern Ontario has a—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Bill Mauro: I think all northerners would agree that Rosehart's reports and recommendations for northwestern Ontario are very important. The region faces many unique opportunities and challenges, during both favourable and difficult economic times, and it's good to see that during this current period of uncertainty our government is working with northerners to create a more prosperous future for our region.

Minister, your ministry's Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp. is in place to further grow the north's economy, and since 2003, 9,360 new jobs have been created in northern Ontario through the use of this fund. I understand that expanding the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp. programs was a recommendation put forward by the Rosehart report. Could you please tell the House if any progress has been made on implementing this specific recommendation.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thanks again to my colleague for the question. I am very happy to report that last week in Thunder Bay I was able to announce that the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp. is launching a new northern Ontario entrepreneur program. This new program is certainly consistent with one of the recommendations made by Dr. Rosehart; in fact, he called it one of his key project recommendations.

It's a pan-northern initiative that will fuel the entrepreneurial spirit that drives innovation, creates jobs and promotes economic growth throughout northern Ontario. This program will expand upon the young entrepreneur program, a very successful program which had an age restriction in place—that will be gone—and there will be other programs also in support of private sector investments. We are offering up to $125,000 for people to put their ideas for new businesses up for application to our heritage fund.

I want to thank Dr. Rosehart for all the hard work he's done—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you.

GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: My question is for the Minister of Government Services. On February 17, I asked a question in the Legislature about what was happening with Ted Kindos, owner of Gator Ted's in Burlington. As you know, his issue is a patron's challenge to allow medicinal marijuana to be smoked, regardless of your no-smoking act.

The minister stated: "I know Gator Ted. He runs an establishment in my hometown.... He's caught between ... a regulatory rock and a hard place. This government is determined to make sure that we find a way to support Ted Kindos...."

Well, it's three months later, Mr. Minister. Mr. Kindos is facing a tribunal at the Human Rights Commission. He needs action, not your platitudes. What have you done to get Ted Kindos out of your regulatory jam?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: First of all, it's not our regulatory jam. As I suspect you know, Mr. Speaker, we administer the federal act on behalf of the feds. I can say to the honourable member opposite that we continue to be very concerned about Mr. Kindos, and we have done a number of things, notwithstanding the fact that this is before the Human Rights Tribunal and we're somewhat restrained.

I have written to the federal Minister of Health suggesting that, since amendments to the act that we administer on behalf of the feds are currently before a standing committee, it would be appropriate for them to take action with respect to regulations. I've also copied all members of that committee, and we've heard back from the members of that committee that those potential revisions are under serious consideration even as I speak.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: Here we go yet again: "It's not our problem. It's somebody else's problem"—and this man is going to lose his business.

Mr. Kindos has been told by the Ontario Human Rights Commission that he must permit a patron to smoke marijuana on his premises, and yet the Alcohol and Gaming Commission has told him he will be shut down if this person is allowed to light up. Ted Kindos has been playing a sick game of who's on first and what's on second as a result of this government's contradictory approach to tobacco versus marijuana smoke. Mr. Kindos is up to bat, Minister. You have thrown him two curveballs. Are you going to let him strike out?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: We don't throw curveballs on this side of the House. We deal very straight up with situations. We're right down the middle of the plate.

I can tell you that in addition to monitoring this situation very closely, the federal government has recently stated to us that smoking marijuana for medical purposes in a public place and potentially exposing others to the drug's effects is unacceptable. So we take them at their word on that. As they're before the committee actually dealing with potential regulatory changes, we anticipate that they'll take their responsibility seriously and do what needs to be done to protect honest, hard-working, good business people like Mr. Kindos.

NEWBORN SCREENING

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée.

Did you know that Ontario is the only province in Canada where the blood screening tests for celiac disease are not covered by the provincial government? Celiac disease affects about one out of 100. There are 107 of us in here; chances are, one of us has it and probably does not know. But if celiac disease is not detected early, those affected are exposing themselves to terrible complications: malnutrition, anemia, cancer, infertility, and the list goes on, all costing the health care system a significant amount of money. Yet the treatment, which is a gluten-free diet, does not cost the health care system a single penny. Minister, why won't Ontario cover this simple preventive measure?

Hon. David Caplan: The fact of the matter is that Ontario has the most extensive newborn screening program anywhere in Canada. It's because of the efforts of this government that we have expanded screening, and we always look for additional opportunities for that and for many other procedures. It's been regrettable that we've seen members opposite who have not supported the direction to expand and enhance services right across the province.

I thank the member for bringing this forward. I can assure the member that we are always looking for opportunities to provide additional help and support and to screen for diseases. We're going to continue with that approach as we move forward in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The time for question period has ended.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd ask all members to join me in welcoming a former member, Norm Jamison, who represented Norfolk in the 35th Parliament. Welcome back to Queen's Park today, Norm.

There being no deferred votes, this House stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1139 to 1500.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I want to take this opportunity to welcome Mr. Wayne Wettlaufer back to the chamber. Wayne represented Kitchener in the 36th Parliament and Kitchener Centre in the 37th Parliament. Welcome back to Queen's Park, Wayne.

Mr. Jeff Leal: They haven't arrived yet, but they will be. It's a grade 11 history class from St. Peter's Secondary School from the riding of Peterborough. The teachers are Ms. Peggy Sullivan and Ms. Bernadette Peters. I know we'll welcome them. They'll be in the west members' gallery shortly; I think they're just being filed in.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Is that Bernadette Peters, the actress?

Mr. Jeff Leal: This is just one of the more famous members of the Peters family of Peterborough. They could be distant relatives, and if they are distant relatives, I know you'd like to welcome them on your behalf. I think they are starting to file in now.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I know the Speaker shouldn't be participating in debate, but he will in this case. The Speaker's original last name is Pidwerbeski, and the chances of the Peters and Pidwerbeskis being related are pretty slim there.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

RELAY FOR LIFE

Mr. Bill Murdoch: This Friday, May 29, students at Sacred Heart High School in Walkerton will be participating in this year's Relay for Life. Relay for Life is a fundraiser and awareness event put on by the Canadian Cancer Society. From this week until the end of fall, students and communities throughout Canada will be participating in events to bring awareness about cancer to the forefront and celebrate the lives of those who have won and lost their battle with cancer.

Relay for Life is a 12-hour, non-competitive overnight event. Teams of 10 people take turns walking around a track to raise funds to help make cancer history. The students of Sacred Heart High School will be putting on their 12-hour event this Friday.

When speaking to the students who chose to participate in the fundraiser, many spoke about knowing a family member, friend or teacher who had cancer and what they'd gone through. The students told me that by participating in Relay for Life they will be hoping to help support leading-edge research for all forms of cancer. These students also wanted to get other students in the school informed about cancer and help make sure that many of them are ed